Written Communications (Updated 4-17-2024) — Cupertino City Council, April 16, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

CC 4-16-2024
Written
Communications
Oral
Communications
Date 2023 ACFRs
Delivered Posted on
EMMA emma.msrb.org
Number of Consecutive Years
This City Received a
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence
City Date
Cupertino TBD 2018 and 2020
Campbell 01/03/2024 34 years (and 30 years for Distinguished Budget Award) ACFR dated 12/29/2023
https://www.campbellca.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/3071 Los Gatos 04/02/2024 28 years
ACFR dated 12/27/2023
TOWN OF LOS GATOS (losgatosca.gov)

Milpitas 01/15/2024 27 years
ACFR dated 11/15/2023
https://www.milpitas.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1193

Morgan
Hill
12/07/2023 Last year (number of consecutive years unknown) ACFR dated 11/15/2023
https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/47021/Morgan-Hill-Annual- Comprehensive-Financial-Report-Year-Ended-June-30-2023-PDF Mountain
View
n/a 33 years
ACFR dated 11/27/2023
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report FY2022-2023 by City of Mountain View Recreation Division - Issuu

From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: 4/16/2024 City Council Oral Communications - ACFR late again, why? Date: Sunday, April 7, 2024 1:51:52 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 Council,

Here are some comments for the 4/16/2024 City Council Oral Communications - ACFR late again, why?

GAAP recommends completing the ACFR, the City’s Annual Cumulative Financial Report, within 6 months of year end, which is 12/31.

The ACFR is required to be posted by 3/31 (9 months after year end) for our Certificates of Participation (debt that is similar to Muni Bonds).

You can find data on Cupertino’s Certificates of Participation on the Electronic Municipal Market Access website:
https://emma.msrb.org/

1. In FY2019/2020, the City overstated its sales-tax revenue by approximately $9M. A donation from Apple appears to have been credited to sales-tax revenue rather than elsewhere, which creates a false impression of the City’s actual net sales tax revenue. Net-sales tax revenue was listed as $35,657,214, 34% higher than the actual $26,651,250. This needs to be fixed.

2. For FY2021/2022 the final ACFR was posted 13 months after year-end.

3. For FY2022/2023 the AFCR is yet to be posted and is late.

Other cities in Santa Clara County and the County itself are able to post their ACFRs timely, why not Cupertino?
Other cities in Santa Clara County have consistently received awards, why not Cupertino?

Palo Alto 11/30/2023 Last year (number of consecutive years unknown) ACFR dated 11/09/2023
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/administrative-services/city- budgets/fy-2023-city-budget/fy-2023-annual-comprehensive-financial-report.pdf

Santa
Clara
01/24/2024 31 years
ACFR dated 11/30/2023
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/82591/638380626172200000

Santa
Clara
County
03/21/2024 22 years
ACFR dated 12/28/2023
https://controller.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb511/files/report/FY2023_SCC_ACFR_0.pdf

Saratoga 03/11/2024 28 Years (and 12 years for Distinguished Budget Award) ACFR dated 12/08/2024
https://www.saratoga.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2084

San Jose 12/19/2023 35 years (and 33 years for Distinguished Budget Award) ACFR dated 11/17/2023
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/107521/638372784259670000

Sunnyvale 03/09/2024 37 years (and 34 years for Distinguished Budget Award) ACFR dated 12/04/2023
https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4912/638375543324900000

Cupertino should do better.

Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry

Virus-free.www.avg.com
Written
Communications
CC 04-16-2024
Item No. 4
Ratifying Accounts
Payable for March
1,8,15,22 & 29
From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Matt Morley
Subject: Re: Written Communications and Questions Item 4 Meeting 20240416 Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:49:46 AM
Attachments: image001.png
(Please use the following email with better formatting of the footnotes)

Dear City Clerk and City Manager,

My questions and written communications for Item 4 are below and attached. I have included City Council Resolution 5939 and the City of Dublin policy for payments.

With regards to the payment register itself, could someone explain why we appear to be paying for Apple retail store burglary prevention security? Here is a screenshot of PDF 30-31 of the Agenda Packet:

Cupertino City Council Meeting Questions
April 16, 2024
Item 4 Accounts Payable

The Staff Report for Item 4 states:

“Discussion
Unlike the Monthly Treasurer’s and Treasurer’s Investment Reports requiring regular reporting within a specific number of days, pursuant to California Government Code Section 41004 and 53607, the frequency of reporting the City’s Payment Register follows the City Resolution No 5939, where the report will be “presented to the City Council not less often than once a month for ratification.””

Cupertino City Council Resolution No. 5939[1]
has not been updated since 1982 and has some portions which could be addressed and updated.

Knowing how much was paid in payroll monthly is an example of information the public may be interested in, which is not in the payment register.

California Government Code Section 41004, referenced in the Staff Report states:

“Regularly, at least once each month, the city treasurer shall submit to the city clerk a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. The city treasurer shall file a copy with the legislative body.”

Questions

1. What is the difference between a disbursement as opposed to a payment?

2. Ca. Gov. Code 32708[2] indicates that budgeted payroll will also be brought to the City Council, however the City Council has not been given this information in several years, is there a reason for this? Should the Council be provided this information?

3. Resolution 5939 states that “All checks so issued shall be serially numbered and a report thereof as to date, payee, amount and purpose shall be presented to the City Council not less often than once a month for ratification.” In order to ratify the payments we might need more information, including payroll costs, it may be that a new resolution could incorporate the City of Dublin[3]’s method to bring the payments to Council monthly, and rely on the ACFR for ratification. Is the Council really just receiving the payment information, not ratifying it for correctness?

4. Does the ACFR[4] audit all of the payments in accordance with the requirements of Ca. Gov. Code 32708 (c) regarding payment ratification and make a statement to that effect, taking care of that duty rather than the City Council? [1] Cupertino City Council Resolution No. 5939: https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx? id=30301&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino&searchid=9662159b-8c99-4be5-8c29-89f759a4661c [2] https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/government-code/gov-sect-37208/ [3] City of Dublin Ratification of Payments Policy: https://citydocs.dublin.ca.gov/WebLink/PDF10/32d58ef4-7dff-4ccf-843f-391f521ed73c/866376 [4] City of Cupertino ACFR: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/33507/638242268831070000 Image removed by sender.

Kitty Moore
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
Image removed by sender.

Image removed by sender.

Cupertino City Council Meeting Questions April 16, 2024 Item 4 Accounts Payable The Staff Report for Item 4 states: “Discussion Unlike the Monthly Treasurer’s and Treasurer’s Investment Reports requiring regular reporting within a specific number of days, pursuant to California Government Code Section 41004 and 53607, the frequency of reporting the City’s Payment Register follows the City Resolution No 5939, where the report will be “presented to the City Council not less often than once a month for ratification.”” Cupertino City Council Resolution No. 59391 has not been updated since 1982 and has some portions which could be addressed and updated. Knowing how much was paid in payroll monthly is an example of information the public may be interested in, which is not in the payment register. California Government Code Section 41004, referenced in the Staff Report states: “Regularly, at least once each month, the city treasurer shall submit to the city clerk a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. The city treasurer shall file a copy with the legislative body.” Questions 1. What is the difference between a disbursement as opposed to a payment? 2. Ca. Gov. Code 327082 indicates that budgeted payroll will also be brought to the City Council, however the City Council has not been given this information in several years, is there a reason for this? Should the Council be provided this information? 3. Resolution 5939 states that “All checks so issued shall be serially numbered and a report thereof as to date, payee, amount and purpose shall be presented to the City Council not less often than once a month for ratification.” In order to ratify the payments we might need more information, including payroll costs, it may be that a new resolution could incorporate the City of Dublin3’s method to bring the payments to Council monthly, and rely on the ACFR for ratification. Is the Council really just receiving the payment information, not ratifying it for correctness? 4. Does the ACFR4 audit all of the payments in accordance with the requirements of Ca. Gov. Code 32708 (c) regarding payment ratification and make a statement to that effect, taking care of that duty rather than the City Council? 1 Cupertino City Council Resolution No. 5939: https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=30301&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino&searchid=9662159b-8c99-4be5-8c29-89f759a4661c 2 https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/government-code/gov-sect-37208/ 3 City of Dublin Ratification of Payments Policy: https://citydocs.dublin.ca.gov/WebLink/PDF10/32d58ef4-7dff-4ccf-843f-391f521ed73c/866376 4 City of Cupertino ACFR: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/33507/638242268831070000 RESOLUTION N0. 5939
i

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING RESOLUTION N0. 3721 ADOPTING STATEMENTS

OF POLICY RELATING TO CITY TREASURY FUNCTIONS
i
I
WHEREAS, good financial planning requires [ he development of sound fiacal policies and adherence thereto in the successful administration of any program; and,
WHEREAS, there is now a need for said policies to be brought into con- formance with more current circumstances:

NOW, THEREFORE, BG IT RESOLVED that the Sta[ ements of Policy attached hereto is hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino with the eame [ o remain in effect until modified by City Council action.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City oE Cupertino thia 7th day of September, 1982, by the following vote:

Vote Membera of the City Council
AYES: Johnson, Rogers, Sparks, Plungy
NOES: None
ABSENT: Catto
ABSTAIN: None
I
I APPROVED:

I
i
or, C of Cupert
Temp e
i
ATTEST:
i
i City C erk
Deputy
i
f
CITY OF CllPERTINO

STATEMENTS OF POLICY

TREASURY FUNCTIONS
The development and adoption of these policies is for the express purpose of setting forth procedural guidelines by which the City of Cupertino treasury functions are to be administered. It ia the intent of the City Council to pro- vide suitable administrative flexibility in these matters necessary to efficient operations while at the same time providing adequate internal auditing controls.

Unleas and until there is delegation of authority to the contrary, in wfiich case these policies must undergo substantial revision, the City Councll reserves the right to make appointment of the Treasurer and who shall so aerve at the pleasure of the Council. It also 1s expressly stated that nothing herein contained shall preclude the functional assistance and direction of the City Manager with whom close liaison on all fiscal mattera shall be maintained.

A. Office of Treasurer
The Office of Treasurer shall be filled through appointment by the City Council. There also shall be appointed a Deputy Treasurer to assure continuity of work during the absence of the Treasurer but with such appointment being subject to confirmation by the City Council. Incumbents of both officea shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council.

The Deputy Treasurer shall be empowered [ o act as the Treasurer during the latter' s absence. Jhen the duly appointed Depu[y Treasurer is also a City employee such action shall be [ aken only on specific authorization of the City Dfanager.

B. Investment oE Funds
The Cuper[ ino Municipal Code grants authority to the Treasurer to invest or reinvest funds of the City to the extent as is permitted by State statute. Such investments shall be made so as to receive the best return of intereat income for the City consistent with the maintenance of required minimum 6alances in the commercial bank account and the availability of sufficient moneys to meet the cash demands of the City.

The placing of moneys in certificates of time deposits is but one form of inveatment available to the Treasurer. For moneys so placed the following provisione ahall apply:

1. Said deposits ahall be placed only with financial institutions located within the State of California. Firs[ conaideration will be given to those financial inati[ utions located within the city limite who have indicated a deaire to provida euch aervice for the City.

2. All depoaita ao made will be on the basis of bids aolicited or received. All such bida received, whether orally or in writing, will be recorded for sudit purpoaea; and,

3. Awards of such deposita will be made to those submit[ ing the hi6hest bid in such a manner so as to maintain equity of balances or as near thereto as is practicable.

A summary of. lnvestment types' and depository balances shall be reported by the Treasurer to the City Council not less often than once a month.

C. Commercial Sank Account
I[ shall be the prerogutive of the City Council to designate [ he banking institution to serve as the depository for [ he City's commerciul bank account. Such designations shall be made without regard to term but will be made on the bnsis of type and quality of service available as well as costs of adminiatration, minimum balances required and such other factors as the City Council may deem appropriate.

D. Issuance of Checks
The Treasurer shall pay out all moneys owed by [ he City on certification of the Director of Finance that such are due and owing. Such payments may be made without prior authorization of the City Council under the following provisions and conditiona:

1. Obligations for which any check is issued shall have been incurred purauant to the purchasing system as set forth in the Cupertino Municipal Code; or, as may be authorized by the City Attorney under condemnation proceedings, in payment of obligations under contract previously approved by the City Council, and for zefunds of deposit or similar accounts payable.

2. No check shall be issued unless there is an unencumbered appro- priation available in the appropriate Activity in the annual Operating and Gonstruction Budget or where moneys are on deposit or otherwise available where appropriation accounting is not standard procedure.

3. All checks so iasued shall be aerially numbered and a report thereof as to date, payee, amount and purpose shall be presen[ed to the City Council not leas often than once a month for rati- fication.
othing herein ahall require the Treasurer to iasue a check ei[ her in contravention [ o the foregoing proviaions and conditions or when in his opinion such would not be in the bes[ interest of the City; provided, however, that any euch request so re~ ected will be presented to the City Council at ita next subsequent regulnrly scheduled meeting unless the originator of the request withdrawa it during the interim.

E. Check Signatures
All payment of City moneys ahall be by check as provided by the Cupertino Municipal Code, Section 2. 24.020, except ae followa:

1. A Petty Cash Fund may be eatabliahed to permit cash payments for incidental items that by their nature make it impractical to isaue a check. The Treasurer shall eatabliah procedurea for adminis- ration of the Petty Cash Fund.
2 -
Off'
nU~~~
ii ~ 111
L~~ - ~ ~~~
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

CITY CLERK
File # 300- 20
November 15, 2011
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo, City Manager ° ~'
Establishment of City Council Policy Related to Approval of City Payments Prepared by Paul S. Rankin, Administrative Services Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City has a long standing practice of including on each agenda a Staff Report which includes a listing of payments issued. The listing groups the payments into two categories: 1) Pre-Issued Payments; and 2) Payments to be audited. In order to efficiently process payments for City purchases a revised report format is proposed. The City Council will consider a policy which provides for the payment listing to be presented once per month. The report will include all of the payments issued in the previous month.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is not a direct financial impact from the adoption of the proposed policy. The change will result in staff time savings due to a reduction in the number of reports prepared. The time will be utilized for other finance related activities
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution Establishing the Policy for the Approval and Ratification of City Payments.

Submitted By Reviewed By
Administrative Services Director Assistant City Manager DESCRIPTION:

The City of Dublin has presented, as part of the regular bi- monthlyagenda, a listing of payments issued. The City issues an average of approximately 330 accounts payable checks each month. The reporting has been established on a cycle of regular processing of payments due twice each month. The administrative procedures provide for the actual release of the payments by the Friday following the City Council meeting. This schedule allows adequate time for the City to meet its obligations in Standard City Agreements, which call for payment within 30 days of receipt of the billing.

Page 1 of 2 ends

Current Process Two Categories ( Preaudited Pavments & Pavments To Be Issued) In the current process there are times when a payment must be issued prior to the presentation of the check listing to the City Council. For example, the City sometimes receives utility bills without sufficient time to process them and have them presented on a Staff Report listing before they are due. These payments are budgeted items and would be included as part of the Preaudited" listing. The same situation occurs if a regular City Council meeting is not conducted twice during the month.

Proposed Change - Monthly Reporting In Arrears
Staff is proposing to maintain the same processing cycle of issuing payments in bulk twice each month. However, it is proposed that the listing presented to the City Council will be done on a monthly basis. Because of the timing of agenda deadlines it is recommended that the listing occurs on the agenda of the second City Council meeting in each month. For example, if the change is adopted, a listing of all payments issued in November will be part of the Agenda on December 20, 2011.

The proposed method continues to provide a high level of disclosure for the business activities undertaken by the City. Staff surveyed the practices used by other public agencies and they vary widely. The California Government Code allows cities to follow a very rigorous process of review and auditing all payments prior to their issuance, or if the agency has an annual audited comprehensive financial report, the required process is no longer required. With the need to process payments in a timely manner in order to avoid late fees and other impacts it would be almost impossible to have all payments reviewed by the City Council prior to their issuance.

The more rigorous process is stated as follows:

California Government Code Section 37202. Except as provided in Section 37208, the legislative body shall approve or reject demands only after such demands have been audited in the manner prescribed by ordinance or resolution. Such audited demands may be submitted separately or a register of audited demands may be submitted to the legislative body for approval or rejection and shall have attached thereto the affidavit of the officer submitting the demands certifying as to the accuracy of the demands and the availability of funds for payment thereof.

The proposed monthly report would exceed the requirements in the California Government Code. Section 37208(c) of the California Government Code states: "... budgeted payrolls and demands paid by warrants or checks may be presented to the legislative body for ratification and approval in the form of an audited comprehensive annual financial report." Therefore, the City publication of the payment listing will be in addition to this requirement.

Staff has prepared a Resolution ( Attachment 1) which documents the method being used to disclose the payments made by the City.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: None
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Establishing the Policy for the Approval and Ratification of City Payments

Page 2 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. xx - 11

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

ESTABLISHING THE POLICY FOR THE APPROVAL

AND RATIFICATION OF CITY PAYMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has well established policies and procedures for the processing and issuance of payments for goods and services procured by the City; and WHEREAS, the current policies and practices are intended to support financial internal controls as well as compliance with government laws and regulations; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 37202 provides a mechanism by which the legislative body approves or rejects audited demands before the payments are issued; and WHEREAS, Government Code 37208(c) provides an alternative mechanism of approval where the legislative approval and ratification is in the form of an audited comprehensive annual financial report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin reviewed its practices and desires to clearly establish a policy to ratify payments with the audit and to also allow for supplemental reporting and disclosure.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby establish the following policy for the approval and ratification of City Payments:

A. The City Manager shall be responsible for the establishment and implementation of internal controls as deemed necessary to administer payments made with public funds.

B. Payments may be issued for payroll and expenditures incurred by the City provided that they are budgeted or authorized expenditures.

C. Absent other agreed to terms in writing, the standard City practice shall be to issue payments due within 30 days of receipt of the invoice and confirmation of the billed amount.

D. A listing of all non- payroll payments issued during a month shall be presented to the City Council in a public report on a City Council Agenda.

E. The monthly report will occur after the payments are issued and released and will typically be included as an Agenda Item on the City Council Meeting scheduled for the third Tuesday of the month.

F. In accordance with California Government Code Section 37208 ( c) the statutory obligation for ratification and approval of payments shall be in the form of an audited comprehensive financial report.

Attachment 1
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15t" day of November, 2011, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
Attachment 1
CC 04-16-2024
Item No. 6 & 7
Adoption of Ordinance
24-2258 and 24-2259,
Development Agreement
for Cupertino Village
Boutique and DE Anza
Hotel
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council 4/16/2024 agenda #6 and #7 hotel development agreements should capture sales taxes on materials
Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 8:43:34 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,

I would ask that the development agreements with these hotels and all major projects be modified to have the companies assign Cupertino as their principal location for purchasing.

This might involve having the developer set up an llc within the City.

Why?
For the two hotels, we could easily capture $1M in sales-tax-revenue in materials.

Yes, it would be a one-time deal, but considering that our projected sales-tax-revenue is around $9M, that extra money could make a big difference.

Consider, each hotel costs about $100-$150M to build.

That’s $200 to $300M for both hotels.

Typically half of construction cost is materials.

That’s $100 to $150M in materials.

We get $1 out of every $100 spent in sales-tax revenue.

That translates to $1 to $1.5M in sales-tax-revenue.

When we are looking at cutting things from the budget that cost $30K, it seems to me that we should be doing whatever we can to capture sales-tax revenue.

Thanks much,
Rhoda Fry
Virus-free.www.avg.com
CC 04-16-2024
Item No. 9
Approve the fifth
amendment with Moore
Iacofano Goltsman, Inc
for Lawrence-Mity Park
and Trail Project
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council 4/16/2024 agenda item #9 MIG contract - stop government waste Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 8:49:22 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
Regarding the revision to the MIG contract.

Please remove payment for meals from the contract.

The contract stipulates payment for meals plus 5%.

Whatever happened to the days of bringing lunch in a lunchbox? If MIG wants to pay for meals, it has plenty of money to do so from the inflated hourly rates they are charging for their personnel.

Also, the 20% allowance for going over budget is much too high.

Please take it back to 10%.

The more money we spend (waste) on MIG, the less money we’ll have for actually building out the park.

Thanks,
Rhoda Fry

Virus-free.www.avg.com
Written
Communications
CC 04-16-2024
Item No. 11
Potential service-level
reductions for FY 2024-25
From: Heidi Kay Carson
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 4/16/2024 Agenda #11: Sidewalks and Trees Should be Maintained by the City Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 3:29:37 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.

To the Cupertino City Council:

I understand from one of my neighbors that this subject is on the City of Cupertino council meeting agenda for tomorrow, 4/16/24.

I would like to request that the City of Cupertino please continue to maintain city sidewalks and city trees. This maintenance work should not be the responsibility of property owners who not only pay (increasingly high) property tax, but who are in no position to be the best judges of whether city sidewalks and trees are being adequately maintained.

Maintaining sidewalks and street trees in acceptable condition is a public matter and a matter of public safety and thus should not be left to the discretion of individual residents.

Sincerely,
Heidi Carson
23647 Black Oak Way, Cupertino, CA 95014
650 868 8108
From: Kay Lau
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 4/16/2024 Agenda #11 Sidewalks and Trees should be maintained by City Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 2:45:19 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.

To the Cupertino City Counsel,
I understand the subject is on the city counsel meeting on 4/16/24. With all the waste that we have with the city of Cupertino budget, we believe the citizen safety comes first. During a time that there are skyrocketing cost of living is happening, the last thing the citizens can deal with is maintaining the sidewalks that may be in desperate need of repair and putting the onus on the citizens in pure wrong.

Please continue to maintain city sidewalks and city trees. This should not be the responsibility of property owners (who pay property tax). Having sidewalks and street trees in acceptable condition is a matter of public safety.

Thanks,
Kay Lau (Cupertino Resident since 1999)
From: Alicia Taam
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 4/16/2024 Agenda #11 Sidewalks and Trees should be maintained by City Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 1:58:48 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.

To the Cupertino City Counsel,
It has come to our attention that the City of Cupertino wants property owners to maintain city sidewalks and city street trees and will be discuss this issue at the 4/16/2024 City Council meeting agenda #11.

We think that sidewalks and trees are public safety issues that need to be handled by the City. We believe that this is a really poor policy idea to shift the burden to property owners (who might not do the work or do a substandard job). This should not be the responsibility of property owners (who pay property tax). Having sidewalks and street trees in acceptable condition is a matter of public safety. Instead, the City Counsel should look for other ways to cut government waste. Please continue to maintain the city sidewalks and city street trees.

Regards,
Greg & Alicia Taam
(408) 882-7557

From: Tom Kritzer
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 4/16/2024 Agenda #11 Sidewalks and Trees should be maintained by City Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 12:44:37 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.

I understand that the city council is considering transferring responsibility for street trees and sidewalks to home-owners. Those of us who have lived here for a while remember when home-owners had this responsibility. Because home-owners did a poor job maintaining trees and walks, and because of the public safety aspects of proper maintenance, the city "took over" responsibility and tacked notices on all street trees advising home-owners that they were not to attempt this maintenance. In my opinion, the city has basically neglected this maintenance. Now that the trees have grown uncontrolled for several years (thanks to the city's neglect), the responsibility and cost to get trees back in control is being shifted back to home-owners - the same home-owners who did a poor job before. Further, the home-owners have no experience or training in the areas of public safety required for such maintenance.

This is difficult to understand and a poorly-thought-out idea.

You can't just keep switching this responsibility back and forth. I understand that the city has fiscal issues (most of which were brought on by the extremely poor management of the city council for the past several years), but we now seem to be on a much better path forward with a more responsible council with better governance in mind. Please don't take us backwards.

Thank you for considering these points.

Tom Kritzer 21785 Hyannisport Dr
From: Michael Laitila
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Trees and sidewalks
Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 8:11:51 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.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Laitila <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 8:09 AM
Subject: Trees and sidewalks
To: <[email protected]
>
Please consider not changing the current tree and sidewalk maintenance that the city takes care of. The city workers do a professional job maintaining these assets. If citizens have the responsibility of maintaining these it would become a safety issue because many will forego making repairs needed.

Sincerely,
Michael Laitila
From: Mehrnaz Hada
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 4/16/2024 Agenda #11 Sidewalks and Trees should be maintained by City Date: Sunday, April 14, 2024 11:09:14 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.

To the Cupertino City Counsel, I understand the subject is on the city counsel meeting on 4/16/24. With all the waste that we have with the city of Cupertino budget, we believe the citizen safety comes first. During a time that there are skyrocketing cost of living is happening, the last thing the citizens can deal with is maintaining the sidewalks that may be in desperate need of repair and putting the onus on the citizens in pure wrong.

Regards,
Mehrnaz Hada
408-718-5863
From: Danessa Techmanski
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Tree and Sidewalk Maintenance.

Date: Sunday, April 14, 2024 8:30:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
I am deeply concerned about shifting city tree and sidewalk maintenance to our property owners. Residents may be too busy, unaware, or unable to afford fixing faulty sidewalks or the trimming of dangerous damaged tree limbs which could be a serious danger to our residents. I also think that this puts a financial burden on some of our elderly residents who are on tight fixed incomes, and they are more likely to suffer from a serious injury in the event of a sidewalk fall.

Please keep tree and sidewalk maintenance as a city service. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Danessa Techmanski
32-Year Cupertino Resident
From: Frank Swanson
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Council Meeting 4/16/2024 Agenda #11 Maintenance of Sidewalks and Trees Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 4:12:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I strongly urge the continued maintenance of our sidewalks and trees in the median by done by the City of Cupertino.

This is how it has been done for as long as I have lived here (for over 54 years now). And so we don’t have the
hodgepodge look that other cities have where home/property owners decide if, what and when to do anything with regard to maintenance of their street trees and sidewalks. This maintenance should NOT be the responsibility of property owners (who pay property taxes). Furthermore, and most
importantly, having our sidewalks and trees maintained by the City in a uniform, consistent and acceptable condition is primarily a matter of public safety.

Sincerely,
— Frank & Bev Swanson
10826 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA. 95014
From: Vaishnavi & Sridhar
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 4/16/2024 Agenda #11 Sidewalks and Trees should be maintained by City Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 2:32:03 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.

To Whomsoever this may concern at the Cupertino City Council, I am a 20 year resident of Cupertino. I think the sidewalks and trees are public safety issues that need to be handled by the City. The idea of shifting the burden to property owners (who might not do the work or do as good of a job) is simply bad policy.

Sincerely,
Vaishnavi Sridhar
From: Michael Laitila
To: City Clerk
Subject: Street Trees
Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 12:37:08 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.

Please try to keep the maintenance of the Street trees and the sidewalk maintenance in the city budget. The city has trained professionals to do the maintenance correctly which otherwise would be a safety concern to all if left to the property owners.

Sincerely,
Michael Laitila
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council 4/16/2024 item #11 sidewalks and trees Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 9:10:40 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
Please continue to maintain city trees and city sidewalks and do not shift this work to property owners.

City sidewalks and tree-maintenance are a matter of public safety.

Look for other places to save money.

Thanks,
Rhoda Fry

Virus-free.www.avg.com
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting (4/16/24) Item 11, Service Reductions (Trees &Sidewalks) Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 8:22:14 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.

Please include the following as Public Comment on Item 11 (Reduction of Services ) in the Cupertino City Council meeting on 4/16/24. Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: City Council Meeting (4/16/24) Item 11, Service Reductions (Trees &Sidewalks) From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024, 8:19 PM
To: [email protected],[email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear City Council:
(Please add this to the Public Record for Item Number 11 of the City Council Meeting On 4/16/24: Especially the city not maintaining street trees or sidewalks).

I am very distressed to see the city of Cupertino actually talking about not maintaining its Street trees or sidewalks. This is not the type of talk a city of Cupertino's caliber engages in.

This is the type of behavior some poor downtrodden little hamlet would have to stoop to.

My husband has said repeatedly, since the first attempts to not maintain the street trees or Sidewalks were first proposed to save the library hours some years ago, that a city that Cannot maintain its street trees or sidewalks should just fold up and go out of business.

A city that cannot maintain its street trees or sidewalks has to be so far gone and so financially Destitute that the trees and sidewalks would be the last things to go.

I really wonder what priorities the city is thinking of when it would even stoop to Consider something like this. As a resident of Cupertino I can think of a lot of things That could be jettisoned before we went after our trees and sidewalks.

The fact that people were talking about getting rid of crossing guards makes me Wonder at how this list of "get-rid-offs" were arrived at.

Also, I have been really confused about all these "focus group" budget meetings this week.

What is the point of all of these? Are some of these focus groups groups of tree haters And sidewalk haters who were corralled together into a ten person focus group So they all could chime out how they hate trees and sidewalks? I don't get it.

When my neighborhood of Rancho Rinconada annexed into Cupertino in 2000 We had beautiful big trees and beautiful sidewalks. The city of Cupertino promised To maintain our trees and an amount of 50,000 dollars was put aside for tree maintenance And the city bought a big tree trimming truck with a boom to maintain the trees.

We were the only neighborhood in Cupertino with big trees. We still have big beautiful Trees and beautiful sidewalks. Public Works and the Tree Crew have done a marvelous job Maintaining our beautiful big trees and our beautiful sidewalks.

Rancho Rinconada is a virtual garden and paradise and Public Works makes it so. We have Few parks in our neighborhood, but our big trees and our sidewalks makes it look and Feel like a park. Our residents and neighbors walk down our sidewalks and under our Trees and find a great deal of rest and relaxation.

I feel that trying to eliminate our street trees and maintenance of our sidewalks is Unfairly singling out Rancho Rinconada because we have big trees and lovely sidewalks. I am Very proud of my neighborhood of big trees and sidewalks which has been a hallmark Of Rancho Rinconada since it was built in the county of Santa Clara in 1950. My great-aunt Was an original owner of a house in Rancho Rinconada so I spent a great deal of time Here as a child and I remember the big trees and the beautiful sidewalks. It was a paradise Then and it is now. This is in part to the residents who live here and care about Rancho Rinconada and Public Works who do such good job caring for our neighborhood.

Cupertino made a promise to Rancho Rinconada in 2000 to take care of our trees and Sidewalks. It has done a wonderful job of keeping its promise. Not maintaining the beautiful trees
Or beautiful sidewalks in Rancho Rinconada would mean the city had broken its promise To our beautiful neighborhood of Rancho Rinconada.

Please save our trees and sidewalks and don't break Cupertino's promise to Rancho Rinconada.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
Rancho Rinconada Resident
From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Written Communication for 4/16 Council meeting: Attachments for Item 11 - Service Level Reduction Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:23:43 AM
Attachments: 2024-01-17 A - Potential Service-Level Reductions Summary (1).pdf To ensure that the meeting record includes the list of services to be cut, not just the changes made.

I have attached the full proposed list for service level reduction from the 1/17 Council meeting.

Please add this email and the attachment as written communication.

Thanks.

Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 8:26 AM
To: Matt Morley <[email protected]>; Pamela Wu <[email protected]> Cc: Kristina Alfaro <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Attachments for Item 11 - Service Level Reduction

For the member of the public, it's not easy to find the supplemental reports.

We can still add an attachment to this item today (I'm sure, since it has been done in the past).

A member of the public who called me about one of the sevices mentioned in the staff report (items not to be cut) said that he had no idea that those NOT mentioned are to be cut.

Why not just include the attachment with the full list of services to be cut (if not mentioned in the staff report) for transparency.

A small gesture, but it would increase transparency a lot.

Thank you for your consideration.

Liang
Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Matt Morley <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 7:42 AM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>; Pamela Wu <[email protected]> Cc: Kristina Alfaro <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Attachments for Item 11 - Service Level Reduction

Councilmember Chao

We will include your questions with responses and request for the January attachment in our supplemental report on Monday.

The overall process is as follows:

In January, staff provided a list of service level reductions. Council provided direction on those at that meeting – including direction to include some of the items in the upcoming proposed budget; to not include some of the items in the upcoming budget; to look for alternative funding for some; and to provide further information on some.

This coming Tuesday (April 16) we will be following up on the last of those Council directions – to provide further information on some of the items.

We will utilize the feedback from both meetings to craft the proposed budget, which we will present for Council discussion in May.

Following the presentation of the proposed budget, staff will make adjustments as directed by Council and present the final budget for adoption in June.

All of this aligns with staff’s commitment to bring multiple budget discussions forward with the public and the Council.

Matt Morley
Assistant City Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-3282

From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 7:29 AM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>
Cc: Matt Morley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Attachments for Item 11 - Service Level Reduction

I did not get an answer for this.

Thank you.

Liang

Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 10:07 PM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>
Cc: Matt Morley <[email protected]>
Subject: Attachments for Item 11 - Service Level Reduction

I am confused by this statements in the staff report:
""The following table shows changes to the proposed service-level reductions since they were first introduced on January 17, 2024. Any service-level reductions not listed are assumed to move forward unless Council provides additional direction."

Any service-level reduction not listed in the table would assume to "move forward" so the service would be retained or not retained? I assume that it is the later that those services NOT LISTED anywhere in this agenda item would be removed.

I see that the attachments for Item 11 does not include the table of all of the service level reductions proposed from the 1/17 meeting.

It is a common practice of the city to include relevant materials from previous meetings so the public does not need to look them up from another meeting.

Since those service level reductions NOT LISTED, anywhere in this agenda item, would presume to be removed and this is a study session to have a second look and receive Council direction on ALL service level reductions. It is important to include the table with ALL of the proposed service level reductions for transparency and clarify. Don't you think so?

I remember that we had a very long list and limited time in January. There were some items that I wish to bring up to provide feedback on, but there was no time to do so then.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a second look next Tuesday.

Could you please add the 1/17 attachment with all of the proposed service reduction to this agenda item?

Thank you for your help to ensure that the public has sufficient information on the agenda item which will have an impact on the services the city provides for them.

Liang

Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192

Potential Service-Level Reductions (SLR) Summary Attachment A Category Department Service ‐Level Reductions Fiscal Impact Full‐Time Staffing
Impact (FTE)
Service Level Impact Narrative
Fiscal
Accountability
Law Enforcement Align Law Enforcement Budget
with Actuals
$ 1,000,000 None Over the last year and a half, the Sheriffʹs Office has provided significantly less service than allowed under the budget with no apparent impact to crime. This reduction aligns the budget with the actual hours provided.

Fiscal
Accountability
Innovation &
Technology
Reduce Budget for IT $ 779,187 None Reduced applications utilized by City staff; Cancelled ERP Implementation; Prolonged tech refresh cycles; Significantly reduced replacement parts and supplies, Reduced outside expert technical support. This reduction would reduce efficiencies from some technology uses where the city has historically been comparatively advanced.

Fiscal
Accountability
Public Works Utility True‐up $ 398,407 None Reduction aligns budget with actuals Fiscal
Accountability
City Attorneyʹs
Office
Align City Attorneyʹs Office
Contract Services and Materials
with Actuals
$ 226,561 None Reduction aligns budget with FY 2023‐24 Actuals. Specialized outside counsel and legal services are necessary to cover specialized legal representation and services.

Fiscal
Accountability
Parks & Recreation Consolidate Learn to Swim
Program
$ 87,118 None Consolidate the Learn to Swim program into 100‐63‐612 under BBF, due to the program now being run from the BBF Pool and fully integrated into those operations. Consolidated part‐time staff and program supplies and expenses into that program.

Fiscal
Accountability
Administrative
Services
Reduce Unemployment
Insurance
$ 64,148 None New costs are reflective of post‐COVID estimates SLR Capital
Improvement
Program
Reduce General Fund Transfers
to the Capital Improvement Fund
$ 2,000,000 2C i t y will initiate and complete CIP projects with the current Capital Reserve fund.

The City will initiate only critical health and safety projects, or projects that will create revenue or savings to the City budget. A reduction in capital renewal will lead to a longterm aging of infrastructure impacting the attractiveness of this infrastructure to the public.

SLR Public Works Reduce Public Works Materials
and Contract Services and Part‐
Time Positions
$ 1,768,539 None Some contracts for general services, such as park tree maintenance ($168,880), will move in‐house, extending maintenance timelines; reduction in Public Works Part‐ time Positions ($352,136).

SLR Public Works Shift Sidewalk Maintenance to
Property Owners1
$ 1,000,000 1.4 The California Streets and Highway Code sections 5610‐5618 assigns responsibility for sidewalks to the adjacent property owner. Cupertino has historically assumed the costs of this work. This proposal will eliminate this service and shift sidewalk maintenance responsibilities to adjacent property owners. This practice is fairly standard across the region.

SLR Public Works Shift School District Grounds
Maintenance to School District1
$ 737,394 4.2 This reduction would end the field maintenance agreement with the Cupertino Unified School District. The school districts would need to take on the maintenance responsibilities. The City would forego revenue (approximately $57K) from field rentals and the school district could potentially add revenue.

SLR Public Works Shift Street Tree Maintenance to
Property Owners1
$ 455,008 3 Similar to sidewalk maintenance, street tree maintenance responsibility could shift to adjacent property owners. This practice is fairly standard across the region. 1 of 3
Potential Service-Level Reductions (SLR) Summary Attachment A Category Department Service ‐Level Reductions Fiscal Impact Full‐Time Staffing
Impact (FTE)
Service Level Impact Narrative
SLR Various Shift Credit Card Fees to
Customers
$ 432,668 None Customers would pay a credit card transaction fee for any payments made using a credit card. Currently, the City does not charge credit card fees to customers. Many jurisdictions charge customers a credit card transaction fee for any payments made using a credit card.

SLR City Managerʹs
Office/Community
Development
Reduce Part‐Time Staffing,
Reclassify Positions and Reduce
Recruitment Advertising
$ 286,348 None The CMO reclassified the Communications Manager to a lower level position. This will result in decreased capacity in the Communications Division.

Reduction of part‐time positions in CMO and CDD. This could result in reduced administrative and communications support in CMO. This could cause a delay and decrease in the operations of the permit counter and the ability to provide historic levels of customer service to resident and community members on all matters related to the Community Development Department.

SLR Public Works Defer Vehicle and Equipment
Replacement
$ 180,000 None Defer vehicle and equipment replacements until future years. This may increase cost and staff time to repair assets that were deferred for replacements.

SLR Parks & Recreation Reduce Funding for Library Extra Hours
$ 160,000 None The City has historically budgeted for increased library hours. This reduction will have no immediate impact to current operational hours, since Santa Clara County Library District has historically received funds from the state to cover these costs and has not been charging the City for 12 additional operating hours per week. If state funds are discontinued, this will become a true service level reduction.

SLR Parks &
Recreation/Public
Works
Reduce 4th of July Funding $ 138,000 None Elimination of 4th of July evening fireworks due to the significant cost of the event, including the fireworks, sheriff cost, and rental of equipment needed, as well as staff time needed.

SLR Public Works Reduce Impec Janitorial Contract $ 100,000 None Further reductions in cleaning frequency for City facilities. Reduced cleaning has a direct impact on user experience and leads to quicker degredation of facility infrastructure.

SLR City Managerʹs
Office
Reduce Scene from 10 months to
quarterly
$ 92,400 None Reduction results in less promotion of City services and less community outreach opportunities.

SLR City Managerʹs
Office
Eliminate Select City Work
Program Projects
$ 75,000 None Elimination of the CWP Enhance the Block Leader Program (grants to Block Leaders for community events), CWP Regulate Diversified Retail, and CWP License Plate Readers projects. Reduction in engagement with community. Reduction in retail diversity. Reduction in support for law enforcement to locate vehicles and suspects associated with criminal activity.

SLR Administrative
Services
Reduce Budget for Internal Audit $ 70,000 None Reduction in the number of internal audit projects. Audits would occur on a less frequent basis.

SLR Council Reduce Funding for Partnerships $ 69,307 None Reduction in funding for partnerships including Chamber and Sister Cities.

Reduction in cross cultural exchange and economic development opportunities.

SLR City Managerʹs
Office
Reduce City Events/Outreach $ 63,166 None Reduction in City events and outreach including the Community Academy, Public Safety Forum, State of the City, and CREST. Reduction could limit community outreach about public safety, law enforcement, Council goals and initiatives. 2 of 3
Potential Service-Level Reductions (SLR) Summary Attachment A Category Department Service ‐Level Reductions Fiscal Impact Full‐Time Staffing
Impact (FTE)
Service Level Impact Narrative
SLR Public Works Reduce Crossing Guard Services $ 50,000 None Reduction in the number of intersections served by crossing guards. The City currently receives $20K from FUHSD and $20K from CUSD. High schools could be eliminated from the crossing guard contract, resulting in a reduction of approximately $70K, but could lose the $20K from FUHSD ($50K savings).

Enhancing cost sharing could result in reducing expenditures.

SLR Parks & Recreation Reduce Budget for Paid Events $ 38,675 None Reduction in part‐time staffing scheduled for these events and program (e.g., Spelling Bee and Hack Cupertino). Will continue to offer current programs, but support with more volunteers and full‐time staff.

SLR Parks & Recreation Shift Sheriff Fees for Festivals to Festival Organizers
$ 34,992 None Sheriff expenses for festivals will no longer be covered by the City and will be charged directly to festival organizers starting in FY 2024‐25.

SLR Parks & Recreation Reduce Parks & Recreation
Expenses
$ 33,619 None Elimination of the Poet Laureate Program and Helping Hands Program. Reduce part‐time staff for the preschool program, with a shift in focus to a more robust Tiny Tots (3 year old) program.

SLR Parks & Recreation Reduce Park Ranger Services $ 31,155 None Reduction in hours planned for part‐time rangers at the Stevens Creek Corridor and McClellan Ranch Preserve, resulting in a reduced ranger presence at the Environmental Education Center and for some of the nature based programs and events.

SLR Parks & Recreation Reduce Budget for Concerts and Movies
$ 25,424 None Consolidation of the Neighborhood Events program to reduce part‐time staffing expenses and the reallocation of some events such as movies and band performances to Memorial Park.

SLR City Managerʹs
Office
Eliminate Minimum Wage
Mailers
$ 23,202 None The City currently prints and mails minimum wage information to businesses. This reduction would result in emailed forms, requiring businesses to print on their own.

SLR Parks & Recreation Reduce Senior Center Part‐Time Staffing and Supplies
$ 21,748 None Reduction in hours planned for part‐time staff at the Senior Center resulting in longer wait times for customers at the counter, reduced rental support, and reduced amenities in programs and events.

SLR Public Works Eliminate Earth Day Festival $ 19,126 None Direct impact to quality of life through community events. Less opportunity for the City to advance goals, especially community outreach, around the Climate Action Plan.

SLR Administrative
Services/Communi
ty Development
Reduce Conferences and Training $ 11,046 None The decrease in conference attendance and training opportunities for staff might
result in staff being less updated on current changes, new developments, and best practices within their field. The reduction could potentially lead to higher staff turnover rates.

Total $ 10,472,238 10.6
1 Reduction will take place over time. Staffing reduction will be through attrition as positions become vacant 3 of 3
From: Long Jiao
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: For 4/16 Council Meeting, Item 11
Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 8:56:17 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.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 Council Members,
Please include this email as written communication for agenda item 11 of the Council Meeting on 4/16.

In February 2024, Cupertino Voice performed a survey regarding potential service-level reductions. You can find the full survey results at https://cupertinovoice.org/?p=132.

The total number of participants was 275, including 231 registered voters. While they agreed on many of the potential service reductions, most of the participants voted NO for shifting sidewalk and street tree maintenance to property owners. Below are the screenshots.

Thank you,
Long Jiao on behalf of Cupertino Voice
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; Kristina Alfaro Subject: Please do NOT cut janitorial, city event funding, law enforcement, other resident facing cuts.

Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 10:59:20 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.

Esteemed Mayor Sheila and City Council,
The process of budget cuts has been very confusing and seems to be backend loaded.

Residents do not have a current status on what is going to be cut and what is not. A list of items are presented to council. Direction is sought. No voting is done per item. Direction is open to interpretation. Some direction may not be captured.

How is split direction handled. How and when do residents learn of the disposition of each line item based on the received direction. How do residents learn of this early so that more input can be provided.

To be safe I am writing in with input on a fuller list below from the 01/17 meeting, some or all of which may have been in the supplemental report.
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=12578158&GUID=F489F77F-8D8F- 40A3-AD5D-E02DB2044433

1. Please do not cut janitorial services at city facilities. Public and staff health should not be on the table for cuts.

2. Please do not cut law enforcement budget. Rather provide direction for proper utilization of the budget such as increased retail surveillance, traffic enforcement, patrol checks, more crime prevention etc.

3. Regarding reduced IT spend. What is the current tech refresh cycle and proposed new tech refresh cycle. We need to be very careful with any cuts to IT. Slower refresh cycles leave the city IT infrastructure vulnerable to cyber attacks and lack of sufficient security related capabilities.

4. Please do not shift school district grounds maintenance to school districts except for private schools like Tesselations where you may charge them for maintenance. Our school infrastructure such as grounds should not be up for cuts. Also please keep in mind these double up as public parks after school hours.

5. Please find a way to keep July 4th evening celebrations. This is a celebration of America as a nation. We should never have to sacrifice this.

6. Please do not cut funding for license plate readers and law enforcement funding to locate vehicles and suspects associated with criminal activity.

7. Please do not cut the budget or funding for sister cities program. Cultural exchange is a small spend item but creates a lifetime of memories for program participants and the spend is really trivial such as meeting room expense.

8. Please do not cut the public safety forum or state of the city. Also please do NOT relinquish these to niche groups like chamber of commerce and rotary club. Please ensure these are city run events.

9. Please do not cut funding for sheriff coverage at city events. Public safety should be top priority.

10. Please do not cut services at McClellan Ranch Preserve. This is an invaluable anchor of nature and education for residents about nature.

11. I don’t understand why the city is proposing to relocate movies and band events to Memorial Park. Where are these being relocated from and why. Creekside is a perfect venue for Movies in the Park. Why change something that is working?

12. Please do NOT eliminate the earth day festival or any festival or city event. These touch 100s to 1000s of residents who attend the events and enjoy the booths, socialize, reconnect, form new bonds, learn about local services. What is a city without these events.

A majority of the cuts proposed are resident facing. I request you to pivot your focus to deep cuts in staff costs.

1. Please cut all open staff reqs immediately. We cannot afford these. It is the first to go in any cost optimization in the corporate and business world and should be no different here.

2. Please cut consultant projects down to no more than the top 3. Place a limit of no more than $100k per consultant project. Let’s have city staff do these studies if needed at no extra cost beyond what is already on payroll. Same for any surveys. These should be run by city staff not consultants.

3. As shared previously, employee costs have risen 8% from 2019 to 2024 whereas Cupertino population has dropped 6.4%. Costs have risen in city manager’s office, community development and administration whereas they have declined in public works, parks and rec and stayed flat in IT. Please cut deep in top-heavy administrative positions. It’s time to go back to 1 city manager. Do we need economic development or can we merge it with community development role.

We cannot afford to go soft on the hard cuts needed in employee costs and at the same time we do not want to see cuts in resident facing critical services like public works and parks and rec. The cuts need to be in top heavy administrative roles.

We elected you council members to make the hard choices. Not to go soft on these hard decisions that call for leadership. I beseech you to kindly do the right thing and cut deep and cut now on employee and administrative costs of Cupertino city staff.

Thanks,
Santosh Rao
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Budget feedback.

Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:29:26 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.

Honorable Mayor Sheila and city council,
I am writing to request that you take a fresh look at the budget cuts and not perform cuts on resident services such as side walks, street trees, community events, July 4th, janitorial services, or any other community facing services.

I am requesting that you take no action on budget tonight as residents have not seen the proposed fee increases. Without seeing fee increases residents cannot provide you adequate feedback on budget actions.

Please ask that staff return with proposed fee increases and defer any budget actions until the community has seen the proposed fee increases in conjunction with proposed budget cuts.

I urge you to please direct staff to return with a report on increase in staff costs from 2019 to 2024.

Let me share some of that data with you.
2019-2020 vs. 2023-2024 budget.

Employee compensation = $19M to $24.6M
Employee benefits = $7.9M to $11M
Insurance, Fees, Claims, Premiums = $852k to $2.2M
*Total increase = ~ $10M*
Cupertino 2019 population = 59,370
Cupertino 2024 population = 55,555
Population decrease = 6.4%
Total spend on employees
Employee compensation = $24.8M
Employee benefits = $11M
Insurance, fees, claims, premiums = $2.2M
Total spend on employees = $38M
Total Cupertino budget = $122.3M
Spend on employees = 31% of Cupertino budget
While our population has declined 6.4% from 2019 to 2024 our spend on employees has risen by over 8%.

Further that spend has seen an increase in headcount in city managers office and community development while seeing declines in public works, parks and rec staffing. The community facing staff have reduced while administrative staff has increased. City managers office alone has gone from 7 to 15 headcount.

In the mean time we are seeing budget cuts being proposed that impact residents.

I implore you to please send the budget cuts back and direct staff to return with a study on how we cut employee costs to reflect our population decline and our reduced revenue as well as the clawback to CDTFA. Specifically please ask to return with a study on cuts in administration and the city managers office while maintaining resident facing services such as parks and rec, public as is works with no impact. We do not need 3 city managers. Let us return to 1 city manager.

Thank you for your attention to reducing employee costs and top level bloat in administration and ensuring the impact is not borne by residents or rant first level staffing.

Thanks,
Santosh Rao
Written
Communications
CC 04-16-2024
Item No. 12
Study Session and staff
presentation on the 6th
Cycle Housing Element
Update
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Council; Pamela Wu; Christopher Jensen
Cc: City Clerk; Benjamin Fu; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly; Alec Vybiral Subject: 2024-4-16 CC Agenda Item 12, Study Session Housing Element Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 5:15:34 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.

Subject: Study Session and staff presentation on the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Presenter: Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of Community Development Dear Mayor Mohan, Vice-Mayor Fruen, Councilmembers, City Manager , City Attorney, and City Staff:

Congratulations!!
On April 11, Housing Commissioners received an email from Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development. The subject was the Housing Element Update Press Release.

Excerpt below:
"
City Manager’s Office issued a press release (attached) this morning announcing the State’s determination that the City’s draft housing element meets the statutory requirements.” I replied to Benjamin Fu, and the following City Staff: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager; Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of Community Development; and Alec Vybiral, Senior Housing Coordinator, as follows: "Congratulations, Ben! This is a remarkable achievement! To you and all your staff, much respect and praise. ."
As Housing Commissioner and as a resident of Cupertino, I have been following and participating in the discussions of the Housing Element since it first began. This 6th Cycle process has been more difficult than previous years. New State requirements for the Housing Element were complex. There has been extensive input by residents at various opportunities throughout the years. City Staff began the process under the previous City Council, and then finalized it this year under the current City Council.

I am impressed that City Staff has met the challenges of this ambitious goal, which was a Housing Element that the State would say met the statutory requirements. Kudos! And a hearty Thank You for outstanding, professional work throughout.

Warm regards,
Connie L Cunningham
Chair, Housing Commission (self only)
From: Griffin
To: City Council; Luke Connolly
Cc: HousingCommission; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Clerk Subject: HE Strategy HE-1-3-6
Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 7:42:53 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.

Dear City Council and Asst. Director Connelly,
When the Housing Element is brought to the Housing Commission, Planning Commission and City Council PLEASE provide a map AND address list of all R1 lots that HE Strategy 1- 3-6 applies to for transparency.

Recently, the city failed to specifically identify the BA sites via a list and residents were furious when they found out it was more than “just school sites”! Please do not make this same mistake and please do not use the excuse that you are not rezoning these R1 lots. You will be adding the potential for rezoning without any input from neighbors so this is the time, right now, when you need to notify all residents of this potential change!
List the addresses! A blanket postcard about the HE is not equivalent to listing the exact lots.

The second bullet is so complex that most people do not understand which lots apply. List them! All of them!

Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia
Cc: Kitty Moore
Subject: Written Communications Item 12 April 16, 2024 Ca Gov Code 65759_compressed.pdf Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:27:31 PM
Attachments: Ca Gov Code 65759_compressed.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 Clerk,
Please include the attached file for Item 12 written communications.

Regards,
Kitty Moore

35 NOTE
The Uneventful History of
Government Code Section 65759
Cullen Conboy*

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 37 I. L EGAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 41 A. Land Use and Housing Element Law ......................................... 41 B. Article 14 ...................................................................................... 44 C. CEQA ........................................................................................... 45

1. Environmental Review Procedure Under CEQA ........... 45

2. CEQA Litigation Abuse ...................................................... 47 D. Section 65759............................................................................... 49

1. Persistent Ambiguities ....................................................... 50 II. H ISTORY OF SECTION 65759: IN THE LEGISLATURE AND IN PRACTICE ............................................................................................ 52 A. Legislative History of AB 1612 .................................................... 52 B. Subsequent Application of Section 65759 ................................... 59

36 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35

1. Peninsula Interfaith Action v. City of Menlo Park .............. 60

2. Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton .................... 64 III. R EASSESSING SECTION 65759 ............................................................ 67 A. Untested Ambiguities ................................................................... 67

1. Timeline Enforcement ....................................................... 67

2. Applicability to Zoning ....................................................... 70

3. Tiering .................................................................................. 72 B. Section 65759’s Utility in the Ongoing Fight for Housing Development ................................................................................ 75

1. Section 65759’s Importance to Article 14 ........................ 75

2. Article 14’s Importance to Housing Development ......... 76 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 77

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 37

INTRODUCTION
In 1982, the California legislature ob served a “discouraging” trend of rising home prices and declining rates of new home construction. 1 During the previous year, lawmakers had begun to address this trend by strengthening a law requiring cities to implement housing development plans.2 However, many local agencies a ppeared unwilling or unable to satisfy these new requirements. 3 In response, legislators introduced Assembly Bill 1612 (“AB 1612”), wh ich established a framework for how interested parties could challenge ci ties over their failure to comply with land use planning requirements. 4 Governor Edmund Brown Jr. praised the new “commendable” le gislation but simultaneously expressed concern that “ambigui ties in [the] bill could be misconstrued.”5
Despite this potential for confus ion, Brown passed AB 1612, now codified as article 14 of the California Government Code (“article 14”),6 after the bill’s author had “agreed to clarify such uncertainties.” 7 This promised explanation by bill author, Howard Berman, does not appear in the legislative record. Furthe rmore, neither courts nor legal commentators have stepped in to offe r clarification. As a result, forty years later, questions regarding how courts should enforce article 14 and how broadly the law can be applied remain unanswered.
8 1 S. COMM. ON JUDICIARY, G ENERAL PLANS: CHALLENGES AND REMEDIES, AB 1612 (Berman), 1981-82 Reg. Sess., at 2 (Cal. 1981) [hereinafter C HALLENGES AND REMEDIES] (on file with the California State Archives).
2 This 1980 legislation amended the state’s housing element law, Act of Sept. 26, 1980, ch. 1143, 1980 Cal. Stat. 3694, 3697-3703, discussed in further detail below. This law applies to cities, counties, and cities and counties. For simplicity’s sake, this Note refers to these entities interchangeably as “cities” or “local agencies.” 3 C HALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 2, 7.
4 Act of Feb. 8, 1982, ch. 27, 19 82 Cal. Stat. 46 (codified at CAL. GOV’T CODE §§ 65750- 63 (2023)). All references to code sections are to the California Government Code, unless stated otherwise.
5 Letter from Edmund G. Brown, Governor of the State of Cal., to the Members of the Cal. Assemb. (Feb. 11, 1982) (on file with the California State Archives). 6 C AL. GOV’T CODE §§ 65750-63 (2023).
7 Letter from Edmund G. Brown to the Members of the Cal. Assemb., supra note 5. 8 See infra Part I.D.1.

38 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
California’s housing crisis also remains an unresolved issue. Today, Californians spend more on housing than residents of any other state in the continental United States.9 The high cost of housing correlates with other measures of economic hard ship: California has the highest poverty rates in the country and th e largest population of unhoused people.10
Failure to build new housing drives high housing costs. 11 One major impediment to new housing development is the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
12 CEQA requires the government
to conduct an environmental review before undertaking certain projects, such as rezoning.
13 O n p a p e r , t h i s i s a sensible precaution.

However, in practice, litigation brought under CEQA has hamstrung the state’s efforts to develop new housing.14 CEQA lawsuits target over half of the state’s new housing production projects. 15 The most common target of these anti-housing CEQA su its are high-density projects in urbanized areas.16 These lawsuits are frequently brought in bad faith for

9 M AC TAYLOR, CAL. LEGIS. ANALYST’S OFF., CALIFORNIA’S HIGH HOUSING COSTS:

CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES 5 (2015).
10 J ENNIFER HERNANDEZ, CTR. FOR DEMOGRAPHICS & POL’Y, CHAPMAN UNIV., CALIFORNIA GETTING IN ITS OWN WAY: IN 2018, HOUSING WAS TARGETED IN 60% OF ANTI- DEVELOPMENT LAWSUITS 6 (Joel Kotkin ed., 2019) [hereinafter GETTING IN ITS OWN WAY]. 11 T AYLOR, supra note 9, at 10.
12 C AL. PUB. RES. CODE §§ 21000–178 (2023). See generally JENNIFER HERNANDEZ, DAVID

FRIEDMAN & STEPHANIE DEHERRERA, HOLLAND & KNIGHT, IN THE NAME OF THE ENVIRONMENT: HOW LITIGATION ABUSE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT UNDERMINES CALIFORNIA’S ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL EQUITY AND ECONOMIC PRIORITIES — AND PROPOSED REFORMS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT FROM CEQA LITIGATION ABUSE (2015) [hereinafter I N THE NAME OF THE ENVIRONMENT] (surveying CEQA lawsuits between 2010 and 2012, concluding that CEQA litigation abuse undermines California’s economic goals).
13 C AL. PUB. RES. CODE § 21080 (2023).
14 See generally HERNANDEZ ET AL., IN THE NAME OF THE ENVIRONMENT, supra note 12, at 33.
15 J ENNIFER HERNANDEZ, CTR. FOR JOBS & THE ECONOMY, ANTI-HOUSING CEQA LAWSUITS FILED IN 2020 CHALLENGE NEARLY 50% OF CALIFORNIA’S ANNUAL HOUSING PRODUCTION 1 (2022) [hereinafter ANTI-HOUSING CEQA LAWSUITS]. 16 H ERNANDEZ ET AL., IN THE NAME OF THE ENVIRONMENT, supra note 12, at 64.

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 39 reasons unrelated to environmental protection. 17 Even when a lawsuit lacks merit, the costs of CEQA litigation can derail a project.18 The drafters of AB 1612 recognized “the wasteful effects of environmental lawsuits,” which created “a significant contribution to the shortage of affordable housing.” 19 In response, they included a provision that would later be codifi ed as section 65759. This section kicks in when a court determines that a city must take action to bring its land use plans into compliance with state requirements. 20 Under section 65759, those actions are exempt from CEQA. 21 In place of standard CEQA procedure, section 65759 allows cities to conduct a streamlined form of environmental review.
22 The section lays out
parameters for this streamlined review and requires that cities complete the process within a maximum of 240 days of a court order. 23 Section 65759 was a primary source of the ambiguity that Governor Brown referenced upon the law’s enactment.24 Over the last forty years, little effort has been made to clarify the provision. Section 65759’s uncertainties have never been ad dressed in appellate litigation. 25

17 See id. at 6 (“CEQA litigation abuse by parties seeking to advance non- environmental interests is widespread.”).
18 Id. at 33 (“The act of simply filing a CEQA lawsuit can kill the most environmentally benign small project, while the destinies of big projects are controlled by the financial appetite of combatants willing to continue writing checks totaling millions of dollars.”).
19 See PAUL B. CARPENTER, CHAIRMAN, S. DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS, REP. ON AB 1612 (Aug. 24, 1981) (on file with the California State Archives). 20 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65759 (2023). For example, if a court finds that a city has failed to adopt zoning that accommodates its share of the need for affordable housing development, as required by C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65583(c)(1)(A) (2023), the court could order the city to amend its housing element and zoning ordinance so as to satisfy the requirement. See id. § 65754 (2023).
21 Id. § 65759.
22 Id. § 65759(a)(1)-(2).
23 Id. § 65759(a)(1)-(2), (b).
24 See Letter from Edmund G. Brown to the Members of the Cal. Assemb., supra note 5 (“[T]his bill could be misconstrued to rest rict the ability of the courts to require appropriate environmental review . . . .”).
25 See online search for Cal. Gov’t Code section 65759, LexisNexis (Oct. 27, 2022); online search for Cal. Gov’t Code section 65759, Westlaw (Oct. 27, 2022).

40 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
Treatises and practice aids mention the section in passing, if at all. 26 As a result, the following questions remain unanswered. How are section 65759’s completion deadlines meant to be enforced? Does the provision cover rezoning? And to what extent can subsequent environmental reviews incorporate analysis from a section 65759 review? 27 This Note does not attempt to provide definitive answers to these questions. Instead, through an analys is of the legislative history of AB 1612, this Note presents section 65759 as it was understood by its drafters. This perspective sheds light on the provision’s ambiguities and helps clarify the section’s utility in future efforts to create more housing.

CEQA has been described as an insurmountable barrier to California’s housing goals.
28 Jennifer Hernandez — a partner at Holland & Knight
LLP and head of a team that has analyzed every CEQA lawsuit filed between 2010 and 2015
29 — has proclaimed that the state’s “housing
goals . . . are fantastical at best un der ‘environmental’ procedures that are imposed by CEQA.” 30 However, this Note suggests that section 65759 offers untapped potential to housing advocates seeking to circumvent CEQA’s formidable barriers.

Part I provides background into the relevant laws, including California’s land use regulations, CEQA, Government Code article 14, and section 65759. Part II first details the legislative history of section 65759, illustrating several insights into the law’s intended use. Then Part II reviews two article-14 lawsuits to demonstrate how litigants have implemented the CEQA exemption. Finally, Part III applies the insights gleaned from Part II’s historical anal ysis, first by reevaluating 65759’s ambiguities to consider possible resolutions, then by considering the law’s present utility.

26 See 66A CAL. JURIS. Zoning and Other Land Controls § 504 n.1 (2023) (making passing reference in a footnote); 7 CAL. REAL EST. § 21:6 (4th ed. 2023) (essentially restating the language in the statute).
27 Through a process known as “tiering,” described in more detail below. 28 H ERNANDEZ, ANTI-HOUSING CEQA LAWSUITS, supra note 15, at 3. 29 Id. The Holland & Knight team is currently reviewing all CEQA lawsuits filed between 2019 and 2021.

30 H ERNANDEZ, GETTING IN ITS OWN WAY, supra note 10, at 7.

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 41 I. L EGAL BACKGROUND
A. Land Use and Housing Element Law
Local agencies have broad discretion to control land use decisions within their borders. 31 Consequently, California relies on local agency participation to allocate new land for housing. 32 The housing element law is the state’s most powerful tool to guide that participation.33 Every city must have a housing element incorporated into its general plan.34 The general plan, containing six other mandatory elements, 35 is characterized as a “constitution” guiding the city’s land use decisions.36 State law regulates the contents of the mandatory elements.37 Uniquely, the housing element is the only aspect of the general plan that cities must update on a fixed, recurring basis. 38 The frequency of these mandatory housing element updates is either five or eight years, depending on several conditions.
39 31 See CAL. CONST. art. XI, § 7 (reserving for cities and counties the power to “make and enforce within its limits all local, polic e, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws”); Bldg. Indus. Ass’n of Cent. Cal. v. County of Stanislaus, 190 Cal. App. 4th 582, 589 (2010) (“The power of a city or county to control its own land use decisions derives from this inherent police power, not from the delegation of authority by the state.”).

32 See C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65580(d) (2023) (finding that “[l]ocal . . . governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing”); id. § 65581 (2023) (recognizing that “each locality is best capable of determining what efforts are required by it to contribute to the attainment of the state housing goal, provided such a determination is compatible with the state housing goal and regional housing needs”).

33 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65580–89.8 (2023); see PAUL G. LEWIS, PUB. POL’Y INST. OF CAL., CALIFORNIA’S HOUSING ELEMENT LAW: THE ISSUE OF LOCAL NONCOMPLIANCE, at v (2003) (calling the housing element law “the major t ool the state government uses to ensure that [local officials] are planning appropriately for new housing development”). 34 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65302 (2023).
35 Those being land use, circulation, cons ervation, open space, noise, and safety. Id.

Additionally, general plans must address issues relating to environmental justice, either in a dedicated element or incorporated into other elements. Id. 36 Lesher Commc’ns, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 52 Cal. 3d 531, 539-40 (1990). 37 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65000–66499.58 (2023).
38 Id. § 65588(e) (2023).
39 Id.

42 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
The updated housing element must make “adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.”40 To that end, the housing element must contain several features: an inventory of developable sites, 41 an analysis of the government-imposed constraints on development, 42 and a schedule of actions, including rezoning, to make plots available for development.43 On paper, the updating process requires cities to rezone for more housing, leading, in turn , to housing construction. 44 However, in practice, there are many ways in which the housing element framework fails to satisfy the state’s need for housing. For example, commentators have pointed out that the system inefficiently allocates housing to areas with relatively little demand.
45 Others criticize the scheme for failing to
create below-market-rate housing. 46 Additionally, and crucially for the purposes of this Note, the housing element law often does not lead to new housing due to non-compliance from cities.
47 According to the
Department of Housing and Communi ty Development (“HCD”), over

40 Id. § 65583 (2023). The “housing needs” of a city, formally called the “regional housing need allocation,” is determined by a multi-step process involving local agencies and the Department of Housing and Community Development. See id. § 65584.05 (2023). 41 Id. § 65583(a).
42 Id. § 65583(a)(5).
43 Id. § 65583(c).
44 See id. § 65581(b) (2023) (stating the intent ion that “counties and cities will prepare and implement housing elements which, along with federal and state programs, will move toward attainment of the state housing goal”). 45 See Christopher S. Elmendorf, Eric Bi ber, Paavo Monkkonen & Moira O’Neill, Making It Work: Legal Foundations for Administrative Reform of California’s Housing Framework, 47 ECOLOGY L.Q. 973, 980-85 (2020) (“New housing belongs where people want to live. . . . This is not how California does it.”). 46 See PUB. INT. L. PROJECT, CALIFORNIA HOUSING ELEMENT MANUAL 24 (5th ed. 2023) (“This planning mandate has come to be referred to as ‘density as a proxy for affordability’ . . . [however] high density w ill not by itself necessarily yield affordable units unless affordability is mandated.”).

47 C HALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 7 (stating that cities’ failure to implement adequate housing elements has “made a significant contribution to the shortage of affordable housing”).

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 43 thirty-six percent of jurisdictions’ housing elements are currently out of compliance.48
Cities can become non-compliant in different ways: they might fail to submit an updated housing elemen t proposal to HCD for approval; 49 they might fail to revise their submitted proposal following a rejection from HCD; they may have neglec ted to implement the programs outlined in the housing element, such as rezoning;
50 or the terms in the
housing element may be inconsistent with other provisions in the general plan.51
In some specific instances, a city’s failure to rezone for more housing may in itself invalidate the general plan. 52 Each city’s housing element must contain an inventory of land suitable for residential development.
53 When this inventory does not adequately identify sites to accommodate the city’s need for affordable housing, 54 the housing element law requires cities to rezone so as to meet their allotted housing need within three years of the deadline for enacting the housing element.
55 In instances like this, the city’s failure to plan for adequate housing in the housing element’s inventory of housing alone would support an article 14 challenge. However, this affirmative rezoning requirement will become relevant belo w in Part III.A.2 . in addressing

48 As of December 8th, 2023, according to HCD, which keeps such information up to date on its website. Housing Element Implementation and APR Dashboard , CAL. DEP’T. OF HOUS. & CMTY. DEV. (last visited Nov. 26, 2023), https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and- community-development/housing-open-data-tools/housing-element-implementation- and-apr-dashboard [https://perma.cc/6ANA-RD9Y].
49 See Peninsula Interfaith Action v. City of Menlo Park, No. CIV 513882, 2012 Cal.

Super. LEXIS 12215, at *1 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 13, 2012).

50 Urb. Habitat Program v. City of Pleasa nton, 164 Cal. App. 4th 1561, 1567 (2008) (“[HCD] notified the City that it had revoked the City’s Housing Element compliance status because the City had not met the June 2004 date for rezoning.”). 51 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65300.5 (2023); cf. Concerned Citizens of Calaveras Cnty. v.

Bd. of Supervisors, 166 Cal. App. 3d 90, 94 (1985) (“[T]he land use and circulation elements of the General Plan fail to satisf y statutory requirements because they are internally inconsistent.”).
52 See C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65583 (2023) (detailing the required contents of the housing element).
53 Id. § 65583(a)(3).
54 As established by id. § 65584 (2023).
55 Id. § 65583(c)(1)(A) (citing to the deadline in id. § 65588 (2023)).

44 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
whether the CEQA exemption provided for in section 65759 applies to rezoning.

Recognizing the threat posed by local agencies’ non-compliance with general plan regulations, the stat e has enabled private parties to challenge non-compliant cities in court.56
B. Article 14
AB 1612 established article 14 of the California Government Code, which lays out the framework for challenging a general plan or one of its elements for non-compliance with state parameters.
57 These actions
receive scheduling preference over other civil matters so that “such actions [are] speedily heard and determined.”
58 Upon a finding that the
city has not substantially complied 59 with state requirements, section 65754 of article 14 imposes a timeline for cities to take action to achieve compliance.60 Local agencies are given 120 days to fix their general plans or mandatory elements of that plan. 61 They are then allowed an additional 120 days to bring their zoning ordinance into consistency with the amended plan. 62 In sum, the city must draft a general plan amendment, receive HCD approval, enact the amendment and rezone accordingly, all within 240 days of final judgment.
63 56 See CAL. GOV’T CODE §§ 65750-63 (2023).
57 Id.
58 Id. § 65752 (2023).
59 “Substantial compliance [means] actual compliance with respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute, as distinguished from mere technical imperfections of form.” Hernandez v. City of Encinitas, 28 Cal. App. 4th 1048, 1058-59 (1994) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (citation omitted) (finding the City’s housing element in substantial compliance after considering several alleged deficiencies); see also Black Prop. Owners Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, 22 Cal. App. 4th 974, 983 (1994) (finding that rent co ntrol ordinance did not violate statutory requirement that housing element reas onably address constraints on housing maintenance, deferring to city’s judgment that “rent control has had a positive effect on preserving affordable housing”).

60 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65754 (2023).
61 Id. § 65754(a).
62 Id. § 65754(b).
63 Id. § 65754.

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 45 Prior to article 14’s enactment, lawmakers questioned whether this brief timeframe was feasible. 64 Some voiced concern that it often takes years to change land use regulations, largely because of the time, money, and litigation involved in satisfying CEQA requirements. 65 The legislature’s solution to this issue was section 65759. To contextualize the importance of section 65759’s CEQA exemption, the next section will unpack CEQA itself and its role in stalling development.

C. CEQA

1. Environmental Review Procedure Under CEQA
CEQA has been innocuously described as a “disclosure statute” 66 because, on a basic level, it merely requires an agency to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has . . . considered the ecological implications of its action.”67
CEQA review begins with a “preliminary review,” in which the agency determines if its desired action qualifies as a “project” under the statutory definition, thereby requiring review. 68 Amending a general plan or element therein 69 or rezoning 70 is a project requiring review. 71 Next, the city conducts an “initial study,” which assesses whether the project has the potential to significantly affect the environment. 72 If
such a potential exists, the agency must proceed with a full environmental impact report (“EIR”).
73 64 One member of the Senate Committee on Judiciary questioned, “[I]s 120 days, (or even one year) time enough . . . ?” CHALLENGES AND REMEDIES supra note 1, at 4. 65 See id. at 9 (“Staff is informed that [CEQ A’s environmental impact reports] often take up to two years to complete.”).
66 Emmington v. Solano Cnty. Redev. Agen cy, 195 Cal. App. 3d 491, 502 (1987). 67 No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. 3d 68, 86 (1974). 68 C AL. CODE REGS. tit. 14, § 15378(a)(1) (2023).
69 Id. § 15378(a)(1).
70 Id. § 15060 (2023).
71 Except in rare circumstances, such as where a general plan is amended via ballot initiative. Id. § 15378(b)(3).
72 Id. § 15063 (2023).
73 Id. § 15063(b)(1)(A).

46 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
The EIR is the “heart of CEQA.”74 CEQA requires that EIRs address a number of issues. 75 The “core” features of an EIR, however, are a discussion of the potential alternatives to the intended project and possible mitigation efforts the city could take to offset the project’s environmental impact.
76 Local agencies compile this analysis in a draft
EIR, then present their findings to the public for comment. 77 Next, agencies respond to public input and certify a final EIR.78 CEQA requires that agencies complete their EIRs within one year. 79 However, courts have ruled that this timeframe is directory, not mandatory.80 As a result, EIRs routinely take much longer to complete. 81 Common factors that cause delay include public opposition prompting cities to revise EIRs, 82 consultants failing to prepare reports on time,83 and litigation.84 An important CEQA concept is ti ering, which limits the necessary scope of review when projects are nested within other projects. 85 For example, imagine a city amends its general plan, passes a rezoning ordinance, and then issues a conditional use permit for the rezoned plot.

Each of these actions would likely require an EIR, and each EIR could presumably cover overlapping material. To avoid redundancy, CEQA allows site-specific EIRs (such as for a use permit) to incorporate by

74 In re Bay-Delta Proc., 43 Cal. 4th 1143, 1162 (2008). 75 C AL. CODE REGS. tit. 14, §§ 15120-32 (2023).
76 Cal. Oak Found. v. Regents of Univ. of Ca l., 188 Cal. App. 4th 227, 259, 273 (2010). 77 C AL. CODE REGS. tit. 14, § 15087 (2022).
78 Id. § 15088 (2023); id. § 15090 (2023).
79 Id. § 21151.5(a)(1) (2023).
80 Schellinger Bros. v. City of Sebastopol, 179 Cal. App. 4th 1245, 1255-56 (2009). 81 See generally Arthur F. Coon & Carolyn Nelson Rowan, When Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act Becomes “Groundhog Day”: What’s a Frustrated Developer to Do?, 20 M ILLER & STARR REAL EST. NEWSALERT 431, 445 (2010) (explaining the circumstances that lead to “perpetual EIR preparation, never progressing to completion”).
82 See e.g. , Schellinger Bros., 179 Cal. App. 4th at 1252 (where public opposition led to multiple revisions of the draft EIR).
83 See Lake Almanor Assocs. v. Huffman-Broadway Grp., 178 Cal. App. 4th 1194, 1206 (2009) (holding that a consultant did not owe a duty “to a project applicant in the timely completion of a draft EIR”).

84 See infra Part II.C.2.
85 See CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 21094 (2023).

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 47 reference the discussion from a prior EIR (such as for rezoning). 86 The site-specific EIR can focus on granular issues specific to that project and rely on the previously certified “programmatic EIR” for more general analysis. Tiering is a vital cost-saving measure for developers, who usually must pay for their project’s environmental review. 87 2. CEQA Litigation Abuse
CEQA’s laudable goals are underm ined by bad-faith lawsuits. Any interested party may challenge an agency for failing to comply with CEQA.88 In theory, such actions hold the government accountable for its environmental disclosure obligations. In practice, unscrupulous litigants file CEQA suits for reasons unrelated to environmental protection.
89 If a committed minority opposes a government project, but their opposition does not gain tr action via the democratic process, CEQA litigation presents a viable strategy. 90 Merely filing a CEQA suit has been described as “the equivalent of an injunction.” 91 The cost and delay of litigation may be sufficient to derail smaller projects. 92 Larger developments are put at risk because lenders become reluctant to finance projects embroiled in litigation.
93 Despite reform efforts by the
legislature, there is little preventi ng parties from bringing frivolous lawsuits that lack merit or are motivated by non-environmental concerns.
94 86 Id. § 21094(a), (b), (e).
87 Coon & Rowan, supra note 81, at 436.
88 Such actions are brought as mandamus ac tions under the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1086. See Save the Plastic Bag Coal. v. City of Manhattan Beach, 52 Cal. 4th 155 (2011).
89 See generally HERNANDEZ ET AL., IN THE NAME OF THE ENVIRONMENT, supra note 12. 90 See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Cal. De p’t of Fish & Wildlife, 62 Cal. 4th 204, 254 (2015) (Chin, J., dissenting) (observing that “[d]elay [caused by litigation] can become its own reward for project opponents. Delay the project long enough and it has to meet new targets. . . . All this is a recipe for paralysis”).

91 E. Clement Shute, Jr., Reprise of Fireside Chat Yosemite Environmental Law Conference October 24, 2015, 25 ENV’T L. NEWS 3, 4 (2016). 92 Id.
93 H ERNANDEZ, GETTING IN ITS OWN WAY, supra note 10, at 9. 94 See HERNANDEZ ET AL., IN THE NAME OF THE ENVIRONMENT, supra note 12, at 82-83 (analyzing reform efforts to prevent frivolous CEQA lawsuits which “fell short”).

48 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
CEQA abuse plays an outsized role in perpetuating California’s housing crisis. CEQA lawsuits disproportionally target high-density “infill” housing in urban areas. 95 These are precisely the sort of developments that city planners and policy experts identify as the most sustainable solution to the state’s housing shortage.
96 CEQA lawsuits
also routinely challenge changes to land use policy at the planning stage.97 A stubborn opponent to a city’s push to create more housing may challenge the effort at every step of the process.98 Recently, however, the state legislature has moved to deter unfounded environmental litigation. In October 2023, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 439. 99 S B 4 3 9 r e q u i r e s p l a i n t i f f s w h o “challenge the approval or permitting of a priority housing development project” (including via CEQA lawsuit) to establish “a probability” that they will win the suit. 100 If a court finds that the plaintiff cannot make this showing, it must grant a motion to strike the claim, and defendants can seek attorney’s fees and costs.101 The law will take effect on January 1, 2024.102 So, while the impact of SB 439 is uncertain, the bill has the powerful potential to disincentivize baseless anti-housing lawsuits.

Cities are often cast as unwilling part icipants in the effort to combat the housing crisis. 103 However, their reluctance can be partially attributed to the stifling effect of CEQA abuse.

95 Id. at 6.
96 Id.
97 Id. at 48.
98 Id. at 49 (“Opponents of land use plans currently have endless ‘second bites’ at the CEQA litigation approved apple since both the plan, and every project undertaken to implement the approved plan, can be separately litigated by the same party.”). 99 S.B. 439, 2023-24 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2023) (codified at C AL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.19 (2023)).
100 Id.
101 Id.
102 Id.
103 See LEWIS, supra note 33, at 37 (quoting one stat e senator Joseph Dunn as saying, “Although they won’t say so publicly, some of these cities don’t care what their assigned [housing goal] numbers are. They just won’t do it because they don’t want low-income housing in their jurisdictions.”).

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 49 D. Section 65759
In recognition of the derailing potential of CEQA, the drafters of article 14 included section 65759. Upon final court order or judgment, this provision makes any action necessary to bring a city into compliance with state general plan requirements exempt from CEQA.104 In place of CEQA, these actions go through an environmental assessment that is “substantially similar” to standard CEQA procedures.
105
However, there are several key differences between CEQA review and section 65759 review. Under section 65759, cities must complete their review within the time limitations established by section 65754 (240 days at most).
106 This timeframe is ambitious compared to CEQA’s
often-ignored one-year limit. To make the timeframe feasible, section 65759 takes two additional depart ures from the standard CEQA procedure. First, a section 65759 EIR need only meet the requirements of a draft CEQA EIR,
107 meaning that the section 65759 EIR is not subject
to public comment and subsequent revision. 108 Second, section 65759 EIRs are “only . . . reviewable as provided under” article 14. 109 This means that the judge who found the city non-compliant will be solely responsible for evaluating the sufficiency of the EIR. Consequently, in

104 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65759 (2023).
105 Id.
106 Id. § 65759(b) (“The court for good cause shown may grant not more than two extensions of time, not to exceed a total of 240 days, in order to meet the requirements imposed by Section 65754.”).
107 Id. § 65759(a)(2). The requirements for a draft EIR are defined by CEQA. C AL.

CODE REGS. tit. 14, §§ 15084-15088 (2023). Notably, section 65759 cites an inaccurate section of the California Code of Regulati ons when referring to CEQA’s draft EIR requirements. C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65759(a)(2) (citing C AL. CODE REGS. tit. 14, § 15140 (2023) (establishing writing requirements fo r EIRs)). This improper citation is likely a result of CEQA’s restructuring one year after section 65759 was enacted.

108 See CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 14, § 15087 (2023) (detailing requirement for public review under CEQA); id. (regarding review of public co mment, required agency response thereto, and EIR revision).

109 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65759(a)(3).

50 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
the words of one legislator at the time of the bill’s drafting, section 65759 “eliminates the possibility of lawsuits under CEQA.”110

1. Persistent Ambiguities
The following are three unresolved legal questions relating to section 65759.

First, how are section 65759’s co mpletion deadlines meant to be enforced? No case law has established what happens when a city fails to meet the 240-day deadline. As we will see, this question appears to have troubled legislators at the time of drafting.
111 Looking to CEQA for
guidance112 suggests that the deadline is unenforceable. Courts have ruled that CEQA’s timeframes are directory, not mandatory.113 However, as will be discussed in Parts II and III, this interpretation undermines the intent of the legislature and threatens to negate the entire point of streamlining the review process.

Second, does the provision cover rezoning? Under article 14, upon judgment against a city, the city must bring its zoning into accordance with its newly amended general plan.
114 If those required rezoning
programs are not exempt from CEQA, protracted environmental review and the threat of litigation could potentially undermine the remedies called for by the article.
115 Section 65759 purports to apply to “any
action” necessary to bring a city’s general plan or elements therein into compliance with a court order. 116 One could argue that zoning

110 Enrolled Bill Report re AB 16 12 (Berman) from Donald Terner, Dir. of Cal. Dep’t.

Hous. & Cmty. Dev., to Off. of Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. 2 (Feb. 1, 1982) [hereinafter Terner Report] (on file with the California State Archives). 111 See CHALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 4.
112 Which is sensible considering that section 65759 procedure is meant to “substantially conform” to CEQA’s. CAL. GOV’T CODE § 65759(a)(2). 113 Schellinger Bros. v. City of Sebastopol, 179 Cal. App. 4th 1245, 1255-56 (2009); see Christopher S. Elmendorf & Timothy G. Duncheon, When Super-Statutes Collide: CEQA, the Housing Accountability Act, and Tectonic Change in Land Use Law, 49 ECOLOGY L.Q. 655, 665 (2022) (describing CEQA’s deadline as “essentially unenforceable”). 114 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65754(b) (2023).
115 See id. § 65754 (requiring that a city sh all bring its zoning ordinance into consistency with its general plan within 120 days of the amendment separately required to that document).
116 Id. § 65759(a).

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 51 ordinances are not such an action because zoning changes do not alter general plans.117 In the words of one court, “the tail [i.e., rezoning] does not wag the dog [i.e., the general plan].”118 In that sense, if zoning cannot alter the general plan, it cannot be seen as an action to bring the plan into compliance.

However, strong arguments can be made in favor of zoning applicability. Section 65759 allows for 240 days to conduct a review “in order to meet the requirements imposed by section 65754.” 119 Section
65754 permits cities a total of 240 days to complete both the amendment to the general plan and subsequent rezoning. 120 Therefore, interpreting section 65759 as only applying to general plan and element amendments allows the court to grant a full 240-day extension for that first stage of the process. Such a construction does not “meet the requirements imposed by section 65754.”
121
Third, to what extent does section 65759 review enable tiering? Like the deadline enforceability question, government officials debated this ambiguity prior to enactment. 122 One interpretation suggests that the provision merely shifts the costs of environmental review onto developers who will have less-substantial EIRs to tier off of when reviewing site-specific projects that are subsequently undertaken pursuant to the general plan amendments.
123 Another interpretation
offered by proponents of the bill 124 contends that section 65759 EIRs enable tiering to the same extent as standard CEQA EIRs.

117 See Lesher Commc’ns, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 52 Cal. 3d 531, 540 (1990). 118 Id.
119 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65759(b).
120 Each step in the process is allotted 120 days, respectively. Id. § 65754. 121 Id. § 65759(b).
122 See, e.g. , Memorandum from Barry Steiner, Off. of Plan. & Rsch., Governor’s Off., to Bob Moore, Governor’s Off. (Jan. 19, 1982 ) [hereinafter Steiner Memo] (on file with the California State Archives).
123 Id. at 2 (arguing that under the new law, “[t]he full CEQA costs are shifted to the developer”).

124 Memorandum from E. Olena Berg, Deputy Dir., Cal. Dep’t Hous. & Cmty. Dev., to Bob Moore, Deputy Legis. Sec’y, Governor’s Off. (Feb. 5, 1982) [hereinafter Berg Memo] (on file with the California State Archives).

52 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
This Note will revisit these question s after a discussion of AB 1612’s legislative history, as that history presents insights helpful to analyzing these ambiguities and the present utility of section 65759.125 II. H ISTORY OF SECTION 65759: IN THE LEGISLATURE AND IN PRACTICE A. Legislative History of AB 1612
Article 14, including section 65759, was established by AB 1612. This section describes the bill’s progress through the legisl ature and across Governor Brown’s desk. A survey of the legislative record sheds light on lawmakers’ understanding of the bill, its purpose, and its strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, the legislative history reveals an outsized concern with the CEQA exemption relative to AB 1612’s other sections.

This disproportionate attention indicates the importance of the provision in the eyes of its authors.

In May of 1981, Assembly Member Howard Berman introduced AB 1612 to the state Assembly.
126 At that time, much like today, legislators
were deeply concerned by high housing prices and the lack of new development.
127 The year prior, the legislature had enacted a
comprehensive reworking of the housing element law, 128 stressing the “vital statewide importance” of “the availability of housing.”129 The reworked housing element la w was a significant piece of legislation. Nonetheless, legislator s recognized that under the present system, it was “increasingly difficult to build housing priced within reach of even middle income working people.” 130 AB 1612’s committee notes identify two issues constraining the housing element law: non-

125 See infra Part II.A.
126 1 C AL. LEG., ASSEMBLY FINAL HISTORY, 1981–82 Reg. Sess., at 1091 (1982), https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/FinalHistory/198 1/Volumes/8182vol1_2ahr.PDF [https://perma.c c/Y72B-BU6L] (providing a chronology of the bill’s legislative history).
127 See CHALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 2.
128 Act of Sept. 26, 1980, ch. 1143, 1980 Ca l. Stat. 3694, 3697 -3703. For further background into the enactment of the housing element law, see P UB. INT. L. PROJECT, supra note 46, at 24-28.

129 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65580 (2023).
130 C HALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 2.

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 53 cooperative cities and anti-development litigation. 131 Regarding cities, committee notes observe that “many local governments have been slow to implement [an updated housing element] that provides for affordable housing.”
132 Moreover, the existing framework for challenging cities over their lack of compliance was ineffectual, as “suits [were] relatively few and remedies [were] uncertain.”133
Even when cities attempted to comply with housing element requirements, litigation hindered their progress. 134 Lawmakers identified two types of lawsuits as counter-productive: “lawsuits brought under the California Environmental Quality Act” and suits brought “to enforce the General Plan Law.”
135 Both of which “made a
significant contribution to the shortage of affordable housing.”136 In response to these issues, California Rural Legal Assistance, an advocacy organization, drafted legislation that Berman brought to the Assembly as AB 1612.
137 The bill aimed to “put teeth into [the] existing
law requiring local housing elements,”138 thereby reducing “the wasteful effects of environmental lawsuits and increas[ing] the speed at which local governments act to adopt adequate general plans.” 139
The bill enjoyed support from a diverse set of organizations. 140 Even the Alameda County Board of Superv isors expressed support for the bill.141 Their endorsement is surprising, considering the bill intended to

131 Id. at 7; Terner Report, supra note 110, at 3.
132 C HALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 7.
133 Terner Report, supra note 110, at 3.
134 C HALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 7.
135 Id.
136 Id.
137 Terner Report, supra note 110, at 3.
138 A SSEMB. COMM. ON JUDICIARY, BILL DIGEST, AB 1612 (Berman), 1981-82 Reg. Sess., at 2 (Cal. 1981) [hereinafter B ILL DIGEST] (on file with the California State Archives) (scrawled in margin).
139 C HALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 7.
140 Including the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, California Housing Council, Inc., California Building Industry Association, Inc., and the Western Center on Law and Poverty. BILL DIGEST, supra note 138, at 3.
141 Letter from Charles H. Cruttenden, Legis. Advoc., Alameda Cnty., to Howard Berman, State Assemb. (Aug. 6, 1981) (on file with the California State Archives).

54 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
“put teeth” into a regulation affecting counties. 142 Nonetheless, the Board welcomed the bill’s clarification of the procedure governing challenges they might face. 143 Alameda County’s support set it apart from other local governments. Initia lly, the bill faced opposition from the League of California Cities. 144 Legislative records do not indicate this group’s specific criticisms of AB 1612. Whatever those may have been, the League ultimately “worked out [its] problems” and withdrew its opposition after “working closely with proponents” of the bill.145 AB 1612’s committee records underscore lawmakers’ intent to expedite the process by which parties could challenge non-compliant general plans.
146 Proponents complained that, at present, “this type of lawsuit may drag on for several years” with no promise of fixing the underlying defects.
147 Proposed provisions attempted to curtail these
lawsuits by giving petitioners scheduling priority over other suits148 and requiring that hearings take place within ninety days of the initial filings.
149 These provisions are notable in that they mandate timeliness even before any wrongdoing has been established. For situations where courts find cities out of complianc e, lawmakers proposed narrow post- judgment timeframes: 120 days for a general plan amendment and the same for subsequent rezoning,
150 with environmental review not to
exceed those limits.151

142 Article 14 litigation has subsequently been brought against agencies within Alameda County. See, e.g., Black Prop. Owners Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, 22 Cal. App. 4th 974 (1994) (challenging city ordinance as non-compliant with housing element requirements).
143 Letter from Charles H. Cruttenden to Howard Berman, supra note 141. 144 B ILL DIGEST, supra note 138, at 3.
145 Terner Report, supra note 110, at 3.
146 See BILL DIGEST, supra note 138, at 3.
147 Id.
148 C HALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 8 (explaining the provision later codified as CAL. GOV’T CODE § 65752 (2023): “This bill would require that actions . . . ‘shall be given preference over all other civil actions.’”).
149 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65753(a) (2023).
150 Id. § 65754 (2023).
151 Id. § 65759 (2023).

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 55 These timeframes were so ambi tious that some doubted their practicality.152 Committee members questioned whether a city could enact amendments within the statutory deadline.153 Moreover, members expressed doubts regarding the feasibility of the environmental review timeframe:

Staff is informed that EIRs often take up to two years to complete. Even at half that, th e EIR could not be completed in the time provided under this bill. Are these time limits realistic? To make the CEQA option prac tical, would not the better approach be to allow one year from the date of completion of the proposed general plan revisions for completion of the EIR?
154
The legislative record does not indicate how proponents responded to these criticisms. However, AB 16 12’s timeframes were maintained without amendment.155 Evidently, the bill’s proponents believed that the streamlined procedure established by the CEQA exemption would dramatically shorten the time needed for review. Fully aware that CEQA review could take multiple years, 156 they nevertheless found it feasible that cities could complete the streamlined process within four months.

The bill passed through the assembly 157 and the senate 158 with “no known opposition” from the public. 159 However, upon arriving at the Governor’s office, the bill faced crit icism from the Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”).160

152 See CHALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 9.
153 See id. at 4 (“Is 120 days, (or even one year ) time enough to complete the complex procedural and political process of redrafting a general plan[?]”). 154 Id. at 9 (emphasis omitted).
155 1 C AL. LEG., ASSEMBLY FINAL HISTORY, 1981-82 Reg. Sess., at 1091 (1982), https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/FinalHistory/198 1/Volumes/8182vol1_2ahr.PDF [https://perma.cc/Y72B-BU6L]. 156 See CHALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 9.
157 The vote took place on June 8th, 1981, with the bill passing fifty-eight to eighteen. 1 CAL. LEG., ASSEMBLY FINAL HISTORY, 1981-82 Reg. Sess., at 1091. 158 The vote took place on September 15th, 1981, with the bill passing twenty-four to five. Id.
159 Terner Report, supra note 110, at 3.
160 See Steiner Memo, supra note 122.

56 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
OPR laid out its case against AB 1612 in two memos advocating for Governor Brown’s veto.161 OPR found several issues in the bill, three of which involved the CEQA exemption. 162 First, OPR pointed to the ambiguity surrounding AB 1612’s timeframes, claiming that the bill “does not specify what would happen if the general plan [were] not adopted within the specified time limit.”
163 This, the office argued,
presented an “enforcement problem.” 164 Second, OPR argued the bill would prevent developers from taking advantage of tiering.165 The office claimed that, because of the CEQA exemption, there would be “no prior adequate EIR which [could] be incorp orated by reference” into future project EIRs. 166 In effect, cities would be permitted to “assess the developer the full costs of preparing these documents.” 167 Lastly, OPR argued, almost in passing, that “[t]his bill ignores legitimate environmental . . . issues.” 168 It claimed that CEQA-exempt actions under AB 1612 “benefit from the review and environmental mitigation mandated by CEQA.”
169 OPR did not address proponents’ criticism
regarding the “wasteful effects” of environmental litigation.170 At the Governor’s request, 171 HCD produced two memos responding to OPR’s criticisms.172 First, HCD rejected OPRs contention that AB 1612

161 The first, dated January 19th, 1982, was authored by Barry Steiner. Steiner Memo, supra note 122. The second, dated February 4, 1982, was signed by Deni Greene, the office’s Director, with analysis prepared by Steiner. Enrolled Bill Report re AB 1612 from Deni Greene, Dir. of Off. of Plan. & Res., to Off. of Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (Feb. 4, 1982) [hereinafter Greene Report] (on file with the California State Archives). 162 See Greene Report, supra note 161, at 3-4 (other criticisms questioned the necessity of the provision enabling the appo intment of a referee, whether AB 1612’s prescribed remedies enabled sufficient judicial flexibility, and identified minor technical drafting ambiguities); Steiner Memo, supra note 122 (expanding upon Greene Report’s criticism regarding prescribed remedies).
163 Greene Report, supra note 161, at 4.
164 Id.
165 Steiner Memo, supra note 122, at 1.
166 Id. (emphasis omitted).
167 Id.
168 Greene Report, supra note 161, at 3.
169 Id.
170 C HALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 7.
171 Berg Memo, supra note 124 (on unnumbered cover sheet). 172 See Terner Report, supra note 110; Berg Memo, supra note 124.

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 57 would prevent developers from tiering off of streamlined reports:
“[A]ny cost savings that might be attributable to a developer by virtue [of tiering], can be achieved by incorporating by reference the environmental assessment called for in AB 1612.”
173 In support of this
claim, HCD cited OPR’s own CEQA guidelines, which broadly permit EIRs to incorporate documents re lated to “matter[s] of public record.”174 In HCD’s view, because streamlined EIRs would fall into this category of public-record documents, they could be incorporated into future EIRs, thus enabling tiering. 175 HCD’s argument appears to oversimplify the difference under CEQA between tiering off of a prior EIR and merely incorporating a source into a report. 176 Part III will return to this argument over tiering to further assess the strength of each side.
177
Hidden in HCD’s discussion of tiering is an implicit suggestion that the CEQA exemption did not apply to rezoning. One of OPR’s tiering arguments had rested on the premise that the CEQA exemption applied to zoning.
178 HCD countered OPR’s point by asserting that “the
situation under discussion” is one in which “an EIR has been prepared for a General Plan.”179 OPR was talking about a situation “when an EIR [is] . . . prepared for a ‘zoning action,’” 180 which is “does not apply” to AB 1612.181 As discussed in Part III, HCD’s understanding that the CEQA exemption did not apply to zoning conflicts with article 14’s timeline

173 Berg Memo, supra note 124, at 1.
174 Id.
175 Id.
176 Compare CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 14, § 15150(a) (2023) (explaining how documents may be incorporated into EIRs) with id. § 15152(a) (2023) (explaining how a prior EIR can be incorporated into a later EIR to achieve tiering). 177 See infra Part III.A.3.
178 Specifically, OPR had argued that a separate bill AB 1185, which enabled CEQA streamlining for certain site-specific projects, would not be available if a city opted into AB 1612’s CEQA exemption because that separate law required a standard zoning EIR to have been prepared in order to permit th e site-specific streamlining. Steiner Memo, supra note 122, at 1.
179 Berg Memo, supra note 124, at 1.
180 Id. (emphasis in original).
181 Id.

58 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
scheme.182 Nonetheless, it is notable that here — the only passage in the legislative record that discusses th e CEQA exemption’s applicability to zoning — we find a staunch propon ent of the bill presupposing its limited application.

Notably, HCD’s memos do not respond to OPR’s criticism regarding the enforcement of timelines. While the department emphasized the need for ambitious timeframes — claiming that the “interminable delays” of litigation “can thwart affordable housing projects” 183 — neither HCD memo addresses the unclear consequences of failing to meet those deadlines. Similarly, HCD offered no counterargument to OPR’s claim that standard CEQA review was beneficial and desirable in such situations. Like proponents in the legislature,
184 HCD appears to
have found the downside of CEQA litigation to outweigh the benefits of CEQA review so heavily as not to warrant a response.

AB 1612’s journey through the legi slature and the subsequent debate between HCD and OPR yield insights that one can use to interpret the resulting legislation, article 14. The historical record highlights the bill’s ambiguities, namely, the question s regarding timeline enforceability and tiering potential. It appears th at members of the government were fully aware of the potential for confusion from the beginning. Recall Governor Brown’s assurance that the bill’s author had “agreed to clarify such uncertainties” after enactment.
185 Setting aside the unanswered
question of what happened to this pr omised clarification, one can view the bill’s ultimate passing as evidence of the Governor’s endorsement of HCD’s and the bill’s proponents’ construction of the law. This construction involves several core viewpoints: the conviction that CEQA litigation was a primary impediment to the housing element law; the perceived need for rapid redress for non-compliant general plans; a lack of concern for the deadline-en forceability question; and the firm belief that tiering would be possible under section 65759.

Lastly, it is noteworthy how much of the discourse surrounding AB 1612 was concerned with CEQA ex emption as opposed to the bill’s

182 See infra Part III.A.1.
183 Terner Report, supra note 110, at 3.
184 See CHALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 7 (referring to the “wasteful effects of environmental lawsuits”).
185 Letter from Edmund G. Brown to the Members of the Cal. Assemb., supra note 5.

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 59 fifteen other provisions. 186 This disproportionate attention supports a view that the provision was not a mere expedience tacked onto the larger package. On the contrary, le gislators likely understood — as will be argued in Part III — that without the CEQA exemption, article 14’s procedure would be unworkable.
187
Considering the prominence of the CEQA exemption in the legislative record, one might be surprised by the lack of attention paid to section 65759 ever since.

B. Subsequent Application of Section 65759
In the forty years since California passed AB 1612, section 65759 has enjoyed little attention from appeals courts or legal scholarship. 188 In the absence of scholarly or appellate guidance, this Section will attempt to flesh out the CEQA exemption by considering two article-14 lawsuits resolved at the trial court level. The first, Peninsula Interfaith Action v.

City of Menlo Park ,
189 implemented the CEQA exemption, while the
second, Urban Habitat v. City of Pleasanton,190 did not. Discussion of these cases will illustrate how practitioners utilize section 65759 and consider the circumstances that lead parties to forgo the exemption.191

186 See supra note 162 and accompanying text.
187 See infra Part III.B.
188 See supra note 26 and accompanying text.
189 Peninsula Interfaith Action v. City of Menlo Park, No. CIV 513882, 2012 Cal.

Super. LEXIS 12215 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 13, 2012).
190 Urb. Habitat Program v. City of Plea santon, 164 Cal. App. 4th 1561 (2008). 191 These cases do not fully answer the ambi guities inherent in the statute but are included because they represent the most a pplicable case studies in section 65759 as could be located. The research procedure us ed in the preparation of this Note, which failed to uncover any more applicable cases, is as follows. First, Lexis and Westlaw were searched for any court document that r eferenced section 65759. Then, a list was compiled of article-14 lawsuits that were sustained in appellate review at the pleading or summary judgment stage. For a number of the cases on this list, superior court dockets were searched to find final judgments not uploaded to commercial databases.

60 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35

1. Peninsula Interfaith Action v. City of Menlo Park
In Peninsula Interfaith, a coalition of activist groups challenged Menlo Park over its long-running failure to implement a housing element. 192 Before the 2012 lawsuit, Menlo Pa rk had last updated its housing element in 1992, despite the state’ s requirement for an update every seven years. 193 Menlo Park’s non-compliance may have continued unchallenged had it not struck a deal with Facebook in 2011, allowing the company to relocate its headquarters to the City.194 The new Facebook campus would employ thousands of employees 195 and inevitably disrupt Menlo Park’s housing market. 196 Fearing a devastating impact on the City’s supply of affordable housing, advocates engaged the City in negotiations. 197 Ultimately, the parties agreed to a deal whereby Menlo Park would update its housing element and rezone for more affordable housing. 198 Notably, advocates filed suit under

192 Peninsula Interfaith, 2012 Cal. Super. LEXIS 12215, at *1. 193 Bonnie Eslinger, Menlo Park to Come Up with 1,975 More Homes Under Terms of Legal Settlement, M ERCURY NEWS (May 17, 2012, 2:24 PM), https://www.mercurynews. com/2012/05/17/menlo-park-to-come-up-with-1975-more-homes-under-terms-of-legal- settlement/ [https://perma.cc/5AWF-A2PQ].
194 Tom Krazit, It’s Official: Facebook Moving to Menlo Park, CNET (Feb. 8, 2011, 10:26 AM PST), https://www.cnet.com/culture/its -official-facebook-moving-to-menlo-park/ [https://perma.cc/7J4J-XTUB].

195 Facebook projected the campus would staff 9,400 employees, 28% of whom would be “lower-income.” Menlo Park Agrees to Welcome 1,000 Units of Affordable Housing, PUB. ADVOCS., https://www.publicadvocates.org/our-work/housing-justice/affordable-housing/peninsula- interfaith-action-et-al-v-city-menlo-park-menlo-park-city-council/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2022) [https://perma.cc/56XX-7WVY].

196 See Letter from Richard A. Marcantonio, Managing Att’y, Pub. Advocs., to Justin Murphy, Dev. Servs. Manager, Cmty. Dev. Dep’ t, Plan. Div., City of Menlo Park, at 13 (Jan. 30, 2012) (on file with Public Advocates) (explaining the “significant impacts that are caused or exacerbated by the un-addressed housing need that will be generated by” the new Facebook headquarters).

197 See id.
198 Peninsula Interfaith, 2012 Cal. Super. LEXIS 12215.

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 61 article 14 only after the parties had agreed on terms, 199 resulting in the parties filing their pre-negotiated settlement just one day later.200 The plaintiffs’ attorneys characteri zed the suit as a precautionary measure for the “unlikely event that the city did not comply with the terms.”201 However, according to Menlo Park’s then-City Attorney, William McClure, the decision to proceed with an article 14 settlement was explicitly made so the agreement could incorporate section 65759 and exempt the required housing element amendment from CEQA. 202 In McClure’s opinion, had it not been for the CEQA exemption, the “public comment [and] final EIR proc ess . . . would have taken several years to complete.”
203 Nonetheless, the settlement did not include
rezoning under the section 65759 exemption. 204 The parties noted that the statute did not apply to zoning “per se” and opted not to test the vague applicability in their settlement.
205
Rather than extend the section 65759 exemption to the rezoning projects, the parties claimed a separate CEQA exemption by labeling those projects “ministerial.” 206 Ministerial actions, as opposed to discretionary ones, are fully exempt from CEQA. 207 A n a c t i o n i s ministerial when the approval process does not “‘allow[] the government to shape the project in any way [by requiring modifications] which could respond to any of the concerns which might be identified’

199 Eslinger, supra note 193.
200 Sandy Brundage, Menlo Park Settles Housing Lawsuit, ALMANAC (May 17, 2012, 11:16 AM), https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2012/05/17/menlo-park-settles-housing-lawsuit [https://perma.cc/W6EX-4Z33].
201 Eslinger, supra note 193.
202 Letter from William L. McClure, Former Menlo Park City Att’y, to author (Nov. 20, 2022) (on file with author).

203 Id. (ellipses in original).
204 Peninsula Interfaith, 2012 Cal. Super. LEXIS 12215, at *16. 205 See Letter from William L. McClure to author, supra note 202. 206 Peninsula Interfaith, 2012 Cal. Super. LEXIS 12215, at *16. 207 C AL. PUB. RES. CODE § 21080 (b)(1) (2023). The rationale behind the ministerial exemption is that it would be pointless to conduct an environmental review of less impactful alternatives when the city has no discretion over the project. See Prentiss v.

City of South Pasadena, 15 Cal. App. 4th 85, 90 (1993).

62 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
by environmental review.” 208 According to Menlo Park, the housing element, as amended pursuant to the judgment, was “sufficiently specific [in its description of the rezoning parameters] that any follow- up approval [was] limited to a determination of compliance with conditions or provisions set forth” in the housing element. 209 Note the
strategy at play here: the housing element amendment’s streamlined review analyzed the rezoning programs as they were described therein, and that description was so specific as to make CEQA review ministerially unnecessary when it was time to enact the rezoning. In effect, the parties leveraged section 65759 to make the rezoning CEQA exempt without directly applying section 65759 to the rezoning projects.

The Peninsula Interfaith strategy of laying out rezoning parameters in the CEQA-exempted housing element enabled the parties to circumvent section 65759’s ambiguous applicabilit y to zoning. However, the city’s subsequent rezoning ordinance took a different approach which further exacerbated the zoning applicability question.
210 I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e
settlement,211 the ordinance itself claimed that “[t]he [ Peninsula Interfaith] Judgment incorporates Government Code Section 65759 . . . .

This ordinance is required to br ing the General Plan or relevant mandatory elements into compliance with State law and the court ordered Judgment. It is, ther efore, not subject to CEQA.” 212 So, while
the Peninsula Interfaith litigants avoided applying section 65759 in this way,213 fearing such an application was not covered by the statute “per se,”214 the resulting ordinance itself applied the section 65759 exemption directly to rezoning.215

208 Protecting Our Water & Env’t Res. v. County of Stanislaus, 10 Cal. 5th 479, 493 (2020) (quoting Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 191 Cal. App. 3d. 259, 267 (1987)).
209 M ENLO PARK, CA., ORDINANCE NO. 933 § 4 (2013).
210 See id. (enacting rezoning pursuant to the Peninsula Interfaith judgement and claiming CEQA exemption).

211 Which avoids any explicit discussion of the applicability of section 65759 to rezoning. See Peninsula Interfaith, 2012 Cal. Super. LEXIS 12215, at *16. 212 M ENLO PARK, CA., ORDINANCE NO. 933 § 4.
213 See Peninsula Interfaith , 2012 Cal. Super. LEXIS 12215, at *16. 214 Letter from William L. McClure to author, supra note 202. 215 M ENLO PARK, CA., ORDINANCE NO. 933 § 4.

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 63 Potentially recognizing the uncert ain legality of extending section 65759 to rezoning, the city doubled down on CEQA exemptions. The city claimed that “[i]f this ordinance were subject to CEQA,” that is, if section 65759 did not apply, “[t]his or dinance is ministerial in that the Housing Element indicates that the City ‘will’ take the actions identified in this ordinance” and therefore “[a]s a ministerial action, this ordinance is not a project subject to CEQA.”
216 B y c l a i m i n g b o t h a
ministerial and section 65759 exception, the Menlo Park ordinance highlights the uncertainty around CEQA’s application to rezoning in the article 14 context.

The Peninsula Interfaith settlement creatively frontloaded rezoning parameters into the CEQA-exempt housing element amendment to make the actual zoning ordinance ministerially exempt.
217 Does this
strategy negate the importance of the question of section 65759’s applicability to rezoning? That is, could all article-14 litigation use this workaround and thereby avoid full environmental review for rezoning without having to apply section 65 759 directly? Potentially. However, the strategy comes with a signific ant drawback regarding deadlines.

Section 65754 allows cities 120 days to enact a general plan amendment and an additional 120 days for subsequent rezoning.
218 But the Peninsula
Interfaith approach requires a city to finalize its rezoning parameters within the 120 days allotted for amending the general plan.219 In this way, the strategy effectively halves the time in which a city can develop plans to update its zoning. This approach was feasible in Menlo Park’s case because the settlement agreement, including the rezoning programs, was finalized before the petitioners filed suit.
220 However, former City
Attorney McClure speculates that this arrangement, where a lawsuit is brought after the parties agree to terms, is rare in article 14 litigation. 221
Although the Peninsula Interfaith strategy presents a creative workaround for the zoning-applicability question, it does not render the

216 Id.
217 See id.
218 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65754 (2023).
219 Otherwise, the General Plan amendment could not lay out the rezoning programs in specificity sufficient to make subsequent enactment ministerial. 220 Eslinger, supra note 193.
221 Letter from William L. McClure to author, supra note 202.

64 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
question moot because the approach might not suit all article-14 scenarios.

Lastly, aside from its relevance to the zoning-applicability question, Peninsula Interfaith is notable as an illustration of why article 14 litigation is relatively uncommon. Although HCD presently considers over thirty-six percent of jurisd ictions’ housing elements out of compliance, cities like Menlo Park can remain non-compliant for years without facing legal challenges.
222 Consider the unique circumstances
that led to the Peninsula Interfaith settlement. Menlo Park had been flagrantly non-compliant for over a decade; however, advocates successfully bargained for more housing only after a major tech company took up residence in the City. In this way, Peninsula Interfaith stands for both the power and the insufficiency of article 14.

2. Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton
Practitioners do not implement section 65759 in every applicable instance. In Urban Habitat, a group of housing advocates sued the city of Pleasanton, claiming that a local ordinance, which capped the number of units allowed in the City, invalidated the City’s general plan. 223
Initially, the trial court sustained Pleasanton’s demurrer to the petition, holding that the clai ms were time-barred, 224 but the dismissal was reversed on appeal. 225 On remand, Edmund Brown Jr., now serving as state attorney general (“the AG”), intervened on the petitioners’ side.226 Subsequently, the parties reached a settlement agreement requiring the City to repeal its housing cap — which would involve a housing element amendment — and rezone for more housing.227

222 Housing Element Implementation and APR Dashboard , supra note 48. 223 Urb. Habitat Program v. City of Pleasant on, 164 Cal. App. 4th 1561, 1568 (2008). 224 Id.
225 Id. at 1580.
226 Press Release, Off. of the Att’y Gen., Cal. Dep’t of Just., Brown Sues to Invalidate Pleasanton’s Illegal Housing Cap (June 24 , 2009), https://oag.ca.gov/news/press- releases/brown-sues-invalidate-pleasantons-illegal-housing-cap [https://perma.cc/4M8R- SYJZ].
227 Urb. Habitat Program v. City of Pleasant on, No. RG 06293831, exhibit A, at *5-6 (Cal. Super. Ct. Aug. 18, 2010) (judgment pursuant to stipulation) (on file with author).

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 65 Urban Habitat is frequently cited for its statute of limitations holding.228 However, the focus here will be the subsequent settlement.

The settlement is relevant because it simultaneously embraces some provisions of article 14 while disregarding section 65759.

Urban Habitat’s proceedings on remand showcase many of article 14’s provisions. Before the settlement, the trial court had applied section 65755 of article 14 to suspend the Ci ty’s power to issue non-residential building permits. 229 The settlement restored the City’s permitting authority,230 provided it amended its housing element according to the timeframe outlined in section 65754. 231 The court’s judgment authorizing the parties’ stipul ation made the CEQA exemption available.232 Nevertheless, the settlement required that the City’s amendment and rezoning actions undergo standard CEQA review instead of the streamlined procedure.
233 Subsection 65759(a)(4) permits
cities to follow standard CEQA procedure if they can still satisfy the statutory timeframes.
234 Because the settlement required that the City
complete its review within article 14’s timeframes, 235 it appears the parties elected to follow subsecti on 65759(a)(4)’s standard CEQA option.

It is curious that parties would commit to standard CEQA procedure when a streamlined option was available — even more so for these specific parties. The petitioners were represented by the same attorneys

228 See e.g. , Coastal Act Protectors v. City of Lo s Angeles, 75 Cal. App. 5th 526, 531 (2022) (declining to follow Urban Habita t’s statute of limitations precedent after distinguishing facts); Friends of the Children’s Pool v. City of San Diego, No. G053709, 2018 WL 2731698, at *14 (Cal. Ct. App. June 7, 2018) (applying Urban Habitat rule). 229 Urban Habitat , No. RG 06293831, exhibit A to exhibit A, at *8 (citing C AL. GOV’T CODE §§ 65755, 65760 (2023)).
230 Id. exhibit B, at *1 (citing C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65754 (2023)). 231 Id. attachment 2 to exhibit A to exhibit B, at *1 (citing C AL. GOV’T CODE §§ 65755, 65760 (2023)).
232 See CAL. GOV’T CODE § 65759(a) (2023).
233 Urb. Habitat , No. RG 06293831, exhibit B, at *2 (“[The] City will conduct appropriate environmental analysis in accordance with CEQA guidelines for actions identified in this Settlement Term Sheet.”).
234 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65759(a)(4).
235 Urb. Habitat, No. RG 06293831, exhibit D, at *1 (specifying the date for EIR completion within the 120 days of the fina l court order, satisfying section 65754’s timeframes).

66 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
who later utilized section 65759 in Peninsula Interfaith.236 The intervenor, the AG, was directly responsible for passing the CEQA exemption into law. Why, then, did the settlement embrace standard CEQA procedure? The answer has to do with a separa te, concurrent lawsuit that the AG had brought against Pleasanton, challenging the sufficiency of an EIR the City had finalized for an amendment to its general plan. 237 In the
Urban Habitat settlement, the AG agreed to dismiss this separate claim, provided the City fix the separately challenged EIR.238 However, the AG was “insistent” that the general plan amendment EIR undergo standard CEQA procedure.
239 It is likely that the relatedness of the various EIRs called for by the settlement (the housing element EIR was “based on” the general plan EIR)
240 meant it was more practical for all of the EIRs
to follow the same procedure.

The Peninsula Interfaith and Urban Habitat settlements demonstrate how advocates can leverage article 14 to create housing. However, these cases also portray a limited applicatio n of section 65759 in practice. In both instances, the parties declined to implement the CEQA exemption to the full extent potentially authorized by law — in Peninsula Interfaith, by not applying the exemption to rezoning, and in Urban Habitat, by not applying the exemption at all.

Legislators saw the CEQA exemption as an important, if not essential, aspect of AB 1612. However, because the provision has been used sparingly in practice, its ambiguities remain untested. Part III will assess whether insights from the legislative history help to clarify the questions surrounding the provision and reevaluate section 65759’s present usefulness.

236 Attorneys were members of Public Advocates, Inc. and the Public Interest Law Project. See Urb. Habitat Program v. City of Plea santon, 164 Cal. App. 4th 1561, 1565 (2008); Peninsula Interfaith Action v. City of Menlo Park, No. CIV 513882, 2012 Cal.

Super. LEXIS 12215, at *1 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 13, 2012). 237 Petition for Writ of Mandate, California ex rel. Brown v. City of Pleasanton, No.

RG 09469878 (Cal. Super. Ct. Aug. 21, 2009) (on file with author). 238 Urb. Habitat , No. RG 06293831, exhibit A, at *9.
239 Email from Michael Rawson, Dir. of Pub. In t. L. Project, to author (Sept. 26, 2022) (on file with author).
240 Urb. Habitat , No. RG 06293831, exhibit D, at *7.

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 67 III. R EASSESSING SECTION 65759
This Part seeks to reassess the potential utility of section 65759. First, Section A will reconsider the ambiguities present in the CEQA exemption. This discussion does not propose definitive answers to the unresolved questions. Instead, the intention is to consider how the legislative record supports different possible resolutions to the ambiguities. Section B considers sect ion 65759’s importance to article 14 litigation and takes a broad view of article 14’s role in the current effort to address the housing crisis.

A. Untested Ambiguities
In its analysis of section 65759’s ambiguities, this Section will discuss the following topics: first, how to enforce the provision’s deadlines; second, the provision’s applicability to zoning; and finally, the potential for tiering.

This discussion will apply established principles of statutory interpretation. Accordingly, the “fundamental task [will be] to ascertain the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the purpose of the statute.” 241
To that end, one must “read every statute with reference to the entire scheme of law of which it is part so that the whole may be harmonized and retain effectiveness.”
242

1. Timeline Enforcement
How are section 65759’s completion deadlines meant to be enforced? Are those deadlines mandatory or mere ly directory? Re call that before AB 1612’s enactment, OPR had home d in on these questions, arguing that the bill’s failure to specify consequences for delay created an “enforcement problem.”243 Combine this with the concern held by some lawmakers that the bill’s time lines were infeasibly short. 244 The result

241 Smith v. Superior Ct., 39 Cal. 4th 77, 83 (2006).
242 Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., 51 Cal. 4th 524, 529-30 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
243 Greene Report, supra note 161, at 4.
244 C HALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 9 (“[T]he [streamlined] EIR could not be completed in the time provided under this bill.”).

68 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
presents a serious issue: deadlines appeared likely to be missed, and the law allegedly failed to specify the consequences for such scenarios.245 If the bill’s proponents had an answ er to these concerns, it does not appear in the legislative record. 246 Nonetheless, the fact that the legislation passed unamended indicates that a majority of the legislature and Governor Brown understood the bill in such a way that made these concerns non-fatal to the bill’s effectiveness. Therefore, the question becomes, how did the majority of the legislature and Governor Brown understand the bill?
The majority likely understood the bill to provide consequences for delay. The plain language of the statute supports this construction. 247
Section 65759 instructs that cities shall conduct their environmental assessments within the specified timeframes.
248 The use of the word
“shall” — understood in the ordinary sense of the word — suggests that the instruction was more than merely directory.249
One might counter this plain-meaning interpretation by pointing to the rules governing CEQA’s deadlines . CEQA ostensibly demands that “each local agency shall establish . . . time limits that do not exceed . . . [o]ne year for completing and ce rtifying environmental impact reports.”
250 Despite this strong wording, courts have held that CEQA’s one-year deadline is directory, 251 meaning that failure to meet the

245 See Greene Report, supra note 161, at 4.
246 Not to mention the case law.
247 See CAL. GOV’T CODE § 65759 (2023); id. § 65754 (2023). 248 Id. § 65759.
249 See People v. Standish, 38 Cal. 4th 858, 869 (2006) (noting that “[o]rdinarily, the term ‘shall’ is interpreted as mandatory”); Conservatorship of Whitley, 155 Cal. App. 4th 1447, 1463 (2007) (“When used in a statute, ‘shall’ has been found to have ‘a peremptory meaning, and it is generally imperative or mandatory.’”). But see Bradley v. Lacy, 53 Cal.

App. 4th 883, 889 (1997) (exploring factors th at would lead a court to interpret “shall” as having a discretionary meaning and conc luding that, “there are unquestionably instances in which other factors will indicate that apparent obligatory language was not intended to foreclose a governmental entity ’s or officer’s exercise of discretion”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
250 C AL. PUB. RES. CODE § 21151.5(a)(1) (2023) (emphasis added). 251 Schellinger Bros. v. City of Sebastopol, 179 Cal. App. 4th 1245, 1260 (2009).

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 69 deadline does not result in an auto matic certification of the project. 252 In practical terms, this determinat ion has rendered CEQA’s deadlines “essentially unenforceable.”253
Because the section 65759 review process is supposed to substantially conform to Draft CEQA report parameters, 254 could one argue that section 65759’s timelines are likewise unenforceable? A broad view of article 14 and consideration of the legislative history indicates otherwise. Section 65759’s deadlines are in place “in order to meet the [timeframe] requirements imposed by Section 65754.”
255 It wouldn’t
make sense to apply CEQA’s timeline enforceability precedent to section 65759 when the statute makes the exemption’s timeframe subservient to section 65754. Give n the legislator’s conviction to expedite the procedure for correcti ng cities’ non-conforming general plans, it makes more sense that sections 65754 and 65759 should not be held to CEQA’s relaxed enforcement standards.

Legislators intended to dramatically reduce the time it took to challenge a city’s non-compliant general plan. To that end, they imposed a short deadline to achieve compliance
256 and created an expedited
environmental review timeframe that was explicitly in service of the compliance deadline.
257 Failing to enforce the environmental review
timeframe would create a situation where cities could not meet the section 65754 deadline, thereby betraying the legislature’s purpose.

What, then, should be the conseq uences for failing to meet the deadlines? One partial answer lies elsewhere in article 14, in section 65755.
258 Upon a judgment of non-compliance, section 65755 requires the court’s order to impose at least on e of six penalties limiting a city’s ability to make land use decisions. 259 For example, the first penalty

252 See id. at 1266 (“A public agency may be directed to comply with CEQA, or to exercise its discretion on a particular subjec t, but a court will not order that discretion to be exercised in a particular fashion, or to produce a particular result.”). 253 Elmendorf & Duncheon, s upra note 113, at 11.
254 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65759 (2023).
255 Id. § 65759(b).
256 Id. § 65754 (2023).
257 See id. § 65759(b).
258 Id. § 65755 (2023).
259 Id. § 65755(a).

70 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
suspends a city’s authority to issue building permits. 260 These penalties must remain in place until the city achieves substantial compliance with the general plan requirements. 261 Therefore, if a local agency fails to finish its section 65759 review within the deadline, consequently failing to achieve general plan compliance within section 65754’s timeframe, the penalty imposed by section 65755 will continue to constrict the city’s planning authority.

So, the city has some motivation to achieve general-plan compliance, if for no other reason than to get out from under the burden of section 65755. However, section 65755 is ulti mately insufficient as a deadline enforcement mechanism because the pressure placed on the city remains constant before and after the deadline passes. 262 Missing the deadline does nothing to change the motivational potency of section 65755.
263 In effect, section 65755 enforces compliance but not punctual compliance.

Given the legislature’s interest in expediting the article-14 procedure, determining the appropriate enforcement mechanism requires and deserves further research.

2. Applicability to Zoning
Does the CEQA exemption apply to rezoning efforts? Recall that the CEQA exemption purports to apply to “any action necessary to bring [a city’s] general plan or relevant mandatory elements of the plan into compliance with any court order or judgment . . . .”
264 Aspects of section
65759 point in contradictory dire ctions regarding the provision’s applicability to zoning. The fact that the 240-day deadline for environmental review
265 tracks with the 240-day timeframe for
completing both general plan amendment and rezoning suggests that the exemption covers zoning. 266 However, the understanding that invalid

260 Id. § 65755(a)(1).
261 Id. § 65755(a).
262 See id. § 65755.
263 See id.
264 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65759 (2023).
265 Id. § 65759(b).
266 Id. § 65754 (2023).

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 71 zoning generally cannot invalidate a general plan suggests that zoning is not an action necessary to bring a general plan into compliance.267 The legislative record accentuates this ambiguity. Individuals at HCD thought the exemption would not cover zoning and alleged that OPR erroneously took zoning applicability for granted.
268 However, if a city’s
rezoning were subject to full CEQA review and therefore vulnerable to litigation, cities would often be unab le to complete their rezone within the 240-day window required by section 65754. 269 Peninsula Interfaith demonstrates a workaround whereby cities can exempt their zoning ordinance from CEQA review by fully outlining the rezoning programs in their general plan amendments and conducting a streamlined environmental review of those programs at that stage.
270 However, this
workaround strategy further limits the time in which rezoning can be planned,
271 essentially undermining the extra 120 days statutorily allotted to rezoning. 272 Consequently, interpreting the exemption as applying to rezoning is arguably necessary to maintain the overall effectiveness of article 14.

To further complicate the picture, consider that in certain situations, the housing element law explicitly requires cities to rezone in order to gain general plan compliance.273 For example, government code section 65583(c)(1)(A)274 states that when a city fails to plan for adequate, affordable housing in its housing el ement’s inventory of housing, the city must rezone to meet its allotted housing need within three years of the deadline for enacting the housing element. 275 Another example of housing element law affirmatively requiring rezoning is section 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii), enacted in 2021. 276 This provision states that when

267 See supra text accompanying notes 114–116.
268 See supra text accompanying notes 176–179.
269 See CHALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 9.
270 See Peninsula Interfaith Action v. City of Menlo Park, No. CIV 513882, 2012 Cal.

Super. LEXIS 12215, at *16 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 13, 2012). 271 See supra notes 207–209 and accompanying text.
272 See CAL. GOV’T CODE § 65754 (2023).
273 See id. § 65583(c)(1)(A) (2023); id. § 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii) (2023). 274 See supra text accompanying notes 52–56.
275 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65583(c)(1)(A) (citing to the deadline in C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65588).
276 See Act on Feb. 23, 2021, ch. 6, 2021 Cal. Stat. 88, 92.

72 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
a city fails to enact a housing element within a year of the statutory deadline, its general plan “shall not be found in substantial compliance” with the state law until it rezones to meet its regional share of housing.
277
Under these provisions, rezoning is necessary to satisfy the housing element law and, therefore, can be seen as an action necessary to bring a city’s general plan into compliance. If a city’s non-compliance falls under one of these provisions, there is all the more reason to cover its rezoning with section 65759. However, when article 14 and its CEQA exemption were enacted, the housing element law had no provisions affirmatively mandating rezoning.
278 Because the legislature enacted
these mandatory rezoning provisio ns (which make general plan compliance dependent on rezoning) after it enacted the CEQA exemption (applying to actions taken to bring a general plan into consistency), it is unclear whether such actions are meant to be covered by the exemption.

Here we have two inconsistent in terpretations, neither cleanly flowing from the plain language of the statue. Each construction can claim the support of a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation.

Deferring to the legislative record
279 favors an interpretation that
excludes zoning from the CEQA exemption. However, prioritizing the harmony and effectiveness of th e larger legislative package 280 supports
the conclusion that zoning should be covered. Due to the strength of each argument, this uncertainty likel y will need to be resolved through litigation.

3. Tiering
To what extent does the streamlined procedure called for by the CEQA exemption allow future site-specific EIRs to use tiering? Recall

277 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii).
278 See Act of Sept. 26, 1980, ch. 1143, 1980 Cal. Stat. 3694, 3697 (enacting the requirements for the housing element, as they existed at the time the legislature enacted article 14).
279 As is instructed by Smith v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. 4th 77, 83 (2006). 280 As is instructed by Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc ., 51 Cal. 4th 524, 529-30 (2011).

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 73 that OPR and HCD disagreed over this question as well. 281 OPR expressed concern that section 65759’s streamlined EIRs would be inadequate for tiering purposes. 282 In response, HCD argued that a streamlined EIR could be incorporated by reference into future EIRs.283 “Thus, any cost savings . . . attributable to . . . incorporating by reference a General Plan EIR . . . can be achieved by incorporating by reference the environmental assessment called for in AB 1612.”
284 This statement
overlooks the fact that, under CEQA, incorporation by reference is not the same as tiering.285
HCD correctly points out that site-specific EIRs can incorporate more than just prior programmatic EIRs, 286 as CEQA broadly permits the incorporation of documents in the public record. 287 It is also true that tiering procedure involves “i ncorporation by reference.” 288 However, the CEQA guidelines state that tierin g is specifically the incorporation of prior EIRs.289 Environmental reports commonly incorporate analysis from separate documents, but these reports are not seen as tiered reports if the incorporated material is not an EIR.290
By conflating the effects of incorporation by reference with that of tiering, HCD’s rebuttal fails to address OPR’s concern that section 655759 EIRs would be inadequate for tiering purposes. However, one could argue that section 65759 EIR should be considered an EIR under CEQA’s tiering guidelines. The contents of a section 65759 EIR must substantially conform to the substantive requirements of a draft CEQA

281 See supra text accompanying notes 172–176.
282 Steiner Memo, supra note 122, at 1.
283 Berg Memo, supra note 124, at 1 (citing a section of the CEQA guidelines later recodified as CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 14, § 15150(a) (2023)). 284 Id.
285 Compare CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 14, § 15150(a) (2023) (explaining how documents may be incorporated by reference into EIRs), with id. § 15152(a) (2023) (explaining how a prior EIR can be incorporated into a later EIR to achieve tiering). 286 C AL. CODE REGS. tit. 14, § 15150(a).
287 Id.
288 Id. § 15152(a).
289 Id.
290 See id. § 15152(a) (“‘Tiering’ refers to usin g the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR . . . .”).

74 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
EIR.291 Meaning that a 65759 EIR will contain all the same analysis as a standard EIR, with the key differences being the lack of opportunity for public comment and the resulting lack of revision in response to public comment.
292 Forgoing the public comment and revision requirements reduces the time it takes to finalize the report. 293 However, skipping these steps does not necessarily change the general character of the information in the document or its level of detail. 294 Therefore, there is arguably little reason why section 65759 EIRs should not enable tiering.

The legislative history leaves open the question of whether a section 65759 EIR constitutes an EIR as requ ired by CEQA’s tiering guidelines.

This issue will likely remain unresolved until it is brought up on appeal.

Furthermore, if developers cannot tier off section 65759 EIRs, to what extent could they still benefit from incorporating the analysis from the streamlined reports? Answering these questions will improve the effectiveness of article 14 litigation by providing certainty to developers.

Rezoning for higher density is a positive step, but actually building homes requires developers to willingly take on new projects. 295 So long
as the CEQA exemption’s tiering ambiguity makes the cost of environmental review for site-specific projects unclear, it will be harder for cities to engage with developers and, thereby, harder to turn denser zoning into new houses.

Closely reading article 14 and its legislative history sheds light on section 65759’s ambiguities. That sa id, these questions will ultimately need to be resolved through either litigation or legislative amendment.

291 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65759(a)(2) (2023).
292 Compare CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 14 §§ 15122-31 (2023) (detailing the requirements for a draft EIR), with id. § 15132 (2023) (describing the additional steps involved in finalizing an EIR).
293 See City of Irvine v. County of Orange, 238 Cal. App. 4th 526, 557 (2015) (noting that “the comment-and-response process can also be abused, . . . becom[ing] an end in itself, simply a means by which project opponents can subject a lead agency’s staff to an onerous series of busywork requests”).
294 Evidenced by the fact that, under standard CEQA procedure, cities may ignore public comments that do not raise signific ant environmental issues. Browning-Ferris Indus. v. City Council, 181 Cal. App. 3d 85 2, 862 (1986) (“[A] lead agency need not respond to each comment made during the review process, [only] the most significant environmental questions presented.”).
295 See PUB. INT. L. PROJECT, supra note 46, at 27-28.

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 75 The likelihood that an appeals court considers these issues rests partly on housing advocates and developers and their willingness to utilize the CEQA exemption in a manner that implicates its ambiguities. Forty years of uneventful history indicates that there has been little appetite to pursue those issues in court. The following section considers the present usefulness of the CEQA exemption and whether the provision deserves more attention.

B. Section 65759’s Utility in the On going Fight for Housing Development Section 65759 is critical to the effe ctiveness of article 14 litigation.

Furthermore, article 14 has an impo rtant role in the legal fight for housing development. Accordingly, th is section concludes that section 65759 deserves renewed attention, if for no other reason than to clarify how exactly the provision works with respect to enforcement, zoning, and tiering.

1. Section 65759’s Importance to Article 14
Section 65759 is key to the effectiveness of article 14 litigation.

Without the CEQA exemption’s am bitious deadlines, the primary purpose behind AB 1612 — “increase[ing] the speed at which local governments act to adopt adequate general plans”
296 — is negated. Any
action to adopt a compliant general plan cannot proceed without completing an environmental review.
297 So, if that review is permitted
to drag out,298 a city cannot make progress toward compliance.

Furthermore, an integral benefit of section 65759 is that it insulates a city’s environmental review from legal challenge. 299 General plan amendments and zoning ordinances are frequently the targets of CEQA litigation.300 CEQA litigants often feign environmental concern as a pretext for anti-development goals. 301 Without the protection of the

296 C HALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 7.
297 See CAL. GOV’T CODE § 65759(b) (2023) (acknowledging that environmental review must be complete “to meet the requirements imposed” by article 14). 298 As is often the case. See Coon & Rowan, supra note 81, at 436. 299 C AL. GOV’T CODE § 65759(a)(3).
300 See HERNANDEZ ET AL., IN THE NAME OF THE ENVIRONMENT, supra note 12, at 48. 301 See id. at 6.

76 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
CEQA exemption, acts taken to bring a city’s general plan into compliance are vulnerable to this sort of litigation.

The legislature intended that, upon a finding of non-compliance, cities would adopt adequate general plans and zoning within 240 days.302 The viability of this proposition de pends on section 65759 and how the law’s uncertainties are ultimately resolved. Determining whether or not the exemption applies to zoning or whether its timelines are enforceable will substantially affect the likelihood that cities can achieve compliance as quickly as lawmakers intended.

2. Article 14’s Importance to Housing Development
Section 65759 plays a crucial role in article 14. Furthermore, forty years after its enactment, article 14 remains a viable tool for housing advocates. A major strength of article 14 is that it takes discretion away from local governments and their constituencies.
303 Politically speaking,
i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o c r e a t e m o r e h o u s i n g . O f t e n , p r e s s u r e f r o m v o c a l residents is an insurmountable hurdle for local governments as they work to enact an adequate housing element.
304 A report on the issue of
housing element non-compliance by the Public Policy Institute of California found that “[w]here growth is a hot-button issue, production and affordability goals may take a back seat to political exigencies.” 305
Under these circumstances, article-14 enforcement allows local officials — whose pro-development actions are compelled by court order — to simultaneously address their city’s need for housing while saving face in front of their growth-averse constituents.

So long as cities fail to maintain adequate housing elements, 306 article
14 litigation will remain a necessary expedient in the fight for housing development, and while litigants continue to use CEQA to stall progress, section 65759 will remain essential to the effectiveness of

302 See CAL. GOV’T CODE § 65754 (2023).
303 See, e.g. , id. § 65755(a) (2023) (listing penalties that strip cities of their land use authority); id. § 65759 (removing the role of public comment in environmental review). 304 See LEWIS, supra note 33, at 42 (“[A] history of disputes between city officials and citizen groups on growth issues, may cont ribute to community rancor that makes officials wary of advancing a plan for additional housing development.”). 305 Id.
306 See Housing Element Implementation and APR Dashboard , supra note 48.

2024] The Uneventful History of Government Code Section 65759 77 article 14. Furthermore, article 14 litigation is potentially growing in importance thanks to recent legisl ative actions. Over the past seven years, the California legislature has enacted over eighty laws aimed at addressing the state’s urgent need for housing development.307 Many of these laws work by strengthening the requirements and penalties of the housing element law.
308 These changes have been met with optimism by
some advocates. 309 At the very least, by strengthening the housing element law, the legislature has potentially created more opportunities for housing element litigation under article 14. With this heightened potential for petitions against non-compliant general plans comes a heightened importance on the provisions meant to bolster those actions, such as section 65759.

However, the full impact of the CEQA exception will remain unclear until its ambiguities are resolved. By implementing section 65759 in w a y s t h a t t e s t i t s b o u n d a r i e s , s u c h a s b y a p p l y i n g i t t o z o n i n g , demanding the enforcement of its deadlines, or tiering off its reports, housing advocates and developers could bring about litigation that finally clarifies the provision.

ONCLUSION
In a letter to the Governor, a le gal advocate with California Rural Legal Assistance complained that “[h] ousing production is at a 35-year low and housing costs are rising in part because of inadequate supply.”310 The letter partly attributed the inadequate supply to CEQA and urged

307 H ERNANDEZ, ANTI-HOUSING CEQA LAWSUITS, supra note 15, at 1. 308 See, e.g. , Act of Sept. 28, 2021, ch. 358, 2021 Cal. Stat. 5733, 57334 (amending the housing element law to “require a local government that fails to adopt a housing element . . . in substantial compliance with state law within 120 days of the statutory deadline to complete [separately required] rezoning”).
309 According to the pro-housing advocacy gr oup, California YIMBY, “[t]he paradigm shift in housing element law. . . could bring about a sea change in how cities meet their mandates for adequate shelter of their constituents.” The Elements of Housing Elements:

A Phase Change to Greater Production? , C AL. YIMBY (Feb. 12, 2021), https://cayimby.org/the-elements-of-housing-elements-a-phase-change-to-greater- production/ [https://perma.cc/E9BS-7QQ4].
310 Letter from Marcus B. Brown, Jr., Legis. Advoc., Law Offs. of Cal. Rural Legal Assistance, to Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor of Cal. (Jan. 28, 1982) (on file with the California State Archives).

78 UC Davis Law Review Online [Vol. 57:35
the Governor to put a stop to its “lengthy litigation,” which sometimes delayed development projects for years.311 The letter, which encouraged the Governor to support AB 1612, was written forty years ago, 312 but its sense of urgency is evocative of the current discourse surrounding housing in California.

By enacting AB 1612, the legislature and Governor Brown intended to fix the twin problems of cities that failed to comply with the state’s housing requirements and CEQA litigants who thwarted cities that were willing to comply.
313 The results have been mixed at best: regarding the
former problem, non-compliant cities, over thirty-six percent of jurisdictions currently do not have adequate housing elements; 314
regarding the latter problem, CE QA litigation, section 65759 theoretically provides a solution, but the exemption’s persistent uncertainties leave its ultimate effe ctiveness in question. Clearly, AB 1612’s drafters had loftier goals for their bill. Further attention given to section 65759 in litigation would serve those legislative goals.

311 Id.
312 Id.
313 C HALLENGES AND REMEDIES, supra note 1, at 7.
314 Housing Element Implementation and APR Dashboard , supra note 48.

From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Written communication for 4/16 Council meeting: No attachment for the HE study session? Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:30:54 AM
Attachments: CHAPTER_4_2023-2031_Housing_Element_2.16.24_revised_3.20.24.pdf Appendix_B_-_Introduction_2.15.24.pdf
Appendix_B1_-_Public_Participation_3.28.24.pdf
Appendix_B2_-_Housing_Needs_Assessment_2.15.24.pdf
Appendix_B3_-_Fair_Housing_Assessment_2.26.24.pdf
Appendix_B4_-_Housing_Resources_and_Opportunities_2.26.24_revised_3.20.24.pdf Appendix_B5_-_Housing_Constraints_Energy_Conservation_2.16.24_revised_3.20.24.pdf Appendix_B6_-_Review_of_Previous_HE_2.15.24.pdf
To ensure the completeness of the meeting record for future reference, please enter this email and its attachment into the meeting record.

See the enclosed email on the reasons why it is important to have a complete meeting record for transparency and accountability.

Attached please find the Revised Third Draft of the Housing Element.

Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:30 PM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Debra Nascimento <[email protected]> Cc: Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>; Luke Connolly <[email protected]> Subject: Re: No attachment for the HE study session?

I think legally we should include materials relevant to an agenda item so that the public can refer back to the item and know what's being referenced many years later. It is a matter of keeping public record for a council meeting.

In the past, the city has updated the agenda by Friday afternoon, which still complies with the 72-hour requirement per the Brown Act. This, there is still time to add attachments, if the staff wishes to.

The engagecupertino site is a temporary site which will be removed after the project is over.

The documents are not posted on the city website. Even if it is posted on the city website, the city webpage could also be changed after the project is finished.

Thus, it's important that the HE draft itself, to be discussed in the study session, is included in the agenda packet for the meeting record, especially since the draft has not been put in any previous council agenda.

For example, I have tried to watch meeting videos and read agenda packets from the 2014 council meetings for Housing Element.

I didn't have to look around to find the draft Housing Element being discussed at the meeting .

I hope that we continue the tradition of providing relevant meeting materials in the agenda packet so that the meeting record is complete.

Not just for the attendees today, but for future reference when people have to look it up years later.

Thank you for your help to ensure transparency and accountability of the city government.

Appreciate all that you do.

Liang
Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:52 AM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>; Debra Nascimento <[email protected]> Cc: Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>; Luke Connolly <[email protected]> Subject: RE: No attachment for the HE study session?

Councilmember Chao, as mentioned during the prep session yesterday, staff plans to present the progress that has been made since July. Link to the draft has been published on City’s website for sometime and I believe members of the public is fully aware of its location.

As for the HCD letter received yesterday, we’ll be sure to share the good news on Tuesday as well.

Thank you for your suggestions.

Pamela

Pamela Wu
City Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-1322

From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 9:39 PM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>
Cc: Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>; Luke Connolly <[email protected]> Subject: No attachment for the HE study session?

A resident informed me that there is no staff report and no attachment at all for the study session on the Housing Element.

https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6631832&GUID=CB1DD9B5- CC08-47AF-981C-B386473BC97F&Options=&Search=

I am wondering whether attachments will be added later? Perhaps, at the very minimum, the latest draft, and if possible, the HCD letter received today.

Thank you for helping to make it easier for the public to access information on the agenda item.

Liang

Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING | cupertino community vision 2040 City of Cupertino
2023-2031 Housing Element HCD
Submittal Draft 3 - February 2024
Revised March 2024

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040)

H‐i
Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ H-1 Role and Content of the Housing Element .................................................................................... H-1 California’s Housing Crisis ............................................................................................................. H-2 Summary of Key Facts .......................................................................................................... ........ H-2 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ......................................................................................... ... H-4 Regional Housing Needs Allocation ............................................................................................. . H-5 2 Goals, Policies, and Strategies ................................................................................. H-9 Quantified Objectives ......................................................................................................... ......... H-62 Tables
Table H-1 Regional Housing Need Allocation - Cupertino .................................................................... H-5 Table H-2 Quantified Objectives Summary ....................................................................................... . H-62

Housing Element Revisions:

Revisions in October 2023 draft - redline edits
Revisions in November 2023 draft - yellow highlights
Revisions in February 2024 draft - green highlights
Revisions in March 2024 draft - teal highlights

H‐1

1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Cupertino (herein after “City”) is a community with a high quality of life, a renowned school system, and a robust high-technology economy. The long-term vitality of the City and the local economy depend upon the availability of all types of housing to meet the community’s diverse housing needs. As Cupertino looks towards the future, incr easing the range and diversity of housing options will be integral to the City’s success. Consistent with the goal of being a balanced community, this Housing Element continues the City’s commitment to ensuring new opportunities for residential development, as well as for preserving and enhancing our existing neighborhoods.

This 2023-2031 Housing Element repr esents the City of Cupertino's intent to plan for the housing needs of the Cupertino community while meeting the State's housing goals as set forth in Article 10.6 of the California Government Code. The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every Californian as the State's major housing goal. The Cupertino Housing Element represents a sincere and creative effort to meet local and regional housing needs within the constraints of being a fully established built-out community with limited land availability and extraordinarily high costs of land and housing.

ROLE AND CONTENT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
This Housing Element is a comprehensive eight-year plan to address the housing needs in Cupertino.

The Housing Element is the City’s primary po licy document regarding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population.

Per State Housing Element law, the document must be periodically updated to:
 Outline the community’s housing production obj ectives consistent with State and regional growth projections;
 Describe goals, policies and implementation strategies to achieve local housing objectives;  Examine the local need for housing with a focus on special needs populations;  Identify adequate sites for the production of housing serving various income levels;  Analyze potential constraints to new housing production;  Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other General Plan elements; and  Evaluate Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

This 6th Cycle Housing Element covers an eight-year planning period, from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031 and replaces the City's 5th Cycl e Housing Element that covered January 31, 2015 through January 31, 2023 planning period.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐2

CALIFORNIA’S HOUSING CRISIS
The 6th Cycle Housing Element update comes at a critic al time because California is experiencing a housing crisis, and as is the case for all jurisdicti ons in California, Cupertino must play its part in meeting the growing demand for housing. In th e coming 20-year period, Santa Clara County is projected to add 169,450 jobs, 1 which represents a 15 percent in crease. These changes will increase demand for housing across all income levels, and if the region can’t identify ways to significantly increase housing production, it risks worsening the burden for existing lower-income households, many of whom don’t have the luxury or skill set to move to new a job center but that are nonetheless faced with unsustainable increases in housing cost.

If the region becomes less competitive in attracting high-skilled workers and increasingly unaffordable to lower-income workers and seniors, then so cial and economic segregation will worsen, only exacerbating historic patterns of housing discrimination, racial bias, and segregation. This potentiality has become so acute in recent years that the Cali fornia Legislature addressed the issue with new legislation in 2018. SB 686 requires all state and local agencies to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of housing segregation to foster more inclusive communities.

This is commonly referred to as Affirmative Furthering Fair Housing, or AFFH.

Cupertino has had modest success in meeting its housing needs. During the 2015–2023 planning period, Cupertino added 418 546 new units to its housing stock, achieving approximately 39 51 percent of the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which called for the construction of 1,064 housing units. Of the units built, approximately 48 41 percent (201 225 units) were affordable to lower- and moderate-income households, 2 and 5 92 percent were affordable to above moderate-income households.

SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS
Cupertino is renowned as a center of innovation in Silicon Valley that far surpasses its moderate size.

Around the world, Cupertino is famous as the home of high-tech giant Apple Inc. In the San Francisco Bay Area, Cupertino is known as one of the founding cities of Silicon Valley and as a city with excellent public schools. Quality schools and closeness to technology jobs make Cupertino a desirable address for a highly educated and culturally diverse population. The following is a summary of key demographic and economic facts about Cupertino:

POPULATION
 Generally, the population of the Bay Area contin ues to grow because of natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The population of Cupertino increased by 17.7 percent from 2000 to 2020, which is above the growth rate of the Bay Area, primarily due to annexations of large portions of County unincorporated areas;

1 Source: Plan Bay Area, Projections 2040. Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, November 2018.
2 Source: City of Cupertino post construction surveys.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐3
 Population growth in Cupertino began leveling off in 2014, with the county and regional growth index rates increasing, albeit slowly, while Cupertino’s growth has stagnated.;  Cupertino has a higher Asian population compared to the county (68 percent of residents identify as Asian). The City’s residents have gr own less racially diverse since 2000 with the Asian population increasing by 22 percentage points.

EMPLOYMENT
 Cupertino residents most commonly work in th e Financial & Professional Services industry.

From January 2010 to January 2021, the unem ployment rate in Cupertino decreased by 5.0 percentage points. Between 2010 and 2018, the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction increased by 19,322 (59.1 percent).

HOUSEHOLDS
 Most households in Cupertino earn more than 100 percent of the regional Area Median Income (AMI), and this is true across most racial and ethnic groups. Hispanic and non-Hispanic White households have the most income diversity.
 Poverty rates highlight the disparity in income and opportunities by race, with the Hispanic (16.7 percent) and Black/African American (16.9 percent) populations experiencing disproportionately higher poverty rates. No other group is above 7 percent.  The City is home to very high performing schools. According to educational opportunity indices, every census tract in Cupertino scores higher than 0.75—indicating the highest positive educational outcomes. The City is home to very high performing schools.

HOUSING STOCK
 Since 2010, Cupertino has only added 502 housing units out of 22,267 total units (about two percent of total stock). A little more than 300Close to 550 residential permits were issued between 2015 and 20192022. Jobs have grown significantly since 2004, with nearly all of the growth due to a boost in manufacturing and wholesale jobs (likely technology related jobs) , which increased by nearly 26,000 from 200219,322 since 2010 . At two jobs per household, housing these new workers would have required construction of more than 9,00012,000 housing units. Cupertino’s jobs to household ratio is 2.60—far higher than Santa Clara County overall (1.71) or the Bay Area (1.47).
 Access to Cupertino is limited by housing pricing and supply. Eighty-three percent (83 percent) of houses in the area are valued over $1 million. Zillow reports anthe average market value of $2.25 million, significantly above the county’s and Bay area’s market values. Fifty-seven percent (57 percent) of Cupertino’s housing units are single family units. The next closest share is multifamily at 21 percent of units, followed by 12 percent attached units and 10 percent du/tri/fourplexes. While owners mostly occu py 3- to 4-bedroom homes (72 percent), 68 percent of renters occupy 1- or 2-bedroom units.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐4

 Renters, who make up 40 percent of all households in the City , are facing the same cost pressures as owners with 87 percent of units renting for more than $2,000 per month, and 52 percent renting for $3,000 and mo re. Just 14 percent of the City’s rental units rent for $2,000 per month and less. The Ccounty has almost three times the proportion of rentals priced under $2,000 than the City.
 Regionally, mortgage denial rates are modest (14 per cent to 17 percent of loans denied) and vary little across races and ethnicities ex cept for Black/African American applicants , who are more frequently denied.

OVERPAYMENT
 There are disparities in housing cost burden in Cupertino by race and ethnicity—and minimally by tenure (renters/owners). Hispanic households experience by far the highest rates of cost burden in the City ( 45 43.8 percent) followed by. Asian households at ( 28.1 percent), non- Hispanic White households at (27 26.6 percent), and Black/African American households at (11 percent. ) CHAS data did not report any American Indian and Alaska Native households overpaying for housing. households are least likely to be cost burdened.  Barriers to housing choice are largely related to the City’s very high costs of housing and lack of affordable production of sufficient affordable housing . Since 2015, the while the City has not denied any housing developments, housing that has receivedfor which building permits have been requested to accommodate growth has largel y been priced for above moderate- income households (215 321 units or 70 58.8 percent of all units), followed by moderate income households ( 74 158 or 24 28.9 percent). No permitsForty-eight (48) 48 building permit applications were received and issued for low-income units and just 19 building permit applications were received and issued for very low-income units, totaling 546 permits.

SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS
 Cupertino has a lower proportion of residents with disabilities than the county. However, Uunemployment among residents with disabilities is higher relatively highrelative to those without a disability , with 16 percent of Cupertino resi dents with a disability unemployed, compared to 3 percent of residents without a disability.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
In 2018, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686), signed in 20 18, established an independent state mandate to AFFH. AB 686 extends requirements for federal grantees an d contractors to “affirmatively further fair housing,” including requirements in the federal Fair Housing Act, to public agencies in California.

Affirmatively furthering fair housing is defined sp ecifically as taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housi ng needs and in access to opportunity by replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns; transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into ar eas of opportunity; and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐5
AB 686 requires public agencies to:
 Administer their programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing;
 Not take any action that is materially inconsisten t with the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing;
 Ensure that the program and actions to achi eve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element affirmatively further fair housing; and
 Include an assessment of fair housing in the Housing Element.

The AFFH requirement AFFH is derived from The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and fina ncing of housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex—and was later amended to in clude familial status and disability. The 2015 U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and California Assembly Bill 686 (2018) mandate that each jurisdiction takes meaningful action to address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity. AB 686 requires that jurisdictions incorporate AFFH into their Housi ng Elements, which includes inclusive community participation, an assessment of fair housing, a site inventory reflective of AFFH, and the development of goals, policies, and programs to meaningfully address local fair housing issues.

REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 6558 4, the State, regional councils of government (in this case, ABAG), and local governments must collectively determine each locality’s share of regional housing need allocation (RHNA). In conjunction with the State mandated housing element update cycle that requires Bay Area jurisdictions to update their elements by January 31, 2023, ABAG has determined housing unit production needs for each jurisdiction within the Bay Area. These allocations set housing production goals for the pl anning period that runs from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031 (Table H-1).

Table H-1 – Regional Housing Need Allocation - Cupertino Income Group Unit Allocation Percent
Very Low Income (<50% of AMI) 1,193 26.0%
Low Income (50%-80% of AMI) 687 15.0%
Moderate Income (80%-120% of AMI) 755 16.5%
Above Mod. Income (>120% of AMI) 1,953 42.6%
Total 4,588 100.0%
SOURCE: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Final Methodology, 2021 *It is assumed that 50 percent of the very low- income category (596 units) is allocated to the extremely low-income category.

AMI = Area Median Income
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐6

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE SITES FOR HOUSING
The purpose of the adequate sites analysis is to dem onstrate that a sufficient supply of land exists in the City to accommodate the fair share of the region’s housing needs during the RHNA projections Housing Element planning period (January 31, 2023 – January 31, 2031). The Government Code requires that the Housing Element include an “inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the poten tial for redevelopment” ((Section 65583[a][3]). It further requires that the Element analyze zoning an d infrastructure on these sites to ensure housing development is feasible during the planning period.

Figure HE-1 indicates the potential opportunity sites to meet the identified regional housing need pursuant. More detailed maps are available in Appendix B4.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐7
Figure HE-1 Potential Priority Housing Sites Inventory Map

Source: City of Cupertino, 2023
Note: Maps reflect the current parcel boundaries rather than the developable area assumed for redevelopment.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐8

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐9
2 GOALS, POLICIES, AND STRATEGIES
The City is responsible for enabling the production of housing by reducing regulatory barriers, providing incentives, and supporti ng programs that create or preserve housing, especially for vulnerable populations. To enable the construction of quality housing, the City has identified the following goals:

Goal HE-1: An adequate supply of residential units for all economic segments; Goal HE-2: Housing is affordable for a diversity of Cupertino households; Goal HE-3: Stable and physically sound residential neighborhoods; Goal HE-4: Energy and water conservation;
Goal HE-5: Special services for lower-income and special- needs households; Goal HE-6: Equal access to housing opportunities; and
Goal HE-7: Coordination with regional organizations, and local school districts, and colleges.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐10

GOAL HE-1 AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR ALL

ECONOMIC SEGMENTS
Policies
Policy HE-1.1 Provision of Adequate Capacity for New Construction Need. Designate sufficient land at appropriate densities to accommodate Cupertino’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 4,588 units for the 2023-2031 planning period. (Formerly Policy HE-1.1)
Policy HE-1.2 Housing Densities. Provide a full range of densities for ownership and rental housing.
(Formerly Policy HE-1.2)
Policy HE-1.3 Mixed- Use Development. Encourage mixed-use development near transportation facilities and employment centers.
(Formerly Policy HE-1.3)
Policy HE-1.43 Priority Housing Sites. meeting’sWith the exception of Sites 1a, 1b, 1c, 3a, 3c 5c, and 5d, each site listed in Table B4-3 (Appendix B, Part 4 of this 6 th Cycle Housing Element) is hereby design ated the status of “Priority Housing Sites,” as that term is used in the Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (E)(2),.3 Accordingly, the minimum number of units listed for each of these sites in Table B4-3 shall be allowable by right without need for rezoning or any other discretionary action on the part of the City.
(New Policy)

33 Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (E)(2). “If a site is listed as a Priority Housing Site in the City's adopted Housing Element of the General Plan, then residential development that does not exceed the number of units designated for the site in the Housing Element shall be a permitted use.”
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐11
Strategies
Strategy HE-1.3.1 Land Use Po licy and Zoning Provisions. To accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the City will continue to:
 Provide adequate capacity through the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance to accommodate the RHNA of 4,588 units while maintaining a balanced land use plan that offers opportunities for employment growth, commercial/retail activities, services, and amenities.
 Amend development standards for housing as required to provide objective standards that are adequate and appropriate to facilitate a range of housing in the community. Revi ew and replace existing development standards for multi-family housing to ensure that all standards are strictly objective (i.e., non-discretionary) an d to ensure they are adequate and appropriate to facilitate a range of housing in the community. 
 Monitor the sites inventory and make it available on the City’s website.  Monitor development activity on the Housing OpportunityPriority Housing Sites to ensure that the City maintains sufficient land to accommodate the RHNA during the planning period. In the event, a housing site listed in the Housing Elem ent sites inventory is redeveloped with a non-residential use or at a lower density than shown in the Housing Element sites inventory, ensure that the City has adequate capacity to meet the RHNA by making the findings required by Government Code Section 65863 and identifying alternative site(s) within the city if needed.

Priority Housing Sites: As part of the Housing Element update, the City has identified selected housing sites listed in Table B4-3 (see Appendix B, Part 4) have been designated as Priority Housing Sites, so that the minimum number of units set forth in that table for each site is readily achievable (see Policy HE-1.43, above).

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing;
Funding Sources: None required .

Objectives: 4,588 units (596 extremely low-, 597 very low-, 687 low-, 755 moderate-, and 1, 000 953 above moderate- income units) .

Prioritize projects for lower-income households in areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side, and areas with high risk for displacement, such as the South Blaney neighborhood, and the Garden Gate neighborhood if sites become CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐12

available. Additionally, target development for lower-income households in high- opportunity areas, such as the Rancho Rinconada and Oak Valley neighborhoods, as well as lower- density neighborhoods, as sites become available. (Formerly HE-

1.3.1)
Strategy HE-1.3.62 Rezoning to Achieve RHNA. To ensure that the City has sufficient sites zoned appropriately to achieve the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), rezone sites listed in Tabl e B4-7 and B4-9 (Appendix B4). The rezone will include 33.52 acres of residential land that will allow for a realistic capacity of 1,933917 units, and 32.67 acres of commercial/residential land that will allow for a realistic capacity of 1,772 units.

The City will ensure compliance with Government Code Sections 65583, (c)(1) and 65583.2(h) and 65583.2(i), as listed below.
 Permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by right and not require a conditional use permit or other discretionary review or approval for developments in which 20 percent or more of the total units are affordable to lower- income households.
 Permit theEnsure that each site can accommodate development of at least 16 units per site and require that all residential development achieve a minimum density of 20 dwelling unit s per acre on sites designated for lower income housing.
 Ensure (a) at least 50 percent of the shortfall of low- and very low-income regional housing need can be accommodated on sites designated for exclusively residential uses, or (b) if accommodating more than 50 percent of the low- and very low-income regional housing need on sites designated for mixed -uses, all sites designated for mixed -uses must allow 100 percent residential use and require residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of the floor area in a mixed-use project.

Ensure sites will be available for development during the planning period where water and sewer can be provided.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Complete rezoning by January 31, 2024 concurrently with adoption of the Housing Element. Monitor affordability and location of rezoned sites as they relate to the furtherance of fair housing conditions.

Funding Sources: None required.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐13
Objectives: Create opportunity for 4,588 uni ts, including 1,880 units for lower-income households that will be within close proximity to services, employment opportunities, frequent transit and other resources in high-opportunity area s, such as in the Heart of the City Special Area.
(New Program)
Strategy HE-1.3.6 Rezoning to Achieve RHNA. To ensure that the City has sufficient sites zoned appropriately to achieve the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the City will revise its Zoning Map to:

1. Rezone sites listed in Table B4-3 (Appendix B, Part 4 of this 6th Cycle Housing Element), to the new zoning designations identified for each site in Table B4- 3; and
To identify all Priority Housing Sites.

2. Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: FY 2023-24
Funding Sources: None required
Objectives: N/A
(New Program)
Strategy HE-1.3.5 General Plan Re-Designation to Achieve RHNA. To ensure that the City has sufficient sites designated approp riately to achieve the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the City will revise its General Plan Land Use Diagram to re-designate sites listed in Table B4-3 (Appendix B, Part 4 of this 6 th Cycle Housing Element), to the new general plan designations identified for each site in Table B4-3.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: FY 2023-24
Funding Sources: None required
Objectives: N/A
(New Program)

Strategy HE-1.3.3 New Residential Zoning Districts and Land Use Designations. To ensure the City can meet the RHNA, the following actions will be taken:

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐14

Zoning. Create a new R4 Zoning District th at will align with the two new General Plan Land Use designations, High/Very High Density allowing 50.01 to 65 units per acre, and Very High Density allowing 65.01 to 80 units per acre.

The City will create development standards that will allow the maximum density of this district to be achieved. This will include increased height limits to allow at least three stories, redu ced setbacks, reduced lot coverage, and reduced parking requirements.

General Plan Land Use Designations. Create two new General Plan Land Use Designations – High/Very High Density, which will allow for 50.01–65 units per acre, and Very High Density, which will allow for 65.01–80 units per acre. The City will also revise the Commercial/Residential designation to identify different densities at which residential development could occur on property zoned for Residential mixed uses for clarity, and allow 100 percent residential on sites with a General Plan Land Use designation of Commercial/Residential, if the project is affordable.

Responsible Agency: Cupertino Departme nt of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Create new R4 Zoning District and General Plan Land Use designations and development standards by January 31,
2024concurrently with adoption of the Housing Element.

Funding Sources: General Fund
Quantified Objective: Create opportunity for 600 units,; including 300 units for lower- income households that will be within close proximity to services and other resources in high-opportunity areas. Prioritize projects for lower- income households in areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side, and areas with high risk for displacement, such as the South De Anza Special Area, Homestead Special Area., Heart of the City Special Ar ea, and in the South Blaney neighborhoods, and, if sites become available, in the Garden Gate and Rancho Rinconada neighborhoods.
(New Program)

Strategy HE-1.3.2 Accessory Dwelling Units. This City will review and revise its Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance to ensure consistency with state law and to institute a forgivable loan program for homeowners that construct accessory dwelling CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐15
units (ADUs) that are held affordable to lower-income households for a minimum period of 15 years. Update of the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance should also include a program to streamline the ADU review and production process as part of the City FY 2023-24 work program. The City will continue to implement the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance and encourage the production of second units.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: BHR AHF
Objectives: FY 2023-24; 25 second units annually for a total of 200 units over eight years(Formerly HE-1.3.2)
Strategy HE-1.3.4 Develo pment on Nonvacant Sites. Establish an outreach and coordination program to connect developers, builders, and owners of non-vacant sites. The program shall:
a. Emphasize reaching out to owners of non-vacant sites to discuss any interest in redeveloping and available incentives.
b. Market and advertise these sites to the development community along with any incentives that might be available.
c. Establish biennial meetings with developers and builders to discuss development opportunities.

If no projects are proposed on non-vacant sites within the first half of Housing Element planning period, the City will provide additional incentives, which will include, but are not limited to:
a. Priority project processing
b. Waive development impact or delay permit fees for affordable units c. Flexibility in development standards, such as parking, setbacks, and landscaping requirements
d. Support grant application requests for funding made by developers for infrastructure upgrades.
e. Assist developers of 100 percent affordable housing developments with securing additional financing.

Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division Timeframe: Initiate by June 2024 and ma intain throughout planning period on a biennial basis.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐16

Funding Source: None required.

Quantified Objective: Engage with three property owners of high-potential non-vacant sites each year. Create opportunity for 500 units, including 300 units for lower-income households that will be within close proximity to services, frequent transit and other resources in high-opportunity areas.

Prioritize sites in areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side, and areas with high risk for displacement, such as the South Blaney neighborhoods, and, if sites become available, in the Garden Gate and Rancho Rinconada neighborhoods and other lower- density neighborhoods . Additionally, target sites with high unit potential, such as sites in the De Anza B oulevard corridor and the sites with the highest allowable densities. If no projects are proposed on non-vacant sites within the first half of the Housing Element planning period, the City will adopt additional incentives as described above beginning in the third year.
(New program)

Strategy HE-1.3.5 Encourage Mixed-Use Projects and Residential in Commercial Zones.

The City will incentivize development of residential units in mixed-use projects that include affordable units (at least 20 percent), by providing incentives, which will include, but are not limited to:
 Priority project processing
 Delay payment of development impact or permit fees, for affordable units  Flexibility in development standards, such as parking, setbacks, and landscaping requirements
 Support grant application requests for funding made by developers for infrastructure upgrades.
 Assist developers of 100 percent affordable housing developments with securing additional financing.

Responsible Agency: Cupertino Departme nt of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Annually reach out to developers to inform them of the available incentives and obtain feedback by December 2025 on the provided CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐17
incentives, review annually and amend as needed. Offer alternative incentives within six months of receiving feedback.

Funding Source: None required.

Quantified Objective: 150 extremely low- in come units, 150 very low-income units, and 300 low-income units. Prioritize projects for lower-income households in areas with close proximity to job opportunities, such as the Heart of the City Special area; areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in the proximity of the Homestead Special Area); and areas with high risk for displacement, such as the South Blaney neighborhood and the Garden Gate neighborhood if sites become available.. (New program)
Strategy HE-1.3.6 Encourage Missing-Middle Housing Developments to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing . The City will help facilitate the gentle increase in density within neighborhoods by enco urage the development of missing- middle housing types that are affordable by design that can provide opportunities for housing that can acco mmodate the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of current and future residents in terms of different housing types, tenures, density, sizes, and costs.

Missing middle housing is typically mult iple rental units on a single parcel (whether attached or detached) that are compatible in scale and form with traditional single-family homes with one- or two- story forms. Examples include duplexes, triplexes, courtyard apartments. Allowing the development of units in this form will help the incorporation of rental housing within the existing, primarily single-family ownership units within neighborhoods. The City will accomplish this by:
 Allowing corner lots in R1 zoning districts to develop as multi-family rental housing using R23 zoning regulations to encourage missing-middle developments.
 Allowing lots zoned for single-family residential uses that abut (either shares a property line or is directly across the street from) property that fronts an arterial or major collector and is zoned and used for commercial or mixed-use development, to develop with rental multi-family housing using R23 zoning regulations to encourage missing middle housing.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐18

 Pursuing the establishment of maximu m average unit size as a tool to moderate unit sizes for such developments.

The City will promote the missing middle strategy through City publications and online newsletters, and via the City’s website
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Complete zoning code changes by December 20245, outreach at least twice in the planning per iod, and track annual planning applications received.

Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: Facilitate the developm ent of 250 lower- and 250 moderate- income households, prioritizing projects in areas with high levels of renter overpayment, including the Creston-Pharlap and South Blaney neighborhoods and lower-density neighborhoods.

Strategy HE-1.3.37 Lot Consolidation. The City will help facilitate lot consolidations to combine small residential lots (lots 0.5 acres or smaller) into larger developable lots.

Tthe Ccity will continue the following actions to accomplish this:To facilitate residential and mixed-use developments, the City will continue to:
 Encourage Facilitate and approve lot consolidation when contiguous smaller, underutilized parcels are to be redeveloped.
 Encourage master plans for such si tes with coordinated access and circulation.
 Provide technical assistance to property owners of adjacent parcels to facilitate coordinated redevelopment where appropriate.  EncourageFacilitate intra- and interagency cooperation in working with applicants at no cost prior to application submittal for assistance with preliminary plan review.
 Provide information on the City’s website about development opportunities and incentives for lot consolidation to accommodate affordable housing units and discuss these opportunities and incentives with interested developers. As developers/owners interested in lot consolidation approach the City interested in lot consolidation and the development of affordable housing developmenprojects on small lots, for the development of affordable housing, approach the City, the City will offer the following incentives:

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐19
o Allow affordable projects to exceed the maximum height limits, o Reduce setbacks,
o Reduce parking requirements, and/or.
o Offset fees (when financially feasible) and offer concurrent/fast tracking of project application reviews to developers who provide 100 percent affordable housing.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Identify incentives by JanuaryDecember20254, offer incentives by DecemberJune 2026. Ongoing t hereafter, as projects are processed through the Planning Department. Annually meet with local developers to discuss development opportunities and incentives for lot consolidation.Ongoing
Funding Sources: None required .

Objectives: 27 moderate- income units, and 48 above moderate-income units.

N/A Prioritize projects for lowe r-income households in areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in proximity of the Homestead Special Area), and areas with high risk for displacement, such as the South Blaney neighborhood and the Garden Gate neighborhood if sites become available. Additionally, target development for lower-income households in high-opportunity ar eas, such as the Homestead, Heart of the City Special Area, South De Anza Special Area, and North and South Monta Vist a Village neighborhoods, as well as other lower-density neighborhoods.
(Formerly HE-1.3.3)

Strategy HE-1.3.8 Accessory Dwelling Units. The City will encourage the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) throughout the city through the following actions, which are aimed at providing an increased supply of affordable units affordable to very low, low, and moderate-income households and therefore provide affordable housing in hi gh opportunity neighborhoods and help reduce displacement risk for low-income households resulting from overpayment:
 Amend the municipal code to be consistent with the latest State legislation related to ADUs, in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2 et seq.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐20

 Continue to provide guidance and ed ucational materials for building ADUs on the City’s website, including permitting procedures.

Additionally, the City will biennially present homeowner associations with information about the community an d neighborhood benefits of ADUs, and inform them that covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) prohibiting ADUs are contrary to State law.
 To increase mobility for lower income households, pProactively advertise the benefits of ADUs by distributing multilingual informational materials in areas of high opportunity and a lim ited number of renter households, including the Monta Vista North and Oak Valley neighborhoods, to increase mobility for low-income households by posting flyers in community gathering places and providing information to community groups and homeowners’ associations at least annually.
 Continue to offer the pre-approved ADU program and post links to approved plans as available.
 Annually monitor ADU production an d affordability as a part of the Annual Progress Report process and ad just or expand the focus of the education and outreach efforts.
 Apply annually, if grants are availabl e, for funding to provide incentives, for homeowners to construct ADUs affordable to very low, low, and moderate-income tenants.
 Permit up to a maximum of three, 800 s.f. attached or detached ADUs, JADUs, or conversion ADUs on all si ngle family zoned properties and a maximum of up to two 800 s.f. attached or detached ADUs, JADUs or conversion ADUs on all duplex zoned properties, which is in excess of the number of ADUs allowed under sta te law. a maximum of three ADUs, each of up to 1200 square feet, in addition to streamlined state  Identify incentives for construction of affordable ADUs with new development, which may include deferring collection of impact fees for the square footage associated with the ADU until issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning and Housing Divisions.

Timeframe: Amend the municipal code by June 2024 and update ADU materials available by June 2024. Allow ADUs ongoing beyond State law requirements, Present proposed code amendment within six months of Housing Element adoption. Identify incentives by June 2025, and apply annually for funding to support ADU CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐21
incentives.; Eevaluate effectiveness of ADU approvals annually, starting April 2024, and identify additional incentives within one year if ADU targets are not being met. Identify incentives by June 2025, and apply annually for funding to support ADU incentives.

Funding Sources: Below Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund Objectives: 60 ADUs to improve hous ing mobility and improve proximity to services and employment opportunities for lower- and moderate- income households, with targeted outreach in high-opportunity areas with high rates of renter overpayment, such as the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood, and area s in close proximity to jobs, such as the North Blaney and Ga rden Gate neighborhoods, as well as lower-density neighborhoods. (40 ADUs are assumed to address the displacement risk).
(Formerly HE-1.3.2)

Strategy HE-1.3.49 Objective Review Development Standards. The City recognizes the need to encourage a range of housing opti ons in the community. The City will review and revise its zoning code to:
 Ensure thatReview and revise design and development standards (setbacks, height limits, lot coverage, etc.) and guidelines for multi-family housing, specifically in the R4 Zone and the Priority Development Area (PDA) are to ensure standards are objective and non-discretionary and are designed so that they do not pose an undo burden on the development of affordable housing.that maximum densities can be achieved.  Provide flexibility in development standards to accommodate new models and approaches to providing housing, such as live/work housing (permitted with a CUP), and micro un its (in existing housing units), to allow housing to adapt to the needs of the occupants.
 Offer flexible residential developmen t standards in planned residential zoning districts, such as smaller lot sizes, lot widths, setbacks, and higher floor-area ratios particularly for higher - density and attached housing developments.

Consider granting reductions in off-street parking for senior housing. and studio apartments.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐22

 ReviewAnalyze local parking standards compared to those of neighboring jurisdictions with similar characteristics and revisereduce parking standards to ensure parking is not a constraint on development. Specifically, reduce parking requirements for studio apar tments, senior housing, and single- room occupancy (SRO) units and others as required by the analysis.  Require implementation of visitabilityu niversal design standards for new multi-family development to provide disabled access.construction (including single family homes). These standards would require encourage the adoption of features like at least one “no-step” entry point, interior and exterior doors with 32 inches of clear passage, and one bathroom on the main floor that is able to be maneuvered in a wheelchair. Encourage the implementation of universal design standards for new single-family homes.

Remove the following bolded text from the major development permit findings. The proposed housing developments and/or use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: FY 2023-24Analyze parking standards by December 20245 and revise standards by June 2025. Review and revise standards by June 2025 ; annually review objective design standards and amend as needed. Ongoing
Funding Sources: None required .

Objectives: N/ADevelopment of 150 units for lower-income households, 150 units for moderate-income households, and 500 for above- moderate income households by revising development standards. (Formerly HE-1.3.4)

Strategy HE-1.3.7 Priority Housing Sites. To simplify the City efforts to achieve the designated number of affordable housing units on the sites listed in Table B4-3 (Appendix B, Part 4 of this 6 th Cycle Housing Element), selec ted sites in that table have been designated “Priority Housing Sites” as that term is used in Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (E). This was accomplished through the inclusion of Policy HE-1.3, above. N onetheless, minor adjustments are required to the language of Cupert ino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 to ensure that this objective is achiev ed. Accordingly, the City will amend CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐23
Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (C) so that Subsection Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (E) app lies to all sites zoned for Planned Development, not just mixed-use sites.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: FY 2023-24
Funding Sources: None required
Objectives: N/A
(New Program)
Strategy HE-1.3.8 Low-Barrier Navigation Center. AB101 (2019) provides a pathway to permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness. In order to comply with State law, the City will amend it s Zoning Code to allow “Low Barrier Navigation Center” by right in appropriate zoning districts.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: FY 2023-24
Funding Sources: None required
Objectives: N/A
(New Program)
Strategy HE-1.3.911 Subdivision of Single-Family Lots (SB 9). Recent state law (SB 9) allows a property owner to subdivide his/her sing le-family property into two lots that can accommodate up to four units on a si ngle-family residential lot. In order to comply with State law, the City amended its Zoning Code in December 2021 will amend its Zoning Code to allow SB 9 subdivision in appropriate zoning districts. The City will, on an ongoing basis, review and revise the Zoning Code to be continue to be compliant with State Law.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: FY 2023-24 Ongoing
Funding Sources: None required
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐24

Objectives: N/A
(New Program)

Strategy HE-1.3.10 Innovative and Family- Friendly Housing Options. Explore innovative and alternative housing options that provide greater flexibility and affordability in the housing stock that would addre ss housing needs for intergenerational households, students, special- needs groups, and lower- income households.

The Ccity will implement the following:
 Promote housing designs and unit mix to attract multigenerational households by encouraging housing features and more bedrooms (including four-bedroom units), as well as other on-site amenities, such as usable outdoor open space for multigenerational use to promote place- based revitalization, and multipurpose rooms that can be used for after- school homework clubs, computer, art, or other resident activities.

Facilitate at least one partnership wi th social service organizations to provide programming in community spaces within a 100 percent affordable project during the planning period.
 Research the possibility of a Home Sharing program that would help to match “providers” with a spare room or rooms with “seekers” who are looking for an affordable place to liv e. This could either be done at a countywide level or the City could consider partnering with De Anza Community College to facilitate a home- sharing program to account for the high number of empty rooms ac ross Cupertino’s single- family home supply. If the program is determined to be feasible, implement within one year of feasibility determination. Priority outreach for program implementation will focus on the city’s lower-density neighborhoods including, but not limited to, Ranchonada, Fair Grove, Monta Vista North, and Inspiration Heights.

The City will use the findings of this program to target development of a variety of housing types in areas of concentrated overpayment to reduce displacement risk as well as promote inclusion and support integration of housing types based on income to facilitate mobility opportunities in high resource areas and areas of high median income.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning and Housing Divisions
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐25
Timeframe: Explore innovative and alternative housing options to help further housing production by December 2025, amend the
zoning code as needed by October 2024.

Funding: None required.

Quantified Objective: 200 lower-income units to improve housing mobility and reduce displacement risk, aiming for at least 50 in close proximity to jobs, transit, open space, and other services and 50 integrated into predominantly single-family, and higher-income areas, and 10 – 4 bedroom units.

Strategy HE-1.3.11 Replacement Housing. To facilitate place-based revitalization for households at risk of displacement du e to new development, the City will require replacement housing units subject to the requirements of Government Code, Sections 66300.5, 65583.2, and 65915(c)(3), on all sites identified in the site inventoryin the City when any new development (residential, mixed-use, or non-residential) occurs on a site that has been occupied by or restricted for the use of lower-income households at any time during the previous five years.

This requirement applies to non-vacant sites and vacant sites with previous residential uses that have been vacated or demolished.

Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Comm unity Development Planning Division
Timeframe: The replacement requirement will be implemented immediately and applied as applications on identified sites are received and processed.

Funding Source: None required.

Quantified Objective: Replace any units identified in the sites inventory if:
(a) they are planned to be demolished for purposes of building new housingor have been demolished in the past 5 years, and (b) they are determined to be occupied by low-income
households,”protected units” as defined in the statutes. Ensure that housing development projects create at least as many total units as are planned to be demolished.provide assistance to prevent displacement of lower-income households due to loss of affordable units.
(New Program)
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐26

By January 31, 2026
Strategy HE-1.3.13 Post-Entitlement Phase Permitting. To encourage the construction of new units that have been permitted by the City, the City will process post- entitlement phase permits in acco rdance with the requirements of Government Code, Section 65913.3. Additionally, the City will post the relevant lists of post-entitlement phase permit requirements on its website by January 1, 2024.

Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: The City will process post-ent itlement phase permits on an ongoing basis and will make the relevant lists of post-entitlement phase permit requirements available on its website by January 1, 2024.

Funding Source: None required.

Quantified Objective: N/A
(New Program)
Strategy HE-1.3.12 Track Housing Production. The City will monitor housing production throughout the planning period and ensure the Pipeline Projects (Table B4-2) and sites identified to meet the RHNA (Tables B4-7 and B4-9,) maintain sufficient housing capacity to meet the RHNA target by income level. The city will not adopt reductions in allowable residential densities for Pipeline Projects in the Appendix B4 through General Pl an update/amendment or rezone or approve development or building permits for sites identified in the inventory with fewer units or affordable to a different income category than identified in the inventory, unless findings are made that the remaining capacity is sufficient to accommodate remaining unmet RHNA for each income level. The City will track and report on:
 Pipeline projects (Table B4-2) and progress towards completion;  Unit count and income/affordability assumed on parcels in the sites inventory (Tables B4-7 and B4-9);
 Actual number of units permitted and constructed by
income/affordability;
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐27
 Net change in capacity and summary of remaining capacity by income level in meeting remaining RHNA;
In accordance with No Net Loss law, if project approval results in the remaining sites capacity becoming in adequate to accommodate RHNA by income category, the City will identi fy or rezone sufficient sites to accommodate the shortfall within 180 days of approval. Further, the City will track progress of pending projects towards completion and if projects are not assumed to be completed in the planning period, the City will evaluate whether there are sufficient sites available to accommodate the RHNA. If sufficient sites are not available, the City will take necessary actions (e.g., rezoning or identify additional sites) to maintain adequate sites within one year. The results of the tracking will be reported in the Housing Element Annual Progress Report reported annually to the City Council and posted online for public review.

Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Comm unity Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Annually monitor the sites inventory starting in April 2025 to ensure compliance with No Net Loss law.Ongoing. If projects are approved on inventory sites with fewer units or at a different income level than shown in the Housing Element, make no net loss findings as required by Section 65863. If insufficient sites remain by income category, designate additional sites within 180 days. Complete a mid-term evaluation of the City’s pipeline pr ojects to review progress towards competition and if additional ac tions are necessary, complete additional actions within one year.

Funding Source: None required.

Quantified Objective: Ensure sufficient capacity is maintained to accommodate the RHNA.
(New Program)
Strategy HE-1.3.13 Housing Element Moni toring and General Plan Consistency. As required by State law, the City will review the status of Housing Element programs annually. Annual review will cover consistency between the Housing Element and the other General Plan El ements. As portions of the General Plan are amended, the Housing Element will be reviewed and revised to ensure that internal consistency is maintained.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐28

Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Review and revise as elements are updated.

Funding Source: None required.
(New Program)
GOAL HE-2 HOUSING IS AFFORDABLE FOR A DIVERSITY OF

CUPERTINO HOUSEHOLDS
Policies
Policy HE-2.1 Housing Mitigation. Ensure that all new developments,— including market- rate residential developments , — help mitigate project-related impact s on affordable housing needs.
(Formerly Policy HE-2.1)
Policy HE-2.2 Range of Housing Types. Encourage the development of diverse housing stock that provides a range of housing types (including smaller, moderate- cost housing) and affordability levels. Empha size the provision of housing for lower- and moderate-income households, including wage earners who provide essential public services (e.g., school district employees, municipal and public safety employees, etc.). (Formerly Policy HE-2.1)
Policy HE-2.3 Development of Affordable Housin g and Housing fo r Persons with Special Needs. Maintain and/or adopt appropriate land use regulations and other development tools to encourage the development of affordable housing.

Make every reasonable effort to disperse affordable units throughout the community but not at the expense of un dermining the fundamental goal of providing affordable units. Ensure that the City’s development standards accommodate housing needed by persons with special needs. (Formerly Policy HE-2.1)
Strategies
Strategy HE-2.3.1 Support Af fordable Housing Development. Work with housing developers to expand opportunities for affordable lower-income housing for special- needs groups, including persons with phy sical and developmental disabilities, female-headed households, large families, extremely low-income households, and persons experiencing homelessness by creating partnerships, providing incentives, and pursuing funding opportunities.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐29
 Prioritize projects that are in areas with currently low percentages of renter-occupied households to facilit ate housing mobility and integration of ownership and rental units, including the Monta Vista North neighborhood. Additionally, prioritize projects in areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in proximity of the Homestead Special Area).
 Support affordable housing development and give priority to permit processing for projects providing 1 00 percent affordable housing for special-needs groups throughout the city, including in areas that are predominantly single-family residential. The target populations include seniors; persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities; female-headed households; and persons experiencing homelessness to reduce the displacement risk for these residents from their existing homes and communities.
 Promote the use of the density bonus ordinance, application process streamlining, fee deferrals, and consider development fee exemption for projects that are 100 percent affordable to encourage affordable housing, with an emphasis on encouraging affordable housing in high-resource areas and areas with limited rental opportunities currently.  Facilitate the approval process for la nd divisions, lot line adjustments, and/or specific plans or master plans re sulting in parcel sizes that enable 10050% percent (of the total number of units) affordable housing development and process fee deferrals related to the subdivision for 50 percent (of the total number of units) affordable projects.  Work with public or private sponsors to identify candidate sites for new construction of housing for special needs, including transitional and supportive households, and take all actions necessary to expedite processing of such projects.
 Encourage residential development near transit routes, civic uses, social services, grocery stores, parks, open space, and other health resources.  Partner with nonprofit and for-profit affordable housing developers to support their financing applications fo r State and federal grant programs, tax-exempt bonds, and other programs that become available.  Pursue federal, State, and private funding for low- and moderate-income housing by applying for State and federal monies for direct support of lower-income housing construction and rehabilitation, specifically for development of housing affordable to extremely low-income households.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning and Housing Divisions
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐30

Time Frame: Ongoing, as projects are processed by the City. Annually apply for funding and engage with housing developers.

Funding: Where feasible, leverage State an d federal financing, including Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, CHFA multifamily
housing assistance programs, HCD Multifamily Housing
Loans, CDBG funds, HOME funds, and other available
financing.

Quantified Objective: Create opportunity for 450 unit s for lower-income households that will be within close proximity to services and other resources in high-opportunity areas. In clude development of 250 units affordable to special-needs, lowe r-income households to reduce displacement risk for these populations. Target 100 units in close proximity to services and transit, and 100 in higher-income, predominantly single-family neighborhoods to promote mobility opportunities. Opportunity areas for targeting include the Monta Vista North neighborhood. Additionally, target areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in proximity of the Homestead Special Area)
Strategy HE-2.3.12 Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program. The City will continue to implement the Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program.

This program requires that developers of office, commercial, and industrial space pay a mitigation fee, which will then be used to support affordable housing in Cupertino. These mitigation fees are collected and deposited in the City’s Below Market-Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF).

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: BMR AHF
Objectives: N/AWith limited office and industrial development, facilitate development of 20 units for very low- and low-income households. (Formerly HE-2.3.1)

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐31
Strategy HE-2.3.23 Residential Housing Mitigation Program. The City will continue to implement the Residential Housing Miti gation Program to mitigate the need for affordable housing created by new market-rate residential development.

This program applies to new residential development. Mitigation includes either the payment of the “Housing Mitigation” fee or the provision of a Below Market-Rate (BMR) unit or units. Projects of seven five or more for-sale units must provide on-site BMR units. Projects of foursix units or fewer for-sale units can either build one BMR unit or pay the Housing Mitigation fee.

Developers of market-rate rental unit s, where the units cannot be sold individually, must pay the Housing Mitigation fee to the BMR AHF. The BMR program specifies the following:
 Priority. To the extent permitted by law, priority for occupancy is given to Cupertino residents, Cupertino full-time employees , and Cupertino public service employees , as defined in Cupertino’s Residential Housing Mitigation Manual.
 For-Sale Residential Developments. Require 15 20 percent for-sale BMR units in all residential developm ents where the units can be sold individually (including single-family homes, common interest developments, and condominium conversions) or allow rental BMR units as allowed in (d) below.).
 Rental Residential Developments : . To the extent permitted by law, rRequire 15 percent rental very low - and low-income BMR units in all rental residential developments. If the City is not permitted by law to require BMR units in rental resident ial developments, require payment of the Housing Mitigation Fee.
 Rental Alternative. Allow rental BMR units in for-sale residential developments, and allow developers of market-rate rental developments to provide on-site rental BMR units, if the developer: (1) enters into an agreement limiting rents in exchange for a financial contribution or a type of assistance specified in density bonus law (which includes a variety of regulatory relief); and (2) provides very low-income and low-income BMR rental units.
 Affordable Prices and Rents. Establish Continue to implement guidelines for affordable sales prices and affordable rents for new affordable housing and update the guidelines each year as new income guidelines are received.;
 Development of BMR Units Off Site. Allow developers to meet all or a portion of their BMR or Housing Miti gation fee requirement by making land available for the City or a nonprofit housing developer to construct CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐32

affordable housing or allow developers to construct the required BMR units off site, in partnership with a nonprofit. The criteria for land donation or off-site BMR units (or combination of the two options) will be identified in the Residential Housing Mitigation Manual.  BMR Term. Require BMR units to remain affordable for a minimum of 99 years; and enforce the City’s first right of refusal for BMR units and other means to ensure that BMR units remain affordable.  Monitor the affordable for-sale inventory by requiring BMR homeowners to submit proof of occupancy, such as utility bills, mortgage loan documentation, homeowner’s insurance, and property tax bills.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing Annually monitor progra m, make modifications as constraints identified within 6 mo nths, and as needed to ensure that it is not acting as a cons traint on development. Conduct economic feasibility study if it appears to be a constraint and make any required changes within one years.

Funding Sources: BHR AHF
Objectives: 200 BMR units over eight years in areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in proximity of the Homestead Special Area), and areas with high risk for displacement, such as the South Blaney neighborhood and Garden Gate neighborhood if sites become available. (Formerly HE-2.3.2)
Strategy HE-2.3.34 Below - Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). The City’s BMR AHF will continue to support afford able housing projects, strategies, and services, including, but not limited to:
 BMR Program Administration
 Substantial rehabilitation
 Land acquisition
 Acquisition and/or rehabilitation of buildings for permanent affordability, with or without rehabilitation
 New construction
 Preserving “at-risk” BMR units
 Rental operating subsidies
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐33
 Down payment assistance
 Land write-downs
 Direct gap financing
 Fair housing
The City will target a portion of th e BMR AHF to benefit extremely low- income households and persons with special needs (such as the elderly, victims of domestic violence, and the disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities), to the extent that thes e target populations are found to be consistent with the needs identified in the nexus study the City prepares to identify the connection, or “nexus” between new developments and the need for affordable housing. Additionally, development of housing for lower- income households will be facilitated citywide, but priority will be given to areas with currently low percentage s of renter-occupied households to facilitate housing mobility and integrat ion of ownership and rental units, including the Monta Vista North neighborhood. Additionally, priority will also be given to areas with high rates of cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in proximity of the Homestead Special Area).

To ensure the mitigation fees continue to be adequate to mitigate the impacts of new development on affordable ho using needs, the City will update its Nexus Study for the Housing Mitigation Plan by the end of 2024.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing/annually publish requests for proposals ( RFPs) to solicit projects.; update Nexus Study by the end of 2024 Funding Sources: B MHR AHF
Objectives: N/AFacilitate the development of 50 units affordable to very low- and low-income households.
(Formerly HE-2.3.3)
Strategy HE-2.3.45 Housing Resources. Cupertino residents and developers interested in providing affordable housing in the city have access to a variety of resources administered by other agencies. The City will continue to provide information on housing resources and services offe red by the County and other outside agencies. These include, but are not limited to:

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐34

 Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) – Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Department.
 First-Time Homebuyer Assistance and Developer Loans for Multi family Development - Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV).
 Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) - Housing Authority of Santa Clara County (HASCC).
 Affordable housing developmen t - Santa Clara County HOME Consortium.

The City will also continue to explore identify and pursue various affordable housing resources available at the local, regional, state, and federal levels that could be used to address housing needs in the community. Outreach on these programs will be conducted citywide, but extra focus will be given to areas with historically higher areas of income segregation, such as the areas along the Interstate (I-) 280 corridor, in the areas abutting the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard (western edge of the Creston-Pharla p neighborhood), and along Miller Avenue, north of Creekside Park.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing Annually identify and pursue various housing resources and inform residents and develo pers on available programs, update website as funding is available.

Funding Sources: None required .

Objectives: N/AProvide information about available programs to 50 households each year, with targeted outreach to areas with historically higher areas of income segregation, such as the areas along the I-280 corridor, in the areas abutting the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard (western edge of Creston-Pharlap neighborhood), and along Miller Avenue, north of Creekside Park.
(Formerly HE-2.3.4)
Strategy HE-2.3.56 Surplus Properties for Housing and Faith-Based Housing. The City will partner with local developers or organizations to purchase surplus properties, infill lots, and other green fields within the city to use for the development of CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐35
affordable housing. Encourage mixed-use development (i.e., retail on ground floor with residential on the upper levels) as a pull factor for individuals to live in the new development as follows:
 Work with local public agencies, school districts, and churches to identify surplus properties or underutilized prope rties that have the potential for residential development.
 Compile and maintain an inventory of vacant properties owned by the City or other public entities and update the inventory annually. The inventory will include donated land donated and accepted by the City for donation, and land otherwise acquired by the city. The City will then undertake steps leading to release of RFP to solicit developer interest, which may include declaration of land as ‘surplus’. The City will publicize the inventory, post it on the website, make it available to non-profit developers, and prioritize affordable housing on these sites in accordance wit the Surplus Lands Act (Government Code sections 54220-54234).
 To create housing mobility opportunities for lower-income households, conduct outreach to religious institutions to inform them of their development rights under SB 4 and encourage housing proposals within one year of Housing Element adoption. If no application for housing on a religious institution/faith-based site is received within twelve months after outreach is completed, the City will expand outreach efforts to be conducted annually. This will include direct mailings to faith-based sites highlighting successful affordable housing units on other faith-based sites, as well as available City resources and programs to support such projects if available. Additional outreach focus will be given to religious institutions located in lower-density neighborhoods to promote housing mobility in these areas.
 Encourage long-term land leases of properties from churches, school districts, and corporations for construction of affordable units.  Evaluate the feasibility of developing special housing for teachers or other employee groups on the surplus properties.
 Research other jurisdictions’ housing programs for teachers for their potential applicability in Cupertino.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning and Housing Divisions
Timeframe: Ongoing , evaluate housing programs for teachers in 2015Reach out to affordable housing deve lopers biennially to discuss opportunities. Review and uUpdate City-owned properties list CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐36

annually. Conduct initial outreach wi thin one year of Housing Element adoption and additional outreach as new legislation is passed. If no applications for hous ing projects on religious sites are received by December 2025, conduct outreach annually.

Funding Sources: BMR AHF
Objectives: Facilitate the development of 5 new affordable housing projects on sites owned by religious institutions.N/A
(Formerly HE-2.3.5)

Strategy HE-2.3.67 Incentives for Affordable Housing Development. The City will continue to offer a range of incentives to fac ilitate the development of affordable housing. These include: Financial assistance through the City’s Below Market- Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and CDBG funds. Partner with CDBG and/or support the funding application of qualified affordable housing developers for regional, state, and federal affordable housing funds, including HOME funds, Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), and mortgage revenue bonds.
 Financial assistance through the City’s Below- Market -Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
 Partner with CDBG and/or support the funding application of qualified affordable housing developers for regi onal, state, and federal affordable housing funds, including HOME funds, Low- Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), and mortgage revenue bonds.
 Density bonus incentives (see Strategy HE-2.3.78 below).  Flexible development standards
 Technical assistance.
 Waiver of park dedication fees and construction tax.
 Parking ordinance waivers.
 Expedited permit processing.

The City joined the Santa Clara County HOME Consortium so that HOME funds for eligible affordable housing projects within the City of Cupertino are available beginning federal fiscal year 2015.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐37
Development of housing for lower- in come households will be facilitated citywide, but extra focus will be given to areas with currently low percentages of renter-occupied households to facilitate housing mobility and integration of ownership and rental units, including the Monta Vista North neighborhood and surrounding areas. Additionally, focus will be given to areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’ s north side (in and in proximity of the Homestead Special Area).

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Annually review incentives and in clude additional incentives as needed to facilitate affordable housing development, Ongoing incentives ( annually publish RFPs to solicit projects .); joined HOME Consortium in 2014 If additional incentives are found to be needed and feasible, implement within one year of determination.

Funding Sources: BMR AHF ,; CDBG,; HOME,; General Fund
Objectives: N/AFacilitate development of 400 units available to very low- income households and 250 units affordable to low- income households.
(Formerly HE-2.3.6)
Strategy HE-2.3.78 Density Bonus Ordinance. The City will continue to review and revise the Zoning Code to be consistent with State density bonus law. Although most housing developers are familiar with density bonus law and frequently request bonuses, concessions, waivers, and parking reductions, the city will provide available guidelines and other information to developers regarding the statute.

The City currently allows a 100% bonus for all affordable housing developments. The City will encourage use of density bonuses and incentives, as applicable, for housing developments which include one of the following:
 At least 5 percent of the housing units are restricted to very low-income residents.
 At least 10 percent of the housing units are restricted to lower income residents.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐38

 At least 10 percent of the housing units in a for-sale common interest development are restricted to moderate income residents.  The project donates at least one acre of land to the city or county large enough for 40 very low-income units; the la nd has the appropriate general plan designation, zoning, permits, approvals, and access to public facilities needed for such housing; funding has been identified; and other requirements are met.

A density bonus of up to 20 percent must be granted to projects that contain one of the following:
 The project is a senior citizen housing development (no affordable units required).
 The project is a mobile home park ag e restricted to senior citizens (no affordable units required).

For projects that contain on-site affordable housing, developers may request one to three regulatory concessions, which must result in identifiable cost reductions and be needed to make the housing affordable.

Development of housing for lower- in come households will be facilitated citywide, but extra focus will be given to areas with currently low percentages of renter-occupied households to facilitate housing mobility and integration of ownership and rental units, including the Monta Vista North neighborhoods and surrounding areas. Additionally, focus will be given to areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’ s north side (in and in proximity of the Homestead Special Area).

The City will update the density bonus ordinance as necessary to respond to future changes in State law.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: OngoingUpdate ordinance to comply with state law by June 2025. BienniallyAnnually review and revise ordinance as needed to comply with State law.

Funding Sources: None required .

Objectives: N/A Facilitate the development of 200 units of housing affordable to very low- income households and 300 units CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐39
affordable to low- income households. Ensure density bonus ordinance complies with state law and target citywide.
(Formerly HE-2.3.7)
Strategy HE-2.3.91.3.10 Lower Fees for Multi-Family Housing ProjectsReview Impact Fees. Cupertino has development fees th at are among the highest in the region. To ensure that impact fees are not a constraint on the development of housing, Tthe City will:
 rReview and revise impact fees to ensure they are not a constraint on the development of housing. The City willby researching surrounding jurisdictions to determine other possible fee structures, grant funding opportunities and similar funding sources, review of average persons per unit at higher densities of development and will consider:
o Alternatives, such as privately -owned, publicly accessible (POPA) areas, or allowing parkland credit for pedestrian connections and trails.

The City will also
o consider Incorporating priority pro cessing, granting fee waivers or deferrals for 100 percent affordable projects, and modifying development standards, granting concessions and incentives, modeled on the Density Bonus Law. its fee structure to lower fees for multi- family housing so that they are in line with the regional average.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Finance ; City Manager’s Office, Department of Community Development – Housing and
Planning Divisions
Timeframe: FY 2023-24Review current fees by December 2025, revise based on research outcome by June 2026.

Funding Sources: None required .

Objectives: N/AThrough revised fees or fee alternatives, facilitate the development of 500 units affordable to lower- income households, 300 units affordable to modera te- income households, and 500 units affordable to above moderate- income households.
(New Program)
Strategy HE-1.3.11 Lower Parking Requir ements for Studio Apartments and SROs.

Cupertino requires two parking spaces for all multi-family housing in the R-3 CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐40

Zoning District. The City will revise its Zoning Code to lower the number of required parking spaces for studio apar tments and single room occupancies (SROs) to one parking space.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development – Planning Division
Timeframe: FY 2023-24
Funding Sources: None required
Objectives: Facilitate the development of 200 units affordable to very low income households, 150 units affordable to low income
households, and 100 units affordable to moderate income households.N/A
(New Program)

Strategy HE-2.3.102.3.8 Extremely Low-Income Housing and Housing for Persons with Special Needs.

The City will continue to encourage th e development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-income households and persons with special needs (such as theparticularly for elderly,seniors, victims of domestic violence, and the disabledpersons with disabilities, (including persons with developmental disabilities), through a variety of actions.: . Specifically, the City will consider the following incentives: The development of housing for extremely low- income households will be facilitated citywide, but priority will be given to areas with currently low percentages of renter-occupied households to facilitate housing mobility and integration of ownership and rental units, primarilyincluding the Monta Vista North neighborhood.

Additionally, focuspriority will be given to areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side.
 Provide financing assistance using the Below - Market - Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and Community Development Block Grant funds (CDBG) funds.
 Review available State and Federal NOFAs on an annual basis and support funding applications for affordable housing projects as funding becomes available.
 Adopt a priority processing procedur e for projects with extremely low- income units within one year of Housing Element adoption.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐41
 Allow residential developments to exceed planned density maximums if they provide special needs housing and the increase in density will not overburden neighborhood streets or hurt neighborhood character.  Grant reductions in off-street parking on a case-by-case basisas required by density bonus law and other state statutes.
 Expand regulatory incentives for the development of units affordable to extremely low-income households an d housing for special-needs groups, including persons with disabilities (i ncluding developmental disabilities), and individuals and families in need of emergency/tr ansitional housing.

The City will work with developers and evaluate additional proposed development standards reductions for projects that include housing for extremely low-income households, and will present findings and proposed code amendments to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption within nine months of identified findings.
 Partner with and/or support the funding application of qualified affordable housing developers for regi onal, state, and federal affordable housing funds, including HOME funds, Low - Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), and mortgage revenue bond.
 Amend the Zoning Code to define single-room occupancy (SRO) units and allow them in the R4 zoning districts with a use permit, in compliance with Government Code Section 65583(c)(1).

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Adopt zoning code amendments within 18 months after Housing Element adoptionby . Ongoing, as projects are processed by the Planning Division. By June 2025 outreach to organizations that support extremely low-income residents to understand funding needs, and review and prioritize local funding at least twice in the planning period, and support expediting applications as they are submitted. Annually coordinate to address and identify the needs and inform developers of available funding and incentives. Present findings and proposed code amendments for adoption within nine months of identified findings. Ongoing
Funding Sources: BMR AHF , CDBG, HOME, LIHTC.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐42

Objectives: Assist 250 extremely low-income households to reduce overpayment and displacement risk for special- needs groups, as identified in the program.N/A
(Formerly HE-2.3.8)

Strategy HE-2.3.11 Assistance for Persons with Developmental Disabilities. To increase housing mobility opportunities and support persons with developmental disabilities, the City will:
 also Provide referrals to the San Andreas Regional Center to inform families with persons with developmental disabilities of the resources available to them.
 Continue to support the development of small group homes that serve developmentally disabled adults; adopt a policy to establish priority processing and offer fee waivers or deferrals within one year of Housing Element adoption.
 Work with the nonprofit community to encourage the inclusion of units for persons with developmental disab ilities in future affordable housing developments.
 Encourage housing providers to purs ue funding sources designated for persons with special needs and disabilities and notify housing providers of available funding opportunities as they become available. Offer technical assistance to project developers on funding applications.

 Encourage housing providers to designate a portion of new affordable housing developments for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities, to increase housing mobility opportunities and pursue funding sources designated for persons with special needs and disabilities.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing; Meet with disabili ty providers by December 2025 and annually coordinate with regional offices and developers to pursue housing opportunities and help facilitate the development of housing for persons with disabilities. Adopt priority processing and fee deferral/waiver policy within one year of Housing Element adoption.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐43
Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: 10 housing units for persons with disabilities to reduce displacement risk. Prioritize areas with high risk for
displacement, such as the South Blaney neighborhood, and areas with higher concentrations of resi dents with disabilities, such as the Rancho Rinconada and Fairgr ove neighborhoods, as sites become available.
(New)
Strategy HE-2.3.12 Live/Work Units. Encourage the development or conversion of affordable live/workspace units to reduce displacement of residents and employees, specifically when replacing older stri p mall type developments along busier streets (e.g., S. De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard) to preserve the more urban and mixed-use character of the street. This would allow for the street frontage to remain commercial use while the residential portion of the units would be located towards the rear of the site or in upper floors.

The City will also help to market th e Homeownership Assistance Programs offered by Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) ensure owners of existing live/work units are aware of the Homebuyer Assistance Program available for their unit when marketing their unit for resale, in an effort to expand affordable homeownership options.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Conduct outreach to commercial property owners by June 2025. and establish public listing of potential live/work development or conversion sites within one ye ar of Housing Element adoption; conduct outreach annually to commercial property owners to gauge interest. Market these opportuni ties to developers annually.

Identify at least two opportunit ies during the planning period.

Adopt any required zoning amen dments by December 2025.

Annually monitor applications and modify program if required.

Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: 10 live- work units to reduce displacement risk. Prioritize development in areas with high risk for displacement, such as the South Blaney neighborhood.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐44

(New)
Strategy HE-2.3.9 Employee Housing. The City permits employee housing in multiple zoning districts. Pursuant to the State Employee Housing Act, any employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarter or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household shall be deemed an agricultural land use. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of this employee ho using that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone . The permitted occupancy in employee housing in a zone allowing agricultural uses shall include agricultural employees who do not work on the property where the employee housing is located. The Employee Housing Act also specifies that housing for six or fewer employees be treated as a residential use. The City amended the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the State law and will continue to comply with the Employee Housing Act where it would apply.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: None required
Objectives: N/A
(Formerly HE-2.3.9)

GOAL HE-3 STABLE AND PHYSICALLY SOUND RESIDENTIAL

NEIGHBORHOODS
Policies
Policy HE-3.1 Housing Rehabilitation. Pursue and/or provide funding for the acquisition/rehabilitation of housing that is affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Actively support and assist non-profit and for- profit developers in producing affordable units.
(Formerly Policy HE-3.1)
Policy HE-3.2 Maintenance and Repair. Assist lower-income homeowners and rental property owners in maintaining and repairing their housing units.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐45
(Formerly Policy HE-3.2)
Policy HE-3.3 Conservation of Housing Stock. The City’s existing multi -family units provide opportunities for households of varied income levels. Preserve existing multi-family housing stock, including existing duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, by preventing the net loss of multi -family housing units upon remodeling, within new development and the existing inventory of affordable housing units that are at risk of converting to market-rate housing. (Formerly Policy HE-3.3)
Strategies
Strategy HE-3.3.1 Residential Rehabilitation. The City will continue to:
 Use its Below- Market -Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to support residential rehabilitation efforts in the community. These include:
o Acquisition/rehabilitation of rental housing.
o Rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing.
 Provide assistance for home safety repairs and mobility/accessibility improvements to income-qualified owner-occupants using CDBG funds.

The focus of this strategy is on the correction of safety hazards.  Partner with and/or support the funding application of qualified affordable housing developers for regi onal, state, and federal affordable housing funds, including HOME funds, Low - Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), and mortgage revenue bonds.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division; West Valley Community Services
Timeframe: Ongoing/annually publish RFPs to solicit projects . Provide information on the City’s website as funding is available.

Funding Sources: BMR AHF , CDBG, HOME, LIHTC
Objectives: 200 100 households assisted wi th home safety repairs and mobility/accessibility improvemen ts. Target outreach in areas with higher rates of older housing stock, including the South Blaney neighborhood, as well as higher rates of households with disabilities, such as the Fair Grove neighborhood.
(Formerly HE-3.3.1)
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐46

Strategy HE-3.3.2 Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units. Three housing project – Beardon Drive (8 units),; WVCS Transitional Housing (4 units),; and Sunny View West (100 units), as well as several below-market rate (BMR) units – are considered at risk of converting to marksetmarket-rate housing during in the next ten 10 years. The City will proactively contact the property owner regarding its intent to remain or opt out of the affordable program. For units at risk of converting to market rate, the City shall:
 Contact property owners of units at ri sk of converting to market-rate housing within one yearthree years of before affordability expiration to discuss the City’s commitment to pres erve these units as affordable housing.
 Coordinate with owners of expiring subsidies to ensure the required notices to tenants and to affordable housing developers are sent out at 3 years, 12 months, and 6 months or otherwise as required by state law.  Reach out to agencies and to nonprofit housing developers interested in purchasing or managing or otherwise preserving at-risk units.

Work with tenants and other organizations to provide education regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures pursuant to California lawreduce displacement and refer residents to an agency that can assist in providing alternative housing, if preservation is not possible. Ensure that tenants have received all required notices and other information regarding conversion procedures.
 In the event the project becomes at risk of converting to market-rate housing, the City will work with the property owner or other interested nonprofit housing providers to preserve the units. The City will also conduct outreach to the tenants to provide information on any potential conversion and available affordable housing assistance programs. The City will continue to monitor its entire portfolio of affordable housing for-sale and rental inventory annually. The City will
monitor its affordable for-sale inve ntory by requiring Below Market-Rate (BMR) homeowners to submit proof of occupancy such as utility bills, mortgage loan documentation, homeowner’s insurance, and property tax bills.
 The City will further monitor its affordable for-sale inventory by ordering title company lot books, reviewing property profile reports, and updating its public database annually.
 The City will monitor its affordable rental inventory by verifying proof of occupancy and performing annual rent al income certifications for each CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐47
BMR tenant. The City records a Resale Restriction Agreement against each affordable BMR for-sale unit and a Regulatory Agreement for BMR rental units to help ensure long-term affordability. To help further preserve the City’s affordable housing stock, the City may consider providing assistance to rehabilitate and upgrade the affordable units as well.

Implement a policy that provides ten ants or mission-driven non-profits the right of first refusal to purchase a property at market price when it is offered for sale, retaining the existing residents and ensuring long-term affordability of the units by requiring resale restrictions to maintain affordability.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: Annually monitor status of affordable projects to at-risk of converting, coordinateensure noticing is provided as required per California law. In addition, contact property owners and tenants of at-risk project, and tenants of property, at least one yearthree years in advance of potential conversion date to provide time for conservation. and/or first righ t of refusal forand to avoid displacement of current tenants. Formalize right of first refusal policy within six months of Housing Element adoption.

Funding Sources: BMR AHF ,; CDBG,; HOME
Objectives: Preserve existing affordable ho using units in the City’s BMR inventory and attempt to preserve rental units at risk of loss. In addition, preserve 209 lower-income units as funding expires to reduce displacement risk. N/A
(Formerly HE-3.3.2)
Strategy HE-3.3.3 Condominium Conversion. One housing project – The existing Condominium Conversion Ordinance regulates the conversion of rental units in multi -family housing development to pres erve the rental housing stock.

Condominium conversions are not allowed if the rental vacancy rate in Cupertino and certain adjacent areas is le ss than 5 percent at the time of the application for conversion and has aver aged 5 percent over the past six months. The City will continue to monitor the effectiveness of this ordinance in providing opportunities for homeownership while preserving a balanced housing stock with rental housing.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐48

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: OngoingMonitor annually and as projects come forward.

Funding Sources: None required
Objectives: N/A
(Formerly HE-3.3.3)
Strategy HE-3.3.4 Multifamily Housing Preservation Program. When a proposed development or redevelopment of a site would cause a loss of multi -family housing, the City will grant approval only if:
 The project will comply wi th the City’s Below Market - Rate Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual;
 The number of units provided on the site is at least equal to the number of existing units; and
 Adverse impacts on displaced tenants, in developments with more than four or more units, are mitigated; and .
 The project replaces existing units at the same or deeper affordability, with the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and comparable square footage to the units demolished and provides displaced tenants with right of first refusal to rent new comparable units at the same rent as demolished units.

The City will review the program biannually and revise as needed; if revisions are needed, they will be adopted within one year of determination of need. In addition, indirect displacement may be caused by factors such as increased market rents as areas become more desi rable. The City will participate, as appropriate, in studies of regional housing need and displacement, and consider policies or programs to address the indirect displacement of lower - income residents as appropriate.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing , as projects come forward. Review program biannually; if revisions are needed, adopt revisions within one year of determination of need.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐49
Funding Sources: None required .

Objectives: N/APrevent displacement of 50 households during the Housing Element period.
(Formerly HE-3.3.4)
Strategy HE-3.3.5 Neighborhood and Community Clean-Up Campaigns. The City will continue to encourage and sponsor neighborhood and community clean-up campaigns for both public and private properties.

Responsibility: Cupertino Departme nt of Community Development Timeframe: OngoingOngoing
Funding Sources: General Fund
Objectives: N/ASponsor 5 community clean-up campaignsthe annual Garage Sale event during the Housing Element period.
(Formerly HE-3.3.5)
Strategy HE-3.3.5 Park Land Ordinance The City will review and revise its Park Land Ordinance to reduce any potential c onstraints on residential development while maintaining access to quality open space. The City will review requirements for higher- density projects and evaluate the possibility of open space credits.

Responsibility: Cupertino Departme nt of Community Development and Cupertino Department of Pu blic Works ,– Development
Services Division
Timeframe: Review by December 2025, revise by June 2026.

Funding Sources: General Fund
Objectives: N/AFacilitate the development of 350 units of housing affordable to lower-income households and 100 units affordable to moderate- income households by removing constraints, as needed.
(New)
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐50

Strategy HE-3.3.6 Rent- Control Ordinance. Study rent- control ordinances in California and work with relevant stakeholders to establish a Rent- Control Ordinance to ensure protections for renters.

Tenant Protections. Study rent stabilization and tenant protection ordinances in California and displacement in Cupertino due to rising rents and evictions. Work with relevant stakeholders to establish tenant protection and/or a rent stabilization to ensure protection for renters, as appropriate based on findings.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: Complete a study by December 2025; present implementing ordinance to Council by June 20256.

Funding Sources: General Fund
Objectives: N/A Present an implementation plan for a rent stabilization or tenant protection ordinances rent- control ordinance to City Council. Prevent displacement of 100 households during the Housing Element period and work with relevant stakeholders to establish tenant protection and/or a rent stabilization to ensure protection for renters, as appr opriate based on findings.and implement a Rent -Control Ordin ance in accordance with the approved implementation plan.
(New)
Strategy HE-3.3.7 Monitor Nongovernmental Constraints Impeding Residential Development.

The City will monitor residential developments that have been approved by the City and where building permits or final maps have not been obtained, the City will make diligent efforts to contact applicants to discover why units have not been constructed within two years after approval. If due to nongovernmental constraints, such as rapid increases in construction costs, shortages of labor or materials, or rising interest rates, to the extent appropriate and legally possible, the City will seek to identify actions that may help to reduce or remove these constraints. Additionally, the City will proactively work with stakeholders to identify nong overnmental constraints or other considerations that may impede the construction of housing in Cupertino and work collaboratively to find strategies and actions that can eliminate or reduce identified constraints.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐51
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Timeframe: Monitor two years after project approval, implement as needed.

Funding Sources: General Fund
GOAL HE-4 ENERGY AND WATER CONSERVATION
Policies
Policy HE-4.1 Energy and Water Conservation. Encourage energy and water conservation in all existing and new residential development.
(Formerly Policy HE-4.1)
Strategies
Strategy HE-4.1.1 Enforcement of Title 24. The City will continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation and will evaluate utilizing using some of the other suggestions as identified in the Environmental Resources/ Sustainability Eelement.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Building Division
Timeframe: Ongoing , as projects come forward.

Funding Sources: None required .

Objectives: N/A
(Formerly HE-4.1.1)

Strategy HE-4.1.2 Sustainable Practices. The City will continue to implement the Landscape Ordinance for water conservation and the Green Building Ordinance (adopted in 2013) that applies primarily to new residential and nonresidential development, additions, renovations, and tenant improvements of 10 or more units. To further the objectives of the Green Building Ordinance, the City will evaluate the potential to provide incentives, such as waiving or reducing fees, for energy conservation improvements at affordable housing projects (existing or new) with fewer than 10 units to exceed the minimum requirements of the California Green Building Code. The City will also implement the policies in its climate action plan to achieve residential-focused greenhouse gas emission reductions and further these community energy and water conservation goals.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐52

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Building Division
Timeframe: Ongoing; consider further incentives in Fiscal Year 2024-25 to encourage green building practices in smaller developments Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: N/A
(Formerly HE-4.1.2)
Strategy HE-4.1.3 Sustainabl e, Energy-Efficient Housing. The City will work with and support housing developers to develop sustainable, energy-efficient housing.

Such development should include solar panels, green roofs, energy-efficient lighting, and other features that aim toward carbon-neutral impacts while lowering energy costs.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Building Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: None required , as projects come forward.

Objectives: N/AFacilitate the development of energy-efficient measures in all projects, approximately 2,000 units over the Housing Element period.
(New Program)
Strategy HE-4.1.4 Water and Wastewater Priority. Consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 65589.7 (Senate Bill 1087), the City will immediately forward its adopted Housing Element to its water and wastewater providers so they can grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower-income households.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Building Division
Timeframe: Forward the Housing Element following adoption.

Funding Sources: None required.
(New Program)
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐53
GOAL HE-5 SPECIAL SERVICES FOR LOWER-INCOME AND SPECIAL -

NEEDS HOUSEHOLDS
Policies
Policy HE-5.1 Lower-Income and Special - Needs Households. Support organizations that provide services to lower-income households and special - need households in the city, such as the persons experiencing homelessness, extremely low- income households, seniorselderly , large households, persons with disabilities,disabled and single- parent households. (Formerly Policy HE-4.1)
Strategies
Strategy HE-5.1.1 Emergency Shelters. To ensure compliance with State law, The City commits to complying with the requirements of AB 2339 regarding emergency shelters.

As part of this compliance, the City will:
 Ccontinue to facilitate housing opportunities for special - needs persons by allowing emergency sh elters as a permitted use , without discretionary review in the “BQ” Quasi-Public R4 zoning district and continuing to permit emergency shelters in the Quasi Public (BQ) zoning district.  Amend the definition of emergency shelters to include other interim interventions, including but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care.
 Amend the Zoning Code to allow emer gency shelters as a permitted use, without discretionary review, in the new R4 zoning district.  Review and revise managerial standards, consistent with State law. --The City will subject emergency shelters to the same development standards as other similar uses within the BQ zoning district, except for those provisions permitted by State law and provided in the Zoning Ordinance for emergency shelters.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing ; amend the Zoning Code by December 2024. Review and revise standards by June 2025 and amend the Zoning Code as needed.

Funding Sources: None required
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐54

Objectives: N/A
(Formerly HE-5.1.1)
Strategy HE-5.1.2 Supportive Services for Lower-Inco me Households and Persons with Special Needs. The City will continue to u stilize its Below - Market - Rate Affordable Housing Fund ( BMR AHF), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) funds to provide for a range of supportive services for lower-income households and persons with special needs.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division Timeframe: Through the annualAnnually through the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)Action Plan funding application process , allocate CDBG, BMR AHF, and HSG funding to organizations that cater to the needs of lower- income and special- needs households.

Funding Sources: BMR AHF ,; CDBG,; HSG.

Objectives: N/A Facilitate the provision of supportive services to 1,500 residents over the Housing Element period. Funding will be used to facilitate services citywide, but extra focus will be given to areas with historically higher areas of income segregation, such as the areas along the Interstate 280 corridor, in the areas abutting at the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, alon g N. Foothill Boulevard (western edge of Creston-Pharlap neighborh ood), and along Miller Avenue north of Creekside Park.
(Formerly HE-5.1.2)
Strategy HE-5.1.3 Rotating Safe Car ParkHomeless Shelter. The City will continue to support the operation of a Rotating Safe Car ParkHomeless Shelter program in collaboration with local nonprofit serv ice providers, such as West Valley Community Services.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division; Ffaith in Action
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: None required .

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐55
Objectives: N/ASupport the operation of a rotating safe car park programshelter services to serve at least 100 unhoused community members who are living in their vehicles.
(Formerly HE-5.1.3)
Strategy HE-1.3.85.1.4 Low-Barrier Navigation Center and Supportive Housing . The City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow supportive housing and low- barrier navigation centers for the homeless by right in mixed-use and nonresidential zoning districts where uses permitting multifamily uses are permittedzones permitting multifamily uses, per Government Code Sections 65650 et seq. and 65660 et seq. , 656 64, and 65666 (AB 101, 2019).AB101 (2019) provides a pathway to permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness. In order to comply wi th State law, the City will amend its Zoning Code to allow “Low Barrier Navigation Center” by right in appropriate zoning districts.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Amend the Zoning Code by June 2025.FY 2023-24 Funding Sources: None required .

Objectives: N/A
(New)
Strategy HE-5.1.5 Residential Care Facilities. The Zoning Ordinance now allows residential care facilities for six clients or fewer to be treated as a single-family use consistent with California Health an d Safety Code (HSC) Sections 1267.8, 1566.3, 1568.08. Residential Care Facilit ies with six or fewer persons will be treated as a single- family use . The Ci ty will amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow and larger residential care facilities with seven or more that operate as a single housekeeping unit will be allowed in all zones that permit residential uses, of the same type with objective standards similar to those applied to other residential uses permitted in that zoning district, in accordance with the City’s definition of family.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division Timeframe: Amend the Zoning Code by June 2025.

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐56

Funding Sources: None required.
(New)
Strategy HE-5.1.6 Manufactured Homes . The City will amend the Zoning Code to permit manufactured homes, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.3, in the same manner and in the same zoning districts as conventional or stick-built structures are permitted.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division Timeframe: Amend the Zoning Code by June 2025.

Funding Sources: None required.
(New)
GOAL HE-6 EQUAL ACCESS TO HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
Policies
Policy HE-6.1 Housing Discrimination. The City will work to eliminate on a citywide basis all unlawful discrimination in housing wi th respect to age, race, sex, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic background, medical condition, or other arbitrary factors, so that all persons can obtain decent housing. (Formerly Policy HE-6.1)
Policy HE-6.2 Housing Equity Education. The City will work to create opportunities for public education around the issue of housing equity and education about the history of racial segregation to build community and raise awareness. This should include more opportunities for community dialogue and shared experiences. Outreach about these programs will be conducted citywide, but extra focus will be given to areas where long-term patterns income segregation may be more prevalent, such as the ar eas along the Interstate 280 corridor, areas abutting at the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard (the wes tern edge of Creston-Pharlap neighborhood), and along Miller Avenue north of Creekside Park. (New Policy)
Strategies
Strategy HE-6.1.1 Fair Housing Services. The City will continue to:

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐57
 Partner with a local fair housing service provider, such as Project Sentinel, to Pp rovide fair housing services, which include outreach, education, counseling, and investigation of fair housing complaints.  Retain aPartner with a local fair housing service provider, such as Project Sentinel, fair housing service provider to provide direct services for residents, landlords, and other housing professionals. Among other things, this should address issues related to the use of HUD-VASH vouchers, so that veterans may use such vouchers without discrimination.  Partner with a local fair housing service provider, such as Project Sentinel, to assists individuals with housing problems such as discrimination and rental issues including repairs, and provide information and counseling regarding rights and responsibilities under California tenant landlord law.

Additionally, provide annual training to landlords on fair housing rights and responsibilities with the intent of reducing, or eliminating, discrimination.
 Coordinate with efforts of the Sa nta Clara County Fair Housing Consortium to affirmatively further fair housing.
 Distribute fair housing materials prod uced by various organizations at public counters and public events.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing\Continue to partner with a local fair housing service provider, such as Project Sentinel, to provide fa ir housing services on an ongoing basis, and conduct citywide outreach at least twice during the Housing Element cycle. Provide annual fair housing trainings for landlords.

Funding Sources: BMR AHF; CDBG
Objectives: N/ADistribute fair housing materials at two community events per year. Assist five households per year in obtaining fair housing counseling services. Fair housing outreach will be conducted citywide, but extra focus will be given to areas with higher potential for income segregation due to zoning patterns, such as the areas along the Interstate 280 corridor, in the areas abutting the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Bo ulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard (in the western edge of the Creston-Pharlap neighborhood), and along Miller Avenue north of Creekside Park.
(Formerly HE-6.1.1)
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐58

Strategy HE-6.1.2 Housing Equity Awareness. The City will work with one or more companies like “Bang the Table” reto provide virtual public space within which housing issues, including issues related to housing equity, can be discussed on an ongoing basis. This virtual space should include resources for residents who feel they have experienced discrimination, information about filing fair housing complaints with HCD or HUD, and information about protected classes under the Fair Housing Act. The virtual space should also host quarterly (or more frequent) meetings with a group of panelists to discuss current housing challenges, and why they are important. The City should coordinate quarterly meetings with WVCS (West Valley Community Services and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: BMR AHF; CDBG
Objectives: N/AHost at least four tmeetings per year, either in-person online, to discuss local housing issues.
(New Program)
Strategy HE-6.1.23 Affirmative Marketing. The City will work with affordable housing developers to ensure that affordable housing is affirmatively marketed to households with disproportionate housing needs, including Hispanic and Black households who work in and live outside of Cupertino (e.g., materials in Spanish and English, distributed through employers).

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: BMR AHF; CDBGNone required
Objectives: N/A Housing staff will identify at least 50 local employers, in collaboration with Economic De velopment staff, to develop a distribution list for marketing materials. Outreach will be conducted citywide, but extra focus marketing efforts will be given CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐59
torequested of developers working in or around areas with historically higher areas of potential income segregation, such as the areas along the I nterstate - 280 corridor, in the areas abuttingat the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard (in the western edge of the Creston-Pharlap neighborhood) , and along Miller Avenue north of Creekside Park.
(New Program)
Strategy HE-6.1.3 Housing Mobility. Work with a local fair housing service provider, such as Project Sentinel, to contact rental property owners and managers of multifamily apartment complexes to pr ovide fair housing information and assistance. This outreach will include promoting the Housing Choices Voucher (Section 8) program to landlords that ha ve not previously participated in the program and will target use of multi-lingual materials. Target additional outreach to higher-income neighborhoods, including, but not limited to, the Monta Vista and Height of the City neighborhoods.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: At least twice d uring the planning period.

Funding Sources: BMR AHF; CDBG
Objectives: N/Promote housing mobility and expanded opportunity for 25100 -lower income households.
(New Program)
Strategy HE-6.1.4 Housing Project Coordinator. To support the impl ementation of the multiple new and expanded housing programs and policies identified in the Housing Element, hireassign a member of City staff as the Hire a housing project coordinator. This position would assist with developing outreach programs, writing and pursing grant applications, ongoing monitoring of affordable housing production, preserva tion and rehabilitation, coordination between affordable housing developers, the Ccity, and partner agencies and tracking progress on the many initiatives identified in this Housing Element.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐60

Timeframe: By 2025.

Funding Sources: General Fund
(New Program)
GOAL HE-7 COORDINATION WITH REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS , AND

LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS, AND COLLEGES
Policies
Policy HE-7.1 Coordination with Local School Districts. The Cupertino community places a high value on the excellent quality of education provided by the three public school districts which that serve residents. To ensure the long-term sustainability of the schools , and teachers, and faculty, in tandem with the preservation and development of vibr ant residential areas, the City will continue to coordinate with the Cu pertino Union School District (CUSD), Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD), and Santa Clara Unified School District (SCUSD).
(Formerly Policy HE-7.1)
Policy HE-7.2 Coordination Regional Efforts to Address Housing-Related Issues.

Coordinate efforts with regional organiza tions, including Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), as well as neighborin g jurisdictions, to address housing and related quality of life issues (such as air quality and transportation). (Formerly Policy HE-7.2)
Policy HE-7.3 Public-Private Partnerships. Promote public-private partnerships to address housing needs in the community, especially housing for the workforce. (Formerly Policy HE-7.3)
Strategies
Strategy HE-7.3.1 Coordinate with Outside Agencies and Organizations. The City recognizes the importance of partne ring with outside agencies and organizations in addressing local and regional housing issues. These may include, but are not limited to, the following:
 School districts
 De Anza College
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐61
 Housing providers
 Neighboring jurisdictions
 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
 Air Quality Management District
 Housing Trust Silicon Valley
 Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium
 Santa Clara County HOME Consortium
 Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (COC)
 Housing Authority of Santa Clara County (HASCC)
 Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Specifically, the City will meet with these agencies/organizations periodically to discuss the changing needs, devel opment trends, alternative approaches, and partnering opportunities.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: None required .

Objectives: N/A
(Formerly HE-7.3.)
Strategy HE-7.3.2 Coordination with Local School Districts. To ensure the long-term sustainability of public schools, teachers, and faculty, in tandem with the preservation and development of vibr ant residential areas, the City will coordinate biennially with the local school districts and colleges to identify housing needs and concerns. The City will discuss potential partnerships for affordable housing developments for school district employees and college students, including on school district properties, on a biannual basisy, .

Depending on the outcome of these discussions with school districts and college leadership, the City will notify di stricts and partner developers about relevant funding opportunities as they become available, offercoordinate technical assistance on grant applications and offer which could be assisting CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐62

with grant applications, incentives, and other incentives listed in Strategy HE-

1.3.11. Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Biennially meet with school districts. Provide information about funding opportunities as they become available, offer grant applicationcoordinate technical assistance and incentives as needed.

Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: Assist with the developm ent of 25 teacher/school district employee housing units to improve housing mobility opportunities for district staff and promote place-based revitalization. Focus will be given to areas with lower rates of renter households, such as the Monta Vista North neighborhood.
(New)

PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Quantified objectives estimate the number of unit s likely to be constructed, rehabilitated, or conserved/preserved by income level during the planning period based on optimal implementation of each program. The quantified objectives do not set a ceiling on development; rather, they set a target goal for the jurisdiction to achieve based on needs, resources, and constraints. Each quantified objective is detailed by income level, as shown in Table H-2, Quantified Objectives Summary.

Table H-2 Quantified Objectives Summary
Strategy
Income Category Total
Extremely
Low
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above
Moderate

New Construction
HE-1.3.1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions 596 597 687 755 1,953 4,588 HE-1.3.2: Rezoning to Achieve RHNA 596 597 687 755 1,953 4,588 HE-1.3.3: New Residential Zoning Districts and Land
Use Designations 75 75 150 200 100 600
HE-1.3.4: Development on Non-Vacant Sites 100 100 100 100 100 500 CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐63
Table H-2 Quantified Objectives Summary
Strategy
Income Category Total
Extremely
Low
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above
Moderate

Strategy HE-1.3.5: Encourage Mixed-Use Projects
and Residential in Commercial Zones 150 150 300 600 Strategy HE-1.3.6: Encourage Missing-Middle
Housing Developments to Affirmatively Further Fair
Housing
50 75 125 250 500
Strategy HE-1.3.7: Lot Consolidation 10 17 48 75
Strategy HE-1.3.8: Accessory Dwelling Units 5 10 25 10 10 60 Strategy HE-1.3.9: Review Development Standards 25 25 125 150 500 825 Strategy HE-1.3.10: Innovative and Family-Friendly
Housing Options 50 50 100 200
Strategy HE-1.3.12: Support Affordable Housing
Development 100 100 250 450
Strategy HE-2.3.1: Office and Industrial Housing
Mitigation Program 20 20 40
Strategy HE-2.3.2: Residential Housing Mitigation
Program 50 50 150 250
Strategy HE-2.3.3: Below Market-Rate (BMR)
Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) 25 25 50
Strategy HE-2.3.4: Housing Resources 10 10 30 50
Strategy HE-2.3.6: Incentives for Affordable Housing
Development 400 250 650
Strategy HE-2.3.7: Density Bonus Ordinance 200 300 500 Strategy HE-2.3.8: Review Impact Fees 75 100 325 300 500 1,300 Strategy HE-2.3.9: Review Parking Standards 250 250 Rehabilitation
Strategy HE-3.3.1: Residential Rehabilitation 150 50 200 Strategy HE-3.3.5: Park Land Ordinance 50 50 250 100 450 Preservation
Strategy HE-2.3.10: Assistance for Persons with
Developmental Disabilities
5 5 10
Strategy HE-2.3.11: Live/Work Units 10 10
Strategy HE-3.3.2: Preservation of At-Risk Housing
Units
209 209
Strategy HE-3.3.6: Rent Control Ordinance 25 25 25 25 100 Strategy HE-4.1.3: Sustainable, Energy-Efficient
Housing 100 100 300 500 1000 2000
Strategy HE-5.1.2: Supportive Services for Lower-
Income Households and Persons with Special Needs 200 300 600 400 1500 CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐64

Table H-2 Quantified Objectives Summary
Strategy
Income Category Total
Extremely
Low
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above
Moderate

Strategy HE-5.1.3: Rotating Safe Car Park 100
Strategy HE-6.1.1: Fair Housing Services 3 2
Strategy HE-6.1.2: Affirmative Marketing 25 25
Strategy HE-6.1.3: Housing Mobility 205 530 2050
Strategy HE-7.3.2: Coordination with Local School
Districts
25 Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023
Table H-2 Quantified Objectives Summary
Income Category New Construction Rehabilitation Conservation/ Preservation
Extremely Low 596 50
Very Low 597 50 112
Low 687 100
Moderate 755
Above Moderate 1,000
Total 3,635 200 112

Housing Element Technical Report B

APPENDIX

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B‐i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... B-1

1.1 Role and Content of the Housing Element ............................................................................ B-1

1.2 Housing Element Technical Report Organization .................................................................. B-2

1.3 Consistency with the General Plan ........................................................................................ B-2

Appendix B1 – Public Participation
Appendix B2 –Housing Needs Assessment
Appendix B3 –Fair Housing Assessment
Appendix B4 – Housing Resources and Opportunities
Appendix B5 – Housing Constraints and Energy Conservation Appendix B6 – Review of Previous Housing Element

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B‐1

1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Cupertino is a community with a high quality of life, a renowned school system, and a robust high-technology economy. The long-term vitality of Cupertino and the local economy depend on the availability of all types of housing to meet the community’s diverse housing needs. As Cupertino looks towards the future, increasing the range and diversity of housing options will be integral to the city’s success. Consistent with the goal of bein g a balanced community, this Housing Element continues the City’s commitment to ensuring new opportunities for residential development, as well as for preserving and enhancing our existing neighborhoods.

This 2023-2031 Housing Element repr esents the City of Cupertino’s intent to plan for the housing needs of the Cupertino community while meeting the State’s housing goals, as set forth in Article 10.6 of the California Government Code. The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and a suitable living environment fo r every Californian as the State’s major housing goal. The Cupertino Housing Element represents a sincere and creative effort to meet local and regional housing needs within the constraints of a fully established built-out community, limited land availability, and extraordinarily high costs of land and housing.

1.1 ROLE AND CONTENT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
This Housing Element is a comprehensive eight-year plan to address the housing needs in Cupertino.

The Housing Element is the City’s primary po licy document regarding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population.

Per State Housing Element law, the document must be periodically updated to:
 Outline the community’s housing production objectives consistent with State and regional growth projections;
 Describe goals, policies, and implementation strategies to achieve local housing objectives;  Examine the local need for housing with a focus on special-needs populations;  Identify adequate sites for the production of housing serving various income levels;  Analyze potential constraints to new housing production;  Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other General Plan elements; and  Evaluate Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

This 6th Cycle Housing Element covers an eight-year planning period, from January 31, 2023, through January 31, 2031, and replaces the City’s 5th Cycl e Housing Element that covered the January 31, 2015, through January 31, 2023, planning period.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B‐2

1.2 HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT ORGANIZATION
The Housing Element Technical Report, Appendix B, includes the following sections:

Appendix B1 – Public Participation: This section summarizes public outreach and engagement efforts, including stakeholder interviews; Housing Element advisory committee meetings; housing commission, planning commission, and City Counc il workshops and study sessions; community workshops; public hearings; community input received; and noticing of the draft Housing Element.

Appendix B2 – Housing Needs Assessment: This section focuses on demographic information, including population trends, ethnicity, age, house hold composition, income, employment, housing characteristics, housing needs by income, and housing needs for special segments of the population.

Appendix B3 – Fair Housing Assessment: Includes a Fair Housing Assessment that aims to combat discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.

Appendix B4 – Housing Resources and Opportunities: This section describes Cupertino’s housing resources as well as the city’s existing housing stock and the potential areas for future housing development.

Appendix B5 – Housing Constraints: This section analyzes potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints to housing development. This includes the City’s planning, zoning, and building standards that directly affect residential development patterns as well as influence housing availability and affordability. Potential nongovernmen tal constraints include the availability and cost of financing housing development, the price of land, and the materials for building homes. This section also discusses opportunities for energy conservation, which can reduce costs to homeowners and infrastructure costs to the City.

Appendix B6 – Review of Previous Housing Element: This section contains an evaluation of the prior Housing Element and its accomplishments and analyzes differences between what was projected and what was achieved.

1.3 CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The City’s 2040 General Plan was adopted in 2014, and the Housing Element has been reviewed for consistency with other General Plan elements. The policies and programs in this Housing Element are consistent with the policy direction contained in other parts of the General Plan. The City will continue to review and revise the Housing Element throughout the planning period, as necessary for consistency, when amendments are made to the General Plan (Strategy HE-1.3.13).

Per Assembly Bill (AB) 162 (Government Code S ection 65302.g.3), upon the next revision of the Housing Element on or after January 1, 2014, th e Safety Element shall be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire for land classified as state responsibility areas, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code, and land classifi ed as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, as APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B‐3

defined in Section 51177. Senate Bill (SB) 379 (Government Code Section 65302.g.4) requires that the Safety Element be reviewed and updated as nece ssary to address climate change adaptation and applicable resiliency strategies. SB 1035 (Government Code Section 65302.g.6) requires that the Safety Element be reviewed and updated as needed upon each revision of the Housing Element or local hazard mitigation plan, but not less than once every eight years. SB 99 (Government Code Section 65302.g.5) requires that on or af ter January 1, 2020, the Safety Element includes information to identify residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two evacuation routes.

As of January 2023, the City is currently working to review and update the existing Safety Element, incorporating all State law changes, including a pplicable laws and any a dditional requirements and General Plan guidelines from the State of Califor nia Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR).

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B‐4

This page intentionally left blank.

Public Participation B.1

APPENDIX

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐i

Table of Contents
B1 Public Participation ............................................................................................ B1-1 B1.1 Bang the Table ............................................................................................................. B1-1 B1.2 Community Workshops ................................................................................................. B1-2 B1.3 City Publications, Listservs, Newsletters, and Other Social Media Outreach ................ B1-3 B1.4 Mailed Outreach ........................................................................................................... B1-4 B1.5 Dedicated AFFH Outreach ............................................................................................ B1-4 B1.6 Tribal Consultation ........................................................................................................ B1-5 B1.7 Additional Outreach ...................................................................................................... B1-5 B1.8 Study Sessions: Sites Inventory ................................................................................... B1-7 B1.9 Focus Group Meetings: Rezoning ................................................................................ B1-8 B1.10 Community Open House: Rezoning .............................................................................. B1-9 B1.11 Public Review and Comments for Draft and Final Housing Element .......................... B1-10 B1.12 Noticing of the Draft Housing Element ........................................................................ B1-15 Tables
Table B1-1 Social Media Outreach .................................................................................................. B1-4

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐1

B1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
This section describes the effort made by the City of Cupertino to engage all economic segments of the community (including residents and/or their representatives) in the development and update of the Housing Element. This public participation effort also includes formal consultation, pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3, with representative s from nine Native American tribes that are present and active in Santa Clara County. It is also responsive to Assembly Bill (AB) 686 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing), which requires local jurisdictions, as they update their housing elements, to conduct public outreach to equitably include all stakeholders in the Housing Element public participation program.

The 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation (RHNA) numbers are a sea change for all California communities, and the success of the update process hinged in part on a community outreach and engagement program that was r obust, inclusive, and meaningful. COVID-19 has complicated community outreach efforts, but the pa ndemic has also catalyzed the development of new digital tools that have brought interactive engage ment to a new level. One such tool is an all-in- one digital community engagement platform called Engagement HQ or Bang the Table (https://www.bangthetable.com/).

B1.1 BANG THE TABLE
The City of Cupertino partnered with Bang the Table as a cornerstone of its community outreach and engagement program. Using this platform, the update team developed an interactive engagement plan that allowed community members to engage on their own time. Components of the interactive engagement plan included:
 Website. Engage Cupertino at https://engagecupertino.org/hub-page/housing-element is a dedicated website that provides a portal to all of the Housing Element-related public engagement activities that are available to members of the public. The page provides translation from English into four languages, including Chinese, Spanish, Russian, and Vietnamese. This website includes information on Housing Elemen t basics, site surveys, a Senate Bill 9 survey, and materials from community workshops.
 Places. The update team gathered feedback fr om an interactive mapping program called Balancing Act, through the Sites Inventory process.
 Stories. The engagement process helped Cupertino better understand, empathize with, and relate to all who contributed to the many Housing Element discussions through video interaction and reflection opportunities.
 Surveys. The process encouraged Cupertino community members to voice their opinions in a convenient way that also helped City staff understand what areas need more encouragement to participate. Aggregate data also helped the City understand generally who is participating with the outreach tools.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B1‐2

B1.2 COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
The following community workshops were held to connect with stakeholders and Cupertino residents and gather valuable insights that would contribute to the Housing Element update process.  October 13, 2021: West Valley Community Services (WVCS’s) Envisioning an Inclusive Cupertino: Housing Element Town Hall. This event was an opportunity for the Cupertino community to learn about the Housing Element through an informative presentation, and a panel featuring Assemblymember Evan Low, Bianca Neumann from EAH Housing, Nadia Aziz from the Silicon Valley Law Foundation, Matthew Reed from SV@Home, and Mair Dundon, affordable housing resident, and community advocate.  December 9, 2021: Housing Element Update Community Workshop. The workshop was advertised to the public through a variety of efforts. The workshop, held at the height of COVID-19 restrictions, allowed attendees via Zoom. The workshop was live streamed to both the City of Cupertino’s YouTube channel and the Granicus TV channel.  January 24, 2022: Senior Advisory Committee. Staff attended this Committee meeting via Zoom to inform this senior-focused grou p about the Housing Element update and the community engagement opportunities that woul d be coming throughout the 2022 calendar year, and to encourage community participation in the update to the maximum extent possible.  April 23, 2022: Earth Day and Arbor Day Festival. City staff attended this day-long event to update and inform the public about the importance of the Housing Element update and the ways the public can participate in the process.
 May 23, 2022: Community Meeting for Inclusive Housing. This workshop was hosted by WVCS., It focused on community dialogue and included a panel of individuals with a variety of backgrounds and life experiences, including former military veterans adjusting to civilian life, individuals on the edge of homelessness, and residents with physical and intellectual disabilities.

Breakout rooms enabled participants to discuss their experiences and how to be engaged with the policy- making process. The workshop was ad vertised to the public through the various efforts, including the City’s e-notification list of over 2,000 individuals and organizations. There were Zoom attendees and in-person attendees , with over 100 attendees in total . The meeting was also livestreamed to the City of Cupertino’s YouTube channel and the Granicus TV channel.
 July 20, 2022: Community Meeting to Focu s on Needs for Students and Older Adults .

This workshop was also hosted by WVCS and, featured a panel of younger and older adults , all of whom deal directly with high housing costs throughout the region , and more breakout room time than in previous meetings. It took place remotely on Zoom. The workshop was advertised to the public through various efforts , again including the City’s e-notification list .

There were Zoom attendees and in-person attendees. The meeting was also live -streamed to the City of Cupertino’s YouTube channel and the Granicus TV channel.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐3

 September 26, 2022: Comm unity Meeting to Better Understand Low-Income Homeowners. This workshop was hosted by WVCS and, focused on those who own a home in Cupertino but are otherwise low -income, and those who work in Cupertino but cannot afford to live in the city and thus face long daily commutes to and from work . The workshop was advertised to the public through various efforts , again including the City’s e-notification list. There were Zoom attendees and in-person attendees. The meeting was also live -streamed to the City of Cupertino’s YouTube channel and the Granicus TV channel.

Cupertino’s community engagement program included an initial presentation to City Council, five community meetings, and online/virtual particip ation opportunities made possible through Bang the Table (described previously).

B1.3 CITY PUBLICATIONS, LISTSERVS, NEWSLETTERS, AND OTHER SOCIAL

MEDIA OUTREACH
The City released several newsletters to ensure the public was well informed of the Housing Element efforts. This included:
 City newsletters went out initially to 685 email subscribers for the October and December 2021 12/1 and 12/22/21 community workshops. By late 2022, th e list had grown to over 2,000 subscribers. E-notifications have been sent to list subscribers for every public meeting.  Newsletters were sent to 1,856 subscribers on February 2, 2022 (Cupertino General News, Housing, or Housing Commission Meetings lists), with a 58 percent open rate and a 5 percent click rate.
 Since early 2022, the City has provided regular, generally monthly, updates on the Housing Element on its two electronic newsletters, Items of Interest and The Scene (also in print).  Social media outreach included Cupertino Facebook, Twitter, and NextDoor, and eNotification. This outreach is summarized in Table B1-1, Social Media Outreach.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B1‐4

Table B1-1 Social Media Outreach
Facebook NextDoor Twitter eNotification
Post 1 – Housing Element
Community Workshop
(11/30/21)
Reach: 453
Engagement: 10
Reach: 1,013
Engagement: 1
Reach: 783
Engagement: 1
Reach: 15,010
Engagement: 594
Post 2 – Workshop Reminder
(12/6/21)
Reach: 303
Engagement: 1
Reach: 656
Engagement: 1
Reach: 1,096
Engagement: 16
Reach: 1,444
Engagement: 118
SOURCE: EMC Planning Group 2022
B1.4 MAILED OUTREACH
January Postcard: Mailed to every residence in the city the week of January 10, 2022, to 23,351 addresses.

This was a city-wide effort to notify all residents of the Housing Element update.

The Cupertino Scene Newsletter: The Cupertino Scene, the City’s official newsletter, is one method the City uses to communicate with residents to ensure the public has access to useful and important information. The Scene is printed every month , except in January and August. A printed version of the newsletter is mailed to more than 20,000 ho useholds with extra copies available at City Hall, Cupertino Library, Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, among other spots across Cupertino.

The Scene went out to 23,351 a ddresses on December 1, 2021 , and February 2, 2022. Additional updates were also provided throughout 2022.

The City also sent direct mail to all property ow ners with sites larger than one half acre and up to 10 acres, consistent with California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidelines regarding potentially eligible housing sites.

B1.5 DEDICATED AFFH OUTREACH
The Cupertino public participation program was very responsive to affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH), which requires local jurisdictions to conduct public outreach to equitably include all stakeholders in the Housing Element public participation program (see the discussion above for more complete information on AFFH).
 Flyer and Survey Distribution at West Va lley Community Services (WVCS) Events .

Flyers promoting the Engage Cupertino Housing Element website and a survey were distributed to WVCS clients at several WVCS-sponsored events, including the December 11th Gift of Hope event and a handful of the week ly mobile market events between January and March of 2022. The flyers and surveys were available in English, Spanish, Russian, Vietnamese, and Simplified Chinese. A total of 38 surveys were received.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐5

 October 13, 2021: WVCS’s Envisioning an Inclusive Cupertino: Housing Element Town Hall.  May 23, 2022: Community Meeting for Inclusive Housing.  July 20, 2022: Community Meeting to Focus on Needs for Students and Older Adults.  September 26, 2022: Community Meeting to Better Understand Low-Income Homeowners.  Additional Focus Group Meetings focused on housing for pe ople with disabilities and opportunities for faith-based organizations to contribute to affordable housing.

B1.6 TRIBAL CONSULTATION
This public participation effort includes formal consultation, pursuant to Government Code Section §65352.3, with representatives from nine (Native American tribes that are present and active in Santa Clara County. All tribal groups have received mailed notices regarding the Housing Element update and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process associated with it.

B1.7 ADDITIONAL OUTREACH
Through the month of August 20232, the following outreach has been done for the Housing Element update. The following list includes public meetings for which notice was provided before the City’s Commissions and Councils, as well as community meetings:
 Mid-January, 2022 ,: postcards were mailed to all Cupertino households ( to over 2 31,000 addressespostcards sent ) to inform residents about the Housing Element update and to introduce them to the engagecupertino.org website and the range of information located there.  January 19, 2022: To gauge property owner interest, letters of interest were sent by City staff to over 400 Cupertino property owners whose pr operties could potentially be viable housing sites per HCD criteria. An online owner interes t form was created by the City’s consultant, EMC Planning, and placed on the website. At pr esent, there have been 59 property owners who have requested inclusion of their properties on the sites inventory. Staff did a focused, second mailing in early June to property owners who did not originally respond.  Since December 2021, regular monthly updates on the Housing Element update’s status and next steps have been provided on the City’s Items of Interest and The Scene newsletters.  Social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and NextDoor have been regularly used to inform residents about upcoming Housing Element update meetings.  At present, over 3,700 individuals receive e-notifications from the City for Housing Element- related public meetings.
 Staff attended the January 24, 2022, Senior Advisory Committee and the March 9, 2022, Block Leaders meetings to provide an overview of the Housing Element update process and to inform meeting attendees about sources of information regarding the update.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B1‐6

 Staff attended the April 23 , 2022, Earth and Arbor Day event at Library Park to inform residents and attendees about the Housing Element update and to let residents know that their input is valuable and necessary.
 May 23, 2022: A hybrid community meeting allowing for both virtual and in-person attendance was held at Community Hall. The meeting was c oordinated by City staff, EMC Planning and West Valley Community Services (WVCS) and feat ured four panelists with lived-experience and/or special needs, including development disabilities, prior homelessness, housing insecurity, and adjustments to civilian life following military service. Over 100 people registered to attend the meeting, with approximately 70 participating; three-quarters attended virtually.

This meeting was the first of three focus group community meetings, the second meeting was held on July 25, described below.
 July 25, 2022: Community Meeting focusing on housing-related issues germane to seniors and students. Similar to the May community meeting, approximately 100 people registered for the meeting, which was virtual-only. An upcoming community meeting is scheduled for September 26, focusing on the experiences of Cupertino workers who are priced -out of the local housing market and Cupertino homeowners who are lower income despite homeownership.  Community Engagement Plan-Strategic Advisory Committee meetings: an ad hoc committee approved by the City Council on March 8 to focus on community engagement and AFFH issues, met on March 30, April 7 and 25, May 16, June 6, and July 25, September 16, . An upcoming Advisory Committee meeting will be held on September and October 28, 2022 16 .

E-Notifications were sent out for all eight meetings of the cCommittee have been provided for all Advisory Committee meetings.
 City Council Study Sessions: Initial study sessions providing a big picture overview of the Housing Element update were held September 28 and November 16 , 2021 . Council subsequently held meetings on the formation of a Stakeholders Group on March 1 and March 8, 2022, leading to the establishment of the Strategic Advisory Committee. City Council meetings were held on the Sites inventory: August 16, 29, and 30, 2022.  December 9, 2021: a morning Housing Commission study session and evening Community Meeting were held.
 Planning Commission: Study sessions providing an overview of the Housing Element update and, more specifically, on the Sites Inventory, were held on January 25, February 22, April 26, and May 24, 2022. Joint meetings with the Housing Commission were held on June 28 and July 5, 2022, at the conclusion of which both the Planning and Housing Commissions provided recommendations to the City Council on whic h sites to include on the Housing Sites Inventory.
 June 8 , 2022 : A meeting with Project Sentinel Executive Director, Carole Conn, and Fair Housing director, Molly Current, was held to discuss fair housing and rental housing issues in Cupertino and countywide.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐7

 July 25, 2023: Study session with City Council on the progress on the Housing Element to date.

In addition, the Council was updated on site sel ection and policy areas. The Council affirmed the site selection strategy outlined by staff and identified policy areas of interest by a motion that passed on a 4-0-1 vote.

B1.8 STUDY SESSIONS: SITES INVENTORY
City staff held numerous meetings related to the Housing Element update. During the 2022 calendar year, the Planning Commission held four public meetings on January 25, February 22, April 26, and May 24, 2022. Each of these meetings focused on a citywide discussion to select sites at specified densities for a potential housing sites inventory.

At the January 2022 and February 2022 Planning Commission study sessions, staff provided overviews of the housing sites selection process and identi fied nearly 400 properties citywide that could potentially be placed on the City’s housing sites in ventory. The sites inventory is the list of City Council-approved properties that identifies wher e housing will be developed during the 2023-2031 planning period. The majority of these properties fe ll within the property size range, 0.5-10 acres, recommended by HCD. The City’s Planning Commission had the following recommendations:
1) That the housing sites should be dispersed throughout the city and strive for a balance between the City’s eastern and western areas;
2) New housing sites should avoid or minimize di splacement of existing uses, particularly existing residential uses that would necessitate the relocation of residents; 3) The Housing Element should avoid significantly “up-zoning” sites to the extent feasible; and 4) The Housing Element should include new ho using sites that could support the City’s public schools and help counteract declining enrollment trends that are occurring city- and county wide.

Based on the Planning Commission’ s’ recommendation, City staff revised the site inventory and presented a reduced, more focused list of potential housing sites at the April 26 Planning Commission meeting. In the revised inventory, potential sites were grouped by neighborhood and special area to better illustrate the locations of the properties. Ex tensive comments were received at the April 26, 2022, Planning Commission meeting, where in the Planning Commission reiterated its previously - stated principles and goals for housing site selecti on and also directed staff to focus on the potential inclusion of several “key” sites along South DeAnza and Stevens Creek Boulevards.

On June 28 and July 5, 2022, the Planning and Housing Commissions held a special joint meeting (the meeting was continued from June 28 to July 5) to finalize their housing sites inventory recommendation to the City Council. The Planni ng Commission’s sites inventory recommendation largely coincided with the staff’s June 28 recommendation to the Planning and Housing Commissions, but it also includes key changes, notably increasing housing densities to areas on the city’s west side, such as the South DeAnza Boulevard and Bubb Road special areas, as well as the North and South Monta Vista neighborhoods. Other recommendations al so included that the development standards APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B1‐8

be established that allow for more intensive deve lopment along the street frontage portions of the DeAnza and Stevens Creek Boulevard corridors but that development of the properties along these corridors adjacent to single-family neighborhoods be limited in scale to preserve the existing neighborhood character.

B1.9 FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS: REZONING
On August 16, 2023, the City held two focus grou p meetings related to rezoning for the Housing Element update. Over 75 local and national affo rdable and market-rate housing developers were invited to join the focus group meeting. Nearly 35 service providers, housing organizations, and local agencies were invited to join the focus group meeting for housing advocates and partner agencies.

Focus Group 1: Five housing developers attended, which included representatives from Charities Housing and Bay Area Housing Corporation/local affordable housing developers, Sand Hill Property Company, and Toll Brothers/local and national for- profit developers. The discussion with housing developers focused on housing densities and common obstacles, and potential solutions, to building medium- to very high-density residential developments in Cupertino. Participants shared that there are two primary forms of development and densitie s that are feasible in today’s market – townhome development with a density of approximately 18 to 25 dwelling units per acre and podium development with a density of at least 80 dwelling units per acre. Market-rate developer participants noted that unless a jurisdiction has a large enough site of at least three to four acres that would allow for a mix of densities, it can be difficult to finance and build at the densities found between townhome and podium development. Additional participant suggestions to reduce barriers to development included expediting the permitting process, creating certainty and consistency for review, and allowing more flexibility in project design.

Focus Group 2: Four participants attended, which included representatives from Cupertino Union School District and Fremont Union High School District/local school districts, Silicon Valley Leadership Group/a local housing advocate, and West Valley Community Services/a local social services provider. Participants were asked to provide input on what type of housing or amenities they believe are currently lacking in Cupertino. School di strict representatives noted that they have been struggling to attract and retain employees and highlighted the need for workforce housing in the area.

They also discussed student generation as it affects current enrollment, pointing out that higher- density development typically generates fewer students per household than single-family residential or townhome development. The service provider and housing advocate representatives emphasized the need for more affordable units and higher-density development, particularly along transit corridors.

Participants were also asked to identify which amenities, services, or infrastructure they would like to see in new development projects. Participants encouraged the provision of community gathering areas, open space, and on-site social, childcare, youth, and senior services, as well as more mixed-use development and a mix of housing types in each project.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐9

B1.10 COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE: REZONING
In September 2023 the City hosted two community open house events on rezoning. An in-person open house was held on Saturday September 9, fr om 1:00pm to 3:00pm at the Quinlan Community Center. The second open house was held virtually through Zoom on Thursday, September 14 from 6:00pm to 8:00pm. Both open houses consisted of the same agenda, material, and approach.

Approximately 40 in-person participants and 25 virtual participants attended the open house meetings.

The objectives of the open houses were to educate community members about Housing Element sites and densities; collect feedback about amenities, placemaking features, and development form; and address community questions. Each open house consisted of a presentation on the Housing Element Update, Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) , and rezoning, followed by a question-and- answer session. Participants had the remainder of the meeting time to share their input and ideas at each of the three open house stations on: (1) Context and amenities, (2) Development types and forms for 25 dwelling units per acre, 50 dwelling units per acre, and 75 dwelling units per acre, and (3) Development standards for proposed density ranges of 25-50 dwelling units per acre and 50-75 dwelling units per acre. Participant feedback from the open house stations is summarized below.

Participants were asked to provide input thro ugh a visual preference survey regarding building amenities and placemaking features for new development.

Building Amenities
In-Person and virtual open house participants expressed support for community open spaces and courtyards in new developments. The in-person participants also showed support for retail uses and bicycle storage, and virtual participants supported community space, daycare, and bicycle storage.

Additional ideas from both groups included: aging in place amenities such as community gathering space and medical services; social services; barbecue and picnic areas; recreational space for sports, such as basketball, skateboarding, yoga, martial arts, and roller hockey; space for gardening, dog parks; laundry and storage facilities for residents; and air conditioning.

Placemaking
Participants from the in-person workshop showed strong support for landscape and green infrastructure, followed by active street frontages. In the virtual open house, participants showed the most support for active street frontages and public plazas, followed by equal support of public art, landscaping and green infrastructure, and lighting. Additional ideas from both groups included:
amenities like entertainment, grocery stores, and other social gathering places nearby; bike paths; and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through less parking and sidewalk enhancements, including outdoor dining.
25 Dwelling Units per Acre
Participants favored mixed-use development, fo llowed by townhomes and multi-family projects.

Some participants suggested that mixed-use devel opment should incorporate inviting ground floor design with shops and bistros. Regarding townhome development, participants pointed out that developers are building very similar projects, which can lead to bland designs. They would prefer to see variation in roof lines, building step-backs, ve rtical articulation on the façade, and vegetation.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B1‐10

Others pointed out concerns about adequate resi dential parking and townhome design not being senior-friendly or incorporating aging-in-place design techniques. 50 Dwelling Units per Acre
Participants noted preferences for mixed-use and multi-family development for developments, citing mixed-use as tending to be both cost-effective and pleasant. However, one participant noted a preference for a combination of mixed-use and 100% residential projects when in close proximity to one another. Participants also preferred multi-family development design that incorporated variation in colors, materials, and roof lines, plus private and community open space such as balconies and landscaped areas. General comments about development at this density included: concerns that higher density development look “cookie cutter” and should incorporate “personality,”; and that density at this level is too high for Cupertino.
75 Dwelling Units per Acre
The in-person group showed a strong preference for mixed-use development over multi-family. The virtual group had a slight preference for multifamily. Comments from both groups related to mixed- use development included: direct lighting downward and toward building walls to minimize light pollution; require variation in height, rooflines, and color; and provide larger square footage for ground floor tenant spaces; and vegetation. Comments related to multi-family development included:
trees along street frontages; balconies; and variation in height, rooflines, and color. General comments received for development at this density included: concerns that mixed-use can be noisy, so some developments should be designed as residential on ly; concerns that all higher density developments would look “cookie cutter” and should incorporate “personality”; preference for the highest density possible, even if it means taller buildings, for de velopments to have lower impact on greenhouse gas emissions and lower vehicle miles traveled through bike and walking amenities as well as less parking; and a note that density at this level is too high for Cupertino.

B1.8B1.11 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENTS FOR DRAFT AND FINAL

HOUSING ELEMENT
The City solicited ongoing public comments during the drafting of the Housing Element. All comments received as a result of the City’s efforts to encourage public participation in development of the 2023-2031 Housing Element have been ta ken into consideration and, where appropriate, additional analysis, programs, and policies have been incorporated into the Housing Element.

The City received comments from the public, Cupertino residents, Silicon Valley Young Democrats, Cupertino for All, and Silicon Valley at Home, South Bay YIMBY, and comments received at Cupertino City Council Meetings. Public comments in cluded, but were not limited to, the following topics:
 Include housing strategies to develop more missing-middle housing for the area’s workforce.  Develop incentives including transitional housing on properties owned by public entities.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐11

 Consider development of work/live units when replacing strip malls along major transportation corridors.
 Hire a housing program manager to assist with implementing housing programs.  Address fair housing needs to affirmatively further fair housing.  Ensure sufficient capacity to meet the RHNA that is distributed throughout the city.  Explore increasing housing for the developmentally disabled population and reducing barriers to accessing below-market rate units.
 Reduce constraints to housing development, including parking reductions, reduced building setbacks, reducing park dedication fees, expa nding single-family home floor-area ratio (FAR) requirements, and restructuring impact fees.
 Initiate policies and programs focusing on the development of extremely low-income, emergency interim, permanent supportive and transitional housing, housing for De Anza students, and focus on teacher housing for teachers of all academic levels.  Add Tier 2 sites and Assembly Bill (AB) 2011 sites.
 Remove AB 2011 Retail Centers or any additional retail centers.  Partner with local school districts and use underutilized land on school sites.  Include reasonable renter protections, community land trusts, and rental tenant relocation and assistance.
 Approve housing projects that are transit oriented.
 Ensure multifamily housing is encouraged in high opportunity areas All comments received were considered and used to inform the revised sites analysis and the assessment of fair housing. Goals, policies, and strategies were included and/or revised to incorporate the feedback received.

Revisions included new and revised strategies to strengthen the city’s commitment to meeting the RHNA, through assistance with the development of non-vacant sites, mixed-use sites, lot consolidation, modifying development standards to ensure maximum densities can be achieved, and creating a new R-4 zoning district and new General Plan Land Use Designation to allow for higher densities than what currently exist in both the Ci ty’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Several revisions were made to the Fair Housing Assessm ent, including looking at RHNA distribution throughout the city, as well as modifying programs to assist residents with mobility constraints, displacement risk, offering a range of housing types , focusing efforts in high opportunity areas and areas of higher incomes, and to complete a study to determine if a rent control ordinance should be adopted by the City. Specific strategies were also modified to ensure compliance with State law. The City revised the sites inventory to remove sites that were not viable based on their existing uses, and included additional information regarding their redevelopment potential, based on City knowledge and conversations with property owners.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B1‐12

The Draft Element, as revised, will remained available on the City’s website during the second submittal to HCD (for 60 -days). At this point, comments were received from two members of the public in December 2023 related to revisions ma de to the initial public draft. One expressed disagreement with the ACS data that was used in the housing needs assessment and felt that it did not match their lived experience as a resident, partic ularly around the availability of employment opportunities in the city and the number of households earning at or above 100 percent of the AMI, and expressed a desire for more housing resources to be made available, particularly to combat housing discrimination. The other community member expr essed concerns about the availability of power infrastructure and potential traffic conditions and graffiti that the community member feels may result from increased housing development. These comments were considered during subsequent revisions.

In February 2024, prior to submitting the draft to HCD for a third round of review, the City received comments from Cupertino residents, and a member of the City Council. All comments received were considered and responses to the themes are summarized below. The City continues to make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all econom ic segments through direct emails, and posting of the draft on the City’s website.
 Release of the draft Housing Element was not consistent with State Law. o Similar to all other draft releases, consistent with AB 215, the City posted the draft revision on the website and emailed a link to all individuals and organizations that previously requested notices relating to the Housing Element or requested general City news.
 Request for additional public outreach.
o There will be at least one meeting with the Housing and Planning Commissions in April 2024 followed by meetings with the Ci ty Council in May/June 2024. There will be several community meetings in the spring and summer to discuss rezoning, General Plan and objective design standards in relation to the Housing Element.  Partner with school districts and other organiza tions to provide downpayment assistance or equity share program to help public agency employees, including the employees of the City of Cupertino, to become homeowners in our community.
o Strategy HE-7.3.2 states that the City will coordinate with local school districts and colleges to identify housing needs and concerns. The City will discuss potential partnerships for affordable housing deve lopments for school district employees and college students, including on school district properties. This ongoing implementation of this program will help to strategize on how to expand housing opportunities for teachers and public employees.
 Remove housing opportunities on school sites.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐13

o Allowing for housing on school sites pr ovides additional housing options for employees. The City would determine the need based on the implementation of Strategy HE-7.3.2.
 Address the job-housing imbalance and discourage worsening the imbalance by not allowing incentives or waiver of standards or waiver of fees for projects that worsen the job-housing balance.
o The Housing Element identifies over 60 priority housing sites, many at minimum densities of 50 units/acre, to provide much needed housing, particularly affordable units, to address the jobs-housing imbalance that exists in Cupertino and the job-rich northwestern portion of Santa Clara County.
 Prioritize smaller starter for-sale homes to incentivize housing for the Missing Middle. o The missing middle strategies would provid e a higher proportion of rental units and townhome densities would allow for starter homes both allowing a product that is more affordable relative to the singe family detached housing that makes up the majority of the City’s current housing stock.
 Strategy HE-1.3.6 should be changed from R3 to R2 (duplexes) to crea te a better transition for neighborhoods. Allowing R3 zoning allows for the use of density bonus law to eliminate the height, setbacks and parking requirements.
o The R3 zoning standards discussed in the missing middle housing strategy (HE-1.3.6) would not allow more that 4 units on any R1 zoned lot, thus State density bonus law would not be applicable. At present, R1 an d R2 lots throughout the City are able to have up to four units, the missing middle strategy would provide an opportunity for housing types, such as triplexes or fourplexes to be developed at neighborhood scale.  Remove the option to waive park dedication fees and construction taxes. o This is a long standing policy and offe rs a way to remove constraints to the development of affordable housing.

In March 2024 the City revised the third draft of the Housing Element and released it for a 7-day review period prior to submitting revisions to HCD. During the 7-day review period, comments were received from Cupertino Voice and a Cupertino resident. Comments are summarized on the following page.
1- Survey results from 140 residents was provid ed where most respondents identified the following:

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B1‐14

a. The City should hold more public meetings to obtain public input regarding rezoning, specifically considering height, setbacks, parking, and other standards. i. As mentioned previously in B1.10, Community Open House: Rezoning, in September 2023 the City hosted two community open house events on rezoning. The objectives of the open houses were to educate community members about Housing Element sites an d densities; collect feedback about amenities, placemaking features, and development form; and address community questions.
b. The City should not allow corner lots to become multifamily housing. i. In an effort to address the needs of all segments of the community, and to affirmatively further fair housing, Ci ty staff created Strategy HE-1.3.6 to address the needs of the missing middle. Additionally, at present, R1 and R2 lots throughout the City are able to have up to four units, the missing middle strategy would provide an opportunity for housing types, such as triplexes or fourplexes to be developed at neighborhood scale.
c. The City should not allow developers to pay a fee or reduce traditional types of parkland requirements.
i. It has been long standing policy in the City to offer a fee waiver for affordable units and developments in a bid to remove constraints to such development.

This updated strategy would allow the City to study the parkland needs for new, denser development types and create requirements and appropriate fees for this kind of development.
d. The City should not allow high density housing on school sites. i. Allowing for housing on school sites pr ovides additional housing options for employees. The City would determine the need based on the implementation of Strategy HE-7.3.2.
2- It was also expressed that outreach should be done prior to adopting the housing element, the City should not allow parkland credit for pede strian connections and trails, and that Strategy HE-1.3.6, Encourage Missing Middle, is excessive and should be revised. a. See responses under item number 1.

As additional revisions are made to respond to HCD comments, this information will be posted on the City’s website to ensure all members of the pu blic and any interested parties have current information. This process will continue through adoption of the Housing Element.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐15

B1.9B1.12 NOTICING OF THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
Per California Government Code Section 65585, the draft Housing Element was made available for public comment for 30 days, from November 18, 2022, to December 23, 2022. Public comment was received, and an additional 10 business days was allowed to consider and incorporate public comments into the draft revision before submitting to HCD on February 3, 2023. The draft was made available on the City’s website.

The City received a findings letter from HCD on May 4, 2023, and revised the draft Housing Element to address the identified findings. The revised draft Housing Element was posted on the City’s website on October 6, 2023 and interested participants were not ified of the availability, consistent with State law. The City resubmitted the revised Housing Element to HCD on October 16, 2023.

Housing Needs Assessment B.2

APPENDIX

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐i

Table of Contents
B2 Housing Needs Assessment ........................................................................... B2-1 B2.1 Overview of Bay Area Housing ................................................................................... B2-1 B2.2 Population, Employment, and Household Characteristics ........................................... B2-1 Population Growth .................................................................................................... B2-1 Age ........................................................................................................................... B2-3 Race and Ethnicity .................................................................................................... B2-5 Employment Trends ................................................................................................. B2-6 Extremely Low-Income Households ....................................................................... B2-10 Tenure .................................................................................................................... B2-13 Displacement .......................................................................................................... B2-17 B2.3 Housing Stock Characteristics Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits .... B2-18 Housing in need of Rehabilitation .......................................................................... B2-22 Home and Rent Values .......................................................................................... B2-23 Overpayment and Overcrowding ............................................................................ B2-25 Assisted Housing Developments “At Risk” of Conversion ...................................... B2-32 B2.4 Special Housing Needs ............................................................................................... B2-1 Large Households .................................................................................................... B2-1 Female-Headed Households .................................................................................... B2-3 Seniors ..................................................................................................................... B 2-4 People with Disabilities ............................................................................................. B2-7 Homelessness ........................................................................................................ B2-10 Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing ....................................................... B2-16 Farmworkers ........................................................................................................... B2-17 Non-English Speakers ............................................................................................ B2-18 Tables
Table B2-1 Population Growth Trends ...................................................................................... B2-2 Table B2-2 Housing Tenure by Race of Householder for the City and County ........................ B2-15 Table B2-3 Housing Permits by Income Group, 2015 to 2022 ................................................ B2-21 APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐ii

Table B2-4 Inventory of Affordable Housing Units ................................................................... B2-33 Table B2-5 Financial Resources ............................................................................................... B2-1 Table B2-6 Housing Resources for Seniors ................................................................................... B2-6 Table B2-7 Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age ................................................. B2-9 Table B2-8 Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence ...................................... B2-9 Table B2-9 Community Care Facilities in Cupertino, 2023 ...................................................... B2-10 Table B2-10 Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness ............................ B2-15 Table B2-11 Homeless Facilities Near Cupertino ...................................................................... B2-16 Table B2-12 Migrant Worker Student Population ...................................................................... B2-17 Figures
Figure B2-1 Population Growth Trends Chart .............................................................................. B2-3 Figure B2-2 Population by Age, 2000-2019 ................................................................................. B2-4 Figure B2-3 Population Age by Race ........................................................................................... B2-4 Figure B2-4 Population by Race, 2000-2019 ............................................................................... B2-5 Figure B2-5 Jobs in a Jurisdiction ................................................................................................ B2-6 Figure B2-6 Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence B2- .......................................................................................................... B2-7 Figure B2-7 Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group ....................................................................... B2-8 Figure B2-8 Jobs-Household Ratio .............................................................................................. B2-9 Figure B2-9 Resident Employment by Industry ............................................................................ B2-9 Figure B2-10 Unemployment Rate ............................................................................................... B2-10 Figure B2-11 Households by Household Income Level................................................................ B2-11 Figure B2-12 Household Income Level by Tenure ....................................................................... B2-12 Figure B2-13 Poverty Status by Race .......................................................................................... B2-13 Figure B2-14 Housing Tenure ...................................................................................................... B2-13 Figure B2-15 Housing Tenure by Race of Householder ............................................................... B2-15 Figure B2-16 Housing Tenure by Age .......................................................................................... B2-16 Figure B2-17 Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure ...................................................... B2-18 Figure B2-18 Housing Type Trends ............................................................................................. B2-19 Figure B2-19 Housing Units by Year Structure Built .................................................................... B2-20 Figure B2-20 Vacant Units by Type ............................................................................................. B2-21 Figure B2-21 Substandard Housing Issues .................................................................................. B2-22 APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐iii

Figure B2-22 Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units ................................................................. B2-23 Figure B2-23 Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) ............................................................................ B2-24 Figure B2-24 Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units ............................................................. B2-25 Figure B2-25 Median Contract Rent ............................................................................................. B2-26 Figure B2-26 Cost Burden by Tenure .......................................................................................... B2-27 Figure B2-27 Cost Burden by Income Level ................................................................................. B2-27 Figure B2-28 Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................ B2-28 Figure B2-29 Cost Burden by Household Size ............................................................................. B2-29 Figure B2-30 Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level ............................................. B2-30 Figure B2-31 Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ................................................................... B2-31 Figure B2-32 Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity .......................................................... B2-31 Figure B2-33 Overcrowding by Race ........................................................................................... B2-32 Figure B2-34 Household Size by Tenure ....................................................................................... B2-1 Figure B2-35 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms.................................................................... B2-2 Figure B2-36 Household Type ....................................................................................................... B2-3 Figure B2-37 Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status ....................................................... B2-4 Figure B2-38 Senior Households by Income and Tenure ............................................................... B2-5 Figure B2-39 Disability by Type ..................................................................................................... B2-7 Figure B2-40 City of Cupertino Homeless Population .................................................................. B2-11 Figure B2-41 Homeless Populations by Race, Santa Clara County ............................................. B2-12 Figure B2-42 Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara County, 2022 ... B2-13 Figure B2-43 Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa Clara County, 2022 ...................................................................................... B2-14 Figure B2-44 Farm Operations and Farm Labor, Santa Clara County ......................................... B2-18 Figure B2-45 Population with Limited English Proficiency ............................................................ B2-19

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐iv

This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐1

B2 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This section of the Housing Element Technical Appendix Report describes existing housing needs and conditions in the City of Cupertino. The analysis in this section primarily u stilizes data compiled by Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in the “Housing Needs Data Report: Cupertino” (ABAG/MTC, Baird + Driskell Community Planning, April 2, 2021). This data packet was approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

B2.1 OVERVIEW OF BAY AREA HOUSING
The Bay Area is beginning to see a decrease in continue s to see growth has decreased in n both population and jobs. In the past, population was increasing and housing production was stalled. With the decrease in population drawn to the Bay Area, th ere may be a decrease in the need for housing units, although the need for affordable housing is higher than ever. For example, in , which means lessmore housing of various types and sizes is anticipated to be needed to ensure that residents across all income levels, ages, and abilities have a place to call home. While the number of people drawn to the region over the past 30 years has steadily incr eased, housing production has stalled, contributing to the housing shortage that communities are experiencing today. In many cities increasing housing costs coupled with, the lack of affordable housing options this has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer commutes, and fewer people across incomes being able to purchase homes or meet surging rents.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update provides a roadmap for how to meet our growth and housing challenges. Required by the State of Califor nia (State), the Housing Element identifies what the existing housing conditions and community needs are, reiterates goals, and creates a plan to ensure there are housing options for all segments of the community. The Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan, which guides the policies of Cupertino.

B2.2 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

POPULATION GROWTH
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Gr eat Recession. Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth.

According to the data, the population of Cupe rtino was estimated to be 59,549 in 2020. The population of Cupertino makes up about 3.0 percent of Santa Clara County.1 In Cupertino has seen a decrease in population of 1 percent over the past five years, from 2015 to 2020, and an additional 1

1 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure B2-1 shows population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the population growth (i.e., percentage change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐2

percent over the past three years, from 2020 to- 2023. , roughly 14.3 percent of its population moved out of the City during the past yearWhile Santa Clara County and the Bay Area saw an increase from 2015 to– 2020, there was a significant decrease from 2020 to- 2023, at 4 percent and 3 percent, respectively. , a number that is slightly higher than the regional rate of 13.4 percent. Table B2-1 , Population Growth Trends, shows population growth trends for Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area as a whole.

Table B2-1 Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2023
Cupertino 39,967 43,142 50,602 53,012 58,3021 60,260 59,549 59,154 Percentage
Change -- 8% 17% 5% 10% 3% -1% -1%
Santa Clara
County. 1,497,577 1,594,818 1,682,585 1,752,696 1,781,642 1,912,180 1,961,969 1,886,079 Percentage
Change -- 6% 6% 4% 2% 7% 3% -4%
Bay Area 6,020,147 6,381,961 6,784,348 7,073,912 7,150,739 7,595,694 7,790,537 7,548,792 Percentage
Change -- 6% 6% 4% 1% 6% 3% -3%
SOURCE: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
NOTE: Universe: Total population; For more years of data, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01. 1Removing the population increase from the Cupertino annexation,; total population is 56,702.

The city’s population increased by 15 percent between 2000 and 20 10, exceeding the growth rate of Santa Clara County and the San Francisco Bay Area. During this period, Cupertino grew from 503,60012 to 58,302 residents. A portion of this population growth can be attributed to the annexation of 168 acres of land between 2000 and 2008. The annexation of Garden Gate, Monta Vista, and scattered county “islands” added 1,600 new residents. After removing the population increases from these annexations, Cupertino experienced a 12 percent increase in its population during the previous decade. Since 2000, Cupertino’s population has incr eased by approximately 17.7 percent, which is below the rate for the region as a whole, at 14.8 percent. From 1990 to 2000, the population increased by 26.6 percent. During the first decade of the 2000s the population increased by 15.2 percent. In the most recent decade, the population increased by 22.1 percent; however, predictions show a decrease in population growth throughout the state. . Figure B2-1, Population Growth Trends, shows population growth trends in percentages.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐3

Figure B2-1 Population Growth Trends Chart

Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
AGE
The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options and related services. There ha s also been a move by many to age-in-place or downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multifamily and accessible units are also needed.

In Cupertino, the median age in 2000 was approximately 38 years. By 2019, the median age increased to approximately 40 years. The population of those under 14 has decreased since 2010, while the 65- and-over population has increased. Figure B2-2, Population by Age, 2000-2019, shows population by age for the years 2000, 2010, and 2019.

Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing.

People of color2 make up 43.5 percent of seniors and 84.1 percent of youth under age 18. Figure B2- 3, Population Age by Race, shows population age by race.

2 Here, all non-white racial groups are counted.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐4

Figure B2-2 Population by Age, 2000-2019

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-04.

Figure B2-3 Population Age by Race

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Ye ar Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G). For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-02.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐5

RACE AND ETHNICITY
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and re gion is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These pa tterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices, and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today.3 Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Cupertino identifying as White, Non-Hispanic, has decreased by 24.0 percentage points, with this 2019 popu lation standing at 15,168. By the same token , the percentage of residents of all Other Race of Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic, has increased. In absolute terms, the Asian/API, Non-Hispanic population increased the most while the White, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most. Figure B2-4, Population by Race, 2000-2019, shows population by race for 2000, 2010, and 2019.

Figure B2-4 Population by Race, 2000-2019

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B03002. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-

02. 3 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.

3.3% 3.0%

0.8%
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐6

EMPLOYMENT TRENDS

BALANCE OF JOBS AND WORKERS
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. To some extent, the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time , as the housing affordabil ity crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub- regional scale.

One measure of this is the relationship between wo rkers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, wh ile a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” them. Between 2010 and 2018, the number of jobs in Cupertino increased by 59.1 percent.

Figure B2-5, Jobs in a Jurisdiction, shows jobs in Cupertino between 2002 and 2018.

Figure B2-5 Jobs in a Jurisdiction

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 200B2- 2018. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-11.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐7

Figure B2-6, Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence, shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, br oken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively low-income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers. Conversely, it may house residents who are low-wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for ho using in particular pri ce categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers mean the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may appear.

Figure B2-6 Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Ye ar Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-10.

Cupertino has more low-wage jobs than low-wage re sidents (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the medium to high end of the wage spectrum on Figure B2-6, Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence (i.e., wages over $75,000 per year), the City has more high-wage jobs than high-wage residents.4 Figure B2-7, Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group, shows the ratio of jobs to workers, by wage group.

A value of 1.00 means that a city has the same numb er of jobs in a wage gr oup as it has resident workers, in principle, a balance. Values above 1.00 indicate a jurisdiction will need to import workers

4 The source table is top-coded at $75,000, precluding more fine-grained analysis at the higher end of the wage spectrum.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐8

for jobs in a given wage group. Cupertino’s ratio of low-wage jobs to workers is 1.44, while the ratio of high-wage jobs to workers is 1.94.

Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community.

New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where job growth has been in relatively lower- wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate, it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users.

Figure B2-7 Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dyn amics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-14.

If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also with a high jobs-to-household ratio. Thus, bringing housing into the measure, the jobs-household ratio in Cupertino has increased from 1.53 in 20 02 to 2.60 jobs per household in 2018 , with the steepest growth in jobs occurring in the period between 2015 and 2018 . In short, Cupertino is a net importer of workers. Figure B2-8, Jobs-Household Ratio, shows Cupertino’s jobs-household ratio.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐9

Figure B2-8 Jobs-Household Ratio

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 200B2-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households). For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-13.

SECTOR COMPOSITION
In terms of sectoral composition, the largest industry in which Cupertino residents work is Financial & Professional Services, and the largest sector in which Santa Clara residents work is Health & Educational Services. For the Bay Area as a whole, the Health & Educational Services industry employs the most workers. Figure B2-9, Resident Employment by Industry, shows resident employment by industry.

Figure B2-9 Resident Employment by Industry

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-06.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐10

UNEMPLOYMENT
In Cupertino, there was a 5.0 percentage point decrease (9.4 percent to 4.4 percent) in the unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021. Santa Clara County and the Bay Area also experienced a similar decrease between Janu ary 2010 and January 2021 (11.6 percent to 5.7 percent) and (11.1 percent to 6.6 percent). Jurisdictions throughout the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts re lated to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020. Figure B2-10, Unemployment Rate, shows the unemployment rates over the last decade for Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area as a whole.

Figure B2-10 Unemployment Rate

Sources: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-

15. EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the mo st economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state.5.

5 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐11

In Cupertino, 69.2 percent of households make more than 100 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI),6, compared to 9.0 percent making less than 30 percent of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income. RegionallyCountywide, more than half (55 percent) of all households make more than 100 percent AMI, while 15 14.2 percent make less than 30 percent AMI and when looking at the Bay Area as a whole, 52 percent of households made more than 100 of the AMI, which 14.878 percent making less than 30 percent of the AMI. In Santa Clara County, 30 percent AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of $39,900 for a family of fo ur. Many households with multiple wage earners, including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers , and healthcare professionals, can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries.

Seniors relying on social security also tend to fall into the extremely low-income category. Figure B2- 11, Households by Household Income Level, shows households by income level.

Figure B2-11 Households by Household Income Level

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-01.

Throughout the region, there are disparities bet ween the incomes of homeowners and renters.

Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is affordable for these households.

6 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine- county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Households making between 80 and 120 percent of the AMI are moderate-income, those making 50 to 80 percent are low-income, those making 30 to 50 percent are very low-income, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-income. This is then adjusted for household size.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐12

In Cupertino, the largest proportion of both renters and homeowners fall in the Greater than 100 percent of AMI group (72 percent homeowners and 65 percent renters).. Comparatively, 14 percent of extremely low-income households are renter-occupied, while 6 percent are owner-occupied. Very low- income households have a more similar tenure, wi th just a 1 percent difference between very low- income renters and owners (7 percent versus 6 percent). Similarly, there are slightly more low-income renters (9 percent) in Cupertino compared to owners (8 percent). Figure B2-12, Household Income Level by Tenure, shows household income by tenure.

Figure B2-12 Household Income Level by Tenure

Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have histor ically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to Wwhite residents.7 These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement, or homelessness.

In Cupertino, while the majority of the population are people of color, Black or African American(16.9 percent) and (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic (16.9 percent)) residents (16.9 percent) experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by Hispanic or LatinX Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non- Hispanic) residents (6.8 percent). The Hispanic population al so experienced a high rate of poverty, at

16.7 percent. In Santa Clara County, residents of “Other Race or Multiple Races ” experienced the highest rate of poverty (21.1 percent), followed by Asian/API (15.1 percent), and Black or African American (11.7 percent). However, it is worth noting that there is a smaller number of Black/African American households in Cupertino. Figure B2-13, Poverty Status by Race , shows poverty status by race.

7 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐13

Figure B2-13 Poverty Status by Race

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I). For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-03.

TENURE
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity (i.e., ability for individuals to stay in their homes) in a city and region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase.

According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS), In Cupertino there are were a total of 20,981 housing units in Cupertino. Looking at tenure, and fewer Cupertino residents rent than own their homes: 39.8 percent versus 60.2 percent. By comparison, 43.6 percent of households in Santa Clara County and 43.9 percent of households throughout the Bay Area are renters, which is slightly higher than Cupertino’s rate. , 43.6 percent and 43.9 percent, respectively of Bay Area households rent their homes. Figure B2-14, Housing Tenure, shows housing tenure for Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area as a whole.

Figure B2-14 Housing Tenure

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-16.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐14

Homeownership rates often vary considerably ac ross race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differ ences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, State, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.8 The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from other racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity an d may also be members of any ra cial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

In Cupertino, Asian households, followed by White households, had the highest rate of homeownership and Black or African Americanx and American Indian and Alaska Native households had the lowest rate of homeownership. When looking at specific race categories, 43.6 percent of Black or African Americans households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were 60.2 percent for Asian households, 33.4 percent for Hispanic or Latinx households, and 62.1 percent for White households. Similarly, when looking at Santa Clara County, White households followed by Asian households had the highest rate of homeownership and American Indian and Alaska Native and Black households had the lowest rate of homeownership . (see Table B2-2, Housing Tenure by Race of Householder). Notably, recent changes to Sstate law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements.

Figure B2-15, Housing Tenure by Race of Householder , shows housing tenure by the race of the householder. Table B2-2, Housing Tenure by Race of Householder for the City and County, shows the same data in tabular format and shows the city and county for comparison purposes.

8 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐15

Figure B2-15 Housing Tenure by Race of Householder

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Ye ar Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I). For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-20.

Table B2-2 Housing Tenure by Race of Householder for the City and County Racial / Ethic Group
City of Cupertino Santa Clara County
Owner-
Occupied
Percentage
Renter-
Occupied
Percentage
Owner-
Occupied
Percentage
Renter-
Occupied
Percentage
White alone (Non-Hispanic) 30.9% 30.4% 42.8% 37.3%
Black or African American
(Non-Hispanic) 0.7% 0.9% 2.1% 3.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native
(Non-Hispanic) 0.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5%
Asian/API (Non-Hispanic) 62.1% 59.2% 30.0% 26.3%
Other Race or Multiple Races
(Non-Hispanic) 3.1% 4.0% 8.9% 12.0%
Hispanic or Latinx 2.9% 4.8% 15.8% 20.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I) and Table S2502 . For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-20.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐16

The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market.

In Cupertino, 95.3 percent of householders between the ages of between the 15 and 24 are renters,

82.0 percent of householders ages 25 through 34 are renters, and 42.7 percent of householders over age 85 are renters. Homeownership increases between the ages of 34 and 85 and then reduces beyond that, presumably since homeownership may be a burden for senior households. Figure B2-16, Housing Tenure by Age, shows housing tenure by age categories.

Figure B2-16 Housing Tenure by Age

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-18.

Figure B2-17, Housing Tenure by Housing Type, shows housing tenure by housing type.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐17

Figure B2-17 Housing Tenure by Housing Type

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-22.

In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multi-family housi ng. In Cupertino, 84.8 percent of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 14.5 percent of households in multi-family housing are rentershomeowners. as shown in Figure B2-16.Figure B2-Error! Reference source not found. The City does not have any mobile home parks nor is staff aware of any mobile home installations, therefore there is little confidence that the data related to mobile homes is accurate.

DISPLACEMENT
Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major concern in the Bay Area. Displacement has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate-income residents. When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they also lose their support network.

The University of California (UC) , Berkeley , has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay Area, identifying their risk for gentrification. They find that in Cupertino, there are no households that live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and none live in neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing gent rification. Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 91.8 percent of households in Cupertino live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to be excluded due to prohibitive housing costs.9 Figure B2-178, Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure, shows household displacement risk and tenure.

9 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project’s webpage:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/. Specifically, one can learn more about the different gentrification/displacement typologies shown in Figure 18 at this link: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/typology_sheet_2018_0.png.

Additionally, one can view maps that show which typologies correspond to which parts of a jurisdiction here:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/san-francisco/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐18

Figure B2-18Figure B2-17 Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure

Sources: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-25.

B2.3 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS HOUSING TYPES, YEAR BUILT,

VACANCY, AND PERMITS
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some households are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing,” including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters , and accessory dwelling units. These housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place.

According to estimates from the California Department of Fina nce, the City of Cupertino had 21,05021,701 housing units in April 2020, up only slightly (0.13.2 percent (or 23674 units ) from the 21,027 units that existed in 201010. The 2020 housing stock was made up of 57.169.63 percent single- family homes. Of those, 57.1 percent were detached si ngle- family homes and 12.26 percent were single- family attached homes. : Detached, 12.2 pe rcent Single-Family Homes: Attached, 9.6 percent Multifamily hHousing comprisedmade up 30.74 percent of the housing stock, with 21.10 percent having 5 or more units.: Two to Four Units, 21.1 percent Multifamily Housing: Five-Plus Units, and no Mobile Homes. Overall, the housing stock in Cupertino has remained the sameshifted from 2010 to 2020 with no notable changesto include a slightly greater percentage of attached single-family homes as a percentage of the while also increasing the number of housing units in each type,. In

10 Some past housing estimates by the Department of Finance have included a reporting error that has caused the city’s total housing stock to be underreported. The City’s records indicate that 534 units of housing were built between 2010 and the end of 2019, and that an additional 20 were built in 2020.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐19

Cupertino, the housing type that experien withced slight the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Multifamily Housing: Two to Four Units with a 1 percent increase. Figure B2-189, Housing Type Trends, shows housing type trends in Cupertino for 2010 and 2020.

Figure B2-18 Housing Type Trends

SOURCES: California Department of Finance, E-5 series, April 2010 and April 2020. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-01..

Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. In Cupertino, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built 1960 to 1979, with an increase of 10,462 units constructed during this period. The majority of

12.2%

57.4%

9.5%

21.0%

0.0%

12.6%

57.1%

9.3%

21.0%

0.0%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
Single‐Family Home: Attached
Single‐Family Home: Detached
Multifamily Housing: Two to Four Units
Multifamily Housing: Five‐plus Units
Mobile Homes
2010 2020

57.1%

12.2%

9.6%

21.1%

0.0%
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐20

this growth can be attributed to annexations, where already developed neighborhoods were added to the Cupertino housing stock. Since 2010, 2.3 percent of the current housing stock was built, which is 502 units. Figure B2-2019, Housing Units by Year Structure Built , shows housing units by the year built.

Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6 percent of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for Recreational or Occasional Use, and units not otherwise classified (Other Vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as For Recreational or Occasional Use are those that are held for short-term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals, like AirBnB , are likely to fall in this category. Th e Census Bureau classifies units as Other Vacant if they are vacant due to foreclosur e, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for be ing rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence period for reasons such as a work assignme nt, military duty, or incarceration. 11 In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like th e Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to repres ent a large portion of the Other Vacant category.

Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of Other Vacant units in some jurisdictions.12 Figure B2-19 Housing Units by Year Structure Built

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-04.

11 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf.
12 See Dow, P. (2018). Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco’s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐21

Vacant units make up 5.8 percent of the overall housing stock in Cupertino. The rental vacancy stands at 6.7 percent, while the ownership vacancy rate is 2. 0 percent. Of the vacant units in Cupertino, the most common type of vacancy is For Rent , which represents a little more than a third of all vacant rental units.13 Figure B2-21 20, Vacant Units by Type, shows vacant units by type.

Figure B2-20 Vacant Units by Type

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-03.

NOTE: Universe: Vacant housing units
Between 2015 and 20212022, 308 546 housing units were issued permits in Cupertino. Of those,

58.869.8 percent were for above moderate-income housing, 24.028.9 percent were for moderate- income housing, and 6.212.3 percent were for low- or very low-income housing. Table B2-23, Housing Permits by Income Group, 2015 to 20212022, shows housing permits issued by the City of Cupertino by income group.

Table B2-2Table B2-3 Housing Permits by Income Group, 2015 to 20221 Income Group Number Percentage
Very Low-Income Permits 1948 6.28.8%
Low-Income Permits 019 0.03.5%
Moderate-Income Permits 74158 24.028.9%

13 The vacancy-rates-by-tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle includes the full stock (7.5 percent). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and vacant) and ownership stock (occupied and vacant) but exclude a significant number of vacancy categories, including the numerically significant other vacant.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐22

Above Moderate-Income Permits 215321 69.858.8%
Total 308546 100.0%
SOURCE: California Department of Housing and Community Deve lopment (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (20202022). This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HSG-11.

HOUSING IN NEED OF REHABILITATION SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing having to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing.

Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing rehabilitation needs issues in thea community. However, the Census Bureau data included in the graph below in Figure B2-21 gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present in Cupertino. For example, 2.8 percent of renters in Cupertino reported lacking a kitchen and 0.7 percent of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.1 percent of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.05 percent who lack plumbing. In Santa Clara County, 0.7 percent of renter-occupied house holds reported lacking a kitchen and 0.2 percent of owners lacked a kitchen. Approximately 0.2 percent of renters and 0.1 percent of owners reported lacking plumbing in Santa Clara County. Figure B2- 2221, Substandard Housing Issues , shows substandard housing issues in Cupertino. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 77.0 percent of the homes in Cupertino were built in 1989 or earlier, which suggests that they are at the age where they may need minor repairs up to major rehabilitation such as new roofs, siding repair, paint, replacing cracked or inoperable windows, or plumbing systems. Ho wever, based on a visual assessment of Cupertino housing, the City estimates that fewer than five pe rcent of units in the city may be in need of rehabilitation, and that only one to two homes in the city may have such severe need for rehabilitation as to be unsafe for habitation.

Figure B2-21 Substandard Housing Issues

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-06.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐23

HOME AND RENT VALUES
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and de mand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages, and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation.

The typical home value in Cupert ino was estimated at $2,275,730 by December 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were valued at $2M+. By comparison, the typical home value is $1,290,970 in Santa Clara County and $1,077,230 in the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued at $1M to $1.5M (county) and $500K to $750K (region). The high home values are most likely exacerbated by the high proportion of single- family homes. Figure B2-2322, Home Values of Owner- Occupied Units, shows home values of owner-occupied housing units in Cupertino.

Figure B2-22 Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-07.

The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession. In Cupertino, the rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2010, with the typical home value increasing 116.8 percen t from $1,049,544 to $2,275,739 . This change is considerably greater than the change in Santa Clara County and for the region as a whole.

Figure B2- 2423, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), shows the Zillow home value index for Cupertino.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐24

Figure B2-23 Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)

SOURCE: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI). For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-08.

Similar to home values, rents have also increased dr amatically across the Bay Area in recent years.

Many renters have been priced out, evicted, or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.

In Cupertino, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the Rent $3,000 or more category, totaling

52.0 percent, followed by 21.7 percent of units renting in the Rent $2,500-$3,000 category. Looking beyond the city, the largest share of units is in the $2,000-$2,500 category (county) compared to the $1,500-$2,000 category for the region as a whole. Figure B2-2524, Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units, shows contract rents for renter-occupied units in Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area as a whole.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐25

Figure B2-24 Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-09.

Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 52.0 percent in Cupertino, fr om $2,000 to $3,040 per month. In Santa Clara County, the median rent ha s increased 39.6 percent, from $1,540 to $2,150.

The median rent in the region has increased signific antly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a

54.2 percent increase. 14 Figure B2- 2625, Median Contract Rent , shows median contract rent in Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area as a whole.

OVERPAYMENT AND OVERCROWDING
A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burd en. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher ri sk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.

While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases.

14 While the data on home values shown in Figure B2-24 comes from Zillow, Zillow does not have data on rent prices available for most Bay Area jurisdictions. To have a more comprehensive dataset on rental data for the region, the rent data in this document comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which may not fully reflect current rents. Local jurisdiction staff may want to supplement the data on rents with local realtor data or other sources for rent data that are more current than Census Bureau data.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐26

Figure B2-25 Median Contract Rent

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-10.

When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Cu pertino, 17.9 percent of renters spend 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing compared to 15 .0 percent of those that own. Additionally, 16.2 percent of renters spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 8.6 percent of owners are severely cost-burdened. Figure B2-2726, Cost Burden by Tenure, shows cost burden by tenure.

When one looks at both renters and owners together in Cupertino, 13.1 percent of households spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 15.3 percent spend 30 to 50 percent. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories. For example, 75.1 percent of Cupertino households making less than 30 percent of AMI spend the ma jority of their income on housing. For Cupertino residents making more than 100 percent of AMI, just 1.4 percent are severely cost-burdened, and 86.5 percent of those making more than 100 percent of AMI spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing. Figure B2-2827, Cost Burden by Income Level, shows cost burden by income level.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐27

Figure B2-26 Cost Burden by Tenure

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-06. .

Figure B2-27 Cost Burden by Income Level

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-05.

1.4%
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐28

Currently, people of color 15 are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to White residents. As a result, they often pa y a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.

Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most severely cost burdened , with 14.6 percent spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing. Black or African Americans (Non-Hispanic) residents are least cost burdened in Cupertino. Figure B2-2928, Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity, shows cost burden by race and ethnicity.

Figure B2-28 Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity

Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for ho mes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.

In Cupertino, 20.0 percent of large family households experien ce a cost burden of 30 to 50 percent, while 17.3 percent of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 15.0 percent of all other households have a cost burden of 30 to 50 percent, with 12.8 percent of households spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing. Figure B2- 3029, Cost Burden by Household Size, shows cost burden by household size.

15 As before, this This category as it is used here includes all non-White persons.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐29

Figure B2-29 Cost Burden by Household Size

When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors.

In Cupertino, 61.1 percent of seniors making less than 30 percent of AMI are spending the majority of their income (more than 50 percent) on housing. For seniors making more than 100 percent of AMI, only 0.8 percent are spending th e majority of their income on housing. Figure B2-3130, Cost- Burdened Senior Households by Income Level, shows cost-burdened households by income level.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐30

Figure B2-30 Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level

Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold.16 The Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded. Overcrowding is often rela ted to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities.

In Cupertino, 3.8 percent of households that rent are severely overcrowded (i.e., more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0 .5 percent of households that own. Figure B2- 3231, Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity, shows overcrowding by tenure and severity.

16 There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens).

0.8%
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐31

Figure B2-31 Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity

Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. In Cupertino, 3.2 percent of very extremely low-income households (below 350 percent AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while only 0.7 percent of households above 100 percent AMI experience this level of overcrowding.

Figure B2-32, Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity, shows overcrowding by income level and severity.

Figure B2-32 Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐32

Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding just as they similar to how they are more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In Cupertino, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is Black or Afri can American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic). Figure B2-34 33, Overcrowding by Race, graphically represents overcrowding data by race in Cupertino.

Figure B2-33 Overcrowding by Race

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-03.

ASSISTED HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS “AT -RISK” OF CONVERSION
As required by California Government Code Section 65583, the Housing Element must analyze the extent to which below-market rate units are at risk of converting to market-rate housing. If there are at-risk units, the element should include programs to encourage preservation of these units or to replace any that are converted to market rate. The units to be considered are any units that were constructed using federal assistance programs, State or local mortgage revenue bonds, redevelopment tax increments, in-lieu fees or an inclusionary ho using ordinance, or dens ity bonuses. Housing is considered to be “at risk” if it is eligible to be converted to non-low-income housing due to: (1) the termination of a rental subsidy contract, (2) mortgage prepayment, or (3) the expiration of affordability restrictions. The time period applicable in making this determination is the 10-year period following the last mandated update of the Housing Element, which, in the case of all Santa Clara County jurisdictions, is January 31, 2033.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐33

While there is an immense need to produce new affo rdable housing units, ensuring that the existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market -rate than it is to build new affordable housing.

The data in the following table comes from the California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC)’s Preservation Database, the state’s most comp rehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its afford able status and converting to market-rate housing.17and from the City’s inventory of affordable units. According to the data,As of July 2023, according to CHPC, there are were 184 assisted units affordable to lower- income households in Cupertino, of which, 112 units are at risk of converting to ma rket rate in the next 10 years (by 2033), denoted in bold. When considering the inventory of BMR units, th ere was an additional 259 units affordable to moderate- and lower-income households;, however, 97 units are at -risk of converting to market rate within the next 10 years.Of these units, 112 were at high risk or very high risk of conversion. Table B2-43, Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion,Inventory of Affordable Units, summarizes assisted units at risk in Cupertino.

Table B2-3Table B2-4 Inventory of Affordable Housing Units Development
Number of
Affordable
Units
Household Income Funding
Source
Earliest
Termination
Date Lower Moderate
Affordable Developments
Sunny View
100 100 0 HUD 202/811 3/31/2031
West 22449 Cupertino Rd.

Stevens Creek Village
40 8 0 CHFA, HUD &
HOME 5/1/2037
19140 Stevens Creek Blvd.

Le Beaulieu Apartments
27 27 0 CalFHA/CDBG 9/30/2038
10092 Bianchi Way
WVCS Transitional Housing
4 4 0 CDBG 7/14/2026
10311-10321 Greenwood Ct.

Beardon Drive
8 8 0 CDBG 12/21/2024
1019B2-10194 Beardon Dr.

Senior Housing Solutions
1 1 0 CDBG 6/24/2066
19935 Price Avenue
Maitri Transitional Housing
4 4 0 CDBG 3/16/2064
Undisclosed Location
The Veranda 19 18 0 LIHTC 2071

17 This database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐34

Table B2-3Table B2-4 Inventory of Affordable Housing Units Development
Number of
Affordable
Units
Household Income Funding
Source
Earliest
Termination
Date Lower Moderate
19160 Stevens Creek Blvd.

Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard 48 47 0 LIHTC 2075
Total Units 184 184 0
Total Units At-Risk 112 112 0
BMR Rental Units
Biltmore Apartments
2 2 0 BMR 6/30/2029
10159 South Blaney Ave.

Park Center Apartments
4 4 0 BMR 7/8/2026
20380 Stevens Creek Blvd.

The Hamptons
34 34 0 BMR 10/20/2027
19500 Pruneridge Ave.

Arioso Apartments
20 20 0 BMR 1/29/2028
19608 Pruneridge Ave.

Forge-Homestead Apartments
15 15 0 BMR 1/16/2027
20691 Forge Way
Aviare Apartments 20
2 20
2 0
0 BMR
BMR
7/8/2026
2038 20415 Via Paviso
The Markham Apartments
17 17 0 BMR 2039
20800 Homestead Road
Lake Biltmore
2 2 0 BMR 2029
19500 Pruneridge Ave.

Vista Village
24 24 0 BMR 11/29/2056
101144 Vista Drive
Greenwood Court
4 4 0 BMR 2116
10311-10321 Greenwood Court
Total BMR Rental Units 138144 138144
BMR For-Sale Units
Total BMR For-Sale Units* (a) 122121119 0 122121119 BMR Varies Total BMR Units At-Risk 97 97 0
SSOURCES: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (20202023);. City of Cupertino, 2023.This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table RISK-01.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐35

Note:
* Property addresses of for-sale BMR units are not listed to protect the privacy of homeowners. ** Projects denoted in bold are at-risk of converting in 10 years.

PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT OPTIONS
The following analysis examines the cost of preser ving the at-risk units and the cost of producing replacement rental housing comparable in size and rent levels to the units that might convert to market-rate prices. In addition, this analysis will compare the costs of preservation and replacement.

Acquisition and Rehabilitation
The factors used to determine the cost of preserving low-income housing include property acquisition, rehabilitation, and financing. Actual acquisition costs depend on several variables, such as condition, size, location, existing financing, and availability of financing (governmental and market). Looking at multifamily buildings throughout Santa Clara County in July 2023, acquisition prices ranged from $187,500 to $324,545 per unit for an 11-unit comp lex in San Jose and 12-unit complex in Mountain View. To acquire the 100-unit Sunny View West at a comparable per-unit cost, the total cost would likely be between $21,000,000 and $36,349,091. Additionally, if the property needs significant rehabilitation or if financing is difficult to obtain, the overall cost to preserve the affordable units may increase.

Replacement
Another alternative to preserve the overall number of affordable housing units in the county is to construct new units to replace other affordable housing stock that has been converted to market-rate housing. Multifamily replacements would be constru cted with the same number of units, with the same number of bedrooms and amenities as the de velopment removed from the affordable housing stock.

The cost of developing new housing depends on a va riety of factors, such as density, size of units, location and related land costs, and type of constr uction. Land costs in the Bay Area are among the highest in the nation. The cost to replace 112 at -risk units in Sunny View West has been estimated using 21 Elements and Baird+ Driskell’s San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Development Counties Development Costs. The per-unit replacement cost is estimated to be $732,500 based on a 10-unit project and $786,500 per unit for a 100-unit project. Consequently, the replacement cost for the 112- unit Sunny View West Apartments would range from $82 million to $88 million.

Rent Subsidy
Housing affordability can also be preserved by seeking alternative means of subsidizing rents, such as Tenant Protection Vouchers, whic h are a subset of the Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) program.

Under HCVs, HUD pays the difference between what tenants can pay (defined as 30 percent of household income) and what HUD estimates as th e fair-market rent on the unit. Based on HUD’s 2023 fair-market rents and income limits, the subsidy needed to preserve a unit at an affordable rent for a four-person, very low-income household woul d be an estimated $1,682 per month for a three- bedroom unit, or $20,184 per year. For 30 years, the subsidy would be approximately $605,520 and APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐36

subsidizing all 112 units at risk of converting to market rate at ve ry low-income rents would cost approximately $67,818,240 for 30 years, assuming no changes in the rent.

The subsidy needed to preserve a unit at an affordable rent for a low-income household would be an estimated $485 per month, or $5,814 per year. For 30 years, the subsidy would be about $174,420 for a four-person household. Subsidizing 112 units at a low-income rent for 30 years would cost an estimated $19.5 million, assuming no changes in rent.

Preservation Resources
Once the City becomes aware of an impending conv ersion, staff will begin exploring the availability of funding from various sources. In many cases, the City will find it advantageous to collaborate with private affordable housing developers or managers to develop and implement a viable plan to preserve affordable housing units. Private developers can often bring additional expertise and access to funding, such as tax credits. HCD maintains a list of qualified entities to assist with the preservation of affordable units.

These organizations include:
 Cambrian Center, Inc.
 Charities Housing Development Corp.
 Palo Alto Senior Housing Project, Inc.
 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition
 Affordable Housing Foundation
 Palo Alto Housing Corp.
 South County Housing, Inc.
 Satellite Housing, Inc.
 ROEM Development Corporation
 Silicon Valley at Home
 L + M Fund Management LLC
Programs for Preservation and Construction of Affordable Housing The following is a summary of the current programs that the City is aware of and, if applicable, will seek to use to meet the City’s goal of preserving and expanding affordable housing stock. Further, a list of funding sources the City will attempt to use to meet its affordable housing goals is provided in Table B2-54, Financial Resources.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐37

 Project Development: The City’'s Community Development Planning Department will continue to provide technical assistance and administrative support for housing developments that expand affordable housing options for city residents.  Non-profit Support: The City will continue its cooperative relationships with qualified non- profit groups, which may play a role in a ssisting in the preservation and expansion of affordable housing in the community.
 Policy and Ordinance Review: Current policies and ordinances will be continually reviewed to ascertain the realistic impact on retaining or expanding affordable housing in the city. When necessary, changes or additions to the City’'s guiding policies and ordinances should be adopted.
 Housing Referral Service: The City will continue to refine a listing of programs and a methodology for disseminating pertinent inform ation about the types of subsidized housing and the various providers of housing-related services.
 Housing Rehabilitation: The City of Cupertino will continue to use its Below Market-Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to support residential rehabilitation efforts in the community. These include acquisition and rehabilitation of rental housing and rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing.  City Programs: The City understands the importance of preserving affordable housing units and has included Strategies HE 2.3.2, 2.3.3, and 3.3.2 to assist with preserving units that are at -risk of converting to market rate.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐1

Financial Resources
The programs in Table B2-511 are available to assist the City in meetings its affordable housing goals.

Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities Federal Programs
Community Block Grant Program
(CDBG)
Funding for this program has increased over the last couple of years.

This program provides annual grants on a formula basis to entitled cities and counties to develop viable urban communities. HCD administers an annual Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to competitively award these federal funds across the state in alignment with its HUD Consolidated Plan..
 Single-family housing rehabilitation,
 homebuyer assistance,
 infrastructure in support of housing,
 multifamily housing rehabilitation.

Home Investment Partnership
Program (HOME)
Funding for this program has increased over the last couple of years.

HCD administers an annual NOFA to competitively award these federal funds across the state in alignment with its HUD Consolidated Plan.
 New rental affordable housing,;
 rehabilitation of existing rental affordable
housing,;
 programs to promote home ownership,;
 owner-occupied housing rehabilitation,;
 tenant-based rental assistance to prevent
homelessness.

Home Investment Partnership
Program–American Rescue Plan
(HOME-ARP)
This one-time funding, with HOME-ARP funds is available for expenditure until September 2030.
 vulnerable populations, including
homeless,
 at risk of homelessness, and
 fleeing or attempting to flee domestic and
related forms of violence (including human
trafficking).
 production of affordable housing,
 tenant-based rental assistance,
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐2

Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities  homeless prevention services, and
 purchase or development of non-
congregate shelter for individuals and
families experiencing homelessness.

Housing Choice Voucher Program
Local and County housing authorities receive funding for HCV (Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937) from the federal government. Funding for the program has increased over the last couple of years.

Rental assistance for low-income households.

Project- Based Section 8 Vouchers
Local and County Housing authorities may dedicate a portion of their hHousing Cchoice Vvouchers as project-based vouchers. Funding for the program has increased over the last couple of years.

Rental assistance for low-income households
tied to units that can be underwritten by loans
that finance housing projects.

HUD Veterans Affairs Supportive
Housing (VASH) Vouchers
This federally funded program is managed through a partnership between housing authorities and the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA). Homeless veterans receive a rental subsidy from the housing authority and case management from the VA. Funding for this program has been increasing in recent years with strong bipartisan support in Washington D.C.

Rental assistance and supportive services for
homeless veterans.

Continuum of Care (CoC) Programs
The NorCal CoC is currently accessing State resources (Emergency Solutions Grant, Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention, Homeless Emergency Aid Program, etc.) and federal CoC funding through HUD. Funds are passed through to service providers at the county level.
 Rental subsidies,
 rapid rehousing,
 emergency shelter,
 homeless prevention.

State Programs
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐3

Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities Permanent Local Housing Allocation
(PLHA Formula Funds)
Ongoing funding provided through Senate Bill 2 Building Homes and Jobs Act. Funding will fluctuate based on revenues taken in by the State and are administered through regional planning agencies and local housing authorities.

A wide range, which includes but is not limited
to,
 affordable rental housing for households
below 80% AMI; affordable rental and
ownership housing, including accessory
dwelling units (ADUs), for households
earning up to 120% of AMI; or
 capital costs for navigation centers and
emergency shelters,
 permanent and transitional housing for
people experiencing homelessness.

Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities Program (AHSC)
State program funded by greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program.

Recent revisions to regulations encourage greater participation from rural communities.

Grants for infill low-income affordable housing,
and infrastructure that encourages reductions in
vehicle trips and greenhouse gas emissions.

Infill Infrastructure Grant Program
(IIG)
This is funding from Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act. Therefore, this funding will sunset when all bond proceeds are disbursed. The State generally issues one NOFA each year
Gap funding for infrastructure improvements
necessary for specific residential or mixed-use
infill projects.

California Housing Finance Agency
(Cal HFA) Residential Development
Loan Program
Low- interest, short-term loans to local governments for affordable infill, owner-occupied housing developments. Links with CalHFA’s Down Payment Assistance Program to provide subordinate loans to first-time buyers. Two funding rounds per year.
 New construction,;
 rehabilitation,;
 acquisition.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐4

Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities California Housing Finance Agency
(Cal HFA) Homebuyer’s Down
Payment Assistance Program
CalHFA makes below- market loans to first-time homebuyers of up to 3% of sales price. Program operates through participating lenders who originate loans for CalHFA. Funds available upon request to qualified borrowers.

Homebuyer assistance.

California Housing Finance Agency
(Cal HFA) Forgivable Equity Builder
Loan
The Forgivable Equity Builder Loan gives first-time homebuyers a head start with immediate equity in their homes via a loan of up to 10% of the purchase price of the home. The loan is forgivable if the borrower continuously occupies the home as their primary residence for five years.

Homeowner assistance
HOME Investment Partnership
Program
The State provides grants to local governments and nonprofit agencies for many homeowner and renter needs.
 Homebuyer assistance rehabilitation;
 new construction rental assistance
Building Equity and Growth in
Neighborhoods (BEGIN)
A State-funded program administered by HCD that provides low- and moderate-income households up to $30,000 for a down payment. Homebuyer assistance.

CalHome
Grants awarded to jurisdictions for owner-occupied housing rehabilitation and first-time homebuyer assistance by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) .  Homebuyer assistance;
 rehabilitation.

Low- Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTC)
A 4% annual tax credit that helps owners of rental units develop affordable housing.

New construction. The LIHTC can be used to construct new or renovate existing rental buildings. The LIHTC is designed to subsidize either 30 or 70 percent of the low-income unit costs in a project. The 70% subsidy, APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐5

Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities or 9 percent tax credit, supports new construction without any additional federal subsidies.

HUD Emergency Shelter Grants
(administered through the State)
Competitive grants to help local governments and nonprofits finance emergency shelters, transitional housing, and other supportive services.
 New construction,;
 rehabilitation,;
 homeless assistance,;
 public services.

Tax- Exempt Housing Revenue
Bond
Supports low-income housing development by issuing housing tax- exempt bonds requiring the developer to lease a fixed percentage of the units to low-income families at specified rental rates.  New construction,;
 rehabilitation,;
 acquisition.

Private Resources/Financing Programs
California Community Reinvestment
Corporation (CCRC)
Nonprofit mortgage banking consortium designed to provide long- term debt financing for affordable multi- family rental housing.

Nonprofit and for-profit developers contact member banks.  New construction,;
 rehabilitation,;
 acquisition.

Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae)
Fixed-rate mortgages issued by private mortgage insurers. Homebuyer assistance.

Mortgages that fund the purchase orf rehabilitation of a home.  Homebuyer assistance;  rehabilitation.

Low down payment mortgages for single- family homes in
underserved low- income and minority cities. Homebuyer assistance.

Freddie Mac Home Works
Provides first and second mortgages that include rehabilitation loans.

Jurisdiction provides gap financing for rehabilitation components.

Households earning up to 80% AMI qualify.

Homebuyer assistance.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐6

Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities Affordable Housing Program
(Federal Home Loan Bank [FHLB])
Loans (and some grants) to public agencies and private entities for a wide variety of housing projects and programs. Participation is by FHLB-participating lenders.
 New construction,;
 homebuyer assistance,;
 rehabilitation,;
 housing supportive services.

Northern California Community Loan
Fund (NCCLF)
Offers low-interest loans for the revitalization of low-income communities and affordable housing development.
 Acquisition,;
 rehabilitation,;
 new construction.

Low-Income Investment Fund (LIHF) Provides below-market loan financing for all phases of affordable housing development and/or rehabilitation.
 Acquisition,;
 rehabilitation,;
 new construction.

Source: Local Housing Solutions, July 2023.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐1

B2.4 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS

LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Large households often have different housing n eeds than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions.

In Cupertino, 6.7 percent of all households in the City are considered larger households with five or more people. Larger households typically, who likely need larger housing units with three or more bedrooms or more. Additionally, oOf total households in Cupertino (21,981 households)these , 6.1 percent of households are female-headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity.

Large households made up 6.7 percent of all house holds in the City. When looking at tenure, 63.3 percent of large households were owner- occupied households, and 36.7 percent were renter- occupied households. For large households with five or more persons, most units (63.3 percent) were owner- occupied. Figure B2-35 34, Household Size by Tenure, shows household size by tenure.

Figure B2-34 Household Size by Tenure

The unit sizes available in a community affect th e household sizes that can access that community.

Large families are generally served by housing units with three or more bedrooms . Cupertino has There are, of which there are 12,979 units (61.9 percent) in Cupertino with three or more bedrooms.

Among these large units, 18.2 percent are ownerrenter-occupied, and 81.8 percent are renter owner- occupiedoccupied units, and 18.2 percent are renter-occupied units;, therefore, there is a lack of large rental units. for large families seeking in the City of Cupertino.. The City does have resources available to lLarge households such as can benefit from the general housing programs and services offered like the BMR Program and housin g rehabilitation programs. Other programs include Mortgage

51.5%

75.9%

52.6% 56.4%

63.3%

48.5%

24.1%

47.4% 43.6%

36.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%
1 Person Household 2 Person Household 3 Person Household 4 Person Household 5 Or More Person Household
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐2

Credit Certificates and HCVs administered by the County, and homebuyer assistance offered by the Housing Trust Silicon Valley.

Figure B2-36 35 summarizes housing units by the number of bedrooms.

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-01.

Figure B2-35 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-05.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐3

FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female- headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income.

In Cupertino, the largest proportion of households is Married-Couple Family Households at 68.6 percent of the total, while Female-Headed Family Households make up 6.1 percent of all households.

Figure B2-37 36, Household Type, provides information on household type in Cupertino.

Figure B2-36 Household Type

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-23.

Female-headed households with or without children may face particular housing challenges . This could be due to, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women or could be due to a single income. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.

In Cupertino, 121 female-headed households with children (18.8 percent) fell were (18.8 percent) in the Below Poverty Level category, while 55 female-headed households without children (8.8 percent) fell were in the Below Poverty Level category. Figure B2-3 78 shows female-headed households by poverty status.

Persons living with incomes below the poverty level can benefit from City programs and services that assist lower-income households in general, such as BMR, CDBG, and HSG programs. Households with incomes below the poverty level can also benefi t from supportive services available to cCounty residents through various organizations, including Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County, Choices for Children, InnVision Shelter Network, Second Harvest Food Bank, and West Valley Community Services, among others.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐4

Figure B2-37 Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-05.

Single-parent households in Cupertino can benefit from City programs and services that assist lower- income households in general, such as the BMR, CDBG, and HSG Programs. Single-parent households can also benefit from supportive and ch ildcare services available to county residents through various organizations, including Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County, Choices for Children, Grail Family Services, InnVision Shelter Network, Second Harvest Food Bank, and West Valley Community Services.

SENIORS
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. For example, seniors have unique housing needs due to fixed incomes, a high chance of having some type of disability, chronic health conditions, and/or reduced mobility.

Therefore, seniors can require greater levels of affordability along with the need for supportive or assisted living services and/or accessible housing. Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups.

In Cupertino, seniors made up 14.7 percent of the population (8,847 individuals). Tt he largest proportion of senior households who rent, make 0 to 30 percent of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners falls into the income group Greater than 100 percent of AMI. This shows a potential need for affordable housing options for seniors. Figure B2-39 38 shows senior households by income and tenure.
524
573
121
55 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
with Children with No Children
Households
Above Poverty Level
Below Poverty Level
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐5

Figure B2-38 Senior Households by Income and Tenure

Cupertino offers a number of resources for seniors. As shown in Table B2-65, there are five residential care facilities for the elderly and three skilled nursing facilities in the city. Residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFEs), also known as “assisted living” or “board and care” facilities, provide assistance with some activities of daily living while still allowing residents to be more independent than in most nursing homes. Skilled nursing facilities—also known as nursing homes—offer a higher level of care, with registered nurses on staff 24 hours a day.

In addition to assisted living facilities, there are two subsidized independent senior housing developments in the city providing 100 units. Demand for these subsidized units is high. Staff at Sunny View estimate that over 700 people are on the waiting list, and the turnover rate for available units is about 10 to 15 per year.

The Cupertino Senior Center also serves as an excellent resource for seniors. The many different services at the center help seniors to obtain reso urces in the community that will assist them to continue to remain independent and safe in thei r own homes. Available programs include various social and recreation activities, special events, tr avel programs, transportation discounts, drop-in consultation, case management, medical, and social services.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐6

Table B2-6 Housing Resources for Seniors
Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Location Capacity The Forum at Rancho San Antonio 23500 Cristo Rey Drive 741 Paradise Manor 4 19161 Muriel Lane 6
Pleasant Manor of Cupertino 10718 Nathanson Avenue 6
Purglen of Cupertino 10366 Miller Avenue 12
Sunny View Manor (a) 22445 Cupertino Road 190
Total 955
Skilled Nursing Facilities
Health Care Center at Forum at Rancho San Antonio 23600 Via Esplendor 48 Cupertino Healthcare & Wellness Center 22590 Voss Avenue 170 Sunny View Manor 22445 Cupertino Road 48
Total 266
Subsidized Independent Senior Rental Housing
Sunny View West 22449 Cupertino Road 99
Senior Housing Solutions 19935 Price Avenue 1
Total 100
Adult Day Care
Live Oak Adult Day Services 20920 McClellan Road 30
Cupertino Senior Center 21251 Stevens Creek N/A
SOURCES: California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division Facility Search Form, 2023; California Department of Public He alth, Health Facilities Search, 2023.

Notes: (a) Sunny View Manor has 115 units for independent and assisted (RCFE) living. All 115 units are licensed as RCFE units, but residents may choose between independent and assisted living options. The distribution of independent and assisted living units varies over time.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐7

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and are in need ofneed specialized care, yet . Due to the high cost of such specialized care, individuals with disabilities often must often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care. When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, whic h offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence. Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilit ies are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness, and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers.

Overall, 5.7 percent of people in Cupertino have a disability of some kind.18 Figure B2-40 39, Disability by Type, shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Cupertino.

Figure B2-39 Disability by Type

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table DISAB-01.

18 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability.

These counts should not be summed.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐8

PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, “developmental disability” means a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. It includes intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term also includes disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with intellectual disabilities but does not include other conditions that are solely physical in nature.

Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled in dividuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely aff ected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

The California Department of Developmental Serv ices provides community-based services to approximately 360,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of regional centers, developmental centers, and community-based facilities. The San Andreas Regional Center is one of 21 regional centers in Ca lifornia that provides point-of-entry services for people with developmental disabilities. The cen ter is a private, nonprof it community agency that contracts with local businesses to offer a wide rang e of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families.

The San Andreas Regional Center, located in north San Jose, provides services to developmentally disabled persons throughout Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties and acts as a coordinating agency for multiple service provider s in the region. They provide a resource to those needing counseling, day care, equipment and supplies, behavior intervention, independent living services, mobility training, nursing, residential care facilities, supportive living services, transportation, vocational training, and other services.

Several housing types are appropriate for people living with a developmental disability: rent-subsidized homes, residential care facilities, Section 8 vouc hers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and Senate Bill (SB) 962 homes (these are adult residential homes for persons with specialized health care needs). Supportive housing and group living opportunities for persons with developmental disabilities can be an important resource for those individuals who can transition from the home of a parent or guardian to independent living.

The design of housing-accessibility modifications, th e proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this need group. Incorporating barrier-free design in all new multifamily housing (as required by California and federal fair housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents. Special consideration should also be given to the affordability of housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐9

State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attr ibuted to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, re ly on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at in creased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them.19 In Cupertino, there are 154 children under the age of 18 make with a developmental disability (51.2 percent), while there are 147 adults with a developmental disability (48.8 percent). Table B2-4 76 shows the number of persons in Cupertino with developmental disabilities by age.

Table B2-4Table B2-7 Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group Number
Age Under 18 154
Age 18+ 147
Total 301
SOURCE: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020). This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-04.

The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Cupertino is the home of a parent, /family, or / guardian. Table B2- 5 87 shows the Cupertino population with developmental disabilities by residence.

Table B2-5Table B2-8 Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type Number
Home of Parent/Family/Guardian 257
Foster/Family Home 11
Independent/Supported Living 5
Other 5
Community Care Facility 23
Intermediate Care Facility 0
SOURCE: California Department of Developmental Services, Co nsumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020). This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-05.

19 For more information or data on developmental disabilities in your jurisdiction, contact the Golden Gate Regional Center for Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties; the North Bay Regional Center for Napa, Solano and Sonoma Counties; the Regional Center for the East Bay for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties; or the San Andreas Regional Center for Santa Clara County.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐10

RESOURCES AVAILABLE
Table B2-9 lists the community care facilities in Cupertino available to those with developmental disabilities.

Table B2-9 Community Care Facilities in Cupertino, 2023 Adult Residential Facilities Location Capacity
Paradise Manor 2 19133 Muriel Lane 6
Paradise Manor 4 19161 Muriel Lane 6
Total 12
Group Homes
Pace-Morehouse 7576 Kirwin Lane 6
Pacific Autism Center for Education Miracle House 19681 Drake Drive 6 Total 12
Source: California Department of Social Services, Communi ty Care Licensing Division Facility Search Form, 2023

HOMELESSNESS
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Risi ng housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing- insecure have ended up homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term.

Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is dispropo rtionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction, and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances.

The very nature of homelessness makes it difficult to count persons with no permanent shelter. The Santa Clara County Continuum of Care oversees th e Ccounty’s assessment of homeless persons and conducts point-in-time homeless counts as requi red by HUD. The 2022 point-in-time count, conducted in February 2022, identified 102 homeless persons in Cupertino. All of the persons experiencing homelessness were unsheltered. For Santa Clara County, there were 9,684 homeless persons identified, of which, 77 percent were unsheltered and 23 percent were sheltered. When comparing the 2022 point-in-time numbers to 2019 data, Cupertino had a decrease in persons experiencing homelessness, going from 159 individuals in 2019 to 102 in 2022. Santa Clara County on the other hand had a slight increase, from 9,706 to 9,864 individuals. Figure B2-40 provides sheltered and unsheltered percentages for the homeless population in Cupertino and Santa Clara County as of 2022. Data by race or disability status is not collect ed at the individual jurisdiction level through the Point in Time Count. However, the countywide Po int in Time Count results indicated an over- representation of Hispanic/Latinx, Black or Afri can American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Multi-Racial, and American Indian or Alaska Native community members within the county’s homeless community as compared to these populations in the county as a whole. Additionally, it is estimated that community members with disabilitie s may be over-represented in the city’s homeless population due to the existing challenges Bay Area re sidents with physical or mental disabilities face in accessing affordable housing..

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐11

Figure B2-40 City of Cupertino Homeless Population

Source: 2022 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey In Santa Clara County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 87.1 percent are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in emergency shelters. Figure B2-41 shows household type and shelter status in Santa Clara County.

Figure B2-40 Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Santa Clara County

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019). For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-01.

When looking at race and homelessness, pP eople of color are more lik ely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to White residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area.

In Santa Clara County, White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents represented the largest proportion of residents experiencing homelessness and account for 43.944 percent of the homeless population, while making up 44.5 percent of the overall population. Figure B2-4312 shows the racial group share of the county’s homeless population.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐12

Figure B2-41 Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations by Race, Santa Clara County

SOURCE: 2022 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.

S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I). For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-02.

IIn 2022 in Santa Clara County , Hispanic and Latinx residents represent ed 42.747 percent of the population experiencing homelessness, while Hispanic and Latinx residents comprise 25.8 percent of the general population. Figure B2-4 342 shows the Hispanic and Latinx share of the homeless population in Santa Clara County.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐13

Figure B2-42 Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara County, 2022

SOURCE: 2022 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I).

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-03.

Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealin g with severe issues, including mental illness, substance abuse, and domestic violence, which are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. As a result, to ensure that they are stably housed, individuals experiencing homelessness require not only affordable housing, but also housi ng accompanied by an array of transitional and supportive services, including counseling, mental health services, job training, and employment assistance. Therefore, emergency shelters with a full range of supportive services and transitional housing and supportive housing are best equipped to meet the needs of this special- needs population.

In Santa Clara County, similar to other jurisdictions, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 2,659 reporting this condition. Of those, some 87.6 percent are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue. aAlong with other health concerns.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐14

Figure B2-4534 shows selected characteristics of the homeless population in Santa Clara County in 2022.

Figure B2-43 Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa Clara County, 2022

SOURCE: 2022 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐15

In Cupertino, there were no reported students experiencing homeless ness in the 2019- 2020 school year. In fact, the reported number of students experiencing homelessness dropped after the 2016- 2017 school year to zero in the City of Cupertino. By comparison, Santa Clara County has seen a 3.5 percent increase in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-2017 school year, while and the Bay Area population of students expe riencing homelessness decreased by 8.5 percent. Despite the recent regional decrease, during the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the Bay Arearegion, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer- term negative effects. Table B2-6 10 summarizes students in public schools experiencing homelessness.

Table B2-6Table B2-10 Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness
Academic Year Cupertino Santa Clara County Bay Area
2016-17 17 2,219 14,990
2017-18 0 2,189 15,142
2018-19 0 2,405 15,427
2019-20 0 2,297 13,718
SOURCE: California Department of E ducation, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020). This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HOMELS-05.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐16

EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
Santa Clara County has approximately 23 emergency shelters, providing close to 800 beds year-round, with an additional 300 beds available during th e winter months (November through March). There are also over 1,100 transitional housing beds throughout the county that offer a combination of stable housing and intensive, targeted support services fo r the mentally ill, those with chronic substance abuse, developmental disabilities, and other factors that prevent the homeless from returning to permanent housing situations. Transitional housing includes both single-site and “scattered-site” programs. Table B2-8 110 provides a summary of emergency shelters and transitional housing that are near the City of Cupertino and available to residents.

Table B2-7Table B2-11 Homeless Facilities Near Cupertino Facility Beds Target Population Location
Emergency Shelters
Asian Americans for Community
Involvement 12 Women with Children San Jose
City Team Rescue Mission 52 Single men San Jose
Hospitality House, Salvation Army 24 Single men San Jose Our House Youth Services HomeFirst 10 Homeless and run-away youth San Jose San Jose Family Shelter 143 Families San Jose
Support Network for Battered Women 18 Domestic violence shelter for- women and children San Jose
Maitri 8 Transitional housing to victims of domestic
violence Cupertino
Emergency Shelter/Transitional Housing
InnVision 178 Working men, women & children, mentally
ill men & women San Jose
James Boccardo Reception Center 370 Families and single adults San Jose Transitional Housing
Next Door- Women with Children 19 Domestic Violence Shelter for -women and children San Jose
St. Josephs Cathedral 45 Worker housing for- men, women, and children San Jose
YWCA- Villa Nueva 126 Women and children San Jose
SOURCE: Santa Clara County Consolidated Plan, 2010-2015

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐17

FARMWORKERS
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern.

Farmworkers generally receive wages that are cons iderably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Accordingly, fFinding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market.

In Cupertino, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019-20 school year and the city and surrounding area lack viable agri cultural land to employ migrant workers . The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4 percent in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. The change at the county level, there has been a 49.7 percent decrease in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. Table B2-7 120 summarizes the migrant worker student population in Cupert ino, Santa Clara County, and Bay Area as a whole.

Table B2-8Table B2-12 Migrant Worker Student Population Academic Year Cupertino Santa Clara County Bay Area
2016-17 0 978 4,630
2017-18 0 732 4,607
2018-19 0 645 4,075
2019-20 0 492 3,976
SOURCE: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020). This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table FARM-01.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farm workers in Santa Clara County has increased since 2002, totaling 2,418 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased, totaling 1,757 in 2017. This can be attributed to the types of crops grown in south Santa Clara County that requir e regular maintenance, or simply the nature of the farms/ranches. Figure B2-4465 shows farm operations and labor in Santa Clara County.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐18

Figure B2-44 Farm Operations and Farm Labor, Santa Clara County

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table FARM-02.

NON-ENGLISH SPEAKERS
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limitation can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their civil and housing rights, or they might be wary to engage or ask questions due to their immigration status concerns. The unique housing needs for non-English speakers include having access to Fair Housing resources in in multiple languages as needed.

In Cupertino, 5.3 percent of residents five (5) years and older identified as speaking English not well or not at all, which was below the proportion for Santa Clara County (8.8 percent). Throughout the regionBay Area, the proportion of residents five (5) years and older with limited English proficiency was 7.eight (8) percent. Figure B2- 46 45 shows the population with limited English proficiency in Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area as a whole.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐19

Figure B2-45 Population with Limited English Proficiency

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table AFFH-03.

NOTE: Universe: Population 5 years and over .

To the extent that farmworkers may want to live in Cupertino, their need for affordable housing would be similar to that of other lower- in come persons, and their housing needs can be addressed through general affordable housing programs for lower-income households, such as BMR, CDBG, and HSG programs.

B2.5 REHABILITATION OF EXISTING UNITS
The City had established a goal of rehabilitating 40 40 total housing units between 2015 and 2023.

B2.6 APPROPRIATENESS IN GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
The goals, objectives, and policies identified in the 2015 Housing Element were appropriate for the 2015-2023 timeframe because they directly relate to the program requirements listed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

As for new construction, the greatest progress wa s made in producing housing in the Moderate Income and Above Moderate-Income categories, where the City permitted approximately 6858 percent and 11980 percent of the needed units, respectively. The City permitted only about 4713.4 percent of its needed Very Low-Income units and 0.19.1 percent of its Low-Income units. As was the case in the in prior years, the cost of housing cont inued to be high in Cupertino, making affordable housing difficult to develop in the Cupertino market.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐20

B2.7 SUMMARY
Like many communities, the City of Cupertino ex perienced less development than expected in its 2015–2023 planning period. Of the 1,064 units it identified in its table of quantified housing objectives (Table HE-6 on page H-19 of the 2015 Housi ng Element), the City permitted only 418 units (approximately 39.2 percent), most of them for Above Moderate-Income households.

Nonetheless, the goals, objectives, policies, and actions in the 2015–2023 Housing Element complied with State Housing Law that was in effect at the tome and provid ed proper guidance for housing development in the City. In the 2023-2031 Housing Element update, objectives for each of the goals will be modified as appropriate to more specifically respond to the housing environment in Cupertino.

Policies will also be modified as needed to respond to current Housing Element Law and existing and anticipated residential development conditions.

B3-i

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing B.3

APPENDIX

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-i

Table of Contents
B3 Cupertino Fair Housing Assessment ................................................................ B3-1 B3.1 History of Segregation In The Region ......................................................................... B3-2 B3.2 Report Content and Organization ................................................................................ B3-5 B3.3 Primary Findings, Contributing Factors, and Fair Housing Actions ............................. B3-7 B3.4 Fair Housing Enforcement Capacity .......................................................................... B3-11 B3.5 Ongoing Outreach on Fair Housing ISsues ............................................................... B3-14 B3.6 Compliance with State Law ....................................................................................... B3-16 B3.7 Integration and Segregation ...................................................................................... B3-18 B3.8 Access to Opportunity ............................................................................................... B3-28 B3.9 Disproportionate Housing Needs .............................................................................. B3-35 B3.10 Sites Analysis ............................................................................................................ B3-50 B3.11 Fair Housing Resources and Maps ........................................................................... B3-61 Tables
Table B3-1 Housing Element Strategies to Address Fair Housing Issues .......................... B3-10 Table B3-2 Demographic Composition of the Homeless Population, 2022 ........................ B3-44 Table B3-3 Fair Housing Factors and Percentage of RHNA Units ..................................... B3-53 Figures
Figure B3-1 Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing .............. B3-6 Figure B3-2 Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries ............................................................ B3-14 Figure B3-3 Segregation and Integration ............................................................................. B3-24 Figure B3-4 Access to Opportunity ...................................................................................... B3-37 Figure B3-5 Disproportionate Housing Needs ..................................................................... B3-40 Figure B3-6 RHNA Sites by Affordability with Census Tract and Block Group Boundaries . B3-51 Figure B3-7 Fair Housing Assistance Organizations, Santa Clara County .......................... B3-61 Figure B3-8 HCD Fair Housing Inquiries, 2013-2021 .......................................................... B3-62 Figure B3-9 FHEO Inquiries by City to HCD, Santa Clara County, 2013-2022 .................... B3-63 Figure B3-10 HCD Fair Housing Inquiries by Bias, January 2013-March 2021 ..................... B3-64 Figure B3-11 Public Housing Buildings, Santa Clara County ................................................ B3-65 Figure B3-12 Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract ..................................................... B3-66 Figure B3-13 Population by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019 ......................................... B3-67 Figure B3-14 Population by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2000-2019 ................................ B3-68 Figure B3-15 Senior and Youth Population by Race, Cupertino, 2000-2019 ......................... B3-68 APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-ii

Figure B3-16 Area Median Income by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019 ......................... B3-69 Figure B3-17 Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino 2019 ...................................... B3-69 Figure B3-18 Percentage Non-White Population by Census Block Groups, 2018 ................. B3-70 Figure B3-19 White Majority Census Tracts .......................................................................... B3-71 Figure B3-20 Asian Majority Census Tracts .......................................................................... B3-72 Figure B3-21 Hispanic Majority Census Tracts ...................................................................... B3-73 Figure B3-22 Neighborhood Segregation by Census Tract, 2019 ......................................... B3-74 Figure B3-23 Diversity Index by Block Group, 2010 .............................................................. B3-75 Figure B3-24 Diversity Index by Block Group, 2018 .............................................................. B3-76 Figure B3-25 Share of Population by Disability Status, 2019 ................................................ B3-77 Figure B3-26 Percentage of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 .................. B3-78 Figure B3-27 Age Distribution, Cupertino, 2000-2019 ........................................................... B3-79 Figure B3-28 Share of Households by Size, 2019 ................................................................. B3-79 Figure B3-29 Share of Households by Type, 2019 ................................................................ B3-80 Figure B3-30 Share of Households by Presence of Children (Less than 18 years old), 2019 B3-80 Figure B3-31 Housing Type by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019 ...................................................... B3-81 Figure B3-32 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure, Cupertino, 2019 ............ B3-81 Figure B3-33 Percentage of Children in Married-Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019 ................................................................................................................. B3-82 Figure B3-34 Percent Households with Single Female with Children by Census Tract, 2019 ................................................................................................................. B3-83 Figure B3-35 Percentage of Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019 ................. B3-84 Figure B3-36 Percentage of Adults Living Alone by Census Tract, 2019 .............................. B3-85 Figure B3-37 Share of Households by Area Median Income (AMI), 2019 ............................. B3-86 Figure B3-38 Median Household Income by Block Group, 2019 ........................................... B3-87 Figure B3-39 Low to Moderate Income Population by Block Group ...................................... B3-88 Figure B3-40 Poverty Status by Census Tract, 2019 ............................................................. B3-89 Figure B3-41 R/ECAPs, 2013 ................................................................................................ B3-90 Figure B3-42 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score by Census Tract, 2021 ................. B3-92 Figure B3-43 Jobs by Industry, Cupertino, 2002-2018 .......................................................... B3-93 Figure B3-44 Job Holders by Industry, Cupertino, 2002-2018 ............................................... B3-94 Figure B3-45 Jobs to Household Ratio, Cupertino, 2002-2018 ............................................. B3-94 Figure B3-46 Jobs to Worker Ratio by Wage, Cupertino, 2002-2018 .................................... B3-95 Figure B3-47 Unemployment Rate, 2010-2021 ..................................................................... B3-95 Figure B3-48 TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Score by Census Tract, 2021 .................. B3-96 Figure B3-49 Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group, 2017 ..................................................... B3-97 Figure B3-50 TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Score by Census Tract, 2021 .......... B3-99 Figure B3-51 CalEnviroScreen by Census Tract, 2021 ....................................................... B3-100 Figure B3-52 Healthy Places Index by Census Tract, 2021 ................................................ B3-101 Figure B3-53 Population Living in Moderate and High Resource Ares by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019 ............................................................................................. B3-102 APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-iii

Figure B3-54 Population with Limited English Proficiency, Cupertino, 2019 ........................ B3-102 Figure B3-55 TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score by Census Tract, 2021 .............. B3-103 Figure B3-56 Social Vulnerability Index by Census Tract, 2018 .......................................... B3-104 Figure B3-57 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities ............................................................. B3-105 Figure B3-58 Population by Disability Status, Cupertino, 2019 ........................................... B3-106 Figure B3-59 Disability by Type for the Non-Institutionalized Population 18 Years and Over, Cupertino, 2019 ............................................................................................. B3-106 Figure B3-60 Disability by Type for Seniors (65 years and over), Cupertino, 2019 ............. B3-107 Figure B3-61 Employment by Disability Status, Cupertino, 2019 ......................................... B3-107 Figure B3-62 Share of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 ......................... B3-108 Figure B3-63 Population Indexed from 1990 ....................................................................... B3-109 Figure B3-64 Housing Permits Issued by Income Group, Cupertino, 2015-2019 ................ B3-109 Figure B3-65 Housing Units by Year Built, Cupertino .......................................................... B3-110 Figure B3-66 Distribution of Home Value for Owner Occupied Units, 2019 ......................... B3-110 Figure B3-67 Zillow Home Value Index, 2001-2020 ............................................................ B3-111 Figure B3-68 Distribution of Contract Rents for Renter Occupied Units, 2019 .................... B3-111 Figure B3-69 Median Contract Rent, 2009-2019 ................................................................. B3-112 Figure B3-70 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Jurisdiction, 2019 ......................................... B3-112 Figure B3-71 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019 .............................. B3-113 Figure B3-72 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Area Median Income (AMI), Cupertino, 2019 ............................................................................................................... B3-113 Figure B3-73 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019 ........... B3-114 Figure B3-74 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Family Size, Cupertino, 2019 ....................... B3-114 Figure B3-75 Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019 . B3-115 Figure B3-76 Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Owner Households by Census Tract, 2019 . B3-116 Figure B3-77 Occupants per Room by Jurisdiction, 2019 .................................................... B3-117 Figure B3-78 Occupants per Room by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019 ......................................... B3-117 Figure B3-79 Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019 .................................. B3-118 Figure B3-80 Occupants per Room by AMI, Cupertino, 2019 .............................................. B3-118 Figure B3-81 Overcrowded Households by Census Tract, 2019 ......................................... B3-119 Figure B3-82 Percentage of Units Lacking Complete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities, Cupertino, 2019 ............................................................................................. B3-120

Figure B3-83 Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Santa Clara County, 2019 ............................................................................................................... B3-120

Figure B3-84 Share of General and Homeless Populations by Race, Santa Clara County, 2019 ............................................................................................................... B3-121 Figure B3-85 Share of General and Homeless Populations by Ethnicity, Santa Clara County, 2019 .................................................................................................. B3-121 Figure B3-86 Characteristics of the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa Clara County, 2019 ........................................................................................ B3-122

Figure B3-87 Location of Population One Year Ago, Cupertino, 2019 ................................. B3-122 Figure B3-88 Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence, Cupertino, 2019..................... B3-123 APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-iv

Figure B3-89 Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion, Cupertino, 2019 .................................. B3-123 Figure B3-90 Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement ................................................... B3-124 Figure B3-91 Location Affordability Index by Census Tract ................................................. B3-125 Figure B3-92 Share of Renter Occupied Households by Census Tract, 2019 ..................... B3-126 Figure B3-93 Special Flood Hazard Areas, 2020................................................................. B3-127 Figure B3-94 Mortgage Applications by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2018-2019 ............ B3-128 Figure B3-95 Mortgage Application Denial Rate by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2018-2019 ...................................................................................................... B3-128

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-v

This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-1

B3 CUPERTINO FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
In 2018, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requiring all public agencies in the state to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) beginning January 1, 2019. 1 The new requirements went into effect on January 1, 2019, and required all public agencies to “administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, and take no action inconsistent with this obligation.”2 AB 686 also made changes to Housing Element law to incorporate requirements to AFFH as part of the housing element and general plan to include an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices.

The following report was prepared by Root Policy Research (Denver, Colorado) and is based on and expands previous work commissioned by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The ABAG/MTC report was prepared in collaboration with the University of California (UC) Merced Urban Policy Lab and was entitled , AFFH Segregation Report: Cupertino.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’ s activities and programs relating to housing and community development. (Government Code, Section 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 14.

1 Public agencies receiving funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are also required to demonstrate their commitment to AFFH. The federal obligation stems from the fair housing component of the federal Civil Rights Act mandating federal fund recipients to take “meaningful actions” to address segregation and related barriers to fair housing choice.
2 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 9.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-2

B3.1 HISTORY OF SEGREGATION IN THE REGION
The United States’ oldest cities have a history of mandating segregated living patterns—and Northern California cities are no exception. ABAG, in its recent Fair Housing Equity Assessment, attributes segregation in the Bay Area to
historically discriminatory practices—highlighting redlining and discriminatory mortgage approvals —as well as
“structural inequities” in society, and “self -segregation” (i.e., preferences to live near similar people).

Researcher Richard Rothstein’s 2017 book, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, chronicles how the public sector contributed to the segregation that exists today. Rothstein highlights several significant developments in the Bay Area that played a large role in where the region’s non-White residents settled.

In 1955, builders began developing workforce housing for the Ford Corporation’s plant in the Santa Clara County
region. Initially , the units were segregated as no one would sell to the local black workers. The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) worked to find builders who would build integrated subdivisions. Unfortunately, after four purchased plots were subsequently rezoned t o prevent integrated housing, the original builder quit. After multiple additional iterations, African American workers had “become so discouraged about finding housing opportunities” that they began carpooling from outside cities such as Richmond.
3 A 2018 Berkeley publication titled, Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, attempted to illustrate segregation in the Bay Area communities. In their study, they found that Santa Clara County contains “no truly integrated city.”
4 The study also delved into the history of segregation, highlighting 1960s- era laws and practices connected to urban renewal projects that were displacing communities of color.

The building of transportation infrastructure created a reduction of affordable housing due to a lack of one-for-one replacement in the area.

In addition to historical discriminatory practices that embedded segregation into living patterns throughout the Bay Area, it is also necessary to recognize the historical impacts of colonization and genocide on Indigenous populations and how the effects of those atrocities are still being felt today.

The original inhabitants of present -day San Mateo County are the Ramayt ush Ohlone, who have

3 Rothstein, Richard. 2017. Source: book The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein, p 121. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing Corporation. 4 Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay area, Part 1 | Othering & Belonging Institute (berkeley.edu) This history of segregation in
the region is important not only
to understand how residential
settlement patterns came
about—but, more importantly,
to explain differences in
housing opportunity among
residents today. In sum, not all
residents had the ability to
build housing wealth or achieve
economic opportunity. This
historically unequal playing
field in part determines why
residents have different
housing needs today.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-3

“…lived on the San Francisco Peninsula for thousands of years and continue to live here as respectful stewards of the land.” 5 However, “[d]ue to the devastating policies and practices of a succession of explorers, missionaries, settlers, and various levels of government over the centuries since European expansion, the Ramaytush Ohlone lost the vast majority of their population a s well as their land.” 6 The lasting influence of these policies and practices have contributed directly to the disparate housing and economic outcomes collectively experienced by Native American populations today. 7 The timeline of major federal aActs and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning and land use appears on the following page.in Figure B3-1.

As shown in the timeline in Figure B3-1, exclusive zoning practices were common in the early 1900s.

Courts struck down only the most discriminatory and allowed those that would be considered today to have a “disparate impact” on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act. For example, the 1926 case Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. (272 U.S. 365) supported the segregation of residential, business, and industrial uses, justifying separation by characterizing apartment buildings as “mere parasite(s)” with the potential to “utterly destroy” the character and desirability of neighborhoods. At that time, multifamily apartments were the only housing options for immigrants and people of color.

The Federal Fair Housing Act was not enacted until nearly 60 years after the first racial zoning o
rdinances appeared in U.S. cities. This coincided with a shift away from federal control over low - income housing toward locally - tailored approaches (block grants) and market -oriented choice (Section 8 subsidies)—the latter of which is only effective when adequate affordable rental units are available.

Figure B3-1, Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing, shows a timeline for major public and legal actions related to fair housing access.

INFLUENCE OF LAND USE AND ZONING PRACTICES
While exclusive and discriminatory zoning is no longer legal, current land use and zoning patterns continue to influence neighborhood demographics, access to housing opportunities, and other housing outcomes.

The Othering & Belonging Institute, a UC Berkeley research center, published a report in 2020 analyzing the characteristics of communities in the Bay Area in relation to the degree of single-family zoning. The research findings identified that in Santa Clara County, and across the Bay Area regionally, cities with high levels of single -family zoning see greater access to resources resulting in positive life outcomes. Predominance of single-family zoning aligned with higher median incomes, home values, proficient schools, and other factors that are similarly associated with the highest-resource designation

5 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html 6 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html 7 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/ APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-4

in the TCAC/HCD opportunity maps. The i ncreased home values and scarcity of housing in these areas due to their lower density can make housing and other resources in the area unaffordable to lower-income households. Single-family zoning predominates residential areas in the Bay Area; the average proportion of residential land zoned exclusively for single -family housing in Bay Area jurisdictions was found to be 85 percent. Only in two jurisdictions of the 101 surveyed (Benicia and Suisun City) did single -family zoning make up less than 40.0 percent of the jurisdiction’s land area.

However, access to higher- quality resources was greatest in jurisdictions with at least 90.0 percent of the land area designated to single-family zoning.

During the study, it was determined that 91 percent of residentially zoned land in Cupertino was zoned exclusively for single-family housing8, putting the City in the 75th percentile when compared to other jurisdictions in the Bay Area based on percent age of exclusively single- family land. All jurisdictions that had 90 to 100 percent of their land designated for single -family housing were considered to be “highly” exclusive. However, the City’s estimate of land designated for single -family uses indicates a lower percentage of land with this designation ( approximately 42 percent). In 2020, approximately

69.36 percent of Cupertino’s housing stock was made up of single-family homes, with the remaining

30.74 percent being multifamily units. While single-family zoning can create highly desirable places to live, higher entry costs associated with this housing type can pose a barrier to access for low - and moderate-income households, restricting access to economic, educational, and other opportunities that are available in higher-resource communities.

In Cupertino, the R-2, R-3, and Planned Development zoning districts with residential uses allowed , permit multifamily housing, are primarily along the Interstate 280 corridor, at the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard, sprinkled along Miller Avenue, along sections of Bollinger Road, along major corridors in the c ity such as Stevens Creek Boulevard in the City’s Heart of the City Special Area, De Anza Boulevard, Homestead Road, and N.

Wolfe Road. As discussed in this a ssessment, neighborhoods that have multifamily land are also typically those with lower median incomes, higher rates of overcrowding and overpayment, and other indicators of fair housing issues. While multifamily offers valuable housing opportunities for lower - and moderate-income households, the limited, and concentrated, supply of suitably zoned land may result in patterns of income segregation. To combat this potential fair housing issue, the City has identified Strategies HE-1.3.2, HE-2.3.2, HE-2.3.5, and HE-3.3.3 to promote accessory dwelling units ( ADUs), require affordable units in all rental residential developments, facilit ate infill development with affordable housing, and prevent condominium conversion when there is a shortage of rental units.

Feedback provided by community members in response to the Public Review draft of the Housing Element included input from local organizations such as Cupertino for All. Representatives from Cupertino for All expressed support for policies that permitted increased density, such as the

8 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/report-single-family-zoning-dominates-bay-area-housing-presenting-barrier-integration APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-5

introduction of R-4 zoning and the “corner lot” policy which permits multifamily development at R- 3-style densities on corners within R-1 zones. The group also encouraged increased height limits and future removal of parking requirements. Cupertino for All also indicated that they believe that recent historical trends have been to develop large single-family homes, which tend not to be affordable for lower-income households.

B3.2 REPORT CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION
This Fair Housing Assessment follows the April 2021 State of California State Guidance for AFFH and is organized into the following sections.
• Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity reviews lawsuits/enforcement actions/complaints against the jurisdiction, and compliance with Sstate fair housing laws and regulations,; and .jurisdictional capacity to conduct fair housing outreach and education.; • Ongoing Outreach Capacity describes jurisdictional capacity to conduct fair housing outreach and education.
• Compliance with State Law summarizes key State laws and regulations related to mitigating housing discrimination and expanding housing choice.
• Integration and Segregation identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of segregation, and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation.; • Access to Opportunity examines differences in access to education, transportation, economic development, and healthy environments.; and
• Disproportionatearate Housing Needs identifies which groups have disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.
• Sites Analysis of the distribution of the City’s sites inventory by income category compared to citywide patterns, in the context of the fair housing issues. • Fair Housing Resources and Map s and Data packet , including f air housing organizations in Santa Clara County , states the mission, services, and contact information ; and for these organizations.

State Fair Housing Laws and Regulations —summary of key state laws and regulations related to mitigating housing discrimination and expanding housing choice.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-6

Figure B3-1 Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-7

B3.3 PRIMARY FINDINGS, CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, AND FAIR HOUSING

ACTIONS
This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for Cupertino , including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing factors and the City ’s fair housing action plan.
• Cupe rtino’s population has a moderate level of diversity for the region and a higher Asian population compared to the county (68 percent of residents identify as Asian) ,. The City’s residents have grown less racially diverse since 2000 with the Asian population increasing by 22 percentage points since 2000;
• Population growth in Cupertino began leveling off in 2014, with the county and regional growth index rates increasing, albeit slowly, while Cupertino’s growth has stagnated; • Most households in Cupertino earn more than 100 percent of the regional Area Median Income (AMI), and this is true across most racial and ethnic groups. Hispanic and non- Hispanic White households have the most income diversity; • Poverty rates highlight the disparity in income and opportunities by race, with the Hispanic (16.7 percent) and Black/African American (16.9 percent) populations experiencing disproportionately higher poverty rates. No other group is above 7 percent; • There were Since 2010, Cupertino has only added 502 housing units out of 22,267 total units (about 2 percent of total stock). A little more than 300 546 residential permits were issued between 2015 and 20192022. ;
• Jobs have grown significantly since 2004, with nearly all of the growth due to a boost in manufacturing and wholesale jobs, which increased by nearly 26,000 from 2002. At 2 jobs per household, housing these new workers would have required construction of more than 12,000 housing units. Cupertino’s jobs to household ratio is 2.60—far higher than Santa Clara County overall (1.71) or the Bay Area (1.47), based on data from the California Department of Finance and the US Census Bureau’'s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics survey, but lower than those of Palo Alto, Mountain View, or the City of Santa Clara; • Access to Cupertino is limited by housing pricing and supply. Eighty-three percent of houses in the area are valued over $1 million. In 2020, Zillow reports reported the average market value at $2.25 million, significantly above the county’s and Bay A rea’s market values. Fifty - seven percent of Cupertino’s housing units are detached single- family units. The next- closest share is multifamily at 21 percent of units, followed by 12 percent attached apartment units APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-8

and 10 percent du- /tri-/fourplexes. While owners mostly occupy three - and four-bedroom homes (72 percent), 68 percent of renters occupy one- or two-bedroom units; o Renters, who make up 40 percent of all households, are facing the same cost pressures as owners with 87 percent of units renting for more than $2,000, and 52 percent renting for $3,000 and more. Of the city’s rental units, 14 percent rent for $2,000 and less. The county has almost three times the proportion of rentals priced under $2,000 than the city.
• There are disparities in housing cost burden in Cupertino by race and ethnicity —and minimally by tenure (renters/owners). Hispanic households experience by far the highest rates of cost burden in the city (45 percent). Asian (28 percent), non -Hispanic White (27 percent), and Black/African American (11 percent) households are least likely to be experience the lowest rates of cost burdened ; however, it is wort h noting that there are a small number of Black/African American households in the city.
• Barriers to housing choice are largely related to the c ity’s very high costs of housing and lack of affordable production. Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate -income households (215 321 units or 70 59 percent of all units), followed by moderate- income households (74 158 or 24 29 percent).

There were No 19 permits were issued for low-income units and just 19 48 permits were issued for very low-income units.;
• Cupertino has a lower proportion of residents with disabilities than the county.

Unemployment among residents with disabilities is relatively high, with 16 percent of Cupertino residents with a disability unemployed, compared to 3 percent without a disability. • Mortgage denial rates in the Census Tracts that include Cupertino are modest (14 to 17 percent of loans denied) and vary little across races and ethnicities except for Black/African American applicants.
• According to educational opportunity indices, every census tract in Cupertino scores higher than 0.75—indicating the highest positive educational outcomes. The City is home to very high performing schools.

FAIR HOUSING ISSUES AND CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Cupertino’s low production of affordable housing limits housing choices of all low -income households and has a disproportionate impact on Black or African American and mixed -raceAsian and Hispanic households who face very highdisproportionate levels of cost burden.

Contributing factors:
• Since 2010, Cupertino has added 108 housing units;
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-9

• Of the 116 546 residential permits issued in Cupertino since 2015, only approximately 125 percent were meant for very low- and low-income households.; and • Nearly 60 44 percent of Black/African AmericanHispanic households and 28 percent of Asian households in Cupertino are cost burdened compared to 45 26 percent of non-Hispanic White households, 40 percent of Asian households, and 40 almost 25 percent of Hispanic households of other or multiple races.

Fair Housing Issue
Cupertino’s low production of housing limits the choices of lower- and moderate-income households.

Contributing factors:
• While Cupertino has approved more units than required in its 5 th cycle RHNA, it has not received building permits to begin construction. In the long term, Cupertino has failed to permit enough housing to accommodate job growth and respond to supply shortages.; • The housing that has been built in the city recently has largely been priced for above moderate- income households and moderate -income households. No permits were issued for low - income units; and
• Many current residents actively fight new development, which delays production and raises housing costs. The community is sharply divided on issues surrounding development of new housing, with a vocal minority that consistently opposes higher -density development in the city.

FAIR HOUSING ISSUE
Lower- income households in the county and region are disproportionately likely to be Black or African American and Hispanic residents. As a result, it is possible that Black or African American and Hispanic residents with lower incomes are excluded priced out from living in Cupertino.

Contributing factors:
• Black or African American and Hispanic residents typically work lower- wage jobs, stemming from h Historical employment discrimination and lack of access to quality educational environments for Black/African and Hispanic residents have resulted in their working lower- wage jobs, which. These jobs often do not support the city’s housing costs.

FAIR HOUSING ISSUE
Cupertino has been slow to implement housing policies to address needs and conform with new state laws.

Contributing Ffactors:
• Lack of or conflicting commitment among City leadership; APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-10

• Prioritization of economic development over housing choice; and Concentration of lower- and moderate-income households in the northern Homestead Special Area neighborhood result in a potential concentration of poverty.

Contributing factors:
• Concentration of rental units that are typically more affordable; • Shortage of workforce housing units
• Lack of affordable housing
• Older housing stock; and
• High rates of overcrowding;
In response to these high priority factors, the City has included the strategies identified in Table B3- 1 to promote housing mobility and place-based revitalization, and to prevent displacement:

Table B3-1 Housing Element Strategies to Address Fair Housing Issues Housing Element Strategy Housing
Mobility
Place-Based
Revitalization
Displacement
Prevention
HE-1.3.1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions X
HE-1.3.3: New Residential Zoning Districts and Land Use Designations X
HE-1.3.4: Development on Nonvacant Sites X
HE-1.3.5: Encourage Mixed -Use Projects and Residential in Commercial Zones X
HE-1.3.7: Lot Consolidation X
HE-1.3.8: Accessory Dwelling Units X X
HE-1.3.10: Innovative and Family-Friendly Housing Options X HE-2.3.1: Support Affordable Housing Development X
HE-2.3.4: Below- Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund X
HE-2.3.7: Incentives for Affordable Housing Development X HE-2.3.8: Density Bonus Ordinance X
HE-2.3.10: Extremely Low-Income Housing X X X
HE-2.3.11: Assistance for Persons with Developmental Disabilities X X HE-2.3.12: Live/Work Units X
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-11

Table B3-1 Housing Element Strategies to Address Fair Housing Issues Housing Element Strategy Housing
Mobility
Place-Based
Revitalization
Displacement
Prevention
HE-3.3.2: Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units X
HE-3.3.4: Housing Preservation Program X
HE-3.3.6: Rent-Control Ordinance X
HE-6.1.3: Housing Mobility X
HE-7.3.2: Coordination with Local School Districts X X
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023
Strategy HE-1.3.2 to rezone sites to accommodate higher- density housing; Strategy HE-1.3.9 to lower fees for all multifamily development and parking requirements for studio apartments and single- room occupancy units to encourage development of these housing types; Strategy HE-2.3.3 to target Below -Market -Rate Affordable Housing Fund to benefit populations with the greatest need;
Strategy HE -2.3.5 facilitate development of housing by partner ing with developers to purchase surplus properties for development; and
Strategy HE-2.3.6 to incentivize development of affordable housing.

The City has also included a range of programs to address other, lower- priority, contributing factors and patterns noted throughout this analysis.

B3.4 FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH CAPACITY
This section discusses fair housing legal cases and inquiries, fair housing protections and enforcement, and outreach capacity.

FAIR HOUSING LEGAL CASES AND INQUIRIES
California fair housing law extends beyond the protections in the fF ederal Fair Housing Act (FHA).

In addition to the FHA protected classes—race, color, ancestry/national origin, religion, disability, sex, and familial status—California law offers protections for age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, gene tic information, marital status, military or veteran status, and source of income (including federal housing assistance vouchers).

The California Department of Fair Employment in HousingC ivil Rights Department (CRD, formerly
the Department of Fair Employment in Housing or DFEH) was established in 1980 and is now the APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-12

largest civil rights agency in the United States. According to their website, the DFEH CRD’s mission is, “to protect the people of California from unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations (businesses) and from hate violence and human trafficking in accordance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and Ralph Civil Rights Act.”.
9 DFEHCRD receives, evaluates, and investigates fair housing complaints. DFEH CRD plays a particularly significant role in investigating fair housing complaints against protected classes that are not included in federal legislation and therefore not investigated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). DFEHCRD’s website provides detailed instructions for filing a complaint, the complaint process, appealing a decision, and other frequently asked questions.10 Fair housing complaints can also be submitted to HUD for investigation.

Additionally, Santa Clara County has a number of local resource and enforcement organizations:
• Project Sentinel: Assists with housing discrimination, mortgage foreclosures, rental issues, and more;
• Housing and Economic Rights Advocates (HERA): Legal and advocacy organization for vulnerable Californians facing discrimination and economic abuses related to households; • Bay Area Legal Aid: Broad advocacy focused on helping low-income Bay Area residents lead stable lives, including housing stability; and
• Law Foundation of Silicon Valley: Legal advo cacy for social change with a focus on finding stable homes for low-income residents.

From 2013 to 2021, 391 fair housing complaints in Santa Clara County were filed with the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC). Most of the county’s valid complaints cited disability status as the bias. Of these complaints, 69 percent were considered valid and proceeded to actionable responses. Accounting for population differences, Palo Alto had the highest total inquiries per 1000 people (0.37) while Cupertino had no complaints at all. HUD also reported that five cases were filed by residents of the City of Cupertino between January 2013 and April 2021. However, one of these cases was closed when it was withdrawn by the complainant, and the other four were closed for no - cause determinations. Three of the cases alleged discriminatory retaliation, two alleged discrimination on the basis of religion, two on the basis of disability, and one on the basis of national origin; some cases were made on more than one basis. There was no determined validity of the four cases where a determination was made. In addition to formal complaints, seven inquiries were made during the same time. Four were determined to have no valid issues or basis, two claimants failed to respond to follow-

9 https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/aboutdfeh/ 10 https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/complaintprocess/https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/complaintprocess/ APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-13

up by HUD staff, and one claimant decided not to pursue a case. There have been no fair housing lawsuits or inquiries against the City.

While the cases filed during this period did not have cause, that does not necessarily mean there is no discrimination occurring. Therefore, the City has identified Strategy HE -6.1.1 ( Fair Housing Services) to continue to ensure residents and housing providers are aware of fair housing laws, rights, and requirements, as well as resources available to residents should they experience discrimination.

Further, the City will work with local and regional fair housing providers to facilitate a training for housing providers to prevent discriminatory actions and behaviors on an annual basis. Strategy HE-

6.1.1 (Fair Housing Services) also commits the City to partner with a fair housing service provider, such as Project Sentinel , to provide direct services, including investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and conducting fair housing testing when funding is available, and the need is present.

Nationally, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) reported a “negligible” decrease in the number of complaints filed between 2019 and 2020. The primary bases for complaints nationally of disability (55 percent) were represented in Marin County at a much higher rate (77 percent). Familial status represented 8 percent of complaints nationally, similar to the 7 percent of cases in the county.

NFHA identifies three significant trends in 2020 that are relevant for this AFFH:
• First, fair lending cases referred to the Department of Justice from federal banking regulators has been declining, indicating that state and local government entities may want to play a larger role in examining fair lending barriers to homeownership; • Second, NFHA identified a significant increase in the number of complaints of harassment — 1,071 complaints in 2020 compared to 761 in 2019; and
• Finally, NFHA found that 73 percent of all fair housing complaints in 2020 were processed by private fair housing organizations, rather than state, local, and federal government agencies — reinforcing the need for local, active fair housing organizations and increased funding for such organizations.11
Figure B3-2, Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries, illustrates fair housing complaints and inquiries.

11 https://nationalfairhousing.org/2021/07/29/annual-fair-housing-report-shows-increase-in-housing-harassment/ APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-14

Figure B3-2 Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries

B3.5 ONGOING OUTREACH AND CAPACITYON FAIR HOUSING ISSUES The City of Cupertino’s website contains many resources for learning more about or acquiring affordable purchase and rental units. For example:
• Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley helps locals update their homes; • Housing Trust Silicon Valley programs;
− Homebuyer Empowerment Loan Program (HELP) assists middle -income first -time homebuyers with down payment assistance.

Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries
HUD Fair Housing Complaints, by Basis, Santa Clara County, 2017-2021 Number Percent
Disability 243 77%
Race 25 8%
Familial Status 14 4%
National Origin 42 13%
Religion 28 9%
Sex 21 7%
Total cases 315
HCD Fair Housing Inquiries (2013- 2021) and HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2017- 2021) 29 26
15 12
11 11
8 7
6 1
0 0
0 San Jose
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
Palo Alto
Gilroy
Morgan Hill
Campbell
Mountain View
Los Gatos
Cupertino
Milpitas
Saratoga
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
Monte Sereno
HCD Fair Housing Inquiries
224
40 APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-15

− Empower Homebuyers Santa Clary County assists low- to moderate- income people with down payment assistance.
− Small Homes, Big Impact Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program help sing residents add ADUs to their property.
− The HOME Program provides grants for families moving to permanent sustainable housing.

Figure B3-2 Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries
• Santa Clara Mortgage Credit Certificate Program provides tax credits for federal income taxes to first- time homebuyers;
• Habitat for Humanity Silicon Valley works with those earning between 30 and -80 percent of AMI to attain homeownership;
• City of Cupertino Housing Program for De Anza Students supports college housing assistance; and
• The City’s website also lists resources available for renters through Project Sentinel and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara; however, there is no specific mention of fair housing.

In the event that a resident needs f
air housing services, the following resources are available locally and regionally:
• Project Sentinel: Provides assistance and counseling regarding housing discrimination , tenant-landlord dispute resolution, and other housing counseling programs. Project Sentinel has received Public Service Grants from the City of Cupertino to continue to serve the community in the 2020/2021, 2021/2022, and 2022/2023 Fiscal Years. • ECHO Housing: Provides education and assistance in obtaining and maintaining housing , as well as fair housing counseling, investigation, mediation, and enforcement.

Should a resident come to the City seeking counsel, staff connects them with these organizations, as well as state and federal resources.

The City provides translation for public meetings and materials by request, as there typically is little to no demand for translation services. However, to engage residents in the Housing Element update process, the City’s Housing Element website offers information in English, Chinese, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Russian, though usage data indicates that there has been very little usage other than in English.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-16

B3.6 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW
The following State laws were reviewed for Cupertino’s compliance:
• Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). The City has included Strategy HE-2.3.7 to amend the density bonus ordinance as necessary to respond to any changes in State law.
• No-Net-Loss (Government Code Section 65863). The City has identified a surplus of sites available to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation (RHNA). In total, the City’s surplus unit capacity is 1,1,683166, which is made up of 356316 lower-income units, 81154 moderate-income units, and 7291,213 above moderate- income units. While the City has included ADU capacity in Appendix B4 , the City does not need to rely on ADUs to accommodate the RHNA.
• Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code Section 65589.5). The City does not condition the approval of housing development projects for very low-, low-, or moderate- income households or emergency shelters unless specific written findings are made. Further, the City currently allows emergency shelters by -right, without limitations, in the BQ zoning district. Strategy HE-5.1.1 has been included to allow emergency shelters in the R4 zoning district and review and revise managerial standards to ensure compliance with State law. • Senate Bill 35 (Government Code Section 65913.4). The City of Cupertino enacted this authority in the Vallco Fashion Mall redevelopment to approve the development via ministerial approval, and has adopted an established written policy/procedure to streamline the approval process and standards for other eligible projects. • Senate Bill 330 (Government Code Section 65589.5). The City complies with SB 330, relying on regulations set forth in the law for processing preliminary applications for housing development projects, conducting no more than five hearings for housing projects that comply with objective general plan and development standards, and making a decision on a residential project within 90 days after certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) or 60 days after adoption of a mitigated negative declaration (M ND) or an environmental report for an affordable housing project. The City has an established written procedure that is available on the City’s website and at public counters.
• California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). The City provides protections to residents through referrals to legal assistance organizations, such as Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC) and has included Strategy HE-6.1.1 to meet with local fair housing and legal aid organizations to develop materials or annual training for landlords on fair housing rights and responsibilities with the intent of reducing, or eliminating, discrimination.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-17

• Review Processes (Government Code Section 65008). The City reviews affordable development projects in the same manner as market-rate developments, except in cases where affordable housing projects are eligible for preferential treatment , including, but not limited to, on residential sites subject to AB 1397.
• Assembly Bill 686 (Government Code Section 8899.50). The City has completed this AFH and identified programs to address identified fair housing issues in Section B3.3 of this assessment.
• Equal Access (Government Code Section 11135 et seq.). The City offers translation services for all public meetings and offers accessibility accommodations to ensure equal access to all programs and activities operated, administered, or funded with financial assistance from the State, regardless of membership or perceived membership in a protected class. • Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code. Section 65589.5) requiring adoption of a Housing Element and compliance with RHNA allocations —Cupertino City Council initially opposed this Act;
• Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) which requires streamlined residential development approval in municipalities not meeting their RHNA allocation —Cupertino enacted this authority in the Vallco Fashion Mall redevelopment to approve the development via ministerial approval; • Below- Market Rate (BMR) program. Cupertino’s current Residential Housing Mitigation Program sets BMR requirements, which currently require a 15 percent affordable set aside for rental housing and a 20 percent affordable contribution for both rental andset aside for for- sale housing in projects that propose seven or more units. A proposed change to this program would lower the threshold for for-sale projects to five units. The AMI thresholds range from 50 percent to 80 percent AMI for rental units to 100 percent to 120 percent AMI for ownership units.The program requires units restricted by income – 9 percent of the units to very -low- income levels (up to 50 percent of AMI), 6 percent of the units to l ow-income levels (50 to -80 percent of AMI) for rental developments, 10 percent of the units for median- income levels (80 to -100 percent of AMI), and 10 percent of the units at moderate-income levels (100 to -120 percent of AMI) for for-sale developments. Fee-in-lieu mitigation payments are required for developments wit h six or fewer units. The fees are modest and range from $19.28 per square foot for detached single- family homes to $21.21 per square foot for small lot homes, $25.71 per square foot for attached homes, and $32.14 per square foot for higher- density multifamily developments.
• State Density Bonus Law, amended by Assembly Bill 2345; APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-18

• Housing Conversions. Cupertino regulates conversion of apartments and other forms of rental units to condominiums by requiring that comparable replacement housing exists within the housing market area to accommodate displaced residents. • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) — requires that ADUs are permitted on lots within any residential or mixed -use zoning district; does not allow short term rental use of ADUs; has streamlined development standards and use restrictions; and allows ministerial review for conforming units;
• No Net Loss Law (Gov. Code Section 65863) requiring that adequate sites be maintained to accommodate unmet RHNA allocations;
• Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code. Section 65913.1);
• Excessive Subdivision Standards Law (Gov. Code. Section 65913.2); • Limits on Growth Controls Law (Gov. Code. Section 65589.5); and • Employee Housing Act (25 CCR 600).

B3.7 INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION
This section discusses integration and segregation of the population by protected classes, including race and ethnicity, disability status, familial status, and income status. The section concludes with an analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence.

Integration and Segregation
“Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.

Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area.” Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 31.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-19

RACE AND ETHNICITY
Cupertino differs from the county and Bay Area overall for its majority proportion of residents identifying as Asian (68 percent in Cupertino compared to 37 percent in Santa Clara County). On the other handOn the flip side , the city has a disproportionately low Hispanic population (3 percent in Cupertino and 25 percent in the county). Cupertino’s proportion of Black/African American and Other and mixed-race residents is similar to the county, in that it reports less than 4 percent for both groups.

The C ity ’s Asian population has grown by 22 percentage points since 2000, resulting in a smaller share of non-Hispanic White residents (49 percent in 2000 compared to 25 percent in 2020). The proportion of residents that identify as American Indian, Alaska Native, and Black or African American has remained relatively stable across this time period, with these residents accounting for 0.8 percent of the population in 2000 compared to 0.9 percent in 2020. The Hispanic population decreased slightly from 4.1 to 3.3 percent of the population. Almost all areas in Cupertino are now predominantly Asian, the only exception being the Oak Valley neighborhood, much of which is also occupied by the Fremont Older Open Space and the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. While this neighborhood is in a tract that is predominantly White, the portion within Cupertino is relatively sparsely populated with some single family homes and a large continuum of care facility (The Forum – with a skilled nursing facility, a memory care unit, assiste d living units and a few independent living units), with the bulk of the population in the City of Los Altos’ city limits.

Younger residents are less racially diverse than other age groups, with 75 percent of the population under 18 years identifying as Asian compared to 41 percent of those aged 65 or older. There is a slight increase in the number of residents identifying as Other or Multiple Races in the younger age group, but the main shift is the declining share of White (both Hispanic and non- Hispanic) residents. There are 57 percent of residents 65 and over that identify as White but only 16 percent of residents under 18 were White.

The r acial and ethnic composition of Cupertino is similar to that found in communities to the north, such as Sunnyvale, San Jose, Milpitas, and Fremont, where the population is predominantly Asian.

Cupertino differs from most of the communities close to it (i.e., Los Gatos, Los Altos, etc.), where White residents are in the majority . However, the diversity index in Cupertino is reflective of neighboring cities. It may also be the case that immigrant populations in the city may choose to live in higher-cost areas to be close to other community members with similar cultural backgrounds or higher-performing schools, despite the cost burden that may come with this choice.

Poverty rates are below the county rate , except for residents identifying as Hispanic or Black. The highest poverty rate by race and ethnicity in Cupertino is for Black/African American residents at 16.9 percent and Hispanic residents at 16.7 percent. This compares to a poverty rate of 6.3 percent for APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-20

Asian residents and 4.5 percent for non-Hispanic, White residents. However, there is a large margin of error on this data which could over or underrepresent the percentages.

DISSIMILARITY AND ISOLATION INDICES
ABAG created a 2021 report on segregation in Cupertino, measuring racial and income segregation within the community. This report analyzes two common indices that measure segregation: the isolation index and the dissimilarity index.

The Dissimilarity Index, or DI, is a common tool that measures segregation in a community. The DI i
s an index that measures the degree to which two distinct groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area. The DI represents the percentage of a group’s population that would have to move for each area in the county to have the same percentage of that group as the county overall.

DI values range from 0 to 100 — where 0 is perfect integration and 100 is complete segregation. DI values between 0 and 39 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation.

The Iisol
ation Iindex is interpreted as the probability that a randomly drawn minority resident shares an area with a member of the same minority, it ranges from 0 to 100 and higher values of isolation tend to indicate higher levels of segregation.

Overall, Cupertino has moderate diversity, and is more diverse than the nearby cities of Saratoga, M
onte Sereno, and Los Gatos. The most segregated population is Asian residents, and this segregation has increased since 2000. Asian residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups. This is Segregation can also be seen when looking at the population through the lens of income. also true of aDue to the homogeneity of incomes within neighborhoods, Aabove moderate-income residents in Cupertino tend to, who also live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups.

As measured by the DI, segregation in Cupertino is similar to the Bay Aa r ea overall. Geospatially, in Cupertino, all but one census tract s hasve a predominant Asian population; however, as noted, this tract includes the unpopulated Fremont Older Open Space area and much of that tract is also located within the adjacent City of Los Altos. Each tract also has a high segregation of the Asian population.

ABAG’s assessed measures of segregation above highlighted Asian residents as the most segregated compared to other groups, and Asian residents in the city are becoming more isolated over time.

Overall, since 2010, Cupertino’s racial segregation scores have remained steady or declined, as has income segregation between moderate- income residents and other groups.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-21

DISABILITY STATUS
Persons with disabilities typically have special housing needs due to physical or developmental capabilities, fixed or limited incomes, and higher health costs. Seniors typically experience disabilities at higher rates. The share of the population living with at least one disability is 6 percent in Cupertino, compared to 8 percent in Santa Clara County. According to the 2015 -2019 American Communities Survey (ACS), Cupertino has two census tracts where the population of persons with disabilities is between 1 0 and 20 15 percent with the remainder less than 10 percent. In the Oak Valley neighborhood in northwest Cupertino, approximately 11.6 percent of the population has a disability, and in the Rancho Rinconada School neighborhood, approximately 12.1 percent of the population has a disability. In these neighborhoods, the percent age of seniors is 34.8 percent and 12.9 percent, respectively. It should be noted that within the portion of the tract in Cupertino, a Continuum of Care facility, The Forum operates with a skilled nursing facility, assisted living units, memory care units and some independent living units. The area with the area with the highest disability rate (12.1 percent) has among the lowest proportions of seniors in the city, suggesting that the rate of disability is not necessarily linked to age in that Tract/neighborhood. Further, senior retirement and assisted living facilities are located in the Creston- Pharlap neighborhood, where the disability rate is 8.2 percent .

While the incidence of disability has increased from 7.7 percent in 2014 in the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood and from 7.5 percent in the Oak Valley neighborhood, this could be due to the Verandas senior housing project opening in 2019. This could have influenced the slightly higher rates of disability. Therefore, these patterns have not been identified as fair housing concerns.

Compared to neighboring cities, Cupertino residents experience disabilities at a similar rate, with less than 10 percent of residents experiencing a disability in most tracts. On the other hand, Cupertino residents experience disabilities at a lower rate than residents in higher- density areas, such as South San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco. In public comments to City Council, community members expressed a nee d for the City to explore ways to increase housing opportunities for the developmentally disabled population and reducing barriers to accessing below -market rate units. As part of Strategy HE-5.1.2 , the City will continue to use its Below -Market-Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) funds to provide for a range of supportive services for lower -income households and persons with special needs. Through Strategy HE-2.3.1, the City will also work with housing developers to expand opportunities for affordable lower -income housing for special -needs groups, including persons with physical and developmental disabilities by directly pursuing federal, state, and private funding for low- and moderate-income housing, partnering with nonprofit and for- profit developers to support their financing applications for affordable housing funding programs, and promoting the use of the density bonus ordinance.

To meet the needs of residents with disabilities throughout the city, group homes are permitted per State law, there is one licensed adult residential care facility (Paradise Manor 3) with capacity for six APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-22

residents, and four elderly assisted living facilities (Blended Family Care Home, Lotus of Cupertino Care Home, Paradise Manor 4, and Paradise Manor II), with a combined capacity for 36 residents. An additional assisted living facility is currently under construction in San Jose, but because of its close proximity to Cupertino, the facility will likely serve the needs of seniors from Cupertino. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) ACCESS Paratransit service is also available to residents and visitors in Cupertino and throughout its South Bay Area service area. VTA ACCESS is available to riders who cannot use conventional accessible bus and light rail transit services due to physical, visual, or cognitive disabilities. However, all VTA buses and light rail services are also accessible for persons using wheelchairs and include announcements of key destinations for persons with visual disabilities. Via - Cupertino, a local app -based ride-share program with fares subsidized by grant funds , also offers wheelchair-accessible vans for riders throughout the city.

FAMILIAL STATUS
Familial status can indicate specific housing needs and preferences. A larger number of nonfamily or single person households indicates a higher share of seniors living alone, young adults living alone or with roommates, and unmarried partners. Higher shar es of nonfamily households indicate an increased need for one- and two-bedroom units.

Cupertino’s households are mostly made up of three - and four-person households (49 percent) and two-person households (26 percent). Married- couple households make up a majority of Cupertino households (69 percent), while less than half of all households have at least one child under the age of 18 (47 percent).

Compared to the county, Cupertino has slightly fewer one-person households (18 percent compared to 20 percent in the county) and five -person households (7 percent compared to 12 percent in the county). The cCity has about as many adults living alone (18 percent) as in the county (20 percent) . and no concentrations of adults living alone. The city also has a lower percentage of single male- headed households compared to the c ounty (2.4 percent in the city compared to 5.0 percent in the county) and single-person households (2.0 percent in the city compared to 2.3 percent in the county).

Geographically, there are no concentrations of single -parent, female -headed households or adults living alone. This may indicate an even distribution of housing opportunities for these household types, though more likely is reflective of the dominance of married- couple families in Cupertino. The City has included Strategy HE -2.2 to encourage development of housing in a range of sizes and affordability to facilitate housing mobility for all household types.

Compared to the county, Cupertino has slightly fewer 1-person households (18 percent compared to 20 percent in the county) and 5 -person households (7 percent v. 12 percent). The City has about as many adults living alone (18 percent) as in the county (20 percent) and no concentrations of adults living alone.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-23

Cupertino’s married couples overwhelmingly own housing: married couples make up 75 percent of the homeowners in Cupertino ( Figure II-19B3-35). Homeowners, unsurprisingly, reside in three 3- and four4-bedroom homes more than any other housing type (Figure II-20B3-32).

Almost as many renters and owners live alone in Cupertino (1,881 and 2,000 respectively). This represents 22.5 percent of renter households and 15.8 percent of owner households.Forty-two percent of renters in Cupertino occupy 2-bedroom housing units.

Cupertino’s age distribution has shifted older, all categories of age above 45 have increased, since 2000.

HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Cupertino’s households are higher -income than the county and Bay Area overall: 69 percent of the city’s households earn more than 100 percent of the AMI, compared to 55 percent for the county and 52 percent for the Bay Area (refer to Figure B3-3, Segregation and Integration). As shown in Figure B3-36, almost all census tracts in the city have a median income exceeding $125,000. The census block groups abutting the east side of N. Foothill B oulevard north of Stevens Creek and surrounding the Homestead Square Shopping Center have slightly lower median incomes, at $107,059 and $107,538 , respectively. The Markham Apartments, Aviare Aparments, the NorthPoint town home community, and other small lot, medium - to high- density residential units are in the around Homestead Square Shopping Center. While rents and home prices in Cupertino are high throughout the city, these slightly dated, in some cases deed-restricted, higher- density products may be marginally more affordable and attractive to households earning slightly lower incomes , thus resulting in a slightly lower median income. Similarly, as noted, the Foothill Heights Apartments , Sunny View Retirement Community , which includes 100 deed-restricted affordable units, and an assortment of smaller tri -plex and four- plexes, may contribute to the slightly lower income near Alpine Drive. east of N. Foothill Boulevard.

In both cases, the slightly lower income does not appear to reflect disparities in access by income, as apartment complexes are in other neighborhoods throughout the city. This may also be reflective of the investment apartment owners are making in their property to command higher rents.

In 2014, the lowest median income in the city ($98,422) was in in the census tract covering the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood in eastern Cupertino. In 2019, the median income in the two block groups in this neighborhood has increased to $128,576 and $200,227. The area near Homestead Square Shopping Center’s neighborhood median income decreased slightly from $122,905 and the area near Alpine Drive, east of N. Foothill’s median income decreased from $135,581. However, it is important to note that the available data in 2014 was at the tract level, while data in 2019 was at the block group level. The block group level provides a more granular level of detail and reflects a smaller area, while tract- level data includes areas that extend beyond the neighborhood boundaries identified for these areas. Considering these changes in data, the relatively small changes in median income in each of these notable neighborhoods do not appear to reflect exclusionary income patterns over time.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-24

The poverty rate in the city is approximately 7.7 percent, compared to 6.1 percent in Santa Clara County. As shown in Figure B3-38, the highest rate of poverty (13.7 percent) is in the tract encompassing the interchange of Interstate 280 and Highway 85 north of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Mary Ave nue. and the railroad, along withnd the area near Homestead Square Shopping Center. In 2014, this area had a poverty rate of 6.6 percent. In contrast to the rising rates of poverty in the area, the median income in this area increased from $122,905 in 2014 to approximately $136,759 in 2019. This may suggest growing income discrepancies in this area of the city as the median income increases, It is also important to note that ACS data in this census tracts in the city has a high (50%) margin of error.

Figure B3-3 Segregation and Integration

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-25

RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY AND

AFFLUENCE
Racially Concentrated Area of Poverty or an Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) represent opposing ends of the segregation spectrum from racially or ethnically segregated areas with high poverty rates to affluent predominantly White neighborhoods. Historically, HUD has paid particular attention to R/ECAPs as a focus of policy and obligations to AFFH. Recent research out of the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs argues for the inclusion of RCAAs to acknowledge current and past policies that created and perpetuate these areas of high opportunity and exclusion. 12 It is important to note that R/ECAPs and RCAAs are not areas of focus because of racial and ethnic concentrations alone. This study recognizes that racial and ethnic clusters can be a part of fair housing choice, if they occur in a non- discriminatory market. Rather, R/ECAPs are meant to identify areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity, and conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion.

R/ECAPs
HCD and HUD’s definition of a Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty is:

A census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) or, for non-urban areas, 20 percent, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR a census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority -minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the county, whichever is lower.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021.

For this study, the poverty threshold used to qualify a tract as a n R/ECAP was three times the average census tract poverty rate countywide—or 21.6 percent.

According to HCD, there were 11 census tracts in the county that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.4 percent poverty rate). All were located in San Jose. None of the R/ECAPs were in Cupertino.

RCAAS
At the time this report was written, HCD and HUD had not established standard definitions for Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs). However, these are generally understood to be neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of non-Hispanic White households and high household income rates. Comparing Cupertino to the surrounding county and

12 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019). “Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation.” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 21(1), 99–124 APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-26

region, it is safe to speculate that the City has many neighborhoods that would be considered RCAAs. [check on ABAG data]; . However, there is a concentration of poverty (13.7 percent) in the northern Homestead neighborhood and along Highway 85. While this area does not also have a comparatively high proportion of non- White residents, it does have a lower median income and higher rates of overcrowding, renter overpayment, and homeowner overpayment when compared to most other neighborhoods in the city. There fore, while this area does not meet the definition of a R/ECAP, or potential R/ECAP, it is a notable area of disproportionate need.

RCAAs
HCD’s definition of a Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Area of Affluence is:

A census tract that has a percentage of total White population that is 1.25 times higher than the average percentage of total White population in the given Council of Government (COG) region, and a median income that was two times higher than the COG AMI.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community, 2022.

RCAAs) are generally understood to be neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of non-Hispanic White households’ and high household income rates. Similar to the importance of identifying R/ECAP areas, which helps to identify areas that are segregated by race/ethnicity and poverty, it is also necessary to identify racially concentrated areas of wealth to further compare these patterns.

Using ACS 2015-2019 data, HCD developed a mapping tool that demonstrates the “location quotient” (LQ) for each California census tract; this quotient represents the percentage of total White population for each census tract compared to that of the average percentage of the Council of Government (COG) region. To determine the RCAAs, HCD takes the census tracts with an LQ of more than 1.25 and a median income that is 1.5 times higher than the COG region (or 1.5 times the State AMI, whichever is lower). Those tracts that meet these criteria are then assigned a numeric score of 1, which indicates that those tracts have an accumulation of high incomes and a White population, i.e., a n RCAA. RCAAs are the inverse of R/ECAPs in that they illustrate where self -segregated and/or exclusive wealthy White neighborhoods are potentially located.

The tract northwest and west of Cupertino, which spans portions of Cupertino and Los Altos, is considered an RCAA (LQ of 1.63). The portion of the city within this tract includes part of the Oak Valley neighborhood. This area identified as an RCAA in the HCD mapping tool encompasses a lot of open spaces, such as Fremont Older, Rancho San Antonio, all the way to Foothills Park (in Palo Alto). The area also includes large areas of property in Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Palo Alto, which are majority White, unlike Cupertino. In this area, 66.9 percent of the population identifies as White, the median income is $169,896, and 27.3 percent of renters and 37.7 percent of owners are overpaying APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-27

for housing. These overpayment rates are notably lower than those found in tracts to the east.

However, as described in the analysis of household income, the median income throughout Cupertino is relatively high, ranging from $107,059 in the western part of the Creston-Pharlap neighborhood to $236,719 in the Garden Gate neighborhood. While there is only one potential RCAA by definition, the very high median income in the city indicates a concentration of affluence that likely reflects the availability of higher-income tech jobs and high home costs.

These conditions in Cupertino are reflective of most jurisdictions in the southern portion of the Bay Area, particularly in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Neighboring RCAAs are present in Los Altos, Woodside, Stanford, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, Hillsborough, Burlingame, Millbrae, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, Saratoga, Campbell, and Los Gatos, among others in the region. Typically, in the Bay Area, the median income is highest in lower- and medium- density, primarily single-family areas that are removed from the bay but are within a short commute distance of concentrations of jobs along the bay. While Cupertino has characteristics that suggest a concentration of affluence, the concentration is not isolated to the city, and instead exists in most similarly situated communities in the Bay Area.

The concentration of affluence in Cupertino appears to be primarily driven by housing demand and proximity to high-paying jobs, as is found in most neighboring communities. While sites that are zoned R-3, P(Res) and P(Res /CG), which allow high - density residential development, are dispersed throughout the city and located in most neighborhoods, the largest concentration of R-3 land is in the northern portion of the city, where the median income is comparatively low, when compared to the rest of the city, though still exceeding $100,000 annually. This slightly lower - income area is likely a result of a higher concentration of older stock, multifamily units, which are typically more affordable than single-family units. However, all deed -restricted affordable units are in other areas of the city, thus providing housing mobility opportunities for lower -income households throughout more neighborhoods and areas (see Table B2-3, Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion, in Appendix B2).

By ensuring that land for multi-family development at higher densities is available in most neighborhoods, and deed- restricted units are dispersed throughout the city, the City ensures that lower- and moderate -income households have housing options citywide, combating patterns of affluence. In comments received during City Council meetings, community members expressed a desire to see multifamily housing developed in areas of high opportunity. It is estimated that many of the Housing Element’s programs , including HE -1.3.4, HE-1.3.5, and HE-2.3.1, will encourage that development, and that on a regional scale multifamily housing developed in Cupertino will put this development in a higher-opportunity area. Therefore, the concentration of affluence in Cupertino is driven by regional economic conditions, rather than local practices. However, to provide additional opportunities and combat displacement risk that increases as local and regional housing prices rise, the City has included Strategies HE-1.3.1, HE-1.3.4, HE-1.3.7, HE-1.3.8, HE-1.3.10, HE-1.3.11, HE-2.3.1, HE-2.3.3, HE-2.3.9, HE-2.3.11, HE-2.3.12, HE-3.3.2, HE-3.3.4, and HE-3.3.6.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-28

B3.8 ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
This section discusses disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes, including access to quality education, employment, transportation, and environment. The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), in collaboration with HCD, developed a series of opportunity maps that help to identify areas of the community with good or poor access to opportunity for residents.

These maps were developed to align funding allocations with the goal of improving outcomes for low- income residents, particularly children.

Access to Opportunity
“Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. Access to opportunity oftentimes means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods. This encompasses education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food , and healthy environment
(air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from
environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).” Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 34.

The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) in collaboration with HCD developed a series of opportunity maps that help to identify areas of the community with good or poor access to opportunity for residents. These maps were developed to align funding allocations with the goal of improving outcomes for low-income residents—particularly children.

The opportunity maps highlight areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource , and high segregation and poverty. TCAC provides opportunity maps for access to opportunity in quality education, employment, transportation, and environment. Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.

TRANSIT
Transit mobility refers to an individual’s ability to navigate the city and region on a daily basis to access services, employment, schools, and other resources. Indicators of transit mobility include the extent of transit routes, proximity of transit stops to affordable housing, and frequency of transit.

Residents of Cupertino are served by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ( VTA) buses and Via-Cupertino (Silicon Valley Hopper), an app-based ride-share transportation services, both of APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-29

which provide connections to a variety of local resources and services, as well as to regional connections.

Fares for VTA range from $2.50 for a single ride to $990 for an annual pass, with options for day and monthly passes as well. Discounted rates are available for seniors, disabled riders, Medicare riders, and youth up to age 18. Children under age five ride free. Frequent VTA buses run along Stevens Creek Boulevard andwhile local bus routes operate along major thoroughfares (Wolfe, Miller, Bollinger, De Anza and Homestead). Together, these routes offer intra- and inter-city connections to Downtown San Jose, the Mineta San Jose International Airport, job centers and services throughout the South Bay area, and regional transit centers to connect to additional transportation options. The frequent bus (Route 23) runs from De Anza College to Alum Rock Station 7 days per week with 15 - to 30- minute headways. Local bus Route 51 operates on weekdays with 50- to 60-minute headways, running from West Valley College to the Ames Research Center, with stops in Cupertino. Local buses Routes 55 and 56 operate 7 days per week with approximately 30 -minute headways, running from the Santa Clara Convention Center to De Anza College (Route 55) and Lockhe ead Martin Transit Center to Tamien Station in San Jose (Route 56) with stops in Cupertino.

Via-Cupertino, recently rebranded as Silicon Valley Hopper, is an on-demand ride-share program in the city. The program is supported in large part through a grants from the State and is currently anticipated to run for four years before funding for the program must be considered again. Riders can request transportation via the app, or by calling a number on the city’s website. Vans offer bike racks, and two vans are also wheelchair accessible. Fares are $3.50 per ride or $25 for a weekly pass, and $1 for each additional rider. Discounted fares (50 percent and no additional rider fees) are available for seniors, students, low-income residents, and persons with disabilities. The service provides door -to- door transportation within city limits, to the Sunnyvale and Mountain View Caltrain Stations, and to El Camino Hospital in Mountain View. Service is anticipated to expand into the City of Santa Clara sometime during 2023.

AllTransit is a transit and connectivity analytic tool developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology for the advancement of equitable communities and urban sustainability. The tool analyzes the transit frequency, routes, and access to determine an overall transit score at the city, county, and regional levels. AllTransit scores geographic regions (e.g., cities, counties, Metropolitan Statistical Areas) on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being complete transit connectivity. Transit in the City of Cupertino has a score of 5.4, reflecting moderate accessibility to jobs and services via transit.

However, this score is slightly lower than surrounding cities. For example, Santa Clara scores 7.0, Sunnyvale scores 7.2, Campbell scores 7.3, and Mountain View scores 7.7 . Jurisdictions with lower scores than Cupertino include Los Altos (4.8) and Saratoga (3.6). Not surprisingly, transit scores typically go up in higher - intensity urban areas , in areas with proximity to fixed -rail transit (e.g. , Caltrans/BART/VTA Ligh t R ail) and closer to San Jose. Overall, Santa Clara County scores 6.5, demonstrating that Cupertino has more limited access than the county on average.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-30

EDUCATION
TCAC’s education score is based on math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. According to TCAC’s educational opportunity map, every census tract in Cupertino scores higher than 0.75 —indicating the highest positive educational outcomes.

Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.

Cupertino is served by Cupertino Union School District for K -8 (25 different schools), which is the largest elementary school district in Northern California. Children living in a northeast section of the cCity are served by the Santa Clara Unified School District.

The Cupertino Union School District had a 2019 enrollment of 17,363 students, with a declining enrollment, as is evidenced in data for much of the county and state. Student demographics included

73.1 percent Asian, 5.1 percent Hispanic, and 14.5 percent White. As of this point in time, the district educated had in its student body 4 homeless students, 1,050 socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and 1,192 students with disabilities. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students are defined as students who are eligible for free or reduced- priced meals; or have parents/guardians who did not receive a high school diploma. The highest proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged students at schools within the Cupertino Union School District attend Manuel De Vargas Elementary (18.7 percent) and Warren E. Hyde Middle (12.5 percent). Hyde Middle serves the S. Blaney, Fairgrove, and Rancho Rinconada neighborhoods, both of which have lower median incomes, higher rates of overpayment and overcrowding, and other indicators of potential fair housing issues, likely stemming from a concentration of relatively affordable housing options. However, students at Manuel De Vargas Elementary generally do not live within Cupertino, as the district serves several surrounding jurisdictions, and the school itself is not within Cupertino. To ensure all students have access to equal educational opportunities, the City has included Strategy HE -1.3.2 to promote construction of ADUs and other infill strategies to increase the supply of affordable housing options in areas with higher access to resources, including areas with higher incomes and jobs proximity index scores.

Graduation rates were not available through the California Department of Education dashboard for 2019, 2020, or 2021.

Fremont Union (the high school district to which teenagers in the whichthat students in the northeast City attend) had 11,022 students enrolled in 2019, with 60 percent Asian, 14 percent Hispanic, and 17 percent White populations. The district serves all residents of the City of Cupertino, a large part of the City of Sunnyvale, some portions of the cities of Los Altos, Santa Clara, San Jose , and Saratoga.

At this time , t he district educated had in its student body 15 homeless students, 1,634 socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and 1,053 students with disabilities. Unfortunately, students with a disability and homeless students each graduated at much lower rates, with homeless students graduating at a 28 percentage points lower rate than the state. It is, however, hard to APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-31

determine whether these students were residents of Cupertino or not. The overall graduation rate (95.5 percent) was almost 10 percentage points higher than the state average.

All schools in Cupertino are highly rated according to the California School Dashboard, with little variance in proficiency among schools. Cupertino Monta Vista High has a slightly better record in English Language Learner progress than Cupertino High and ranks higher in above -standard mathematics and English Language Arts proficiency, although Homestead High (in Fremont Union) also performs well on these measures. Regionally, students in Cupertino are expected to have similar or better educational opportunities when compared to other communities in the county and greater Bay Area.

In a focus group of school district leaders and other community services organizations, district staff indicated that a lack of affordable housing has caused challenges in teacher hiring and retention, and that higher-density development tends to generate fewer students per household than lower -density or single-family development. As part of Strategy HE -2.3.6, the City will evaluate the feasibility of developing special housing for teachers or other employee groups on City -owned surplus properties and will research other jurisdictions’ housing programs for teachers for their potential applicability in Cupertino. Additionally, rezoning efforts in Strategy HE-1.3.2 will encourage higher-density housing development, which will not only encourage more affordable housing but will do so in a way that has the potential to put less pressure on school enrollment.

EMPLOYMENT
Cupertino’s job market is heavily impacted influenced by Apple, whose headquarters are in the cCity.

The city’s job proximity index shows the c ity to have better employment opportunities than any immediately surrounding areas. Six block groups score above an 80, indicating very close proximity to jobs, due in large part to their proximity to Apple campuses. However, it is unclear how many of the residents of the block groups work at Apple. Regionally, communities in the southern portion of the Bay Area typically have the highest scores for proximity to jobs, likely due to the concentration of large campus employment opportunities. However, many of these communities are more densely developed than Cupertino. Cupertino has among the highest jobs proximity inde x scores amo ng similarly situated, predominantly single-family communities in the South Bay.

In 2014, the jobs - to- household ratio for Cupertino began to diverge significantly from the county and Bay Area. As of 2018, Cupertino’s jobs-to-household ratio exceeds exceeded 2.5, indicating the City has strong job opportunities for residents within Cupertino and from surrounding communities.

The high ratio is also an indicator of the lack of workforce housing opportunities within the c ity and the need for Apple and other employers to draw heavily on workers living in other cities.

The job opportunities, especially with the proximity of Apple, likely contribute t o the fact that most block groups in Cupertino have a median household income of $125,000 or more. The City has only APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-32

four small sections with higher than the minimum poverty concentration of low -income households and minor areas of concentrated poverty in a Census Tract which straddles both Cupertino and Sunnyvale. parts of the City shared with Sunnyvale.

Starting in Between 20052015 and 2018, Manufacturing & Wholesale jobs began growing have grown swiftly in the city . Since thenIn this time period, jobs in this industry have increased by more than 25,000 jobs43 percent, or 9,331 jobs. However, because the specific businesses included in the Census Bureau’'s Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) are not available, it is difficult to determine which businesses or positions may have been included in this category. However, it should be noted that there are no mid-size or large manufacturing or wholesale operations located in Cupertino. The population of Cupertino, comparatively, increased by 11,000decreased by 551 during the same period, and rwhileesidential development grew by fewer than 2,000 unitsonly 546 residential units were developed between 2015 and 2022 . Given the City’s slow pace of development relative to job growth, Cupertino employers have had to draw on workforce outside of the c City to support their operations and growthit is safe to assume that many of these employees reside outside city limits.

Unemployment in Cupertino spiked in 2020 but is less than the county and region overall. This is an expected, COVID-19 pandemic-related trend; however, the unemployment rate has not yet reached pre-pandemic levels. Overall , the unemployment rate in Cupertino (4.4 . percent) is lower than t he county as a whole (5.7 percent) and the larger Bay Area (6.6 percent), indicating a return to regular employment opportunities more quickly than other areas of the region.

TCAC’s economic opportunity score consists of poverty, adult educational attainment, employment, job proximity, and median home value. All but two census tracts in Cupertino have high economic opportunity (> 0.75). The remaining two , in the Rancho Rinconada and Fairgrove neighborhoods, are still moderate opportunity areas, with scores between 0.50 and 0.75.

ENVIRONMENT
TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators, which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to pollution sources, such as ozone, fine particulate matter ( PM2.5), diesel particulate matter ( PM), pesticides, toxic release s, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites.

Most census tracts in Cupertino score low on positive h ave scores associated with positive environmental outcomes based on CalEnviroScreen indicators environmental outcomes , with no census tracts in the city scoring over 0.5 out of 1 (Figures III-9 and III-10B3-51). Conversely, theThe CityCupertino scores even better on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC) (Figure III- 11B3-52). It is not clear which is more reflective of the area’s environmental health. The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-33

eight categories, including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare.

A disadvantaged community or environmental justice community (“E J Community”) is identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) as “areas [sic] that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation,” and may or may not have a concentration of low -income households, high unemployment rates, low homeownership rates, overpayment for housing, or other indicators of disproportionate housing need. 13 In February 2021, the California Office for Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (COEHHA) released the fourth version of CalEnviroScreen, a tool that uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators to map and compare a community’s environmental scores. In the CalEnviroScreen tool, communities that have a cumulative score in the 75th percentile or above (25 percent highest score census tracts) are those that have been designated as disadvantaged communities under Senate Bill ( SB) 535.14 The cumulative score for each census tract includes an exposure score, with a low score being a positive outcome, for each of the following:
• “Ozone concentrations
• PM2.5 concentrations
• Diesel particulate matter emissions
• Drinking water contaminants
• Children’s lead risk from housing for children
• Use of certain high-hazard, high-volatility pesticides • Toxic releases from facilities
• Traffic impacts15”
Communities that are identified as disadvantaged communities based on their cumulative pollution exposure score are targeted for investment through the State cap -and-trade program. However, the condition of these communities poses fair housing concerns due to disproportionate exposure to unhealthy living conditions. In the City of Cupertino, the cumulative scores of all census tracts are below the 30th percentile, with most below the 20th percentile, indicating that there are no areas that meet the criteria of a disadvantaged community and are not disproportionately exposed to high levels

13 California Health and Safety Code, Section § 39711
14 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. June 2017. SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities, June 2017. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
15 California Environmental Protection Agency, California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessments. February 202.

Update to the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Public Review Draft, February 2021. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/document/calenviroscreen40reportd12021.pdf.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-34

of pollutants compared to other census tracts in the state. These scores reflect extremely positive environmental conditions for residents of Cupertino.

However, Interstate 280 runs east to west along the northern portion of the city and Highway 85 runs north to south through the western portion of the city. The confluence of these freeways is adjacent to the Monta Vista Village and Garden Gate neighborhoods, where poverty rates are highest (13.7 percent of the population), though the median income is still $142,969. The location s of these freeways, however, may pose a potential environmental concern for adjacent residential areas, who may face increased exposure to traffic emissions and particulate matter. CalEnviroScreen reports that the pollution burden for diesel particul ate matter and traffic in this area are in the 88th and 83rd percentiles, respectively. However, Highway 85 has limited truck traffic because semi -trucks are prohibited south of Stevens Creek Boulevard.

In Santa Clara County, cumulative pollution exposure scores are relatively consistent among similarly situated, suburban and urban communities. Scores increase in higher - intensity areas, such as in San Jose.

In a community workshop, participants expressed a desire for developments to have lower impact on greenhouse gas emissions and lower vehicle miles traveled, and for buildings to have private and community open space such as balconies and landscaped areas, while avoiding privacy impacts to adjacent lower density residential developments. Through Strategy HE-7.3.1, the City will coordinate with the Valley Transportation Authority to ensure adequate transit access for new developments, which can encourage residents to reduce their vehicle miles traveled and may reduce traffic emissions.

The City will also continue to implement its General Plan policies in the Mobility Element by developing programs to help improve the transportation network and impacts to the environment .

The City implements environmental requirements including those related to Air Quality, Biological and Cultural Resources through its Municipal Code. Additionally, through Strategies HE-4.1.2 and

4.1.3, the City will continue to implement the Landscape Ordinance, which will require water-efficient landscaping in new residential projects throughout the city , and provide incentives for energy conservation improvements at small affordable housing projects to exceed the requirements of the California Green Building Code.

DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Because Cupertino offers high opportunity neighborhoods throughout, all residents live in highly resourced areas, regardless of race or ethnicity. Los Gatos and other surrounding areas are also entirely high opportunity cities.

The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) —ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster —includes four themes of socioeconomic APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-35

status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. Cupertino scores well on the SVI; no neighborhoods are ill equipped to respond to disasters.

Cupertino does not have any disadvantaged communities as defined under SB 535 as “the top 25 percent scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.”16

DISPARITIES SPECIFIC TO THE POPULATION LIVING WITH A DISABILITY Of the population in Cupertino, 7 percent is living with at least one disability, compared to 8 percent in the county. The most common disabilities in the cCity are ambulatory (3.9 percent), self- care (3.6 percent), and independent living difficulty (3.0 percent). For the population 65 and over, the share of the population with ambulatory difficulties increases to 11.4 percent while hearing difficulty becomes a top- three issue at 9.4 percent. As is shown in There were no unemployed persons with a disability in Cupertino. Figure B3-443, Access to Opportunity, 16 percent of Cupertino residents with a disability are not employed, compared to 3 percent of residents without a disability. Unemployment rates for Cupertino residents with disabilities are higher than the rate countywide (10 percent ). summarizes access to housing opportunities.

Disability
“Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.” Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 36.

B3.9 DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
This section discusses disparate housing needs for protected classes, including cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, homelessness, displacement, and other considerations.

Cupertino City CouncilApril 16, 2024

Cupertino City Council
April 16, 2024