Written Communications (Updated 08-31-2022) — Cupertino City Council, August 29, 2022

CC 08-29-2022
Item No. 2
Attachment F -
Pipeline, Tier 1
and Tier 2 Projects
Map
Desk Item
Monta Vista
Bubb
Rd
Homestead
Rd
Homestead Rd
North De
Anza Blvd
Vallco Park
North
Heart of the
City - West
Vallco
Shopping
District
Homestead
Villa
Jollyman
Garden Gate
North Blaney
Rancho
Rinconada
South Blaney
Fair Grove
Creston-PharlapOakValley
Monta
Vista
South
Inspiration
Heights
Monta
Vista
North
Heart of
the City
Central
Heart of the
City - East
Heart
of the City -
Crossroads
South
De
Anza
Blvd
SouthDe
Anza
Blvd
Mcclellan Rd
N
B
la
n
e
y
A
v
e
ProspectRd
Bu
b
b
R
d
Rainbow Dr
Ste
vens
C
anyon
Rd
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
Rainbow Dr
N
B
l
a
n
e
y
A
v
e
Homestead Rd
N
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
Bollinger R d
S
T
an
tau
A
ve
Mi
l
l
e
r
A
v
e
S
B
l
a
n
e
y
A
v
e
N
S
t
e
l
l
i
n
g
R
d
N
W
o
l
f
e
R
d
N
T
a
n
t
a
u
A
v
e
N
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
l
v
d
Bu
b
b
R
d
BollingerRd
S
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
l
v
d
S
S
t
e
l
l
i
n
g
R
d
Stevens Creek Blvd
Pipeline, Tier 1, and Tier 2 Projects
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects Neighborhood / Special
Center Boundary
County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USCensusBureau, USDA 0 0.510.25 Miles
197
CC 08-29-2022
197 of 214
1a
1b
1c P2
P6
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
Creston- Pharlap Neighborhood
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
198
CC 08-29-2022
198 of 214
4a
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
Homestead Villa Neighborhood
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
199
CC 08-29-2022
199 of 214
6a
6b 6c
6d
P8
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
Jollyman Neighborhood
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
200
CC 08-29-2022
200 of 214
7a
7b
P2
P3
P6 P7
P8
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
Monta Vista North Neighborhood
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
201
CC 08-29-2022
201 of 214
8a8b8c
8d
P4
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
Monta Vista South Neighborhood
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
202
CC 08-29-2022
202 of 214
3a
9a
P1
P1
P1
P5
P9
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
North Blaney Neighborhood
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
203
CC 08-29-2022
203 of 214
11a
11b
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
South Blaney Neighborhood
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
204
CC 08-29-2022
204 of 214
13a
P2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
Bubb Rd Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
205
CC 08-29-2022
205 of 214
3b
P2
P5
P7
P8
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
Heart of the City - West Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
206
CC 08-29-2022
206 of 214
15a
15b
15c
15d
15e
15f
15g
P5
P7
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
Heart of the City - Crossroads Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
207
CC 08-29-2022
207 of 214
16a16b
16cP1P5
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
Heart of the City - Central Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
208
CC 08-29-2022
208 of 214
18a
18b
18c
18d
P1
P1
P1
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
Heart of the City - East Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
209
CC 08-29-2022
209 of 214
19a
19b
20a
20b
20c
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
Homestead Rd Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
210
CC 08-29-2022
210 of 214
23d
23e
23f
23g
23h
23i
23j23k
23l
P4
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
South De Anza Blvd Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
211
CC 08-29-2022
211 of 214
23a
23b
23c
P8
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
South De Anza Blvd Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
212
CC 08-29-2022
212 of 214
24a
P1
P1
P1
P9
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
Vallco Shopping District
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
213
CC 08-29-2022
213 of 214
26a
P1
P1
P1
P9
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMapcontributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Mapscontributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
Vallco Park North Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier1 Projects
Tier2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
214
CC 08-29-2022
214 of 214
CC 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
[email protected]
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.

The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce much-needed homes at all income levels.

4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.

5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.

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
[email protected]
10341 Tonita Way,
Cupertino, California 95014
From: barris evulich
To: City Council; City Clerk; [email protected]; 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 div iding 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 w ere 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 d iscussion 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: [email protected]; "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 5 th 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:

The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce much-needed homes at all income levels.

4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.

5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.

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
[email protected]
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.

The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce much-needed homes at all income levels.

4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.

5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.

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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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.png
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,
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’s
Site 15d = TJ Max
Site 15e = Staples - the only office supply store in miles! Site 15f = Dish n’ Dash
Site 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: [email protected]
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 29
th 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 6
th 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 ends

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 [email protected]
.

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-dev
elopment/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-dev elopment/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. H ousing 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-dev
elopment/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.

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.

5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.

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
[email protected]
5621 22nd Ave NW
Seattle, Washington 98107
From: Benjamin Fu
To: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia; Lauren Sapudar
Subject: FW: Midpen Comment Letter: Cupertino Housing Site Inventory Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 5:47:20 PM
Attachments: Midpen Comment Letter_Cupertino Housing Element Update 2023-2031.pdf Hi Kirsten,

Please see attached comment letter submitted to the City Manager’s Office and City Council.

Thanks,
Ben

Benjamin Fu
Director of Community Development
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3247

From: Tyler Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 3:04 PM
To: Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Cc: Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Housing <[email protected]>; Ana Ruiz <[email protected]>; Susanna Chan <[email protected]>; Jane Mark <[email protected]>
Subject: Midpen Comment Letter: Cupertino Housing Site Inventory

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 Director Fu, City Clerk,

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) is submitting a comment letter for the 08/29 City Council agenda item:

Discuss Priority Housing Sites for the 2023-2031 Housing Element update.

Midpen appreciates the City of Cupertino’s efforts to address the region’s housing needs, and the opportunity to provide comments. Attached is a comment letter discussing two properties in Monta Vista South. Midpen would like the comment letter to be distributed to the City Council.

Thank you,

Tyler Smith (he/him)
Planner II
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
[email protected]
650-772-3654 (direct)

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
5050 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA 94022
650.691.1200 (office)
openspace.org

From 50 to Forever: Caring for the land that cares for us – By creating Midpen 50 years ago, our community prioritized clean air and water, healthy habitats for diverse native plants and animals, ecosystems that are resilient to the effects of our changing climate, and places for people to connect with nature – that's what Midpen provides in perpetuity. Celebrate with us all year long >

August 29, 2022

Benjamin Fu, Community Development Director
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014

SENT VIA E-MAIL TO: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Subject: City of Cupertino Draft Housing Element Update (2023-2031) Comments

Dear Mr. Fu:

On behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen), we respectfully submit the following comments regarding the City of Cupertino (City) draft Housing Element Update for 2023-2031. Midpen has been following the Housing Element Update process and appreciates the City’s public engagement process as it considers how best to address the region’s housing needs.

Comprised of over 65,000 acres of acquired and protected open space on the San Francisco Peninsula, Midpen is one of the largest regional open space districts in California. Our braided mission is to acquire and preserve in perpetuity open space and agricultural land of regional significance, to protect and restore the natural environment, to preserve rural character and encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and to provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education.

While much of Midpen’s open space lands reside along the ridgeline of the Santa Cruz Mountains, Midpen owns and manages lands much closer to the built environment such as Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, and Fremont Older Open Space Preserve (Fremont Older). One of the properties considered for the City’s Recommended Sites Inventory, 21710 Regnart Road (Property), is located within a quarter mile of Fremont Older. Based on the Property’s proximity to Fremont Older, we would like to share specific considerations regarding the proposed intensification to allow a net increase of 23 additional housing units as incorporated within the Housing Element Update.

The Property sits across two parcels (APN 35623057, 35623001), and is recommended to have its general plan and zoning designations updated to Res Low 1-5 and R1-5. Under these new designations, the 1.6-acre property would be allowed to have a net increase of 23 housing units.

The Property is located in the CALFIRE-identified Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and is 2 approximately 250 meters from a CALFIRE-identified Very High Fire Severity Zone1. Considering recent, climate-driven increases in fire frequency and the proximity of the very high fire severity zone for the area, an increase in housing density will exacerbate fire risks, posing additional challenges for wildland fire fighting and threats to public safety.

An additional concern is that Regnart Creek runs through the Property. The significantly intensified development potentially poses an increased risk to the riparian corridor, which serves as habitats and facilitates wildlife movement.

Another location of concern is 21530 Rainbow Drive, a Tier 2 property less than a quarter mile from Fremont Older. The property is located in the WUI and is only 100 meters from an identified Very High Fire Severity Zone. This property is proposed to have its zoning designation updated to R1-7.5, and if considered as a Tier 1 property, could accommodate a net increase of four additional dwelling units.

These two sites, while not directly adjacent to protected open space, are examples where additional intensification of development in the WUI increases the risk of wildfire that may spread to adjacent natural lands such as Fremont Older Open Space Preserve and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. We respectfully request that you reconsider intensification of housing sites within the WUI due to the increased risk of wildfire that has the potential to threaten both residents and essential habitats in nearby open space.

Thank you for your consideration and we welcome any questions you may have. Please direct questions to Jane Mark, Planning Manager, at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Susanna Chan
Assistant General Manager

CC:

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors Ana Ruiz, General Manager, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Jane Mark, Planning Manager, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Benjamin Fu, Community Development Director, City of Cupertino ([email protected]) City Council via City Clerk ([email protected]) Cupertino Housing ([email protected])
Pamela Wu, City Manager, City of Cupertino ([email protected])

1 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/6508928ba28b49648ec26f61848a3f76

From: Andres Vega
To: City Clerk
Subject: De Anza students for an ambitious housing element Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 7:41:20 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,
I am a student at De Anza College. I heard about the Cupertino housing element update process and have been trying to stay engaged. 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 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 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.

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.

Andres Vega
[email protected]
101 Jefferson Drive, 235
Menlo Park, California 94025
From: Madison Martin
To: City Clerk
Subject: De Anza students for an ambitious housing element Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 6:52:13 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,
I am a student at Foothill College. I heard about the Cupertino housing element update process and have been trying to stay engaged. I strongly support an ambitious housing element, so that we can (1) meet the housing needs of Foothill and 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 Foothill 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 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.

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.

Madison Martin

[email protected]
749 Shearton Dr
San Jose , California 95117
From: Angelica Velasquez Jimenez
To: City Clerk
Subject: De Anza students for an ambitious housing element Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 6:49:11 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.

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.

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.

Angelica Velasquez Jimenez
[email protected]
80 Descanso Dr
San Jose, California 95134
From: Ian Ang
To: City Clerk
Subject: De Anza students for an ambitious housing element Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 6:48:29 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.

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.

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.

Ian Ang
[email protected]
10051 Pasadena Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Kieren E
To: City Clerk
Subject: De Anza students for an ambitious housing element Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 1:58:57 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.

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.

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.

Kieren E
[email protected]
801 Rose Ave
Mountain View, California 94040
From: Amy Shannon
To: City Clerk
Subject: De Anza students for an ambitious housing element Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 11:54:18 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.

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.

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.

Amy Shannon
[email protected]
261 Trianon Way
Los Altos, California 94022
From: Eren Saglam
To: City Clerk
Subject: De Anza students for an ambitious housing element Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 11:44:42 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.

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.

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.

Eren Saglam
[email protected]
419, Rincon Ave
Sunnyvale , California 94086
From: Hussain Ali
To: City Clerk
Subject: De Anza students for an ambitious housing element Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 11:41:41 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,
Hello! Below is a copy/pasted message from the president of the Student Body at De Anza College, where I currently attend. It is copy/pasted because she can articulate my thoughts in writing much better than I can. I've read through it and I strongly support what it's advocating for, and I hope you do the same. You'll probably never read this, much less listen to it, but I thought I'd give this whole civil activism thing a try. Have a good rest of your day/evening! and thanks in advance
I am a student at De Anza College. I heard about the Cupertino housing element update process and have been trying to stay engaged. 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.

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.

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.

Hussain Ali
[email protected]
513 iris lane
San Ramon , California 94582
From: Sevki Kiymaci
To: City Clerk
Subject: De Anza students for an ambitious housing element Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 11:21:34 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.

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.

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.

Sevki Kiymaci
[email protected]
1036 Cynthia Lane
San Jose, California 95129
From: Cedric Buenviaje
To: City Clerk
Subject: De Anza students for an ambitious housing element Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 11:12:41 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.

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.

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.

Thank you.

Cedric Buenviaje
[email protected]
3778 Lake Mead Dr
Fremont, California 94555
From: Amy Huang
To: City Clerk
Subject: De Anza students for an ambitious housing element Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 11:03:23 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.

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.

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.

Amy Huang
[email protected]
14120 Alta Vista Ave.
saratoga, California 95070
From: Pierce Tao
To: City Clerk
Subject: De Anza students for an ambitious housing element Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 11:00:21 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.

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.

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.

Pierce Tao
[email protected]
5981 Countess Drive
San Jose, California 95129
From: Edwyn Castillo
To: City Clerk
Subject: De Anza students for an ambitious housing element Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 10:42:53 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.

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.

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.

Edwyn Castillo
[email protected]
301 Acalanes Dr.

Sunnyvale , California 94086
From: Shivani Kavuluru
To: City Clerk
Subject: We need a more ambitious housing element
Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 9:21:40 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:

The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce much-needed homes at all income levels.

4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.

5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.

Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.

Shivani Kavuluru
[email protected]
1551 Mcgregor Way
San Jose, California 95129
From: Noel Eberhardt
To: City Clerk
Subject: We need a more ambitious housing element
Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 8:54:39 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,
First of all, I'd really like to see housing development along the traffic primary traffic corridors, and not spread out in the single home residential areas.

Secondly, the City has wasted too much on legal fees fighting the inevitable. For example, the Vallco debacle winds up with what was essentially proposed instead of the alternate proposal rejected with loss of untold legal fees.

This is for the Cupertino City Council, staff, and consultants:

The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce much-needed homes at all income levels.

4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.

5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.

Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.

Noel Eberhardt
[email protected]
21407 Krzich Place
Cupertino, California 95014
From: John Zhao
To: City Clerk
Subject: We need a more ambitious housing element
Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 6:55:37 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 writing today regarding the updated site inventory being reviewed at tonight's and tomorrow's City Council meetings. 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.

The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce much-needed homes at all income levels.

4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.

5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.

Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.

John Zhao
[email protected]
10411 Lansdale Ave
Cupertino, California 95014
From: John Geis
To: City Clerk
Subject: We need a more ambitious housing element
Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 5:15:00 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:

The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce much-needed homes at all income levels.

4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.

5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.

Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.

John Geis
[email protected]
10714 Deep Cliffe Dr
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Sadia Khan
To: City Clerk
Subject: We need a more ambitious housing element
Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 5:14:16 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:

The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce much-needed homes at all income levels.

4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.

5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.

Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.

Sadia Khan
[email protected]
815 Kains Ave apt 4
Albany , California 94706
From: Sheng-Ming Egan
To: City Clerk
Subject: We need a more ambitious housing element
Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 5:11:06 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, from a resident of Cupertino since 1996:

The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce much-needed homes at all income levels.

4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.

5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.

Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.

Sheng-Ming Egan
[email protected]
11735 RIdge Creek Ct.

Cupertino, California 95014
CC 08-29-2022
Item No. 2
Councilmember
Written
Communication
Written Communications
Vallco SB-35 proposal changes: 2018 vs The Rise 2022
2018 SB-35 Vallco Towers vs. 2022 SB-35 Towers .. 2
BLOCK 3 BLOCK 2
48 Du/Ac
Sites to consider for EIR
Study
The site to the west of Post Office: 0.44+0.32+0.25 acres Current Zoning P(CN, ML, Res 4-12)
Post Office
Site to the south of Post Office: 0.56 acre
Currentr Zoning P(CN, ML, Res 4-12)

Site to the south of Post Office: 0.56+0.28+0.06 acre
Current Zoning P(CN, ML, Res 4-12)
Post Office
Bubb Road area

Outback site (1.51 acre)
Current zoning P(CG, ML, Res)

From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: Jon Robert Willey
Cc: City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Christopher Jensen; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly Subject: RE: Bubb Rd
Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 9:55:20 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
image005.png
image007.png
image009.png
image011.png
image013.png
image015.png
image025.png
image026.png
image027.png
image028.png
image029.png
image030.png
image031.png
image032.png
Thank you Councilmember Willey (Council Bcc’d), this will also be included with the written communications for Housing Element Agenda Item #2.

Regards, Kirsten

Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225

From: Jon Robert Willey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 9:48 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Bubb Rd

Sent from my iPhone
Jon Robert Willey
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3193
Begin forwarded message:

From: [email protected]
Date: August 29, 2022 at 8:48:47 PM PDT
To: Jon Robert Willey <[email protected]>
Subject: Bubb Rd

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.

Jon…great ideas about Bubb Rd at tonight’s meeting…a GREAT place for high density.

I’ve “walked” it a month ago…the problem is that most of the building’s have tenants and several of them have Apple as tenant…the “gold standard” type tenant for a property owner.

Here’s what you’ve got for Bubb Rd from my drive. Unfortunately, Apple is a tenant in a majority of the sites and the others are either owner/users, churches or State of CA corp yard.

Staring on the North end of Bubb Rd on the Hwy 85 Side of Bubb and working South towards McClellan Rd

10800 Bubb
Tenant: Institute for Western Civilization
Land Area: 0.81 acres
Bldg Area: 14,000/SF

10100 Bubb (For Sale Right now)
Tenant: Vacant Building with some Tenant Improvements done Land Area: 0.87 acres
Bldg Area: 13,500/SF

10130 Bubb
Tenant/Owner: State of CA “Corp Yard”
Land Area: 2.96 acres
Bldg Area: Not Listed

10240 Bubb
Tenant: Durect Corp
Land Area: 1.65 acres
Bldg Area: 30,000/SF

10260 Bubb Rd
Tenant: Durect Corp (same tenant at 10240 Bubb)
Land Area: 1.28 acres
Bldg Area: 20,000/SF

10300 Bubb Rd
Tenant: Apple
Land Area: 1.43 acres
Bldg Area: 23,000/SF

10340 Bubb Rd
Tenant/Owner: Home of Christ Church
Land Area: 1.48 acres
Bldg Area: 30,000/SF

10420 Bubb Rd
Tenant/Owner: Home of Christ Church
Land Area: 3.53 acres
Bldg Area: 50,000/SF

10440 Bubb Rd
Tenant: Do not know
Land Area: 1.13 acres
Bldg Area: 19,500/SF

10460 Bubb Rd
Tenant: Apple
Land Area: 3.59 acres
Bldg Area: 45,400/SF

Staring on the North end of Bubb Rd on the Railroad Side of Bubb and working South towards McClellan Rd

10061 Bubb Rd
Tenant: Multi Tenant Building w/some space for lease
Land Area: 0.69 acres
Bldg Area: 14,400/SF

10101 Bubb Rd
Tenant: Apple
Land Area: 1.05 acres
Bldg Area: 15,600/SF

10131 Bubb Rd
Tenant: Apple
Land Area: 1.06 acres
Bldg Area: 18,000/SF

10161 Bubb Rd
Tenant: Apple
Land Area: 1.06 acres
Bldg Area: 14,800/SF

10231 Bubb Rd
Tenant: Apple
Land Area: 1.06 acres
Bldg Area: 18,500/SF

10261 Bubb Rd
Tenant: Unknown
Land Area: 1.06 acres
Bldg Area: 19,600/SF

10341 Bubb Rd
Tenant: Apple
Land Area: 1.22 acres
Bldg Area: 27,000/SF

10411 Bubb Rd
Tenant: Apple
Land Area: 1.15 acres
Bldg Area: 20,000/SF

Scott
408-640-0383

From: Jon Robert Willey
<[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 11:24 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Housing Element

Jon Robert Willey
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3193

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:05 PM
To: Jon Robert Willey <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Housing Element

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachment s unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

FYI...I went back in my cell phone and found this picture I took in Saratoga (an example of the banners they posted around the City for their Housing Element process)…this picture was taken in October 2021.

Scott
408-640-0383

From: Jon Robert Willey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 10:45 AM

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Housing Element

Hello Scott,

Thank you for your e-mail and spending your time to meet on Friday. Fortunately, I was able to mention our meeting to Darcy during our Farmers Market ribbon cutting on Sunday and I feel it would be very beneficial for him to also meet with you. But I haven't connected with him yet to discuss the details which I think will greatly improve our Housing Element process and task. Hopefully I can discuss it with him this week, before our next city meeting, so I can decide how to cover the topics that you brought up. And if you are able to also attend next week's meeting and cover some of your suggestions, I think that will greatly help when I then ask staff to implement these improvements.

Well, I don't know what else to say now, but I really appreciate your time and interest in helping us with this important item.

Many thanks,
Jon

Jon Robert Willey
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3193

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 11:35 AM
To: Jon Robert Willey <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Housing Element

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 Jon…just wanted to shoot you a quick note and say “thanks” for your time today. I had a really nice time talking with you and kicking around ideas. I hope the kids were successful and getting their “3 names”! And tell your little Steph Curry, that I loved her “floater at the buzzer”! Have a nice weekend.

Scott
408-640-0383

From: Jon Robert Willey <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 6:49 PM

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Housing Element

Hello Scott,

Sounds good, Friday at noon, Senior Center patio tables, see below.

And if anything things change, just give me a call.

Jon
408 896-7590

Jon Robert Willey
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3193

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 2:18 PM
To: Jon Robert Willey <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Housing Element

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.

Great to hear back from you thanks.

This Friday at 12pm would work for me…I’m happy to meet at either spot…whatever is most convenient for you. Just let me know, but if we do it at the senior center, just let me know where the patio is.

Really looking forward to it. Thanks.

Scott
408-640-0383

From: Jon Robert Willey <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 1:59 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Housing Element

Hello Scott,

Thank you for your e-mail . . . and for your ideas last night. It was very interesting that other residents also liked some of your ideas.

And yes, I am happy to meet and discuss your ideas further. Since I still have my regular job as an engineer, I try to meet during the lunch hour. So would Friday at noon work . . . or a day next week? And the two places I've used for meeting are Pannera next to Target on Stevens Creek or on the patio at the senior center.

Best regards,
Jon

Jon Robert Willey
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3193

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 9:38 PM
To: Jon Robert Willey <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

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.

Councilmember Wiley…I’d like to schedule a coffee with you to talk about the Housing Element. You just said in the meeting tonight…”Resident engagement is your priority”…there are 18 people on this call right now.

The first hour of this meeting tonight has not been productive.

Would you be willing to meet with me for a cup of coffee?

Thank you.

Scott
408-640-0383

Cupertino City CouncilAugust 29, 2022

Cupertino City Council
August 29, 2022