Sunnyvale City Council
December 12, 2023

As discussed in the homeless section of Chapter 3, “Housing Needs Assessment,” the 2019 Santa Clara Homeless Survey identified 624 homeless people in Sunnyvale, including 477 unsheltered people in street locations or cars/RVs/vans or encampments, and 147 people in shelters. Table 3-10 identified a total existing emergency shelter capacity of 169 shelter beds within the City. Based on the 2019 homeless count , the City has an unmet need for 455 shelter beds.

Sunnyvale conducted a review of its zoning distr icts in 2009 and determined that the industrial zones with a combining district of 'place of assembly' (POA) are the best suited for emergency shelter uses. In 2010, the City added the MS-POA combining district to a number of sites in the MS zone. The POA combining district allows places of assembly and recreational uses, such as places of worship, community centers, etc. , as well as emergency shelters. SROs and residential uses are also permitted in the MS -POA zone with a use permit. POA sites were selected based on their proximity to major arterials and locations near the outer edges of larger industrial neighborhoods; and given their direct and convenient access to public transit, would serve as good candidates for the location of an emergency shelter. The City’s zoning map, available on the City’s website, shows the locations of all MS-POA sites within Sunnyvale. This combining district encompasses 97 parcels and a total area of 105 acres.

The MS-POA sites are characterized by larger buildings and warehouses, many of which are suitable for conversion to a shelter. Numerous underutilized properties also exist , which are suitable for redevelopment. Most structures on MS-POA sites are Class C, single-story, tilt-up, industrial buildings. The availability of these buildings for adaptive reuse and the relatively lower property values in industrial areas serve to minimize, to the extent possible, the cost of establishing an emergency shelter. The vacancy and availability rates of research and development properties in the city, which most closely corresponds to these zones, were approximately 3 and 10 percent in the third quarter of 2021, according to Colliers International. Based on these market rates, roughly 3 vacant parcels or 3 vacant acres or approximately 10 parcels are available for lease within the MS-POA combining district. The Zoning Code does not limit the number of beds permitted per site. The HomeFirst Sunnyvale Nightly Shelter, located at 999 Hamlin Ct, currently provides 102 beds on a 1.25 acre site. Based on the bed to lot size ratio of the HomeFirst Sunnyvale Nightly Shelter, approximately 5.6 acres of land is needed to accommodate the unmet emergency shelter beds. As such, the MS-POA has sufficient capacity to meet the City’s unmet emergency shelter bed need.

The City’s MS-POA development standards are appropriate to facilitate emergency shelters, and can be summarized as follows:
▪ Minimum lot size: 22,500 square feet
▪ Building height: 75 feet
▪ Lot coverage: 45 percent
▪ FAR: 35 percent
▪ Front yard setback: 25 feet
▪ Side yard setback: total 20 feet
▪ Rear yard setback: none
In addition to application of MS-POA development standards, the City can also specify written, objective standards to regulate certain aspects of emergency shelters to enhance compatibility. The Zoning Code does not specify any standards other than those listed above, however it defines emergency shelter as follows: “any facility with on-site management and security that provides temporary overnight sleeping accommodations for a maximum of thirty days and minimal supportive services for homeless persons.” Attachment 2

Assembly Bill 139, passed in 2019, revised State housing element law by requiring that emergency shelters only be required to provide sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. The City does not have parking requirements specific to emergency shelters.

Except for the parking standards set forth in the Zoning Code, the City’s standards for emergency shelter facilities comply with State law. This Housing Element includes a program directing the City to amend its parking standards for emergency shelters to comply with Assembly Bill 139.

In addition, Assembly Bill 101, passed in 2019, requires that Low Barrier Navigation Center development be a use by right in mixed -use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multi -family uses if it meets specified requirements. A Low Barrier Navigation Center is a housing-first, low-barrier, temporary, service-enriched shelter focus on helping homeless individuals and families obtain permanent housing. The Zoning Code does not address the new State law requirement related to Low Barrier Navigation Centers. The Housing Element includes a program providing that the City will amend the Zoning Code to allow ‘by right’ approval of Low Barrier Navigation Centers in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multi -family uses if they meet specified requirements in compliance with AB 101. However, even without an ordinance revision, the City is required to review any qualifying projects ‘by right.’
AB 2339 (Statutes of 2022) added additional specificity on how cities and counties plan for emergency shelters.

Government Code Section 65583 (a)(4) now require s that zoning designations identified to allow emergency shelters as a permitted use without discretionary review must allow residential uses. As described above, the MS- POA zone allows residential uses and therefore meets this requirement.

RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES
Small Residential Care Facilities
Section 1566.3 of the California Health and Safety Code requires licensed residential facilities serving six or fewer persons to be considered a residential use of property for purposes of local zoning ordinances. No local agency can impose stricter zoning or building and safety standards on these residential facilities – such as a use permit (UP), zoning variance or other zoning clearance - than is required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone.

The Sunnyvale Zoning Code permits licensed Residential Care Facilities serving six or fewer persons by right in low and medium density residential zoning districts (R-0, R-1, R-1.5, R-2), and does not subject such facilities to a use permit, building standard, or regulation not otherwise required of single-family homes in the same zone. Consistent with the requirements for single -family dwellings, licensed Residential Care Facilities serving six or fewer persons in the R-1.7/PD zoning district require a special development permit. However, under State law a family dwelling is not limited to a single-family dwelling, it includes any residential unit including duplex, multifamily, mobile homes, etc. Some of the zones where the City requires a use permit for licensed Residential Care Facilities allow multifamily and other residential uses as a permitted use. Therefore, the City’s existing zoning regulations for licensed Residential Care Facilities are not entirely consistent with State law. Unlicensed Residential Care Facilities with six or fewer occupants are permitted in all residential zones, subject to issuance of a use permit. State law does not regulate unlicensed Residential Care Facilities in the same way.

Large Residential Care Facilities
Due to the unique characteristics of larger (more than six persons) Residential Care Facilities, most jurisdictions require a use permit in the siting of these facilities. As indicated previously in Table 6-2, the Sunnyvale Zoning Code Attachment 2

provides for Residen tial Care Facilities with more than six occupants in all zoning districts where residential uses are permitted, subject to approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission; unlicensed facilities with more than six occupants are allowed with a Use Permit in medium and high density residential zones and nonresidential zones which allow residential uses. The required findings for approval of a Use Permit in Sunnyvale are directed towards ensuring compatibility of the proposed use and not tied to the user, a nd therefore are not viewed as a constraint per se to the provision of residential care facilities.

Sunnyvale has adopted Chapter 19.64 of the Zoning Code to regulate unlicensed care facilities and facilities with seven or more occupants. As articulated in the Zoning Code, the Sunnyvale City Council finds that residential care facilities provide a cost -effective, humane and non -institutional environment for elderly persons, persons suffering from chronic illness, persons suffering from mental or physical im pairments, and persons recovering from drug and/or alcohol addiction. The City Council also finds that the public health, safety and welfare of City residents is best served when such facilities are licensed by the California Department of Social Services, the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, or other appropriate agency to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and standards, but that in fact not all facilities are so licensed. The City Council finds that over-concentration of Residential Care Facilities could impair the integrity of residential neighborhoods, and thus has established a 500 foot spacing requirement between Residential Care Facilities with more than six occupants. Applicants may request a waiver from the distance requirement, subject to Planning Commission findings that such a waiver would not be materially detrimental or injurious to the property, improvements or uses in the immediate vicinity.

The State Community Care Licensing Division identified one group home, f our adult residential facilities, and 34 residential care facilities for the elderly in Sunnyvale.

This Housing Element includes a program to review the City’s requirements for residential care facilities to ensure consistency with the Health and Safety Code and its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.

Definition of Family
California's Constitution contains an express right to privacy, adopted by the voters in 1972. The California Supreme Court has found that this right includes "the right to b e left alone in our own homes" and has explained that "the right to choose with whom to live is fundamental." Consequently, the California courts have struck down local ordinances that attempt to control who lives in a household —whether families or unrelat ed persons, whether healthy or disabled, whether renters or owners. Local ordinances that define a "family" in terms of blood, marriage, or adoption, and that treat unrelated groups differently from "families," violate California law.

Sunnyvale’s Zoning Code contains the following definition of “family”:
a) An individual living alone in a dwelling unit; or
b) Two or more persons related by blood, marriage or legal adoption, or a group of two or more persons who need not be related, living together in a sin gle dwelling unit as a group where the individual or group is in possession of the entire dwelling unit.”
The City’s definition of family does not distinguish between related and unrelated persons and so complies with state law. However, the definition does include language requiring the individual or group to be in possession of the entire dwelling unit , which may be a constraint on persons with disabilities. The Housing Element includes a program to amend the definition of “family” to remove language about possession of the entire unit.

Attachment 2

CONCLUSION
The City’s Zoning Code allows for a variety of housing types, but some requirements may result in constraints to housing types for persons with special need s. This Housing Element includes several programs to ensure the City provides adequate zoning for a variety of housing types. Programs included address the following:
▪ support for ADU production,
▪ ‘by right’ approval of supportive housing developments meeting certain standards, ▪ emergency shelter parking standards,
▪ Low Barrier Navigation Centers,
▪ Residential care facilities, including those unlicensed or serving 7 or more persons.

Housing For Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities have a number of housing needs related to accessibility of dwelling units; access to transportation, employment, and commercial services; and alternative living arrangements that include on -site or nearby supportive living services. This section analyzes potential governmental constraints on the development of housing for persons with disabilities.

ACCESSIBILITY ACCOMMODATIONS
The federal Fair Housing Act of 1988 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmat ive duty on local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e. , modifications or exceptions) in their zoning and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, it may be a reasonable accommodation to allow covered ramps in the setbacks of properties that have already been developed to accommodate residents with mobility impairments.

The City’s reasonable accommodation procedures are outline d in Chapter 19.65 of the Zoning Code. If the reasonable accommodation request is part of a project that requires some other discretionary approval, such as a Design Review for a large single -family home addition, the request is then reviewed by the decisi on-making body with that discretionary approval. If the project does not require some other discretionary approval, the request is reviewed by the Community Development Director through a miscellaneous plan permit application. There is no fee for a miscellaneous plan permit application for reasonable accommodation, including appeals.

A request for a reasonable accommodation is intended to be an interactive process between the City and the applicant to meet the applicant’s needs. The decision to grant a reasonable accommodation request is based on certain findings consistent with the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, including the following:
▪ Whether the housing or housing-related request will be used by a person with a disability protected under the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; ▪ Whether the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to a person with a disability protected under the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act;
Attachment 2

▪ Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city;
▪ Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature or effect of the city’s land use and zoning ordinances, programs or policies; ▪ Whether the requested reasonable accommodation adequately considers the physical attributes of the property and structures; and
▪ Whether alternative reasonable accommodations could provide an equivalent level of benefit.

The finding of whether alter native accommodations could provide an equivalent level of benefit could be considered a constraint if the burden is on the person requesting the accommodation. The Housing Element includes a program directing the City to review and update the reasonable accommodation findings to remove any constraints to housing for persons with disabilities.

ZONING AND BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS
The City has conducted a review of zoning and building code requirements and has not identified any barriers to the provision o f accessible housing. Handicapped ramps or guardrails are permitted to intrude into the standard setbacks required under zoning to allow first floor access for physically disabled residents.

6.2 Non-Governmental Constraints
Land costs, construction costs, and market financing contribute to the cost of housing development and reinvestment and can potentially hinder the production of new affordable housing. Although many constraints are driven by market conditions, jurisdictions have some limited ability to inst itute policies and programs to address the constraints. This section contains an analysis of non-governmental constraints that impact housing production.

Development Costs

LAND/ACQUISITION COSTS
Land costs represent a significant barrier to the production of new affordable housing in Sunnyvale. A recent study conducted for the LSAP found that the estimated residual land value of a 100 -unit rental project in the LSAP is approximately $3.9 million per acre, meaning a developer could afford to pay no more than $3.9 million per acre for land in order for a rental project to be financially feasible. The same study found that land costs within the LSAP ranged from $3.7 to $9.8 million in 2018 -2019. Local real estate listings show zero residential ly-zoned vacant lots available for sale in Sunnyvale (as of December 2021), demonstrating the City’s limited inventory of vacant land.

Sunnyvale does have some non-vacant sites currently (March 2022) available for sale, as shown in Table 6-3741.

Most properties are in industrial (M-S or M -3) zoning districts and are not suitable for residential development.

Only two sites (116-124 Carroll Street and 1057 Reed Terrace ) are zoned for residential uses. Sites range in price from $6.5 million to $18.5 million per acre . The two sites zoned for residential uses have a listing price of $11.8 million and $18.5 million per acre.

Attachment 2

Table 6-3841: Real Estate Listings in Sunnyvale, March 2022 Address Zoning Parcel Size Existing Building Total Price Price per Acre 116-124 Carroll St DSP 0.49 acre 14,360 sq ft $5,800,000 $11,836,735 1057 Reed Ter R3 0.14 acre 4,029 sq ft $2,595,000 $18,535,714 595 Lawrence Expy M-S/POA 2.14 acres 33,522 sq ft $21,500,000 $10,046,729 1290-1294 Lawrence
Station Rd
M-S 1.21 acres 19,728 sq ft $9,988,000 $8,254,545
295 Commercial St M-S 0.77 acre Not available $5,750,000 $7,467,532 760 Kifer Rd M3 1.31 acres 19,936 sq ft $12,000,000 $9,160,305 1150 W Evelyn Ave M-S 1.21 acres 15,000 sq ft $7,900,000 $6,528,926 Source: Loopnet.com, March 2022.

A study completed by Baird + Driskell, in partnership with Century Urban, in 2022 identified land costs for single family and multifamily development in Santa Clara County. Land costs in Sunnyvale ranked as some of the highest in the county. Median land costs for single family home sites (up to 1 acre) were $214 per square foot or $1,345,000 per single family home , approximately 2.5 times the countywide median . However, this is based on limited data from 2018 to 2021 which show wide variation in land values in the City, ranging from $167 per square foot to $602 per square foot. Median land costs for multifamily land sites were $238,000 per multifamily unit , ranging from $55,000 to $306,000 per multifamily unit . This represents land costs almost 4 times the c ountywide median; however, limited data points were used for this analysis.

Most available sites also require demolition and site remediation expenditures in addition to acquisition and construction costs. The City has a history of assisting with site acquisition for affordable housing projects, providing low-interest acquisition and/or development loans to non -profit housing providers and various other forms of assistance in exchange for long -term affordability covenants. For example, in 2015, the City purchased land in Downtown Sunnyvale Block 15 to support an affordable development. In 2021, the City purchased 1.3 acres of land in the amount of $13.55 million, or $10.4 million per acre, and authorized a ground lease to MidPen Housing for a 176-unit affordable housing project.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Construction costs vary widely according to the type of development, with multi -family housing generally less expensive per unit to construct than single-family homes. However, there is wide variation within each construction type depending on the size of unit and the number and quality of amenities provided. A reduction in amenities and the quality of building materials (above a minimum acceptability for health, safety, and adequate performance) could slightly lower the cost of development. In addition, pr efabricated factory -built housing could reduce construction and labor costs to some extent. Another factor related to construction costs is the number of units built at one time. As the number increases, overall costs per unit generally decrease as builder s can benefit from economies of scale.

The same feasibility study conducted for the LSAP in 2020 identified typical construction costs for a project built at a density of 100 units per acre (400 units on a 4-acre lot). The study estimated construction costs would total $169 million or $421,953 per unit. The study also found construction costs for a project built at a density of 65 units per acre (260 units on a 4-acre lot) would total $108 million or $415,774 per unit.

Attachment 2

Recent material cost increases have impacted construction costs, particularly the price of lumber. MidPen Housing found hard costs for construction of a 176-unit project increased more than $8 million in one year , or more than approximately $45,000 per unit, and that the cost of wood structures was on par with the cost of light gauge metal.

The 2022 Baird + Driskell study identified an average construction cost (including soft and hard costs) in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties of $553 per square foot for smaller single family homes (roughly 2,600 square feet) and $672 per square foot for larger single family homes (roughly 5,000 square feet). The same study identified average multifamily construction costs (including soft and hard cost s) in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties of $687 per square foot or $686,500 per unit for smaller multifamily developments (10 units) and $676 per square foot or $632,500 per unit for larger multifamily developments (100 units).

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Review of recent affordable multi -family residential developments reveals that total development costs including acquisition costs, construction costs, and soft costs (i.e., architecture, engineering, legal fees) ranged from $556,750 to $935,139 per unit. On average, hard construction costs made up 65 percent of total development costs and ranged from $361,574 to $699,828 per unit. Land costs for these developments averaged 13 percent of total development costs, ranging from $66,216 to $130,489 per unit or $3.8 million to $14.7 million per acre.

High development costs impact the feasibility of residential development, specifically affordable developm ent in Sunnyvale. The City has worked with affordable housing developers to help offset these costs. For example, the City recently provided financial assistance to an affordable housing developer for construction on the previously City - owned sites within Block 15 of the Downtown Specific Pl an. Financial assistance from the City supported both construction and land acquisition for affordable development.

Development costs will likely continue to constrain residential development in Sunnyvale. The City continues to support affordable housing development through financial assistance.

Availability of Financing
The availability of financing in a community depends on several factors, including the type of lending institutions active in the community, lending practices, rates and fees charged, and equal access to financial institutions.

Housing developments require capital used by developers for initial site preparation and construction and capital used by homeowners and investors to finance the purchase of units. Financing is largely impacted by interest rates.

Small fluctuations in interest rates can dramatically influence the ability to qualify for a loan.

Mortgage interest rates are relatively low and are currently (2022) around 5 percent. Mortgage rates are expected to increase slowly in the coming years; however, it is anticipated that mortgage rates will remain relatively low in comparison to historical trends . While interest rates for development and construction are generally h igher than interest rates for home purchase (i.e., mortgages), financing for new construction is generally available at reasonable rates. Financing cost and availability do not currently ( 2022) present constraints to housing development.

Some developers interviewed during the Housing Element Update indicated that, while financing is readily available for residential development, lenders are less willing to underwrite the retail component of mixed use projects, making it challenging to build vertical mixed use. Developers explained that they often cannot get financing for the retail spaces and have to build those spaces with cash, and that the situation has gotten worse with the impacts of the Covid pandemic on the retail industry. They suggested that offerin g flexibility in meeting the non -residential Attachment 2

requirements of mixed -use developments with uses other than retail that still achieve the goal of ground floor activation can help with project feasibility, especially for affordable housing developers.

Requests For Housing Developments at Reduced Densities State law requires the housing element to include an analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory. The sites inventory prepared for the 2015 Housing Element conservatively assumed buildout at 75 to 85 percent of the maximum allowed density. Since that time, nearly all multi-family high density sites have been approved or proposed for development at much higher densities than assumed in the 2015 Housing Element. This is especially true for affordable projects, which have often used density bonuses to exceed the maximum allowable density. Recent multi -family developments (including both market -rate and affordable projects) have been constructed or proposed at an average of 109 percent of the maximum allowed density. The City has not received any requests to develop at reduced densities.

Length of Time Between Project Approval and Applications for Building Permits
State law requires an analysis of the length of time between receiving approval for housing development and submittal of an application for building permit. On average approximately 9 months pass between the approval of a multi-family housing development application and submittal of an application for building permits. Once a project receives approval, the City requires a 15-day decision appeal period before an application for building permits may be submitted. For the most part, however, the timing of when building permit applications are submitted is largely determined by the developer. Depending on the complexity of the project, the developer may need time to prepare building permit plans or satisfy conditions of approval. Additionall y, for most affordable housing projects, the developer must secure multiple sources of funding, but can only do so after a project receives planning entitlements. This financing process may add months or possibly years between project approval and applicat ions for building permits. Time passed between project approval and applications for building permits for recent multi - family project are shown in Table 6-3842.

Table 6-3942: Time Between Project Approval and Applications for Building Permits Project Approval Date Date of Building Permit Application 1155 Aster 2/11/2019 12/11/2019
1 AMD 4/23/2019 12/11/2019
365 S Mathilda 4/27/2020 5/17/2021
200 S Taaffe 1/11/2021 6/29/2021
Source: City of Sunnyvale, 2022.

Local Efforts to Remove Non-Governmental Constraints
The City has little ability to control non -governmental constraints, such as the price of land and environmental constraints. However, the City is working to streamline the development application process to reduce time and money spent. Additionally, the City supports the development of affordable housing through the provision of site acquisition and gap funding. For example, the City recently provided land contributions in the amount of $13.6 Attachment 2

million and approximately $14 million in loans for the MidPen Housing project at 1178 Sonora Ct. In addition, the City provided $12.5 million in funding and land contributions to the development at Block 15 in the Downtown Specific Plan.

In addition, to address potential constraints and expand homeownership and home improvement opportunities, the City of Sunnyvale offers and/or participates in a variety of programs. These include the City’s First Time Home Buyer Loan Program, as well as re habilitation programs for single -family homes and rental properties. Such programs assist lower- and moderate-income residents by increasing access to favorable loan terms to purchase or improve their homes.

Attachment 2

CHAPTER 7 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY

CONSERVATION

7.1 Introduction
State law (Government Code Section 65583[a][8]) requires Housing Elements to contain an analysis of opportunities for energy conservation in residential development. This includes energy conservation in building construction as well as the pattern of development (e.g., energy use in transportation).

Local governments can play an important role in encouraging energy conservation whether through policy, programs, regulations, education and, sometimes, financial incentives. For this Housing Element, opportunities for energy conservation in Sunnyvale are focused on residential energy conservation and the ability to reduce housing costs.

As this analysis shows, Sunnyvale has taken numerous steps, often exceeding State mandates, to encourage energy conservation.

7.2 Climate Change: A Framework for Energy Conservation Sunnyvale is committed to reducing greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions. The City established goals of reducing emissions by 56 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This will be accomplished through several initiatives, programs, and planning efforts outlined in the City’s Climate Action Playbook (hereinafter Playbook). Energy efficiency and conservation measures are key components of Strategies One, Two , and Three in the Playbook : Promoting Clean Energy, Decarbonizing Buildings, and Decarbonizing Transportation and Sustainable Land Use.

The inventory below describes the ways Sunnyvale is currently addressing the conservation of energy resources as part of larger climate action and adaptation processes. In addition to reducing GHG emissions and conserving limited energy resources, reducing residential energy consumption also has economic benefits. Energy conservation measures can result in lower monthly housing costs and contribute to greater long -term housing affordability.

Planning for Climate Change
Sunnyvale adopted its first Climate Action Plan (CAP 1.0) in 2014. It included nearly 130 actions for reducing communitywide GHG emissions. While CAP 1.0 set Sunnyvale on track to meet or exceed the State’s 2020 GHG emissions reduction target, it was not designed to identify how more ambitious and longer -term targets for 2030 and 2050 could be achieved. To make progress toward significant and longer-term GHG reductions, the Sunnyvale City Council adopted Accelerating Climate Action as a Council Policy Priority in January 2017. T his policy priority manifested in the adoption of the City’s Climate Action Playbook in 2019, replacing CAP 1.0. The Playbook sets Sunnyvale on a path to achieve longer-term GHG reduction targets. Energy conservation, in general, is a significant component of Sunnyvale’s climate change planning efforts . The inventory below summarizes the energy conservation goals of these efforts.

Attachment 2

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 1.0
Adopted on May 20, 2014, CAP 1.0 estab lished 10 strategies to reduce GHG emissions, including one for the decrease of energy consumption. At that time, energy consumption was estimated at 16 percent of all GHG emissions in Sunnyvale. CAP 1.0 set out the following six energy use reduction policies:
 Lighting Efficiency: Increase the use of efficient indoor and outdoor lighting technologies.  New Construction and Remodels: Require green building practices in new residential and commercial development and remodels.
 Residential Energy Efficiency: Reduce residential energy use, with emphasis on existing homes built before 1990.
 Commercial Energy Efficiency: Establish a regulat ory and incentive-based structure that facilitates commercial and industrial energy efficiency and conservation.  Smart Grid: Increase awareness and utilization of real-time energy consumption data and pricing available through PG&E's Smart Meter program.
 “Cool” Roofs and Pavements: Reduce the amount of dark, non -reflective roofing and paving material to mitigate the urban heat island effect and reduce energy associated with heating and cooling.

Each policy includes action items to guide implementation, many of which pertain to residential buildings. Since adopting CAP 1.0, Sunnyvale experienced significant growth in population, jobs, and the construction of new buildings. Despite those trends, which historically resulted in emissions growth, Sunnyvale’s over all emissions decreased 12 percent below 1990 levels in 2016, surpassing the CAP 1.0 goal of reaching 1990 levels of emissions by 2020.

CLIMATE ACTION PLAYBOOK
Adopted in August 2019, the Playbook builds upon the foundation laid by CAP 1.0 and serves as a guide for Sunnyvale to achieve or exceed the state’s 2030 and 2050 GHG emissions reduction targets. Relative to the purposes of this inventory, the Playbook addresses energy conservation and GHG reduction through t hree Strategies: (1) Promoting Clean Energ y; (2 ) Decarbonizing B uildings; and ( 3) Decarbonizing Transportation and Sustainable Land Use. Components of each strategy relevant to the topic of housing and the reduction of household costs are summarized below.
 Strategy 1: Promoting Clean Energy
 Play 1.1: Promote 100% Clean Energy
 Strategy 2: Decarbonize Buildings:
 Play 2.1: Reduce energy consumption in existing building through deep energy retrofits. This includes quantified targets of 5 percent of homes by 2030 and 30 percent of homes by 2050.  Play 2.2: Support electrification of existing buildings. This includes quantified targets equal to 20 percent of homes by 2030 and 50 percent of homes by 2050.
 Play 2.3: Achieve all-electric new construction. This directs the C ity to incentivize and promote all-electric new construction options for deep decarbonization.
 Strategy 3: Decarbonize Transportation and Sustainable Land Use:

Attachment 2

 Play 3.1:

Increase opportunities for and encourage development of mixed-use sites to reduce vehicle miles per person.

Each Play is then supported by Next Moves which identify specific implementation actions for Sunnyvale to pursue.

For example, Strategy 2: Decarbonize Buildings includes Moves that are focused on both new construction and existing buildings with programs and po licies designed for future climate and energy realities. This includes increasing building efficiency for extreme temperatures and scaling up adoption of technologies in buildings powered by clean electricity. Increased building energy efficiency will help to reduce utility costs for households and residents. In the future, the City may strengthen these Plays to couple the efforts with financial incentives and/or other energy conservation programs, described in more detail in Section 7.4 below. These programs can help combine the environmental benefits of reduced GHG emissions with cost savings for households. 2025 General Plan
The Sunnyvale 2025 General Plan includes a series of vision statements upon which goals and policies are based.

One vision statement aspires for a future that Sunnyvale will be, “A regional leader in environmental sustainability … advocating to reduce dependence on non -renewable resources by providing greater transportation options, reducing waste, protecting our natural resources, and promoting alternative energy usage and research. We take environmental preservation and protection seriously and consider how each action will affect Sunnyvale for future generations.”
Policies within the General Plan that further Sunnyvale’s vision include:
 Policy LT-2.7: Provide Sunnyvale residents and businesses with opportunities to develop private, renewable energy facilities.
 Policy LT-2.7a: Maintain and regularly review and update uniform and comprehensive standards for the development, siting, and installation of solar, wind, and other renewable energy and energy conservation systems on private property which address public health, safety, community welfare, and the aesthetic quality of the city.
 Policy LT-2.7b: Consider deviations from development standards such as setbacks, design guidelines, or heights to encourage innovative energy-efficient building design.  Policy LT-2.7c: Participate in a Community Choice Energy (CCE) program through the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority in partnership with neighboring jurisdictions.  Policy EM -7.2: Coordinate operating procedures with the City energy policy to optimize an alternative energy program so that minimum use and reliance are placed on outside energy sources.

Attachment 2

7.3 Energy Efficiency Building Requirements
Building energy efficiency standards are promulgated by the State under Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24 standards) . These mandatory standards apply to both new residential structures as well as alterations to existing ones. They also contain California’s building standards for energy efficiency.

Title 24 standards respond to California's energy crisis and need to reduce energy bills, increase energy delivery system reliability, and contribute to an improved economic condition for the state. Each city and county must enforce these standards as part of its review of building plans and issuance of building permits. T he standards, prepared by the California Energy Commission, were established in 1978 in response to a State legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to consider and incorporate new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

The 2019 Title 24 standards went into effect in the City on January 1, 2020, ( see Chapter 15.04 of the City Code ).

All new construction must comply with the standards in effect on the date a building permit application is submitted.

The California Building Code also includes green building regulations, referred to as CALGreen, to encourage more sustainable and environmentally -friendly building practices, require low pollution emitting substances that can cause harm to the environment, conserve natural resources, and promote the use of energy-efficient materials and equipment. There are mandatory measures, which apply statewide, and voluntary measures, which can be adopted locally. Voluntary measures are organized into two tiers with their own respective prerequisites and elective measures: Tier 1 prerequisites set a higher baseline than CALGreen mandatory measures while Tier 2 prerequisites include all of Tier 1 prerequisites plus some enhanced or additional measures. The City has not adopted any of the voluntary measures, but instead relies on the Green Building Program described below.

Sunnyvale Green Building Program
Sunnyvale’s award-winning Green Building Program has successfully facilitated sustainable building design . The current requirements for this program, updated on May 7, 2019, apply to all residential construction such as single- family, multi-family and mixed-use, and include a mixture of Title 24 standards and the ‘Build it Green’ GreenPoint rating system. CALGreen mandatory measures apply to all residential construction in addition to a minimum score of 90 points under the ‘Build it Green’ GreenPoint rating system.

Sunnyvale provides a 5 percent green building incentive for residential developments. For new single-family homes and additions achieving 120 points on the GreenPoint rating system or which have all-electric appliances (i.e., no gas line connection), the developer may choose to increase a lot coverage by 5 percent or receive staff level design review. For projects greater than 4,000 square feet or 50 percent of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the Design Review is required to be reviewed by Planning Commission.

New multi-family is provided the same incentive along with 5 additional feet in height or 5 percent in density; one incentive may be selected. To qualify, multi -family must achieve the same GreenPoint rating , include all-electric, and either a cool roof, electric vehicle chargers (above CALGreen), or greywater/recycled water. Projects that take advantage of the 5 percent green building density bonus are subject to Sunnyvale’s affordable housing requirements for all units provided.

Attachment 2

Building Electrification Ordinance
Following the passage of SB 100, which mandates that California utilities provide carbon-neutral electricity by 2045, local governments began passing ordinances that are variations on the theme of prohibiting fossil fuel energy sources in new construction. In 2021, Sunnyvale began implementing its adopted Reach Codes. Reach Codes are new building codes that exceed the state’s standard energy construction codes described above. The Reach Codes exceed the California Energy Code requirements to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Reach Codes apply to all new residential and nonresidential buildings. Sunnyvale’s Reach Codes require all electric appliances including but not limited to the fireplace, oven, heater, water heater, clothes dryer, etc. (Ergo prohibiting natural gas -powered water heaters and fireplaces) . New high rise non-residential and multifamily buildings (4 stories or more) may be exempt from certain unavoidable gas applications depending on the buildings purpose and location (e.g., Emergency Operation Centers or commercial dryers in large hotels). Additionally, new buildings must have solar panels and electric vehicle charging infrastructure installed.

7.4 Energy Conservation Programs
This section summarizes existing energy conservation programs available to Sunnyvale residents through the City, the State, and local utility providers.

Home Improvement Program (HIP) Energy Retrofit Grants
Sunnyvale's Home Improvement Program (HIP) offers low -income homeowners and renters a matching grant to make improvements related to energy efficiency, accessibility, and general repairs for health and safety. For energy efficiency improvements, deferred loans of up to $25,000 ($5,000 for mobile homeowners), or a matching grant of up to $5,000 are provided. Eligible projects may i nclude, but are not limited to, insulation, weather stripping, air sealing, replacement of inefficient/aging appliances, heating systems, windows, and other types of weatherization improvements.

Property Accessed Clean Energy Programs
Sunnyvale has authorized two Property Accessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs to provide financing to property owners within the city limits, including:
 California FIRST; and
 Counterpointe Energy Solutions.

These programs are available to help residents and businesses save energy and water while improving the quality of their home or building.

PACE programs offer financing options or offset the costs of upgrades such as improvements to mechanical and electrical systems, installation of water-efficient fixtures, and development of onsite renewable energy and electric vehicle charging. Financing is repaid via the property owner’s tax bill over time. Eligible improvements may vary by PACE program, but generally include improvements for energy and water efficiency, distributed generation renewable energy facilities such as solar photovoltaics, and vehicle charging.

Attachment 2

Bay Area Multifamily Building Enhancements
The Bay Area Multifamily Building Enhancements Program is a rebate program that offers multifamily property buildings with five or more attached dwellings cash rebates of up to $750 per unit and no-cost consulting for energy and water saving improvements.

BayREN HOME+
BayREN, a program of the Association of Bay Area Governments, is funded by California utility ratepayers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), as well as through grants and funding from member agencies, other state and federal agencies, and foundations. One service provided by BayRen is the BayREN Home+ program, which provides homeowners with rebates and technical assistance to make energy -efficiency home improvements. BayREN is also a hub of dissemination for energy conservation information for a diverse audience, including homeowners and renters.

Local Utility Programs
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas services for the City. Through a Community Choice Aggregation Program, Silicon Valley Clean Energy provides clean ener gy to Sunnyvale residents through PG&E’s infrastructure. Both utilities offer a variety of programs to increase energy conservation and reduce monthly energy costs for lower-income households.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
PG&E currently (2022) offers the follo wing financial and energy -related assistance programs for its low-income customers, among others:
 Energy Savings Assistance Program. PG&E’s Energy Savings Assistance program offers free weatherization measures and energy-efficient appliances to qualified low-income households. PG&E determines qualified households through the same sliding income scale used for CARE. The program includes measures such as attic insulation, weather stripping, caulking, and minor home repairs. Some customers qualify for replacement of appliances including refrigerators, air conditioners, and evaporative coolers.  Energy Efficiency for Multifamily Properties. The Energy Efficiency for Multifamily Properties program is available to owners and managers of existing multifamily residential dwellings containing five or more units. The program encourages energy efficiency by providing rebates for the installation of certain energy-saving products.  California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE). PG&E offers this rate reduction program for low -income households. PG&E determines qualified households by a sliding income scale based on the number of household members. The CARE program provides a discount of 20 percent or more on monthly energy bills.  REACH (Relief for Energy Assistance through Community Help). The REACH program is sponsored by PG&E and administered through a non-profit organization. PG&E customers can enroll to give monthly donations to the REACH program. Qualified low -income customers who have experienced uncontrollable or unforeseen hardships, that prohibit them from paying their utility bills may receive an energy credit.

Eligibility is determined by a sliding income scale based on the number of household members. To qualify for the program, the applicant’s income cannot exceed 200 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines.

Attachment 2

 Medical Baseline Allowance. The Medical Baseline Allowance program is available to households with certain disabilities or medical needs. The program allows customers to get additional quantities of energy at the lowest or baseline price for residential customers.

SILICON VALLEY CLEAN ENERGY
Formed in 2016, the Silicon Valley Clean Authority is a non-profit, joint-powers agency formed by the County of Santa Clara; the Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale; and the Towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos. The Authority was formed to study, promote, develop, conduct, operate, and manage energy and energy-related climate change programs, and to exercise all other powers necessary and incidental to accomplishing this purpose. These programs include but are not limited to the establishment of a Community Choice Aggregation Program known as Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE).

Residents (and businesses) located in the SVCE service area and with existing PG&E accounts are automatically enrolled in SVCE’s ‘GreenStart’ electric generation service. SVCE ’s GreenStart service provides carbon -free electricity at costs below PG&E. SVCE customers can participate in financial assistance programs administered by PG&E. Additionally, SVCE supports residential customers switch from natural gas to clean energy through educational services and financial incentives. Customers interested in energy efficiency can, with a valid library card and at no charge, take advantage of the Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Home Energy Saving Toolkit that includes materials (e.g., LED light bulbs, low -flow faucet aerators, low -flow shower head, weatherstripping) and tools (e.g., thermal detector, water flow rate bag, Kill -A-Watt Meter). SVCE also offers guidance on home electrification through the ehub, an online assistant that SVCE often couple with rebates.

During the COVID -19 pandemic, utilities stopped disconnections for customers unable to pay their bills, but customers still accrued debt. SVCE has joined the CA COVID-19 Rent Relief program to provide bill relief to qualifying customers. The program reduces unpa id balances on electricity bills that have accrued due to the pandemic.

Specifically, SVCE offers a 12-month Arrearage Management Plan providing up to $8,000 of bill forgiveness to each eligible customer.

Federal and State Energy Assistance Programs
In add ition to the local programs described above, the California Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) administers the Federally funded Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). This program provides two types of assistance: Home Energy Assistance and Energy Crisis Intervention. The first type of assistance is a direct payment to utility bills for qualified low -income households. The second type of assistance is available to low-income households that are in a crisis. CSD also offers free weatherization assistance, such as attic insulation, caulking, water heater blankets, and heating and cooling system repairs to low-income households.

Attachment 2

CHAPTER 8 EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS

HOUSING ELEMENT

8.1 Accomplishments under the Fifth Cycle
Housing Element
State housing element law requires cities and counties to assess the achievements under their adopted housing programs. The City has made significant progress in implementing the programs identified in the 2015 -2023 Housing Element. Some of Sunnyvale’s major housing accomplishments during the 2015-2023 period included:
 Completion of the 2020 Housing Strategy Report , which identified key strategies and policy recommendations to address age-friendly housing, mobile home parks, and housing production.  Adoption of a Mobile Home Park Memorandum of Understanding to protect residents from mobile home space rent increases and costs transferred from mobile home park owners to residents.  Land dedication for and approval of a 90-unit affordable housing development on B lock 15 of the Downtown Specific Plan, including 25 percent of units allocated for special needs tenants.  Revision of the Below Market Rate ( BMR) Ordinance in 2015 to include a housing impact fee for market - rate rental housing construction in response to recent court cases,  Initiation of the commercial linkage fee and fees for other retail and hospitability uses.  Coordination with the Housing Authority on several projects and mutual efforts in 2015-2017 including Parkside Studios, Grove Garden, Onizuka Crossing, and Benner Plaza.  Reestablishment of a Rental Inclusionary Ordinance in 2019 to require 15 percent of new rental units be affordable in response to Assembly Bill 1505. In addition, the City revised the BMR Ordinance in 2021 to increase inclusionary requirements for ownership housing projects from 12.5percent to 15percent.  Adoption of the Lawrence Station Area Plan in 2017 and a plan update in 2021 to increase high -density housing opportunities (total of 5,930 housing units).
 Purchase of 1.3 acres of land within the Lawrence Station Specific Plan Area in the amount of $13.55 million and authorized a ground lease to MidPen Housing for a 176-unit affordable housing project.  Adoption of the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) in 2017 which included the addition of 4,200 housing units along the El Camino Real Corridor, 900 housing units in Village Centers and about 30 acres designated for conversion from industrial to residential (East Sunnyvale expansion area) with the potential for 720 housing units.
 Completion of the El Camino Real Specific Plan to update the existing Precise Plan for El Camino Real to provide better direction for the higher densities of 4,200 units from the LUTE, and also included another 2,700 housing opportunities.
 Initiation of the Moffett Park Specific Plan to provide opportunities for approximately 20,000 new housing units (adoption anticipated late 2022/early 2023).

Attachment 2

 Allocation
of $40.5 million in local housing funds towards the development of new affordable housing.  Allocation of funding to assist in the rehabilitation and preservation of Eight Trees Apartments (24 housing units – renamed Posolmi Place) and Orchard Gardens.
 Adoption of an emergency ordinance in 2019 to impose a cap on rent increases and “just cause” eviction requirements prior to Assembly Bill 1482.
 Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan to allow an additional 550 housing units and approved an office project that resulted in a total of 793 units (550 base units, 200 density bonus units and 43 units transferred from another Downtown site). First project in Sunnyvale to include inclusionary rental units affordable to moderate income households.

In addition, the following actions are in process and are anticipated for completion within the 2015-2023 Hous ing Element period. [Note this will be updated in the Adoption Draft Housing Element].  Development of a Right to Lease Ordinance, planned for adoption in Fall 2022. The ordinance will require landlords offer renters a lease with specific minimum lease terms to provide tenants with stability and predictability of costs during the term of their lease.  Preparation of a Tenant Protection/Relocation Assistance Requirement, planned for adoption in Fall 2022.

The Tenant Protection/Relocation Assistance Requirement will require landlords to provide financial assistance to tenants who are being displaced from rental units due to factors such as lease terminations, unaffordable rent increases, or demolition of rental units.

8.2 Progress Toward Meeting the RHNA
The City issued 4,743 permits for housing units from the start of the fifth cycle planning period (2015) through the end of 2021. Of the permits issued, 87 percent were for above moderate-income housing, 6 percent were for moderate-income housing, and 7 percent were for low - or very low -income housing. As shown in Table 8-1 , the City has permitted double the number of units needed to meet the above moderate -income RHNA but has not issued sufficient permits to meet the goal in the moderate- and lower-income categories.

Table 8-1: 2015-2023 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress Income Group RHNA Number of Permits Issued as of 2021 Percentage of RHNA met Very Low 1,640 212 13%
Low 906 111 12%
Moderate 932 307 33%
Above Moderate 1,974 4,113 208%
Totals 5,452 4,743 87%
Source: City of Sunnyvale, 2021 Annual Progress Report.

Attachment 2

8.3 Programs to Address Special Housing Needs
State housing element law ( Government Code Section 65588) requires that local governments review the effectiveness of the housing element goals, policies, and related actions to meet the community’s special housing needs. As shown in Table 8-2 , the 2015-2023 Housing Element included Programs 22 through 25 addres sing reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities , persons experiencing homelessness , and large families and single-headed households.

The City provides for reasonable accommodations and maintains its building code to meet accessibility requirements. The City provides annual funding for homeless programs and at-risk households including: WorkFirst Sunnyvale, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA), Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re -housing (HPRR), and Supportive Human Services. The City continue s to work with developers to provide a range of unit sizes, including large units for large families, and requests special needs housing in its requests for proposals. Since 2018 the City approved two projects with units for special needs tenants (Orchard Gardens and Block 15).

In addition, the City adopted its Housing Strategy in 2020, which outlines policy recommendations for senior housing, including strategies to promote age -friendly housing, adapt homes to allow seniors to age in place, and protect at-risk housing. In 2017, the City joined the World Health Organization’s Global Netw ork of Age- Friendly Cities and Communities (GNAFCC), pledging to become more age-friendly. The City prepared an Age-Friendly Action Plan to support the community’s goal to provide services and housing that meet the needs of seniors.

8.4 Evaluation of Programs
Table 8-2 provides an evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element implementation programs and reviews the results and effectiveness of each program.

Table 8-2: Evaluation of 2015-2023 City of Sunnyvale Housing Element Programs Program Target
Timeframe Evaluation Recommendation

1. Below Market Rate (BMR)
Housing Program
Continue to implement BMR Home
Ownership Program. Review and
refine BMR program guidelines and
codes periodically as needed to
accommodate changing market
conditions and improve overall
program effectiveness.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
Between 2015-2021, 197 BMR homes were sold
(escrow closed), including 125 new and 23 resale
BMR homes, and approximately $7 million in BMR
In-lieu fees were collected.

The City most recently updated the BMR Home
Ownership Program in 2021 to increase the
inclusionary requirement to 15 percent.

In 2015 the City revised the BMR Ordinance to
include a housing impact fee for market-rate rental
housing construction in response to recent court
cases, and in 2019 modified it again to require 15
percent of new rental units be affordable in
response to Assembly Bill 1505. Between 2015-
2021, 74 BMR rental units were built through the
program. No rental in-lieu fees have been
collected
since the adoption of the ordinance.

Modify program to
reflect changes to
BMR ownership and
rental housing
programs.

2. First Time Home Buyer Program
Continue to implement First Time
Home Buyer (FTHB) Program; aim to
assist 5-10 homebuyers per year, or
as demand warrants.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
From 2015-2020, the City provided FTHB loans to
24 BMR home buyers. The City assists an average
of 3 buyers a year with FTHB loans except in 2020,
when no FTHB loans were provided. $250,000 is
budgeted annually for the FTHB program.

Modify program to
expand outreach to
promote the FTHB
program.

Attachment 2

Program Target
Timeframe Evaluation Recommendation

3. Affordable Housing Development
Assistance
Provide financial and regulatory
assistance for new affordable
housing development, using
available funds. Seek new sources of
funding for affordable housing.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
The City has been actively assisting in the
development of affordable housing since 2015. In
2015, the City issued an RFP for $10 million from 3
local funds: Housing Mitigation, BMR in-lieu, and
Housing Successor Agency funds. By 2016, the City
approved a $5 million HMF bridge loan and
$600,000 HOME for Benner Plaza (66 units), and
committed $6 million to Orchard Gardens for
redevelopment (25 net new units, 87 total units).

In 2017, the City closed on a $7.43 million loan to
fund construction of Benner Plaza. In 2018, City
approved a new "80/20" project with 22 Very Low
Income units and entered a Disposition and
Development Agreement with a developer to
build the Sunnyvale Block 15 project, a 90-unit
affordable housing on a City-owned site. In 2020,
the City awarded $26.5 million in new Housing
Mitigation Funds. Of those, $14.5 million have
been issued to purchase a new parcel (1178
Sonora Court) that will have 177 new units of
affordable housing. In 2021, $17 million was
issued to the Sunnyvale Block 15 project. Staff
hopes to release additional funding in 2022 and
the remaining funds will be issued in 2023.

Retain program

4. Density Bonus Provisions
Educate developers about density
bonus incentives using outreach
materials provided online and/or at
the One-Stop Center. Promote use
of density bonus in discussions with
applicants and share the City’s
density bonus calculator tool with
interested developers.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
Density bonus calculator developed to help
developers and staff analyze various options for
sites. All density bonus units (Affordable Rental
Units or ARUs) completed to date are very low-
income units. In 2015, one density bonus project
was completed then between 2016 and 2017, 53
ARUs were completed in four projects: Ironworks
(14 units), 481 Mathilda (5 units), ENCasa (16
units), and 6Ten Weddell (18 units). The City also
offers a 5 percent density bonus for projects that
exceed minimum green building requirements.

Between 2020 and 2021, four new affordable
housing developments were submitted, which
featured the new super density bonus being
within a half-mile of major transit.

Delete program. The
City has developed a
density bonus
calculator and the
City’s density bonus
requirements are
consistent with
State law.

5. Home Improvement Program
Continue to operate the Home
Improvement Program to assist
lower-income households with
funding for housing rehabilitation
and minor improvements. Assist a
total of 15–20 households per year,
or as demand warrants.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
Since 2015, the City has assisted 79 households
with loans and grants for housing rehabilitation
and minor repairs (average of 11 households per
year). Starting with the 2022-23 fiscal year, the City
will be doubling program funds and expanding this
program to provide roof repairs.

Modify program to
focus on promoting
the program.

Attachment 2

Program Target
Timeframe Evaluation Recommendation

6. Multi-Family Rental Property
Rehabilitation
Continue to offer below-market rate
financing for rehabilitation of
affordable rental units, using
funding sources available for this
purpose. Provide rehabilitation
financing to one or more properties
during the planning period.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
In 2015, the City provided a $1 million HMF loan
for major rehabilitation of Morse Court, a 35-unit
affordable rental project (completed in 2016).

City also loaned $1.05 million in HOME and CDBG
funds for rehabilitation of Crescent Terrace, a 48-
unit affordable senior rental project. In 2017, a
$3.3 million loan was approved for Phase 2
acquisition/rehabilitation/preservation of the
Eight Trees Apartments, a 24-unit development.

Work was completed and occupancy obtained in
2019. In 2018, the City issued a $403,000 BIF loan
to Stoney Pine Apartments, a 21-unit special
needs project. No new rehabilitation financing
was awarded or completed between 2020-2021.

Retain program.

7. Multi-Family Rental Property
Acquisition and/or Preservation
Assist in acquisition and/or
preservation, alone or in
combination with rehabilitation
assistance, of at least one multi-
family rental property during the
planning period.

Enter into
first
funding
agreement
by 2017;
others
thereafter
as feasible.

In 2016, the City embarked on an
acquisition/rehabilitation/preservation project at
the Eight Trees Apartments development. In
November 2017, the 24-unit project was approved
for a $3.3M loan for Phase 2. Escrow closed in
February 2018, rehab work started in late 2018,
and occupancy was obtained in 2019.

In 2020, the City awarded $7.5 million towards
rehabilitation and expansion of an existing
affordable housing complex known as Orchard
Gardens. The project submitted their planning
application in late 2020. The project received
planning entitlements in fall 2021 and is slated to
break ground in 2023. In addition, the City
awarded a CDBG grant to Plaza de las Flores to
replace windows and make energy efficiency
improvements in all 101 units of the senior
affordable housing development near downtown.

Combine with
Program 6, above.

8. Neighborhood Preservation Program
Continue to implement the
Neighborhood Preservation
Program, with affordable housing
support from the Housing Division.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
The Neighborhood Preservation Program no
longer exists per the City’s Code Enforcement
Division.

Delete program.

9. Preservation of Assisted Rental
Housing
Maintain contact with owner of
Life’s Garden and offer financial and
other assistance to maintain the
affordability of the at-risk units.

Complete
by 2017
Preservation/rehabilitation of Life’s Garden was
completed in 2017. The City held a “TEFRA”
hearing in March 2016 to support the project’s
application for 4percent tax credits and
submitted the Local Reviewing Agency form for
the project. In 2020 and 2021, the City worked
with various developments with current
inclusionary units that are slated to expire. City
staff works with management to ensure fair
transition of affordable to market rate units and
offers funding to extend the life of affordable
units as possible. No developments have taken
the City’s offer of funding to extend the life of the
inclusionary units.

Modify program to
reflect broader
preservation goals
for at-risk assisted
rental housing and
below market rate
units.

Attachment 2

Program Target
Timeframe Evaluation Recommendation

10. Section 8 Rental Assistance
Support the Housing Authority in its
efforts to maintain adequate federal
funding for Section 8. Refer
residents to the Housing Authority
for Section 8 and related
information. Encourage landlords to
participate in the program.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
Staff coordinated with the Housing Authority on
several projects and mutual efforts in 2016 and
2017 including Grove Garden, Onizuka Crossing,
Benner Plaza. Staff has referred several interested
households to the Santa Clara Housing Authority
between 2018-2021. The City has also been in
negotiations with new affordable housing
developers to participate in this program. In
2020, two new affordable housing developments
(1178 Sonora and Block 15) received preliminary
allocations of project-based vouchers.

Modify program to
include targeted
outreach to
property owners.

11. Anti-Displacement Provisions
Consider developing an anti-
displacement policy applicable to
redevelopment or major renovation
of larger rental properties. Conduct
outreach on the topic with
interested stakeholders before
developing proposed provisions.

Begin
program by
2016
Background research completed in 2016. In 2018
the City hired a consultant to prepare a Housing
Strategy and this policy was incorporated in the
2020 Housing Strategy. In 2021, the City began
work on implementation of a tenant
protection/relocation assistance ordinance. In
2022, the City will hold outreach and adopt the
final ordinance aimed to provide relocation and
support renters.

Modify program to
reflect specific anti-
displacement
strategies from 2020
Housing Strategy.

12. Mobile Home Park Preservation
Continue to implement current
mobile home park protections and
maintain mobile home park zones.

In the event of mobile home park
closure, enforce the Mobile Home
Park (MHP) Conversion
requirements to provide relocation
assistance to park residents.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
Ongoing. One mobile home park, Nick’s Trailer Ct.,
began the conversion process in 2015. This park
was not subject to the City’s park preservation
policies (zoned commercial) and closed in mid-
2016. The owners of Blue Bonnet MHP submitted
a conversion impact report which was approved in
early 2017. Park residents received relocation
assistance, and several were able to purchase or
rent Sunnyvale BMR homes. This park was also
not
subject to the City’s park preservation policies
(zoned for other uses). Other mobile home parks
continue to be protected by MHP-exclusive zoning
and related City policies. No mobile home park
conversions have occurred since 2017.

In 2021, the City adopted a Mobile Home
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the City and owners of 10 mobile home parks to
establish a variety of rent policies. The MOU
serves as a rent stabilization tool for MHP
residents by capping rent increases at 75percent
of CPI (3percent floor) and capping resales at
15percent, tiered in over 3 years in addition to 15
other protection terms.

Modify program to
include new MHP
tenant protections
(MOU) and MHP
strategies from 2020
Housing Strategy

13. Foreclosure Prevention
Provide information and referrals
about available foreclosure services
and related information through
City public outreach channels.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
The City provides foreclosure assistance and
technical assistance as needed. For example, the
City assisted a BMR owner that was behind in
paying mortgages in 2018 by contacting the
lender and remodifying the terms of the loan. In
2020 and 2021, the City used its website to
inform residents of financial assistance options
due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Retain program.

Attachment 2

Program Target
Timeframe Evaluation Recommendation

14. Condominium Conversion
Regulations
Continue to provide tenant
protections through
implementation of the City’s
condominium conversion
regulations.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
No condo conversion applications were received
from 2015-2018 or 2020-2021. The City worked
to negotiate relocation benefits prior to
entitlement.

Retain as a policy.

No implementation
action needed.

15. Consider Modifications to
Development Standards for
Accessory Living Units (ALU’s)
Conduct outreach, complete
analysis of ALU standards and
possible modifications, and provide
recommendations for public,
stakeholder, and Council
consideration.
[Note: Since 2016, the City has used
the terms “Accessory Dwelling Unit”
and “ADU” instead of “Accessory
Living Unit” and “ALU”]
Begin
program by
2017
This program was completed in 2017. There were
several ADU code amendments between late
2016 and early 2020 to comply with State
legislation. Sunnyvale’s development standards
for ADUs has most recently been updated in
January 2020. The City's number of ADU permits
have continued to increase and the City continues
to educate and hold meetings on how
homeowners can build ADUs.

Modify program to
focus on outreach
and facilitating ADU
production.

16. Complete the “Retooling the
Zoning Code” Project
Complete the Retooling project by
providing a final draft of the Zoning
Code for Council consideration by
the end of December 2015.

Complete
project by
2016
Several zoning amendments have been made in
recent years, and a new Land Use and
Transportation Element (LUTE) and several
specific plans or plan updates have been adopted
.

However, due to a lack of staff resources,
portions of the retooling project remain in
progress and this program has been placed on
hold by the Planning Division. The Planning
Division aims to resume this program in an
upcoming year when staffing and resources can
facilitate it.

Modify program to
clarify objectives
and timeframe.

16. Residential Sites Inventory
Maintain current inventory of
potential residential and mixed use
sites; provide to developers with
information on incentives.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
Sites inventory is online in the Housing Element;
further assistance is available at the One-Stop
Permit Center and by phone or email to Planning
and Housing staff. Many of the major housing
sites included in the inventory have been
developed since 2015 or are in the pipeline.

Modify program to
include a web-based
inventory and
address no-net-loss
requirements.

17. Minimum Densities
Inform developers of policy to
develop to at least 75percent of
General Plan density.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
Planning staff reviews development applications
to ensure that proposed projects meet this
standard; this information is also highlighted in
reports to Planning Commission. Minimum
density in the Lawrence Station Area Plan and El
Camino Real Specific Plan are 85percent of base
maximum density.

Maintain as a policy.

No implementation
action needed.

Attachment 2

Program Target
Timeframe Evaluation Recommendation

18. Downtown Specific Plan
Encourage provision of affordable
housing by requiring BMR units to
be provided on-site or within the
boundaries of the Specific Plan, and
by promoting density bonus
incentives.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
Several projects have been completed within the
Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) that have Below
Market Rate (BMR) units or Affordable Rental
Units (ARUs) including Mathilda Villas (3 BMRs),
Ironworks (14 ARUs), 481 Mathilda (5 ARUs). The
Sunnyvale Town Center or "The Flats" is another
completed project within the DSP with 25 BMR
units. The DSP and Development Agreement for
90 affordable units on a City-owned parcel (Block
15 of DSP) was completed in 2020. In 2021, the
Planning Division approved several new
affordable housing agreements for new
developments within the DSP. And in 2022 the
“Maxwell” apartments at 311 S. Mathilda Avenue
with 75 units including 6 ARUs affordable to very
low-income households will be completed.

Modify program to
promote remaining
development
potential in the DSP.

19. Accessory Living Units
Facilitate the development of new
accessory living units by making
information about how to obtain
permits for them available to the
public.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
Information is available online, at the One-Stop
Permit Center, and shared via various City
channels and meetings. The City maintains an
ADU ordinance consistent with state law and
continues to identify ways to encourage ADU
development.

Rename program to
Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADU). Modify
program to provide
additional incentives
to facilitate ADU
development.

20. Housing Policies for Priority
Development Areas
Consider developing specific
housing policies for designated
Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
in the City through preparation of
specific plans or station area plans.

Begin
program by
2017
Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP) was adopted in
2017 and updated in 2021 to promote housing
development through higher densities and
affordable housing incentives. The Downtown
Specific Plan was updated in 2020 to increase
residential development potential.

Updates to the
El Camino Real Specific Plan and Moffett Park
Specific Plan are currently underway (2022) and
will include new capacity for housing and policies
to promote and incentivize affordable housing.

Delete program.

Updates to the
Lawrence Station
Area Plan,
Downtown Specific
Plan, and El Camino
Real Specific Plan
have been adopted
or are in process.

21. Fair Housing Program
Contract with qualified fair housing
agencies to provide fair housing
services to the extent funding is
available. Provide fair housing
brochures at City facilities and fair
housing information on the City’s
website, with links to HUD fair
housing page. Participate in the
Santa Clara County Fair Housing
Task Force.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
• City provided CDBG grants to Law Foundation
for fair housing services in 2015 -2018. In 2015,
staff hosted a Fair Housing workshop. Housing
staff also coordinated two Fair Housing
presentations with the Law Foundation in 2018:
one for tenants and one for property managers.
• In 2019, the City started providing CDBG grants
to Project Sentinel to provide fair housing and
tenant mediation services on behalf of the city.
• Housing Staff provided information regarding
BMR ownership/rental options and City grants/
loans for housing rehab to interested parties
during its annual State of City Event in 2019.
• Housing staff maintains webpage with current
fair housing information and resources and
provides brochures and posters at City and
partner agency facilities.

Retain program.

Attachment 2

Program Target
Timeframe Evaluation Recommendation

22. Accessible Housing
Maintain procedures for reasonable
accommodations in codes and
permitting. Adopt accessibility
updates to codes as needed.

Provide grants for accessibility
improvements for eligible
households, and provide CDBG
funds for accessibility improvements
to pedestrian facilities as needed in
residential neighborhoods.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
• City codes are updated; reasonable
accommodation procedures are available to
Planning/Building permit applicants.
• City operates Home Access Grant program.
• City provides CDBG funding for accessibility
retrofits of pedestrian facilities.
• In 2019, the City provided $1.3 million in CDBG
funding for a sidewalk project to provide ADA-
compliant access along Persian Drive, where no
sidewalk previously existed. This project was
completed in 2020.

Modify program to
focus on funding
and address findings
for reasonable
accommodations in
a new separate
program.

23. Programs to Address
Homelessness
Provide funding for programs that
seek to prevent and end
homelessness and provide
supportive services, such as the
TBRA and WorkFirst Sunnyvale
programs. Offer financing for
permanent supportive housing and
projects that reserve units for
homeless applicants.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
City continues to provide significant annual
funding for homeless programs and at-risk
households including: WorkFirst Sunnyvale,
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA),
Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing
(HPRR), and Supportive Human Services. A study
is underway starting in 2022-23 to consider
overnight warming/cooling shelters and other
homeless services.

Retain program;
modify to expand
services. 24. Special Needs Housing
Development Assistance
Include priority for special needs
units in all City notices of funding
availability for new housing
construction, rehabilitation, and/or
preservation projects. Aim to assist
in the development of one new
project with some units reserved for
special needs tenants. Encourage
developers to include advocacy
groups in marketing and leasing
efforts related to newly available
units.

Begin
program by
2016
This priority is noted in Housing RFPs from the
City. Recent projects include:
• Orchard Gardens which includes 43 units for
special needs tenants.
• Benner Plaza includes 13 units for special needs
tenants
• Block 15 project Developer Agreement includes
25percent of units to be allocated for special
needs tenants. Entitled in 2020, construction
started in 2021.

Retain program. Add
new programs to
include Aging in
Place strategies
from 2020 Housing
Strategy. 25. Housing for Large Families and
Single-Parent Households
Encourage rental developers to
include units with three or more
bedrooms, and to provide family-
friendly common areas, open space
and amenities such as on-site child
care. Inform developers of the
density bonus incentives for
qualifying projects with child care
facilities.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
Recent rental developments include a range of
unit sizes. City continues to encourage a range of
sizes from studio to three bedrooms, as allowed
by certain financing requirements, and always
requires inclusionary developments to be a
proportional mix as market rate sizes.

Retain as a policy.

Attachment 2

Program Target
Timeframe Evaluation Recommendation

26. Sustainability and Green Building
Continue the City’s comprehensive
sustainability and green building
programs.

Ongoing:
2015-2023
City offers a 5percent density bonus for projects
meeting green building standards. City’s Green
Building program was updated in 2019. In
addition, the City recently adopted new Reach
Codes which went into effect in January 2021.

The City actively implements the Climate Action
Playbook as well through the Environmental
Services Department.

Retain program.

Attachment 2

Appendix A Community Engagement

Attachment 2

A.1 Public Comment Letters

Attachment 2

1 Chelsey Payne
From: Ryan Dyson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:53 PM
To: Chelsey Payne
Cc: Jenny Carloni; Trudi Ryan
Subject: FW: POLICY--FW: Housing Element
Hi Chelsey—I’m forwarding along a Housing Element comment. Please see below.

Thanks,

RYAN DYSON
Housing Specialist
Community Development Department
408‐730‐7466

From: Council AnswerPoint <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 12:28 PM
To: Victoria Ketell <[email protected]>
Cc: Kent Steffens <[email protected]>; Teri Silva <[email protected]>; Trudi Ryan <[email protected]>; Bonnie Filipovic <[email protected]>; Jenny Carloni <[email protected]> Subject: POLICY‐‐FW: Housing Element

Councilmembers:

Forwarding to you from the Council AnswerPoint.

Thanks,
Victoria

VICTORIA KETELL
Executive Assistant – Mayor & Council
Office of the City Manager
City of Sunnyvale
Phone (Direct): 408‐730‐7913
Phone (Mayor & Council): 408‐730‐7473

From: Tracy Wingrove <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 7:47 PM
To: Council AnswerPoint <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

ATTN: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

September 18, 2022
RE: Including Childcare in Housing Element Updates
Attachment 2

2 Dear Mayor Klein and City Council Members,
I am writing to encourage the City of Sunnvyale to include policies that support the development of childcare facilities in your updated Housing Element. For families with young children, access to childcare near their home increases workforce participation, strengthens local businesses, reduces traffic and commute times, and generally improves the quality‐of‐life for
all residents. Including policies that encourage childcare in or near housing is a simple way for cities to create sustainable communities where families with young children can thrive.

High‐quality childcare is essential to families and to vibrant economic development, yet childcare providers face numerous barriers to opening new programs. One of the biggest challenges is finding a location for a childcare facility.

Ideally, childcare facilities are near housing and close to family‐friendly transportation options but regulations on parking and operating businesses in residential areas restrict where programs can be located. Housing affordability also affects childcare businesses. The childcare workforce is predominantly low‐income women of color, and many are struggling with their own housing needs. In our high‐cost area, child care programs are struggling to hire workers. Additionally, many licensed programs provide care in the owner’s home (a licensed Family Child Care Home). As older providers retire, new providers cannot afford to buy homes in our city, and those who rent a house or apartment often face business instability or illegal discrimi
nation from landlords.

There are a range of specific policies that can address this issue at little to no cost to the community:
 Consider childcare along with other community services in the Housing Element.  Ensure that zoning code and permitting practices are aligned with the state prohibition of use permits, business licenses, and other barriers for Family Child Care Homes.  Encourage the development of childcare facilities in all residential, mixed‐use, and other zones where residences are permitted, and consider modified zoning standards and review procedures and other incentives to facilitate their development.
 Promote existing housing‐related programs to Family Child Care Home providers, such as fair housing counseling, housing rehabilitation loans, renovation/repair, first‐time homebuyer, and down payment assistance.  Assess the demand for childcare created by new housing developments  Provide incentives for developers to provide childcare facilities in new developments, through density bonuses, increases in floor area ratios, parking reduction, or community benefits credit.  Include childcare facility space as a priority or required component in Request for Proposals (RFPs) for city land and Notices of Funding Available (NOFA) for affordable housing developments.

Aligning housing and childcare facilities development will help to make our city an even better place for young children and their families. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Tracy Wingrove
Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 1 | Page

Submitted via email
[email protected]

c: Jenny Carloni, Housing Officer, City of Sunnyvale
[email protected]

Ryan Dyson, Housing Specialist, City of Sunnyvale
[email protected]

July 26, 2022

Dear Shawn Danino,

Livable Sunnyvale is sending this letter as a follow up to the 2023-2031 Housing Element submitted by the City of Sunnyvale on July 8th.

Who we are: Livable Sunnyvale https://www.livablesunnyvale.org/ was formed in 2016. We are an organization working toward a more vibrant, inclusive and people-friendly Sunnyvale.

We educate and activate residents and office-holders to secure an environmentally sustainable future with broadly shared prosperity and a high quality of life.

Over the past several months we have focused on the 2023-2031 Housing Element (HE). Our HE Committee would like to bring to your attention a few concerns we have regarding Sunnyvale’s Housing Element, the City’s process and share with you the correspondence we sent to City staff and City council.

AFFH: Income isolation in Sunnyvale has increased over time with wealthier households concentrated in the southern portion of the City, and lower-income households concentrated in the north. The northern area of the City has lower access to opportunity, overcrowding and a higher risk of displacement. Although the HE notes investments in northern Sunnyvale are expected to increase, there is no analysis of how these investments will improve the economic and environmental indicators in this area. The only commitment in the HE is Program H35 (Page 2-16), which will establish a single school, a single library branch, and an unquantified number of park facilities across all the low and moderate resource areas in Sunnyvale. We would like to see: either a) an analysis that this level of investment is sufficient to transform the low and moderate opportunity areas in northern Sunnyvale into high opportunity areas or b) a commitment to find a substantial number of additional lower-income sites in areas that are already identified as high opportunity.

Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 2 | Page

In addition, nearly all of the new sites identified for lower-income units are in areas of the city with below-average incomes. In Figure 4-42 (Page 4-70) 91% of the lower-income capacity in the sites inventory are in census tracts in the northern parts of the City which have an income below Santa Clara County’s AMI of $151,300. The HE does not contain any analysis to evaluate the impact of placing the vast majority of lower-income units in census tracts with below average income. One approach would be to repeat the analysis done for Tables 4-8 (Page 4-24), Table 4-9 (Page 4-26) and Table 4-10 (Page 4-27) with the units projected to be developed in the sites inventory. Without such an analysis, it is difficult to understand how the proposed sites inventory would improve fair housing in Sunnyvale.

Sites Inventory: The Housing Element assigns approximately 60% of units in the Lawrence Station, Downtown, El Camino Real, and proposed Moffett Park areas in the lower income category. Most of those four areas are currently low or moderate opportunity areas. Planning for more than half of its new housing to be in the lower income category would likely doom the areas to remain low or moderate opportunity areas. In addition, projects which have been completed or are currently in development in these areas average only about 15% lower income units. If new developments at Lawrence Station, Downtown, El Camino Real, and Moffett Park follow historic trends, Sunnyvale will fall short of its lower income RHNA goals by nearly 2,000 units. We would like the housing element to reclassify the majority of lower income units in Lawrence Station, Downtown, El Camino Real, and Moffett Park as above-moderate income units and find additional sites for lower-income units throughout the city.

Livable Sunnyvale’s Suggestions to Distribute and Increase the Number of Lower-Income Sites in High Opportunity Areas: In letters to the City, Livable Sunnyvale suggested a number of possible changes to the Housing Element which would increase the number of lower income sites and more equitably distribute these lower income sites throughout the city. These suggestions included:

● Substantially increase the commitment in program H3 (Page 2-8 ) to find additional low- income sites in high resource areas. Program H3 only commits to finding sites for 100 new units in high-resource areas of Sunnyvale. We would like to see an analysis to determine the number of lower-income units that are needed in the southern parts of the city to improve the income isolation issues identified in Tables 4-8, 4-9, and 4-10, and then a commitment to find that number of units in program H3. Our initial suggestion was to increase the commitment to 1,500 units.
● Increase density at the Village Center sites to more than 30 units/acre. ● Add new Village Centers. Possible sites include:

Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 3 | Page

○ The 12 acre site at the corner of Hollenbeck and Homestead (Loehmann's Plaza – APNs 323-26-007, 323-26-014, 323-26-016, 323-26-033, 323-26-034) ○ The 3 acre area at the SE corner of Fremont and Wright (APNs 320-27-019, 320- 27-020, 320-27-021, 320-27-022)
○ The 3 acres of commercial/office at the corner of Wolfe and H omestead (APNs 309-51-005, 309-51-027, 309-51-028, 313-38-037, 313-38-073) ● Increase Sunnyvale’s inclusionary rate to 20%
● Increase density or allow more mixed use on El Camino Real ● Rezone most small strip malls to be mixed use sites

Thank you for reviewing our letter and considering the concerns we presented. Is it possible to schedule a time with you to discuss this letter? Please let us know your availability and we will schedule a Zoom Meeting with you. We are available after August 17th.

Chuck Fraleigh A gnes Veith
[email protected] [email protected]

Regards,

Livable Sunnyvale Housing Element Committee

Attachments:

1. Letter sent to City of Sunnyvale Housing Staff, Housing and Human Services Commission and City Council dated January 18, 2022: sent via email

2. Letter sent to City of Sunnyvale Housing Staff, Housing and City Council dated March 11, 2022: sent via email

3. Letter sent to City of Sunnyvale City Council dated June 8, 2022: sent via email

Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 4 | Page

ATTACHMENT 1
Letter sent to City of Sunnyvale Housing Staff, Housing and Human Services Commission and City Council dated January 18, 2022: sent via email

Subject: Livable Sunnyvale ‐ Housing Element Committee
Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 8:21:08 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Agnes Veith
To: Jenny Carloni, Ryan Dyson
CC: [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

City Staff and Consultants,
Thank you for the informative presentation at the December 13 study session with the Planning and HHS commissions. There has clearly been a lot of work put into that presentation and it was a great step to educate our community about how the City is approaching the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Livable Sunnyvale’s Housing Element Committee has several questions and comments about the information presented.

The sites inventory listed 1619 VLI/LI units in the Lawrence Specific Plan (LSP) and 298 lower income LVI/LI units in the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP). There were no moderate or above moderate units listed in either of these sites. What are the number of units planned at these income levels? The numbers presented seem to indicate the only way Sunnyvale will be successful at meeting its VLI/LI housing targets is if every unit developed in the LSP and DSP sites are lower income units which seems an unlikely scenario. A much more realistic inventory would have 10% - 15% of the units in these two sites in the lower income category.

We bring this up because during our current cycle, as of August 2021 we have attained 8% of our goal for very low income and 6.7% for low income. We are concerned this scenario Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 5 | Page

may be repeated if we do not plan for more units at the VLI/LI levels.

In addition, the presentation did not have any lower income units identified in the highest opportunity areas of Sunnyvale (https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2022-tcac-opportunity-map).

We encourage the city to identify meaningful numbers of lower income units in the highest opportunity areas. Designing the village centers to be more dense and increase building heights may be a good solution to meet our RHNA targets as well as sustainability concerns.

The site inventory also noted a number of units currently in th e development pipeline. Is it expected that the permits for all of these units will not be is sued until after January 31, 2023? If the permits are issued before that date, wouldn’t the units be counted towards the current cycle?
Thank you again for all your work and we look forward to continuing to partner with you on this important process.

Livable Sunnyvale Housing Element Committee
Cc: Planning Commissioners
Housing and Human Services
Commissioners, City Council

Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 6 | Page

ATTACHMENT 2
Letter sent to City of Sunnyvale Housing Staff, Housing and City Council dated March 11, 2022: sent via email

March 11, 2022

Jenny Carloni, Housing Officer
Ryan Dyson, Housing Specialist

Thank you for your comments at the City Council Study Session and the community workshops on the topics we raised in our letter from January 18th. We have a few more questions, follow up comments, and suggestions for policies to include in the Housing Element.

We are still concerned with the lack of affordable units in the highest resource areas of Sunnyvale. One particular area of concern is access to high schools. The two high schools (Fremont and Homestead) that serve nearly all of Sunnyvale including areas north of Highway 101 are located in the far southern part of the city. We have attached the 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map of Sunnyvale with the location of the two high schools highlighted.

Why does the site inventory exclude low and very low income housing from the highest resource areas of Sunnyvale which are the closest areas to these high schools? The proposed Village Centers at the corner of Fremont and Mary and the corner of Fremont and Sunnyvale- Saratoga are good potential sites for some affordable housing. The area zoned C1 at the northwest corner of Hollenbeck and Homestead is another good candidate for a Village Center.

While the Village Center Plans are not yet in place, if we commit to completing them early in the cycle and zone them for enough density to support affordable housing, can they be counted in the site inventory?

In addition to developing affordable housing in the highest resource areas in Sunnyvale, we can also work to increase the resource level of lower resource areas which are all in north Sunnyvale. We would like the draft housing element to contain policies to address this.

We are also still concerned about the number of low and moderate income units listed in the Lawrence, Downtown, and El Camino corridor sites inventory. In all of those sites, over 80% are listed in the low or very low income categories with the remaining units listed as moderate income. What analysis has been done to determine that 80% of these sites are suitable for L/VL development? In the downtown and Lawrence areas, the vast majority of the units developed have been market rate and only 10-15% of the units have been low and very low income units.

Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 7 | Page

This gives us pause for concern that this allocation is merely noted to meet a target but is unrealistic given past experience. A realistic development capacity for low and very-low income units in these areas seems to be 10-15% of what is currently proposed.

Using realistic development capacities for these sites requires finding other suitable affordable housing sites. Some options our committee suggests are:

● Increase the inclusionary rate from 15 to 20%.
● Increase density in the ECR, DSP, Moffett Park, Village Centers and future specific plan sites.
● Rezoning sites such as the former Fry’s location, the C1 zoned sites along Maude between Mathilda and Fair Oaks and along Fair Oaks south of 101, as well as underutilized industrial parks and other location(s) throughout the city zoned exclusively for commercial use. Is there a reason why current commercial developments cannot be reconfigured to include mixed use (commercial and residential) in the same building?

We also hope to see policies in the draft housing element to support the development of affordable and missing middle housing such as:

● Require payment of in lieu fees at the time the first permit is issued rather than at the end of the development cycle. Neighboring cities such as Mountain View have implemented this.
● Encourage SB 9 development by creating pre-approved building plans to facilitate the permitting approval process and create a single point of contact for SB 9 development.

Broaden the city’s outreach program to increase homeowners' knowledge of this new legislation.
● Design and build form-based multifamily housing throughout the city.

Finally, there are some additional policies we hope to see in the housing element, some of which we have already brought up to city leadership.

● Establish safe parking sites for vehicle residents.
● Partner with LifeMoves or another organization to build transitional housing for Sunnyvale’s unhoused.
● Anti-displacement policies such as first right of return to r esidents as well as policies to financially assist displaced residents subjected to higher rental costs when displaced as well as relocation expenses.
● Support the basic needs of residents aging in place (transpor tation, safe home review, home repairs, rental assistance…).

Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 8 | Page

● Support the needs of residents with physical and cognitive ch allenges at all ages (housing, job counseling and transportation).
● Rent stabilization programs for residential units (single fam ily homes as well as multifamily units) and small businesses. Consider limiting rent increases to annual increases not to exceed the CPI.
● Fund retrofit EV charging stations in existing developments. ● Prioritize green space by encouraging taller buildings with smaller footprints. This could be paired with a green density bonus to encourage more greenspace, especially for mid-density (R-3) projects.
● Encourage the use of carbon-negative cross-laminated timber as opposed to concrete, which is carbon intensive.
● Consider a redevelopment density bonus. As an example, if an existing apartment complex over a designated age is redeveloped, set aside deed- restricted units for existing residents. These units would not count toward the maximum dwelling units on the site, but could be counted for the state density bonus and to satisfy the city's inclusionary zoning requirement. This should also come with increased maximum heights.

Thank you for considering our comments and suggestions and we look forward to your response.

Regards,

Livable Sunnyvale Housing Element Committee

Attachment: 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map of Sunnyvale Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 9 | Page

cc: Sunnyvale City Council
Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 10 | Page

ATTACHMENT 3

Letter sent to City of Sunnyvale City Council dated
June 8, 2022: sent via email

June 8, 2022

Dear Mayor Klein and Council Members,

Livable Sunnyvale reviewed the Housing Element (HE) draft and many of our members attended and contributed to the meetings staff conducted with Council and City Commissions.

We wish to acknowledge the effort that has been extended on this Housing Element. With that in mind, we have the following input.

This HE Draft classifies about 60% of housing at high density sites like Moffett Park to be in the lower-income category. That is not realistic. Even if several large 100% affordable housing projects are developed there, based on our city’s history, 20% lower-income is a much more realistic number.

Currently HCD allows this unrealistic assignment because of Moffett’s high density designation; however, as Moffett is developed and reality hits, Sunnyvale will be required to back-fill those missing lower-income sites. If Sunnyvale becomes non-compliant, the City may have to pay fines & fees, lose valuable state and regional grants, and possibly face court-issued takeover of our land-use authority (see attachment).

A second issue is that 89% of the lower-income sites are located in census tracts where the average income is already below Santa Clara County’s AMI. The HE Draft does not address how putting the vast majority of lower-income sites in locations that are already lower income will improve the fair housing issues identified in Chapter 4. There is not even a Goal listed in section 2.1 to address the fair housing issues identified in Chapter 4.

The HE Draft indicates that as Moffett is built out, more resources will also be built. However, there is no analysis to demonstrate how much the opportunity index of the Moffett Park area will improve. Furthermore, the only commitment in the HE Draft is program H34 which would build a library, park, and zone for a school. It seems unlikely that a low resource area can be transformed into a high resource area simply by building a library, park, and elementary school.

The way to alleviate both of the above problems is to increase our pool of available lower- income housing sites, especially in the southern parts of the city. Specifically, change program Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 11 | Page

H2 to provide a total of 1,500 lower-income units rather than just 100. Some possible ways to do this are:

● Zone Village Centers to be greater than 30 du/ac
● Add new Village Centers.  Possible sites include:
o Hollenbeck and Homestead (Loehmann’s Plaza)
o Fremont and Wright
o Wolfe and Homestead (Sunnyvale side)
● Increase density or allow more mixed use on ECR
● Increase Sunnyvale’s inclusionary rate to 20%
● Rezone most small strip malls to be mixed use sites

We believe these actions need to happen sooner than later because the longer the City waits, the fewer options we will have; for example, if we don't increase the density for Village Centers as soon as possible, many Village Center sites will have been built at lower density and with less lower income housing.

Another option to increase density and better meet our RHNA goals is to address the parking standards. To be clear we are not asking to get rid of parking, we would like to see parking spaces not wasted. The ABAG-MTC Parking policy, https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/2021-10/Parking_Policy_Playbook_compiled_vF20211020.pdf , is a great resource that specifically outlines parking ideas such as unbundling, parking minimums and parking maximums. Unbundling parking would give the developers flexibility to build denser. We can also review Mountain View’s plans such as their North Bay Precise plan, https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=31204 , that is constraining parking. The past Housing Element and this current Housing Element essentially mention the same ideas for parking. We would like to see the city go further and implement these parking standards or at the very least commit to studying unbundling, parking minimums and parking maximums.

Livable Sunnyvale supports the City’s commitment to meeting RHNA goals and providing housing to all income levels. We all desire a city that can sustain diversity and a livable environment. Our input for a moderate lower-income density in Moffett Park and increased density in high opportunity areas in the southern parts of the city will give us a better chance of meeting our RHNA goals. It will also lead to a Sunnyvale where households at all income levels can live throughout the city in an integrated and sustaining environment.

Sincerely,
Livable Sunnyvale Housing Element Committee
Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 12 | Page

Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 13 | Page

Attachment 2

1 Chelsey Payne
From: Council AnswerPoint <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 7:46 AM
To: Charles Fraleigh; Jenny Carloni; Ryan Dyson; Chelsey Payne Cc: Agnes Veith; Council AnswerPoint
Subject: RE: Housing Element feedback
Hello Agnes and Chuck,

Thank you for your email. I am forwarding your message to the City Council, copying key City staff for their review.

Thank you,
Victoria

VICTORIA KETELL
Executive Assistant – Mayor & Council
Office of the City Manager
City of Sunnyvale
Phone (Direct): 408‐730‐7913
Phone (Mayor & Council): 408‐730‐7473

From: Charles Fraleigh <[email protected]>

Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2023 8:41 PM
To: Jenny Carloni <[email protected]>; Ryan Dyson <[email protected]>; Chelsey Payne <[email protected]>
Cc: Agnes Veith <[email protected]>; Council AnswerPoint <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element feedback

ATTN: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Submitted via email

Jenny Carloni, Housing Officer, City of Sunnyvale
[email protected]

Ryan Dyson, Housing Specialist, City of Sunnyvale
[email protected]

Chelsey Payne, Director of Urban Design and Planning, Ascent Environmental [email protected]
Attachment 2

2 cc: Sunnyvale City Council
[email protected]

January 29, 2023

Dear Ryan and Jenny,

Thanks Ryan, for letting me know your timeframe to meet with Chuck and I regarding our thoughts on the latest Housing Element (HE) draft. We are sending this letter to let you know in advance of our meeting the topics we would like to discuss.

Fair Housing

HCD’s comment letter states, “While the element provides additional analysis and identifies contributing factors to fair housing issues, it does not include sufficient action to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities. As a result, programs must be added as appropriate to sufficiently respond to contributing factors to fair housing issues.”

To more significantly address the fair housing issues, we would like to see Program H3 modified to increase the commitment to rezone sites in areas of high resource from 100 to 1,500.

Furthermore, HCD’s letter also states that “all actions related to AFFH must contain specific commitment, timing, geographic targeting.” To address the geographic targeting comment, we would like program H3 to require at least 1,000 of the sites to be in the Serra, De Anza, Ortega, and Raynor districts outside of the El Camino Real Specific Plan zone.

There are 39 acres in the Serra, De Anza, and Ortega districts which we feel could be zoned to allow housing at high enough density to support affordable housing. These include:

 The VC-7, VC-8, VC-9, VC-10, and VC-11 village center sites identified in the July draft housing element.
 The 12 acre site at the corner of Hollenbeck and Homestead (Loehmann's Plaza – APNs 323-26-007, 323-26-014, 323-26-016, 323-26-033, 323-26-034)
 The 3 acre area at the SE corner of Fremont and Wright (APNs 320-27-019, 320-27-020, 320-27-021, 320-27-022)
 The 3 acres of commercial/office at the corner of Wolfe and Homestead (APNs 309-51-005, 309-51- 027, 309-51-028, 313-38-037, 313-38-073)
We also would like to see the timeframe for this program accelerated to January 2025 so that there is sufficient time remaining in the cycle for development projects to be realized in the identified areas.

To more significantly address fair housing, we would also like to see program H35, Prioritize Capital Improvement Program (CIP), expanded. The current commitment is to establish a new library, park facilities, and a school site within low or moderate resource areas. We would like this program to be expanded with items such as additional open space commitments, commitments to improve transit options for high school students in northern Sunnyvale, and commitments to improve retail offerings in northern Sunnyvale.

We would like clarification if the already planned Lakewood Branch Library and Muwékma Park would satisfy the objectives of the program as it is currently written.

Attachment 2

3 Adjust Program Timelines

HCD’s letter states, “several programs and actions have timelines that should be moved earlier in the planning period to ensure a beneficial impact.” We would like to suggest the following.

H3: Increase Affordable Housing Opportunities in High Resource Areas.

Current timeframe: 2026
Suggested timeframe: January 2025

H4: Accessory Dwelling Unit Toolkit

We would like to see the timeline for program H4 accelerated so that the toolkit is published by the end of 2023, and the goal is to produce 100 ADU units by the end of 2026.

Mid-cycle Review

Finally, HCD’s letter states, “the element should commit to assessing and revising programs through a mid- cycle review.” We would like to see the housing element contain a mid-cycle review which includes measurable targets which are expected to be achieved and specific actions which will be taken if the targets are not met.

The targets and actions could include things such as:

 If fewer than 50% of the units at any income level have not been permitted, add new sites to the sites inventory which increase the number of units at that income level by the shortfall amount.  Re-evaluate AFFH metrics from Tables H-7 through H-10. If metrics have not improved compared to the 2015 levels, document specific steps that will be taken to remedy these metrics.  Review all programs to be completed prior to 2027 and analyze if they were successful. For example:

 Program H5/H6 (affordable housing) - set target for number of affordable housing units to be permitted by mid-cycle and actions to take if these targets are not met.

 H7 (funding for affordable housing) - set dollar amount target for the amount of funding to be raised. If that target is not reached, specify what actions will be taken to reach the funding goals.

We are looking forward to meeting with you and Chelsey Payne on February 6th.

Agnes Veith and Chuck Fraleigh
Livable Sunnyvale Housing Element Committee Co-Chairs

Attachment 2

From:

To: Ryan Dyson
Subject: housing element comment
Date: Sunday, June 5, 2022 11:24:02 AM
ATTN: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

I am a parent of 31-year-old man with autism. We bought a house in Sunnyvale in 1991 and this has been the community my son has grown up in. He is lucky to be living in a Below Market Rate apartment in Sunnyvale with the help of a Section 8 Housing voucher. He is a San Andreas Regional Center client which provides him with the services he needs including supported living services.

San Andreas Regional Center serves approximately 30,000 clients in Santa Clara County. Many other parents tell me that they need to figure out the housing needs of their adult children with developmental disabilities to ensure their child is taken care of “after they exit the scene.” Securing affordable housing is their biggest challenge.

Please continue to work with agencies like Housing Choices to support set-asides for people with developmental disabilities. Many of these people, like my son, have extremely low incomes, solely on SSI or SSI/SSDI.

Clare Meyerson
1385 Deroche Court
Sunnyvale
Attachment 2

June 6th 2022
Re: Comments on Sunnyvale Housing Element
Dear Sunnyvale City Council, Planning Commission and Staff, The undersigned organizations would like to thank you so much for providing the opportunity to provide public comment on the draft Housing Element. Overall, we support its draft policies. We know that tackling the combined crises of housing affordability, inequality, and climate change in all its complexity requires structural and cultural change and we think that if implemented, many of the policies in this Housing Element will help our region address both our climate and housing crises.

We urge you to eliminate or significantly reduce parking minimums on new housing developments near transit, and special housing developments, and to permit the use of stacked parking spaces. Please commit to these reforms in your Housing Element. Ascent Environmental’s presentation to the Planning Commission on May 23rd listed parking requirements as a governmental constraint on housing, and Gov. Code § 65583(c)(3) requires the removal of such constraints where “appropriate and legally possible.” Now is the time to commit.

It is clear that you understand the barriers parking minimums provide because in policy H-4.4, Parking Standards for Special Needs Housing, you highlight the need to maintain reduced parking standards for special needs housing and housing in close proximity to public transit.

Eliminating parking minimums is a highly effective strategy to address both our housing and climate crises. Sunnyvale seeks to be a leader in climate action but if you are still subsidizing driving (which accounts for 40% of our GhG emissions) you will not meet your climate goals. Increasing density in the village centers was identified as a priority in the May 11th public meeting. Eliminating parking requirements would be a clear way to do so.

Attachment 2

The recent Bay Area Parking Census released by SPUR and the Mineta Transportation Institute found that there are 2.4 parking spaces per car1. Additionally, TransForm’s study of 80 Bay Area buildings identified that 28% of residential parking spaces were unused. This excess parking represented 1,164,600 square feet of space that could have gone to better use and cost over $198 million dollars to build. Continuing to require a minimum of two parking spaces per unit in most places will continue these wasteful mandates that drive up housing costs.

Sunnyvale’s parking minimums make worst case assumptions about how people commute - every person has a car and every person drives alone to work. More Sunnyvale residents would likely forgo driving if mandated parking were eliminated in favor of denser development near places like Lawrence station and Moffett Park. Sunnyvale has already implemented a robust TDM system, which has likely reduced overall car trips. However, studies show that abundant, “free” parking actually generates more driving trips, more traffic, and more pollution, and will make people less likely to use the TDMs2. This means the excessive parking minimums counteract the positive impacts of Sunnyvale’s TDM. Maintaining parking minimums, based on these worst case assumptions, significantly reduce the number of sites that can feasibly become senior housing in the next decade.

Reducing parking minimums and unbundling parking has never been easier with the development of new technologies to facilitate shared parking. These include Parkade, which makes it simple to administer unbundled parking while also allowing for the sharing of parking between residents and their guests. In addition, companies like Parknav have tools to help better utilize on-street parking and can guide drivers to areas with availability.

We would also like to urge you to eliminate the requirement that mobile home parks are required to provide two spaces per unit. This seems to be an equity issue. There is no reason, when the minimum parking requirement for a single family home is one parking space, that mobile homes require two.
2 https://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/JPT17.2_Hamre.pdf 1https://www.spur.org/publications/spur-report/2022-02-28/bay-area-parking-census#:~:text=There%20are %20approximately%202.4%20spaces,person%20in%20the%20Bay%20Area.

Attachment 2

We would also like to urge you to keep open space requirements. We have seen first hand the importance of open space for mental and physical health as well as carbon sequestration and biodiversity benefits.

As you consider changes to this draft element, we hope you will take our considerations in mind to prioritize people and open space and include parking policy as an item in the Housing Element.

Regards,
Zoe Siegel
Director of Climate
Resilience
Greenbelt Alliance
Alex Shoor
Executive Director
Catalyze SV
Kendra Ma
Housing Policy Analyst
Transform
Joanna Gubman
Executive Director
Urban Environmentalists
Keith Diggs
Housing Elements
Advocacy Manager
YIMBY Law
Attachment 2

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

ML Stefan
Ryan Dyson
Mei-Ling Stefan
comments on Housing Element
Wednesday, June 8, 2022 5:08:45 PM
image.png
image.png
ATTN: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Public transit in Sunnyvale is so poor that reduced parking needs, especially for the elderly and people with disabilities, does not make sense.

Moreover, policies that eliminate on-site parking near "high-quality" transit means using streets as parking garages, and will change neighborhoods and compromise pedestrian and bike riders' safety. Policy H-4.4 is not consistent with H-6.2 When I was growing up in Hong Kong, my parents did not own any car, so the parking space was rented to a neighbor who owns more than one car. This kind of flexibility is better than no parking provisions.

Thank you
Mei-Ling Stefan
Attachment 2

From:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Kenneth Rosales
Mathew Reed
Making Housing Elements Work through State Enforcement
Wednesday, June 8, 2022 10:45:42 PM
ATTN: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Good Evening Honorable Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Staff, Your jurisdiction is either preparing for the release or is reviewing the first draft of your 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element before it is submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for initial review.

As you may have heard, the vast
majority of cities in the first rounds of submissions have received substantial comments from HCD outlining deficiencies and are being required to complete additional work to adjust and improve their housing elements so that they move into compliance.

We believe this current
moment presents an opportunity to assess working drafts with an eye on how the HCD review team has described some common issues they have observed. As of April 2022, jurisdictions in three major regions had submitted their “final” Housing Elements by their given deadlines but have continued to work with HCD on developing compliant Housing Element Updates:

The San Diego Association of Governments’ Housing Element deadline was on April 15, 2021, of which only 7 of 19 jurisdictions were in compliance; The Southern California Association of Governments’ deadline was on October 15, 2021, of which only 7 of 197 jurisdictions were in compliance; and The Sacramento Council of Governments’ Housing Element deadline was on May 15, 2021, of which only 17 of 28 jurisdictions were in compliance.

On March 25, 2022, SV@Home hosted a discussion during our monthly Housing Action Coalition event with David Zisser and Melinda Coy, HCD’s leadership for the Housing Element review team, titled
“Making Housing Elements Work through State Enforcement” (click here).

David and Melinda discussed how they will enforce Housing Element law and provided local advocates guidance on what they can do to help jurisdictions meet Housing Element requirements. Therefore, we would like to share the event recording and presentation slides as resources for your jurisdiction to use as you draft, publish, edit, and submit your Draft Housing Elements to HCD (available here
). We have included time stamps on key topics within
the webpage to make it easier to navigate the recording.

HCD reinforced the fact that they no longer consider the Housing Element Update to be a paper exercise, but instead a contract between jurisdictions and the state on housing commitments for eight-and-a-half years. To this end, HCD’s new Housing Accountability Unit will be monitoring implementation and will hold jurisdictions to the commitments laid out in the Housing Element’s plan.The following are key take-aways from HDC’s presentation, which we felt were particularly useful to consider as drafts are being finalized and reviewed:

Attachment 2

Most Common and Overarching Concerns - HCD has found that Housing Elements overwhelmingly describe but do not analyze the data that is provided.

Whenever data is included into Housing Elements, they want jurisdictions to ask themselves: What does the data mean? How are these assumptions supported? Further, HCD discussed they would like jurisdictions to “show their work” for the conclusions that are drawn, to avoid assumptions, and to use their analyses as tools that guide solutions, rather than simply explaining existing conditions. In this way, the various sections (e.g. needs assessment, sites inventory, constraints, etc.) should be reflective of and inform each other.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) - HCD is looking for an analysis of patterns and trends - a story about the jurisdiction over time and how it has changed - rather than a demographic “data dump”.

They provided an example of what jurisdictions can ask themselves when providing their analyses: has our community become more diverse? Less diverse? Where are the areas of poverty and how have they evolved? How does this help to highlight the housing needs of each jurisdiction?
HCD would also like to see strategies for how local jurisdictions can “move the needle” (i.e. make progress) and assess whether the metrics and milestones of their actions will be successful in eight-and-a-half years.

They recommended jurisdictions review the City of Sacramento’s Housing Element on
how AFFH can be adequately addressed and the City of Folsom’s Housing Element for a good example of AFFH in a high resourced community.

AFFH: High-resourced and Lower-resourced neighborhoods - Under AFFH guidelines, it is important to add affordable housing opportunities throughout the jurisdiction. They clarified, however, that AFFH is also about providing community development options or programs to increase resources in low-resourced areas, preventing displacement, and increasing housing opportunities in terms of both sites and mobility.

Site Inventory - HCD recommended jurisdictions provide supporting data to the selection of their sites, including the underlying assumptions to pick a site, such as development trends and substantive site-specific analysis.

When choosing sites, HCD suggested that a discussion of the selection process be included, answering: Why were the factors that shaped the process chosen, and how did those assumptions relate to answering the question: “is this a development Attachment 2

opportunity within the planning period?”
For non-vacant sites, they mentioned jurisdictions should specifically provide substantial evidence that an existing use is likely to be discontinued. Such evidence could include: 1) site specific information on whether the use will be discontinued in an eight-and-a-half year period and explain the factors leading to that conclusion, 2) what market and development trends are there to support discontinued use, and 3) what programs and actions could be taken by the jurisdiction to address the constraints that might impede the redevelopment of non-vacant sites.

Further, HCD expects site inventories to be responsive to the AFFH analysis, rather than be considered independent.

Governmental and Market Constraints to the Development of Housing - HCD discussed that constraints are to be analyzed and assessed for their potential impact, rather than simply noted and/or justified.

They also advised jurisdictions to consider the perspective of a potential developer and ask: how does the range of development standards, processing fees, various impact fees, etc. affect the development of housing? How long does it take to get planning and construction approvals, and what are the additional costs? What are the points of discretionary uncertainty in the process? Are there systems in place to process streamlined applications? How might substantial or minor changes in these elements of the development process have the cumulative impact of facilitating more development in your jurisdiction?

HCD delved into the need of a thorough assessment and a clear timeline for developing concrete policy or program changes in response to these analyzed constraints rather than referencing on-going or future assessments that need to be conducted. They want to see studies made within the Housing Element Update itself to construct a policy or program rather than prescribing a “study” as the policy or program itself.

Importantly, HCD recommended that the constraints analysis be reflected in the assessment of site-specific conditions that are identified in the site inventory.

Programs and Policies - HCD explained how jurisdictions should present clear prioritization and provide specific actions and timelines for each policy and program, along with clearly explaining what a jurisdiction will do to make implementation more realistic and feasible.

They suggested jurisdictions avoid the use of general language like “explore”, “consider'', “evaluate”, or “study”. Instead, HCD would like to see a detailed discussion about what exactly is going to be explored, what will be done, to what end, and what Attachment 2

the outcome(s) would be. HCD gave the example of replacing language such as "will explore providing incentives" with "we will develop an incentives program that will reduce fees/provide cost savings".

Moreover, HCD deliberated on how a jurisdiction’s policies and programs should build on the assessment of existing measures and go beyond previous cycles. Policies and programs should support the narrative in the housing needs and development constraints analysis and be responsive to additional requirements of the AFFH analysis.

Funding - HCD detailed how they will not accept the rationale that the lack of subsidies for affordable housing development is an insurmountable impediment to fulfilling housing commitments. Instead, they advised jurisdictions to find ways to spur development through land use reforms and additional financing mechanisms. These might include adopting a strong local density bonus program, an inclusionary housing ordinance with a robust in-lieu fee structure, or other impact fees as a mechanism to support affordable housing development. HCD also recommended looking into ways of lowering costs by deferring or waiving fees and taxes.

Non-Compliant Housing Elements - HCD cautioned that jurisdictions with non- compliant Housing Elements will be ineligible for, or face delays in receiving, state funding. Jurisdictions would also be unable to use inconsistent zoning/general plan standards to deny affordable housing projects, and could be subject to additional legal ramifications and fines.

Implementation of RHNA through the 6th Cycle - HCD re-emphasized that jurisdictions are required to monitor and adjust their site inventories to sustain capacity for their housing allocation throughout the planning period.

Enforcement - HCD will review actions and inactions submitted in the Annual Progress Report by local jurisdictions and they will take action on jurisdictions that are inconsistent with their Housing Elements. HCD will also respond to public complaints if a jurisdiction's actions are in violation with state law.

We appreciate that additional guidance has been made available from multiple sources, including ABAG/MTC and the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative - they have been instrumental in guiding us all through this complicated process. We know that the Housing Element Update has been a significant undertaking and that the HCD review process has been less central to the public and council’s engagement to date. We hope that this letter provides constructive insight into what HCD will likely highlight and that it further enables local engagement throughout the next phases of the Housing Element process. We also hope that meaningful public participation will continue to be a priority as feedback is received from the Attachment 2

state and incorporated into future drafts.

We appreciate your continued coordination on this Housing Element journey and we look forward to deepening our engagement as we move closer to January 2023.

Best,
Kenneth Rosales (He/Him)
Planning Senior Associate| SV@Home
408.518.0676
[email protected]
​
#ReimaginingHome Learn more about Affordable Housing Month 2022 Attachment 2

June 8, 2022
Planning Department and City Council
City of Sunnyvale
456 W. Olive Ave.

Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Re: Draft Housing Element Needs Ambitious Parking Updates Dear Sunnyvale Planning Department and Sunnyvale City Council, Thank you for submitting your draft Housing Element early and allowing for robust comment.

TransForm is a regional non-profit focused on creating connected and healthy communities that can meet climate goals, reduce traffic, and include housing affordable to everyone.

We applaud Sunnyvale’s inclusion of Goal H-2 and Policy H-1.3 that streamline affordable development to help reach RHNA goals. However, building 6,709 units of housing will be no easy task and we believe Sunnyvale must implement smart parking policies like reducing or eliminating parking minimums, implementing unbundling, and requiring robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs.

Policies H-4.4, 17, and 19 all mention reviewing parking standards to eliminate constraints on development, but lack specifics on how Sunnyvale will conduct this review or how it will be funded. We encourage Sunnyvale to commit to a specific timeline and to fund a dedicated study of parking reform, especially how the above mentioned smart parking policies could positively impact housing, transportation and other goals.

The need to eliminate or greatly reduce parking minimums is more important than ever. Each new parking space costs $30,000-$80,000. With inflation driving up construction costs since these1 estimates, two spaces may now cost up to $200,000. Beyond construction costs, parking takes up essential space that could provide more homes, services, or community amenities.

The recent Bay Area Parking Census released by SPUR and the Mineta Transportation Institute found that there are 2.4 parking spaces per car . Additionally, TransForm’s study of 80 Bay Area buildings2 identified that 28% of spaces were unused. This excess parking represented 1,164,600 square feet of 2https://www.spur.org/publications/spur-report/2022-02-28/bay-area-parking-census#:~:text=There%20are%20appr oximately%202.4%20spaces,person%20in%20the%20Bay%20Area. 1 https://www.shoupdogg.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/05/Cutting-the-Cost-of-Parking-Requirements.pdf 560 14TH STREET , SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG 1 Attachment 2

space—an estimated $198 million dollars in costs that could have been used to produce more housing in these 80 developments.

To show the tremendous benefits these policies can have, we have used our GreenTRIP Connect tool to create scenarios for a potential future development site at 174/184 N Sunnyvale Ave. GreenTRIP Connect is recommended by the California Office of Planning and Research as a tool to use while developing General Plans and is especially useful during development of Housing Elements. The tool is free to use whether planning at the site or city-wide level.

By eliminating the high costs of parking, homes can be offered at more affordable prices, reducing the number of community members that face extreme housing cost burdens, getting priced out of their community, and/or becoming unsheltered.

Please let me know if you have any questions. TransForm hopes this information explains why Sunnyvale should make parking reform and affordable housing development a priority in the Housing Element update.

Sincerely,
Kendra Ma
Housing Policy Analyst
[email protected]
560 14TH STREET , SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG 2 Attachment 2

June 8, 2022
Planning Department and City Council
City of Sunnyvale
456 W. Olive Ave.

Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Re: Draft Housing Element Needs Ambitious Parking Updates Dear Sunnyvale Planning Department and Sunnyvale City Council, Thank you for submitting your draft Housing Element early and allowing for robust comment.

TransForm is a regional non-profit focused on creating connected and healthy communities that can meet climate goals, reduce traffic, and include housing affordable to everyone.

We applaud Sunnyvale’s inclusion of Goal H-2 and Policy H-1.3 that streamline affordable development to help reach RHNA goals. However, building 6,709 units of housing will be no easy task and we believe Sunnyvale must implement smart parking policies like reducing or eliminating parking minimums, implementing unbundling, and requiring robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs.

Policies H-4.4, 17, and 19 all mention reviewing parking standards to eliminate constraints on development, but lack specifics on how Sunnyvale will conduct this review or how it will be funded. We encourage Sunnyvale to commit to a specific timeline and to fund a dedicated study of parking reform, especially how the above mentioned smart parking policies could positively impact housing, transportation and other goals.

The need to eliminate or greatly reduce parking minimums is more important than ever. Each new parking space costs $30,000-$80,000. With inflation driving up construction costs since these1 estimates, two spaces may now cost up to $200,000. Beyond construction costs, parking takes up essential space that could provide more homes, services, or community amenities.

The recent Bay Area Parking Census released by SPUR and the Mineta Transportation Institute found that there are 2.4 parking spaces per car . Additionally, TransForm’s study of 80 Bay Area buildings2 identified that 28% of spaces were unused. This excess parking represented 1,164,600 square feet of 2https://www.spur.org/publications/spur-report/2022-02-28/bay-area-parking-census#:~:text=There%20are%20appr oximately%202.4%20spaces,person%20in%20the%20Bay%20Area. 1 https://www.shoupdogg.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/05/Cutting-the-Cost-of-Parking-Requirements.pdf 560 14TH STREET , SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG 1 Attachment 2

space—an estimated $198 million dollars in costs that could have been used to produce more housing in these 80 developments.

To show the tremendous benefits these policies can have, we have used our GreenTRIP Connect tool to create scenarios for a potential future development site at 174/184 N Sunnyvale Ave. GreenTRIP Connect is recommended by the California Office of Planning and Research as a tool to use while developing General Plans and is especially useful during development of Housing Elements. The tool is free to use whether planning at the site or city-wide level.

By eliminating the high costs of parking, homes can be offered at more affordable prices, reducing the number of community members that face extreme housing cost burdens, getting priced out of their community, and/or becoming unsheltered.

Please let me know if you have any questions. TransForm hopes this information explains why Sunnyvale should make parking reform and affordable housing development a priority in the Housing Element update.

Sincerely,
Kendra Ma
Housing Policy Analyst
[email protected]
560 14TH STREET , SUITE 400, OAKLAND, CA 94612 | T: 510.740.3150 | WWW.TRANSFORMCA.ORG 2 Attachment 2

From: Charles Fraleigh
To: HousingHumanServices AP; PlanningCommission AP
Cc: Ryan Dyson; Jenny Carloni
Subject: 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element comments
Date: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 8:34:37 AM
Attachments: image001.png
ATTN: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

May 18, 2002

Planning Commissioners and Housing and Human Services Commissioners,

The Livable Sunnyvale Housing Element Committee has been reviewing the 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element which your commissions will be having a hearing on next week. We have several questions and concerns about this draft.

The Housing Element lists 58% of the sites in high density areas at Moffett Park, Lawrence Station, Downtown, and along El Camino in the lower income category. However, recent high density developments in these areas have contained only 17% lower income units. We are puzzled why the Housing Element expects a much higher percentage of lower income units in the new sites. Our concern is that Sunnyvale will not meet its RHNA targets because it is unlikely the new sites will achieve the higher 58% rate.

In section 4.1, the Housing Element states, “it is important to ensure that sites for housing, particularly lower income units, are available throughout a jurisdiction and where residents have fair and equitable access to amenities and opportunities.” The sites inventory in Chapter 5, however, allocates the lower income units such that:
81% of the lower income units are in low and moderate resource areas while only 19% are in high and highest resource areas.
89% of the lower income units are in census tracts whose average income is below the Santa Clara County AMI.

Attachment 2

None of the lower income units are in census tracts whose average income is over $200k/yr.
67% of the lower income units are in census tracts with environmental opportunity scores of 1 (out of a possible 100), while census tracts with environmental scores over 70 contain few or no lower income units.

The plan for Moffett Park would create a census tract where 60% of the households are lower income. This would be the highest concentration of lower income households in Sunnyvale.

There seems to be a disconnect between the goals presented in Chapter 4 and how the sites inventory allocates the lower income sites.

The Village Centers appear to be a good opportunity to address some of these issues, but they are currently zoned at a density of 18 du/ac. Has there been any consideration to increase the density to over 30 du/ac so they could accommodate more housing and provide opportunity for lower income units? What steps need to be taken to increase the density of the village centers?

Finally, we were pleased to see program H29 to implement Safe Parking. The timeframe for this program, however, is 2025. This is an urgent issue facing our most vulnerable residents and we would like to see this program implemented before the Housing Element is completed or at latest by early 2023.

Thank you for your consideration.

Livable Sunnyvale Housing Element Committee

Attachment 2

June 8, 2022

Dear Mayor Klein and Council Members,

Livable Sunnyvale reviewed the Housing Element (HE) draft and many of our members attended and contributed to the meetings staff conducted with Council and City Commissions.

We wish to acknowledge the effort that has been extended on this Housing Element. With that in mind, we have the following input.

This HE Draft classifies about 60% of housing at high density sites like Moffett Park to be in the lower-income category. That is not realistic. Even if several large 100% affordable housing projects are developed there, based on our city’s history, 20% lower-income is a much more realistic number.

Currently HCD allows this unrealistic assignment because of Moffett’s high density designation; however, as Moffett is developed and reality hits, Sunnyvale will be required to back-fill those missing lower-income sites. If Sunnyvale becomes non-compliant, the City may have to pay fines & fees, lose valuable state and regional grants, and possibly face court-issued takeover of our land-use authority (see attachment).

A second issue is that 89% of the lower-income sites are located in census tracts where the average income is already below Santa Clara County’s AMI. The HE Draft does not address how putting the vast majority of lower-income sites in locations that are already lower income will improve the fair housing issues identified in Chapter 4. There is not even a Goal listed in section

2.1 to address the fair housing issues identified in Chapter 4.

The HE Draft indicates that as Moffett is built out, more resources will also be built. However, there is no analysis to demonstrate how much the opportunity index of the Moffett Park area will improve. Furthermore, the only commitment in the HE Draft is program H34 which would build a library, park, and zone for a school. It seems unlikely that a low resource area can be transformed into a high resource area simply by building a library, park, and elementary school.

The way to alleviate both of the above problems is to increase our pool of available lower- income housing sites, especially in the southern parts of the city. Specifically, change program Attachment 2

H2 to provide a total of 1,500 lower-income units rather than just 100. Some possible ways to do this are:

• Zone Village Centers to be greater than 30 du/ac
• Add new Village Centers. Possible sites include:
o Hollenbeck and Homestead (Loehmann’s Plaza)
o Fremont and Wright
o Wolfe and Homestead (Sunnyvale side)
• Increase density or allow more mixed use on ECR
• Increase Sunnyvale’s inclusionary rate to 20%
• Rezone most small strip malls to be mixed use sites

We believe these actions need to happen sooner than later because the longer the City waits, the fewer options we will have; for example, if we don't increase the density for Village Centers as soon as possible, many Village Center sites will have been built at lower density and with less lower income housing.

Another option to increase density and better meet our RHNA goals is to address the parking standards. To be clear we are not asking to get rid of parking, we would like to see parking spaces not wasted. The ABAG-MTC Parking policy, https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/2021-10/Parking_Policy_Playbook_compiled_vF20211020.pdf , is a great resource that specifically outlines parking ideas such as unbundling, parking minimums and parking maximums. Unbundling parking would give the developers flexibility to build denser. We can also review Mountain View’s plans such as their North Bay Precise plan, https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=31204 , that is constraining parking. The past Housing Element and this current Housing Element essentially mention the same ideas for parking. We would like to see the city go further and implement these parking standards or at the very least commit to studying unbundling, parking minimums and parking maximums.

Livable Sunnyvale supports the City’s commitment to meeting RHNA goals and providing housing to all income levels. We all desire a city that can sustain diversity and a livable environment. Our input for a moderate lower-income density in Moffett Park and increased density in high opportunity areas in the southern parts of the city will give us a better chance of meeting our RHNA goals. It will also lead to a Sunnyvale where households at all income levels can live throughout the city in an integrated and sustaining environment.

Sincerely,
Livable Sunnyvale Housing Element Committee

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

From: Alistair Gray
To: Ryan Dyson
Subject: Sunnyvale Housing Element Update Input
Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 11:34:54 PM
ATTN: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Hi!
My name is Alistair, and up until recently I was a resident of Sunnyvale (family moved across the creek into Los Altos). I wanted to provide the following feedback on Sunnyvale's draft Housing Element. I understand that much of this feedback won't be immediately actionable, and that the draft housing element has already been submitted to HCD for review, but putting the ideas out there and the knowledge of what the community wants is what this process is for, so much obliged for being receptive to it. Hopefully this feedback may be helpful during the revision process; if not, for the future.

Firstly, thanks to planning staff - this housing element is (compared to others I've read) comprehensive, informative, attractively presented, and easy to process.

That said, some issues presented themselves to me in reading it. A large concern of mine, for a couple of reasons, is that a shortfall to RHNA numbers is built into this Housing Element.

Firstly, I'm nowhere near a legal expert, but doing this seems to be, if not quite literally illegal, at least contrary to the spirit of the Housing Element, which is really intended to be a comprehensive enough plan that projects over the whole span of the cycle can be planned by it. Admitting from the outset that the city can't plan for enough housing might (again, no actual clue, this is speculation) run afoul of state housing law, but in any case I think the Housing Element should really have a better sense of what specific capacity units can come from, just from the point of view of what the plan is supposed to be planning for - the Housing Element is intended to be specific enough that we can point out sites on the map (that's what the site inventory is for), and kicking the can down the road on that seems contrary to the spirit of the document.

That leads into my second point - by obligating the shortfall to be made up for in the Moffett Park Specific Plan (implementation program H2), this element decreases the flexibility available to city council to make up the shortfall in other areas and through other programs. I specifically take issue with this for AFFH reasons - by obligating that the excess units go in (relatively poorly-resourced) northern Sunnyvale (indeed, about as north as you can get), this requirement basically guarantees that relatively well-resourced, richer, south Sunnyvale won't have to worry about those units.

Moreover, although I'm aware that a Housing Element is a planning document rather than a document directly permitting construction, doing it this way pushes the actualization of those units far off into the future - a deadline of 1/31/24 to approve this plan, followed by permitting, environmental review, etc. before construction time means that it's very likely that any units to be built in Moffett Park won't be available until the next Housing Element cycle, or at least soon before then. That's not great! The Bay Area continues to be in a very real housing crisis, and there is a moral, not just legal obligation on cities like Sunnyvale to make sure more housing is available to those who need it. RHNA numbers are legal minima, not Attachment 2

goals: it's disappointing to see Sunnyvale planning to fall short of the minimum by the start of the cycle, and even were this Housing Element to actually meet RHNA, I'd argue that there's a whole lot being left on the table which Sunnyvale should plan for so as to actually produce more housing than the legal minimum and make this city a better place to live for more people.

To expand on the point about AFFH: I think the city's proposed AFFH efforts are inadequate.

It feels like the concrete elements of the Housing Element (i.e. the site inventory) exists independently of Chapter 4's treatment of AFFH issues (which is excellent, by the way) - the high-resource TCAC Opportunity Areas in South Sunnyvale identified in Chapter 4 have a small proportion of the total housing capacity increases, leaving most of it for the northern part of the city. Section 4.3 notes these effects adequately - it plainly states that sites identified in the site inventory are disproportionately in lower-income areas with lower access to opportunity. This analysis is very puzzling to me - it seems to be the case that this section dispassionately states, more or less, that the Housing Element does not affirmatively further fair housing. I think most readers would agree. The only sites south of El Camino Real (besides the south side of the El Camino Real Specific Plan sites, I guess) identified for any kind of change at all are Village Centers F and G. I don't understand how this isn't flying in the face of AFFH - these better-resourced sites should be getting more housing, not less.

Remediating differences in housing opportunity is, by legal obligation, something that the Housing Element needs to address. I don't think that CAHCD will (or, if they do, I think they shouldn't) accept that this document actually does enough about the inequalities whose existence it notes. The General Plan has a vast amount of potential flexibility, and this Housing Element doesn't go far enough to address them.

I encourage planning staff and the city council to explore rezoning, which isn't mentioned as a possibility, to make up for the RHNA shortfall. While understanding the ferocious opposition from homeowners always faced by cities seeking to upzone affluent, low-density residential areas, I simply don't see how Sunnyvale can meet its housing goals (if not in this cycle, then in future cycles - the city isn't getting any bigger, and more and more people will want to move into the area) without at least some rezoning. A few specific proposals as that goes:

I know that SB 10 was not passed when up for the vote (alas). Nevertheless, I'm sure that we all know that building densely near quality transit is a key factor towards mitigating, as far as possible, the contributions of car-centric transportation infrastructure to climate change.

Knowing that, and with an eye towards Sunnyvale's Downtown Specific Plan (which, as far as downtown districts in this area go, isn't horribly car-centric - looking at Los Altos here), it's frustrating to see that this housing element update doesn't provide for more density (especially housing density) on the north side of the Caltrain tracks. While the downtown district on the south side is relatively dense (as dense as this incarnation of Sunnyvale gets), I always find it frustrating, when at the Caltrain station, to see single-family zoned areas literally bordering the north side of the station. Even if it was just in a narrow strip between Evelyn and Central Expressway, allowing for dense construction here analogous to the south side of the tracks could go a long way towards meeting Sunnyvale's housing needs, in very close proximity to quality transit.

Similarly, given that much of the Downtown Specific Plan area is either built to capacity or has projects in the pipeline to build up to capacity, I think it's reasonable also to either explore expanding the scope of the plan such that other areas nearby (in addition to the areas across the Caltrain tracks, Mathilda and Iowa are by no means hard barriers to where density should be) or to allow for a broader scope of allowable development outside Specific Plan areas.

Attachment 2

This is absolutely yelling-at-clouds territory, but in general I'm not a fan of Specific Plans constraining development as a whole. I get that they're the easy way out to get housing capacity without stepping on the toes of anti-development homeowners who'd object to upzoning of their low-density single-family neighborhoods. Nevertheless, I think we're really far past the point where we can declare such vast swathes of the city (and the South Bay region as a whole) to be untouchably low-density. We're in a housing crisis! People need homes, and Sunnyvale is a great place to be - let more people live here.

Another reason, and we can absolutely see a realization of this in Sunnyvale's planning - often, dense housing development is pushed to be along busy roads (El Camino Real) because those who already live elsewhere see this as a way to "protect" themselves from the noise, pollution, and physical danger of living along a busy roadway. Well, residents of dense developments along El Camino (and in the Village Centers sites that are situated at the intersections of busy streets) will have to deal with those issues for themselves - and those compound! As tautological as it might sound, confining denser development to unpleasant places to live means that more people have to deal with living in unpleasant places - and that's bad! Spreading out housing more mitigates those concerns to some degree.

To be specific, yet more rezoning possibilities I'd be excited to see explored: rezoning the city's R0 and R1 zones to allow for duplex or triplex zoning (even with constraints re: e.g. lot size, height, lot coverage, FAR, etc. that are not incredibly different from those applied to current zoning), applied broadly across the city. Outreach programs (and perhaps other incentives? I'm not familiar with how streamlined the process is but any barriers there would be great to remove) to more broadly encourage ADU construction. Construct housing on the municipal golf course (i get that this is a very tough pill to swallow, yes). Expanding the scope of the Lawrence Station Specific Plan (as I mentioned with the Downtown Specific Plan) to allow for dense transit-oriented mixed-use development within a larger radius of the station) Allowing for denser development near the stations of the VTA Light Rail that aren't within the Moffett Park Specific Plan (yes, the light rail isn't great - it is transit, though!) With all that being said, planning and council need to have a real heart-to-heart with the fact that this housing element is, from the outset, not sufficient to plan for as much capacity as it is legally obligated to, which is still less capacity than it really should be planning for, seeing how the housing needs of this region will continue to grow and how crucial Sunnyvale is in meeting those needs. Please allow for more housing, for the sake of all the future generations that'll need it.

Thanks for your consideration.
-- Alistair Gray
Attachment 2

BAHN – a non-profit grassroot organization to unite & connect Mom & Pop property owners in CA. Together, we fight for property rights!

Email: [email protected]
Phone: 408-475-8498
RE: Healthy Housing Elements for Californians (8/1/22)

Dear Housing Elements Officials,
We, at Business and Housing Network (BAHN), endeavor to provide a supportive community platform for mom-and-pop property owners throughout California. We are mostly immigrants and seniors working hard and overcoming language and cultural barriers to try to achieve the “American dream” of a middle-class life by investing our efforts and hard-earned savings in providing housing to renters. We highly value the importance of an inclusive community.

Not long ago, without “too much bureaucracy of tenant protection,” when we came to California with little financial credential, we were able to find housing often offered by small mom-and-pop housing providers, and were readily accepted into the communities. For generations the small property owners are the backbones of the community housing, embracing and inspiring people from all walks of life and from all over the world.

Sadly that social harmony in California has been slowly crumbling. The ever expanding hostile bureaucracy and draconian rental policies are dividing people, tearing down the centuries’ of proven prosperity through free enterprise, self governance, and respect for contractual business partnerships. The governmental traps for the residential rental business are now too daunting for the small players that the privilege is reserved as the playground for big-money corporations and government-funded organizations. The pathway for small mom- and-pop owners to middle class, along with their community-friendly privately-owned housing stock, are systematically squeezed out of the market.

Data and economists consistently show that rent and building restrictions destroy the housing supply and hurt housing providers and renters alike at same time (see links below). Yet, the current housing element packet perpetrates and turns a blind eye on such failures:
• Rent control distorts the rental prices and pits one group of renters to subsidize another. • It completely disregards property owners as laborers who deserve fair compensation to support their families’ livelihoods and keep up with the costs associated with properly maintaining their properties. • The forced income/cost deficits destroy the rental housing entrepreneurships, resulting in shrinking housing offerings, increased competition among renters for the limited housing availability, forced front- loading of higher rents by the surviving housing providers and reduced rental housing construction. • Many housing policies nullify the mutual contractual terms between an housing provider and their tenant clients, resulting in tremendous legal and financial uncertainty for housing providers, especially for the mom-and-pop and frail seniors with limited education, language skills or mobility, which undermine their control over their relations with their tenants.
• This government-induced disrespect for property rights result in increased bad tenant behaviors and problems for the safety and enjoyment of the community. The exorbitant legal costs and disputes only add to government/owner/renter financial and social woes. • To see the deterioration of housing affordability and the quality of life under these horrific rent control and “tenant protection” laws, look no further than the infamous New York City, San Francisco, East Palo Alto, Oakland and newly extreme-rent-controlled St. Paul, where housing constructions have dwindled.

As one can see, the proliferating draconian "tenant protection" and rent control policies do not work.

California must start respecting the basic economics that every housing regulation or fee add to the base cost and thus rent. The government must allow businesses and clients to establish and enforce contractual terms Attachment 2

BAHN – a non-profit grassroot organization to unite & connect Mom & Pop property owners in CA. Together, we fight for property rights!

Email: [email protected]
Phone: 408-475-8498
among themselves, effectively improve infrastructures and fairly facilitate communities to restore prosperity and harmony. The government shall work with the housing providers as partners, instead of working against them and driving them out of business; it shall device programs to provide direct rental assistance for families in need and provide education and down-payment assistance so that more renters can become homeowners.

America is built on free enterprise principles. These principles fuel human ingenuity to thrive and overcome difficulties. Please reverse the destructive rent restriction policies and allow mom-and-pop housing providers to thrive and support the housing needs of our communities for generations to come.

References:
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/effects-rent-control-expansion-tenants-landlords-inequality-evidence https://caanet.org/uc-berkeley-economist-criticizes-rent-control-prop-10-in-new-study/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZyeNFTje2A
https://www.aier.org/article/the-perpetual-tragedy-of-new-yorks-rent-control/ https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=DP04&g=0500000US06075&tid=ACSDP1Y2019.DP04 Field Code Changed Attachment 2

July 18, 2022
Ryan Dyson, Housing Specialist
City of Sunnyvale, Community Development Department
456 W. Olive Ave.

Sunnyvale, CA 94086
[email protected]
Re: Comments on the Draft Housing Element
Thank you for sharing this early draft of the Housing Element with the public. On behalf of Sunnyvale’s more than 700 residents with developmental disabilities, Housing Choices is grateful for the opportunity to comment. We also appreciate the work that the City of Sunnyvale has done to include Housing Choices throughout the community engagement process and for including a detailed analysis of the housing needs of residents with developmental disabilities as required by SB 812 in the Draft Housing Element. However, we did find that the analysis used an inaccurate definition of developmental disabilities which included antiquated language. And, while the draft analysis did acknowledge the increased risk of housing instability when a parent or family member is no longer able to provide housing, a number of other trends which support the need for more deeply affordable housing options for Sunnyvale residents with developmental disabilities were left out of the analysis. By not including a more thorough analysis of the urgent housing needs of Sunnyvale residents with developmental disabilities we have concerns that this special needs population will continue to face increasing risk of homelessness or displacement from Sunnyvale over the next Housing Element cycle. We also believe that the analysis provides an incomplete analysis of best practices for inclusion of people with developmental disabilities in the city’s housing plans, which should guide the creation of targeted programs to increase housing access for people with developmental disabilities. While the city does propose a number of new programs to increase the supply of affordable housing which we support, we believe that the city should go further in incentivizing the type of deeply affordable housing needed by people with developmental disabilities and other Extremely Low Income populations.
1 Attachment 2

About Housing Choices
Housing Choices is a housing organization funded by the San Andreas Regional Center to support people with developmental disabilities to be fully integrated in Sunnyvale’s affordable housing supply. We provide housing navigation services for both individuals and families. We also partner with affordable housing developers to make inclusive housing commitments for people with developmental disabilities in their housing projects. At these projects we provide onsite housing retention services. Our work over the past 25 years throughout Santa Clara County shows that this model of housing plus services is highly effective in increasing housing access and stability for people with developmental disabilities.

The San Andreas Regional Center has contracted with Housing Choices to provide the Sunnyvale housing and planning staff and Housing Element consultants with an assessment of the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities, as required by SB 812.

Inaccurate Definition of Developmental Disabilities
On page 3-27 of the Draft Housing Element developmental disabilities are incorrectly said to be attributed to a mental or physical impairment. However, Housing Element law requires that jurisdictions use the definition of developmental disabilities as it exists under Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. While people with developmental disabilities may have multiple diagnoses which include mental or physical impairment, Section 4512 specifically states that developmental disabilities do not include disabilities that are solely physical. Developmental disabilities and eligibility for state sponsored services through the 21 Regional Centers are further defined in Title 17, Section 54000-54002 of the California Code of Regulations as not including disabilities that are solely psychiatric, solely physical or solely learning disabilities.

Instead developmental disabilities are defined as a substantial disability attributable to “major impairment of cognitive and/or social functioning”. A substantial disability is defined as “significant functional limitations…in three or more of the following areas of major life activity, as appropriate to the person's age: Receptive and expressive language; Learning; Self-care; Mobility; Self-direction; Capacity for independent living; and/or Economic self-sufficiency.

The Draft analysis of the housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities on page 3-27 also lists a number of conditions that fall within the definition of a developmental disability including “mild to severe mental retardation, and other cognitive or physical impairments”. The term mental retardation is considered to be an antiquated and derogatory term and should instead be replaced with the standard term intellectual disability. And because developmental disabilities do not include disabilities that are solely physical in nature the phrase “other cognitive or physical impairments” should be removed from the list and instead replaced with the phrase “other conditions similar in their impact to an intellectual disability”.

Incomplete Assessment of Housing Needs of People with Developmental Disabilities Housing Choices participated in a number of Sunnyvale’s Housing Element Community meetings including the Housing for Special Needs Focus Group meeting on February 1, 2022. 2 Attachment 2

Our advocacy focused on supporting Sunnyvale in following HCD guidance for a complete analysis of special housing needs groups, including:
● A quantification of the total number of persons and households in the special housing needs group, including tenure (rental or ownership), where possible. ● A quantification and qualitative description of the need (including a description of the potential housing problems faced by the special needs groups), a description of any existing resources or programs, and an assessment of unmet needs. ● Identification of potential programs or policy options and resources to address the need As discussed below, Sunnyvale’s draft did include an analysis that followed these guidelines, but left out several of the housing trends which are contributing to an increased need for inclusive affordable housing as well as best practices for inclusion of people with developmental disabilities in integrated and least restrictive housing settings in the community. We believe that the inclusion of these missing elements would demonstrate that the city has a clear understanding of the accessibility needs of people with developmental disabilities and how they differ from other disability types. Furthermore, it would help the city to create more meaningful programs and policies to meet the housing needs of residents with developmental disabilities as required by Housing Element law.

Omitted Data Establishing Trends Creating a Greater Need for Housing. In the Draft housing needs analysis the city does acknowledge one of the greatest risk factors for homelessness among adults with developmental disabilities is when a parent is no longer able to provide housing. However, the analysis fails to address some of the other trends that are increasing the risk of adults with developmental disabilities becoming unhoused or displaced when a parent is no longer able to provide housing including:
● California’s Department of Developmental Services (DDS) reported a 5% decline in licensed care facilities throughout Santa Clara County since 2015. Since the Supreme Court ruled in Olmstead v LC that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), less adults are choosing to live in licensed care homes and other forms of segregated living.

Another major contributing factor to this decline is the rising cost of housing in the region making it more financially beneficial for retiring licensed care home owners to sell their facilities as a residential unit rather than a business. ● Increased life expectancy of adults with developmental disabilities has resulted in a 35% increase in the population 62+ in Santa Clara County since 2015. This means that more adults are outliving their parents, who are the number housing provider for people with developmental disabilities. This also means that even fewer adults are able to transition into the remaining licensed care facilities as there is less turnover. These trends will continue to increase the need for more deeply affordable housing paired with coordinated supportive services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center, such as will be provided at Block 15 and Orchard Gardens, to keep residents with developmental disabilities from being 3 Attachment 2

displaced from Sunnyvale and the County when parents are no longer able to provide housing.
● Many adults are on fixed incomes from disability benefits (Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance) of around $1,000/month or are working part-time in low wage jobs earning well below minimum income requirements needed to qualify for even Extremely Low Income rents due to the county's high Area Median Income.
● In Santa Clara County 20% of people with developmental disabilities have limited mobility and 15% have a hearing or vision impairment. For residents with co-occurring developmental and physical disabilities the need for modified units and supportive services compounds their difficulty in finding housing that meets their needs.

Lack of Meaningful Analysis of Strategies to Increase Housing Access for People with Developmental Disabilities. The Housing Element acknowledges the significance of the transition from the family home for an adult with a developmental disability including the increased risk of displacement or homelessness when a parent caregiver passes away or otherwise becomes unable to house and care for their adult child. It also acknowledges the need for affordable housing options however, it lacks specificity on the types of affordable housing options needed. For instance, because Santa Clara County has one of the highest Area Median Incomes in the state, most adults with developmental disabilities cannot qualify for rents above the Extremely Low Income category without rental subsidies, and those that are on fixed incomes from disability benefits earn less than 15% of Area Median Income so would not qualify even for the limited supply of Extremely Low Income units available in Sunnyvale. Other considerations the city should take in creating programs and policies that would promote more integrated and inclusive housing options for people with developmental disabilities thereby Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing for this protected group which due to their disability status face increased barriers to housing access and have been provided few alternatives to segregated housing are:
● Integration in typical affordable housing where up to 25% of units include a preference for people with developmental disabilities who will benefit from on-site supportive services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center. ● Coordination of housing with onsite supportive services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center and entitled to persons with a substantial developmental disability as defined by Title 17, Section 54001 of the California Code of Regulations. These fully funded services provide a supported pathway for people with developmental disabilities to apply for and retain an affordable apartment, and foster integration into the community. These services are often as essential to a person with a developmental disability as a physically modified unit is to a person with a mobility, vision, or hearing impairment. 4 Attachment 2

● A mix of unit sizes set-aside at inclusive housing properties would address the needs of those who require live-in aides, want to live with roommates or partners, or have children.
● Location near public transit would accommodate the transit-dependency of most adults with developmental disabilities.
● Deeply affordable housing is needed, targeting incomes not more than 30% of Area Median Income and taking advantage of HUD Section 811 Project Rental Assistance or other rental subsidy programs when available to create housing opportunities for those who cannot meet minimum income requirements for units priced at 30% of Area Median Income. HCD guidance advises that the City should plan for at least 1,484 Extremely Low Income (ELI) units, half of its total Very Low Income RNHA allocation. ELI units are particularly important to people with developmental disabilities, and some of the City’s planned production of ELI units should be subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities.

These recommendations come from over 25 years of experience successfully supporting people with developmental disabilities to find and retain affordable housing by partnering with the Regional Center and affordable housing developers in neighboring communities to build inclusive and integrated projects. By not including this information, the city is unable to create meaningful targeted programs to increase housing accessibility for people with developmental disabilities putting Sunnyvale at risk of not meeting HCD’s AFFH guidance to promote fair housing choice and access to opportunity to support integration for a historically segregated population. HCD defines fair housing choice as:
● Actual choice, which means the existence of realistic housing options ● Protected choice, which means housing that can be accessed without discrimination; and
● Enabled choice, which means realistic access to sufficient information regarding options so that any choice is informed.

Per HCD guidance, “For persons with disabilities, fair housing choice and access to opportunity include access to accessible housing and housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s needs as required under federal civil rights law, including equitably provided disability-related services that an individual needs to live in such housing.” This model of housing combined with supportive services has been shown to be incredibly effective in helping individuals with developmental disabilities find and retain housing, and is equally as important to a person with a developmental disability as the physical design of a building is to a person with a physical impairment.

Strengthening Impact of Programs
We want to thank planning staff and the consultant who developed this draft for recommending a suite of new programs, policies and goals that we believe can create a more inclusive and 5 Attachment 2

equitable community. In particular programs such as: H26. Emergency Rental Assistance Program, H27 Funding for Accessibility Improvements, H31. Special Needs Housing Development Assistance, and H3. Prioritize ADA and Pedestrian Infrastructure will address some of the housing barriers faced by people with developmental and other disabilities.

Program H9 Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance is another example of a program that we strongly support as often people with developmental and other disabilities rely on these subsidy programs in order to live independently in our high cost region, however we would recommend further explaining the types of outreach and education the city will undertake to increase tenant and landlord awareness of income discrimination law. If this will include workshops the city should include a specific quantitative goal for how many workshops will be offered annually to tenants and landlords. Other programs and policies that we feel can be further strengthened will additional objectives, measurements, or timelines include:
● Policy H-2.12 State Density Bonus: While the state density bonus incentives development of low and very low income units, in counties like Santa Clara County, with one of the highest Area Median Incomes in the state, these incentives have the effect of making much of the available affordable housing out of reach for residents on fixed incomes (including seniors and persons with disabilities) or who are working in low wage jobs and are thus unable to meet minimum income requirements to afford the rent assigned to the Very Low Income category. The City of Sunnyvale should add additional local incentives to the state density bonus law to make it more responsive to the impact of Santa Clara County’s high Area Median Income on the affordability of housing for City of Sunnyvale residents who are Extremely Low Income, including special needs populations, for example, people with developmental disabilities. ● Program H5. Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program: Similarly to the state density bonus the city’s Below Market Rate Housing Program for rental units only incentivizes development of Low and Very Low Income housing. While Housing Element law does not require reporting of Extremely Low Income units developed during the Housing Element cycle, guidance from HCD does state that cities should plan for at least 50% of the Very Low Income RHNA to be Extremely Low Income units. One way that the city can incentivize development of more Extremely Low Income units is by modifying the BMR Housing Program to make it more responsive to local needs by offering developers of market rate housing a menu of options for including affordable units, for example, by setting a higher percentage of units if priced for moderate income and a lower percentage of units if priced for extremely low income. Such a menu would address a broader range of Morgan Hill housing needs, while giving developers more options for meeting the inclusionary requirement.
● Program H6. Affordable Housing Development Assistance: While this program would provide financing for extremely low, very low and low income housing, including annually issuing a NOFA for city funding for projects that include these levels of affordability, the city should further commit to prioritizing these local affordable housing funds for projects which address the housing needs of populations who are most difficult to house under existing state and federal housing finance programs. This should include Extremely Low Income units and/or projects that make a percentage of units subject to a 6 Attachment 2

preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the San Andreas Regional Center. ● Program H12. Preservation of Government Assisted Housing: While the city is committing to working with property owners to keep tenants in units at-risk of converting to market rate stably housed, property owners are not legally obligated to extend affordability restrictions past the mandated affordability requirements of 55 years. In order to better protect tenants in affordable units at-risk of conversion to market rate the city should commit to adding additional priorities in its BMR program guidelines for tenants displaced when BMR units convert to market rate. ● Program H15. Complete the “Retooling the Zoning Code” Project: This program should provide additional specific information explaining what changes will be made to the zoning code and how these changes will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. ● Program H21. Fair Housing Program: While this program commits to increasing language accessibility to Fair Housing information and providing fair housing information on the city website it does not provide a specific date by when these new programs will be implemented. In addition to making information available on the city’s website and at public facilities (i.e. City Hall, the Sunnyvale Library, Senior Center, Recreation Center, and the Columbia Neighborhood Center) the city should also require landlords and property managers to distribute Fair Housing information when a new lease or modification to an existing lease is made.
● Program H23. Renter’s Choice Ordinance: HCD guidance on developing programs and policies requires that cities make specific commitments beyond just considering a program. Instead the city should provide greater detail on how this program would affirmatively further fair housing, steps it would take to evaluate the feasibility of the program and factors that would be considered.
● Program H25. Relocation Assistance Ordinance: This program should further protect tenants who lose their housing through no-fault evictions from being displaced out of the city or becoming homeless by adding an additional priority in the city’s BMR Program guidelines, as well as require that landlords give tenants first right of return if a tenant is displaced due to substantial remodel.

Noncompliance with HCD Guidance for Completing an Assessment of Fair Housing HCD guidance for completing an Assessment of Fair Housing requires that jurisdictions analyze fair housing trends and barriers to housing choices for all people with protected characteristics including but not limited to race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, and disability. However, there is a substantial lack of data on the Fair Housing issues faced by people with disabilities as well as other protected classes. For instance, disability status is not considered in the analysis of housing cost burden, overcrowding, or homelessness (Chapter 3 Housing Needs Assessment does include data on the number of people suffering from addiction or severe mental illness but omits data on all other disability types). In addition while the AFH acknowledges that Black and American Indian or Alaskan Native people are overrepresented in the county's homeless population while Asian people are underrepresented in the homeless population there is no further analysis of the factors which 7 Attachment 2

may contribute to these disparities such as household income or housing tenure. As discussed in Chapter 3 Asian residents have higher rates of homeownership than Black and American Indian or Alaskan Native residents and based on Figure 3-17 Household Income Level by Tenure, Sunnyvale, 2017 homeowners are less likely to fall in lower income levels than renters.

While there is no analysis of household income level by race in the Housing Element we can see based on the analysis of housing cost burden by race that Black residents and American Indian or Alaskan Native residents face housing cost burden at 2-3 times the rate of Asian residents putting them at increased risk of homelessness. Furthermore, guidance from HCD for AFFH recommends that jurisdictions complete an intersectional analysis of housing needs for Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) with disabilities as “there are significant disparities by race within the population with disabilities”. Had the city completed an intersectional analysis of housing cost burden for residents by race/ethnicity and disability status as suggested by HCD they would have also found that BIPOC with disabilities experience higher rates of severe rent burden than either BIPOC without disabilities or whites with disabilities. Because Sunnyvale’s homeless population has increased at a significantly higher rate than all other jurisdictions in the region it is especially important that they analyze all possible contributing factors and create specific policies and programs that could address these disparities.

We urge you to consider our recommendations and make changes to the Sunnyvale Housing Element so that it meaningfully addresses the housing needs of its residents with developmental and other disabilities.

Sincerely,
Kalish
Weste
Kalisha Webster
Senior Housing Advocate
Email [email protected]
Cell 650-660-7088
8 Attachment 2

From: Steven Robert Burke
To: Ryan Dyson
Subject: Sunnyvale housing element design
Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 7:59:22 PM
ATTN: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Hi Ryan,
Steve Burke here from 480 Lincoln Ave. I am writing to you to ask that you reinstitute the mandatory under- grounding of power and communications on new or substantial renovations.

The city recinded this requirement several years ago supposedly to make building more affordable, we have a cluttered airspace on the streets that is unsightly. So while the city of Sunnyvale is under grounding utilities (eg along fair oaks) and doing a very nice job ridding us of the unsightly mess, our neighborhoods are cluttered, messy, congested, drooping masses of wire.

Please help. Thank you.

Steve
Attachment 2

April 21, 2022
Dear Sunnyvale City Council:

We are writing on behalf of YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance regarding Sunnyvale’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. YIMBY Law is a legal nonprofit working to make housing in California more accessible and affordable through enforcement of state law. Greenbelt Alliance is an environmental nonprofit working to en‐ sure that the Bay Area’s lands and communities are resilient to a changing climate.

We are writing to remind you of Sunnyvale's obligation to include sufficient sites in your upcoming Housing Element to accommodate your Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 11,966 units.

In the Annual Progress Reports that Sunnyvale submitted to HCD, we observe the following trend of housing units permitted in the last three years:

Year Housing units permitted
2018 559
2019 674
2020 482
Average, 2018-2020 572
To meet the 6th cycle RHNA target, the rate of new housing permits in Sunnyvale would need to increase from 572 units per year in 2018-2020 to 1,496 units per year in the next 8 years. This is a 162% increase from recent years. If the current pace were to continue, Sunnyvale would meet only 38% of its new housing target.

Based on these trends, it is unlikely that Sunnyvale’s existing realistic zoning capacity is sufficient to meet its 6th cycle RHNA target. According to HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook , housing elements must analyze the realistic capacity of their sites, which may include considerations of “[l]ocal or regional track records”, “past production trends”, and “the rate at which similar parcels were developed during the previous planning period”. A housing element that does not include a significant rezoning component is therefore un‐ likely to be compliant with state law.

We urge Sunnyvale to include a major rezoning component in its Housing Element—a rezoning large enough to close the gap between recent housing production trends and the RHNA target. The rezoning should be within existing communities and should comply with the city’s obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Hous‐ ing. We also urge Sunnyvale to ease any other constraints, such as discretionary approval processes or impact fees, that may impede the rate of development on your city's housing sites.

Thank you,
Sid Kapur, East Bay YIMBY ([email protected])
Rafa Sonnenfeld, YIMBY Law ([email protected])
Zoe Siegel, Greenbelt Alliance ([email protected])
Attachment 2

TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL
March 6, 2023

City of Sunnyvale, Community Development Department
456 W. Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086

Re: SV@Home Recommendations on Sunnyvale Housing Element Update, HCD Review Letter

Dear Jenny Carloni and Ryan Dyson,

We write to you today to support ongoing revisions you are considering in response to the California D
epartment of Housing & Community Development's (HCD) Housing Element Update review letter submitted to the City of Sunnyvale on October 6, 2022. SV@Home appreciates the Housing Division Staff's continued communication with us on this complicated process. We were pleased to hear during our February 7th, 2023 meeting with City Staff that they intended to include policies similar to the recommendations we have made here into the next iteration of Sunnyvale's Housing Element. There remains, however, areas where we believe the City will fall short of the required actions outlined in HCD review letter, including the lack of commitment to identify low-income sites in higher-resourced areas of South Sunnyvale.

We are committed to supporting the City of Sunnyvale’s Housing Element certification.

These comments are focused on HCD's comments rather than other areas that might warrant additional attention. We have attempted to provide concrete policy recommendations for the City to consider, along with proposed metrics and timelines.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) and place-based investments solutions

In Finding A1, HCD notes that the City must complete a robust fair housing analysis. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the Housing Element should add or modify programs by incorporating place-based investments to affirmatively further fair housing. The Housing Element also needs to demonstrate how such strategies will improve fair housing conditions when paired with the identified sites and include “specific commitment, timing, geographic targeting, and metrics or numerical targets.”

In Sunnyvale’s initial Draft Housing Element, Implementation Program H35 concerns prioritizing the City’s investment in low or moderate resource areas, but lacks specificity. It is our understanding based on discussions with City Staff that this program will include additional specificity, similar to what is proposed below.

SV@Home recommends that the City revise Implementation Program H35 to incorporate a scoring system to prioritize investment in neighborhoods that have been historically underserved, where incomes are low and where residents have relatively low access to economic opportunities.

Board of Directors

Kevin Zwick, Chair
United Way Bar Area

Shiloh Ballard, Vice Chair
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition

Candice Gonzalez, Secretary
Sand Hill Property Company

Andrea Osgood, Treasurer
Eden Housing

Bob Brownstein
Working Partnerships USA

Amie Fishman
Non-Profit Housing
Association of Northern CA

Aubrey Merriman
LifeMoves

Randy Tsuda
Alta Housing

Nevada Merriman
MidPen

Steven Yang
Northern CA LIIF

Javier Gonzalez
Google

Poncho Guevara
Sacred Heart Community
Service

Jennifer Loving
Destination: Home

Chris Neale
The Core Companies

Staff
Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director
Attachment 2

Proposed Policy: Establish an infrastructure prioritization process for the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that can be used as a factor to efficiently and equitably deliver infrastructure improvements across the City. The new prioritization process will grant additional points to projects serving tracts where median income falls below that of the city. The goal of this policy is to increase opportunities in low-income areas, while continuing to take into account public safety, state mandates, and protecting the environment. Projects undertaken under this program would include, but not be limited to a new library branch, new or improved park facilities, and street and transit improvements.

Metric: 50 percent of the City’s new recreational, active transportation, transit infrastructure projects, and other capital improvements, will be located in areas within the city serving specific disadvantaged communities.

Timeline: Prioritization process will be developed with public input by the end of 2023 and implemented during the 2024 CIP process. Progress will be evaluated during each year’s subsequent review of the CIP.

Sites Inventory Solutions

Correcting unfounded lower-income capacity and development assumptions for Moffett Park

Section A.3 of HCD’s comment letter requires the City of Sunnyvale to provide supporting evidence that 5,744 lower-income units will feasibly be built in Moffett Park within the planning period. We believe HCD’s concerns and requests are valid and a substantive response is essential. Roughly 70 percent of the City’s lower-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (including the 30 percent No Net Loss buffer) is included as reasonably expected to develop in the Moffett Park Specific Plan (MPSP) area.

We understand that the City intends to lower Moffett Park’s lower-income capacity from 5,744 to roughly 4,400 units, similar to the capacity included in the draft circulated in Summer of 2022 (first Draft Housing Element). However, 4,400 units continues to lack credibility for several reasons, including but not limited to:

1. It conflicts with the build-out assumptions in the current draft of the Moffett Park Specific Plan (MPSP). The 2022 Draft Housing Element assumed that Moffett Park would reasonably develop low- income homes totalling 29 percent (5,744/20,000) of the MPSP’s maximum residential capacity within eight years. Even if this number is reduced to 4,400, this is well above the current MPSP 20-year target of 15-20 percent (3,000 to 4,000 lower-income units). (Please note that 20,000 residential units is the maximum capacity studied in the Environmental Impact Report and the actual development in the area will likely be significantly lower.)

2. Not all major landowners are committed to building affordable housing within eight years. Current plans prese
nted in public forums by major landowners who have presented proposed numbers are significantly below those in the Draft Housing Element.

3. The MPSP’s 15 percent affordable target currently relies on the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program, which HCD explicitly prohibited incorporating into the assumptions of the Sites Inventory.

SV@Home is highly supportive of the City’s identification of the Moffett Park Specific Plan as a focused area of investment, and agrees that the redevelopment of this area and resulting population growth will likely result in changes to the current census tract boundaries and anticipates that the area will be classified in the future as a high resource area. Integrating affordable homes into newly-planned communities will ensure more equitable access to these neighborhoods in the future, and is essential to efforts to Affirmatively Furthering Attachment 2

Fair Housing. However, the assumptions about how many lower-income units can be expected to develop in Moffett Park are unrealistic and not supported by existing planning documents and landowners’ stated intentions.

SV@Home recommends reducing Moffett Park’s lower-income inventory from 5,774 units to approximately 2,310 units (40 percent of 5,774) and reallocating the remaining units to higher-resourced areas. Therefore, we recommend the following changes:

Proposed Policy: Update Implementation Program H2’s Rezone Program by:

a. Acknowledging MPSP’s 20,000-unit maximum build-out and 15 to 20 percent affordable housing production targets.
b. Reducing Moffett Park’s lower-income inventory.
c. Transfer remaining lower-income units to high-resourced areas in northern and southern areas of Sunnyvale, targeting the Village Centers (as discussed below). d. Transfer the moderate-income capacity in high-resourced areas throughout Sunnyvale to Moffett Park to avoid reduction of the No Net Loss buffer.

Metric: Reduce lower-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation in Moffett Park from 5,744 units to roughly 2,310 units. Transfer the remaining allocation of about 2,148 units roughly in half to higher-resourced areas of North Sunnyvale and South Sunnyvale (using El Camino Real as the dividing line), targeting the Village Centers.

This would amount to allocating 1,074 lower-income units to higher-resourced areas in each half of the city.

Importantly, this reallocation maintains the 25-percent No Net Loss buffer as originally proposed in the first Draft Housing Element.

Timeline: Effective immediately, as part of the certified Housing Element.

Affirmatively Further Fair Housing by establishing a South Sunnyvale Affordable Housing Overlay and local ordinance supporting implementation of AB 2011

Under sections B.1 and C of HCD’s comment letter, HCD highlights how Implementation Program H3 must have clear and specific commitments, metrics deliverables, and housing outcomes that promote housing affordability in higher-resourced areas, such as the Village Centers in South Sunnyvale. Section B.4 of the HCD letter also notes that programs should be modified based on a more complete analysis that goes beyond status quo actions in order to AFFH, as discussed in section A. We agree with HCD’s assessment and believe the Housing Element needs to reconcile this shortcoming.

As written in the Revised Draft Housing Element, Implementation Program H3 involves only identifying additional housing opportunity sites south of El Camino, such as in the high resourced Village Center areas.

Instead, this should be a clear commitment with details on the steps to take to reach the program’s objectives.

We also believe that setting a goal of 100 units over the planning period dramatically understates the potential of these areas. Collectively, these sites make up approximately 48 acres throughout the city and roughly 23 acres in the southern, highest resourced areas of Sunnyvale. Most of these sites are larger than half an acre, and with appropriate rezoning, would be ideal locations to develop affordable housing, support established AFFH requirements, and accommodate the relocation of units that we believe are unrealistically assigned to Moffett Park.

Attachment 2

Many jurisdictions throughout the state have argued that they are “built out,” and have no space for affordable housing, particularly in higher-resourced neighborhoods zoned exclusively for single-family homes. The recommendations below would allow the City to incentivize affordable housing development by leveraging the land-use control they do have, and meet the high AFFH bar set by state law.

SV@Home recommends that the City revise Implementation Program H3 to incorporate an Affordable Housing Overlay in northerly and especially southerly located higher-resourced areas of Sunnyvale, emphasizing Village Centers (1a). SV@Home also recommends utilizing the recently passed AB 2011 state legislation to increase the number of lower-income housing capacity in the northerly and southerly areas of Sunnyvale (1b). Policies 1a and 1b, will together support the same goals and metrics, but with different timelines.

Proposed Policy 1a: Produce an Affordable Housing Overlay in higher-resourced areas throughout the city, including Village Center Master Plan areas, North Sunnyvale, and emphasizing areas south of El Camino Real.

This overlay would facilitate affordable housing development for lower-income units regardless of the current zoning and General Plan designation of the site. In order to make affordable housing financially feasible, the overlay would allow for incentives, such as reduced parking needs, reduced unit sizes, increased density, fee waivers, and priority processing. The overlay would only apply to developments that are 100 percent deed- restricted affordable housing and have at least a minimum density of 36 units per acre.

Metric: a) Develop 1,074 lower-income units in higher-resourced areas of North Sunnyvale and 1,074 lower- income units in higher-resourced areas of South Sunnyvale within the planning period. These metrics would work in combination with this proposed policy and other policies and programs in the Housing Element.

Timeline: Propose an overlay structure to the public by December 2023, pass the overlay through City Council by December 2024, and have the overlay implementable by January 1st, 2025.

Proposed Policy 1b: Support local implementation of AB 2011 to build lower-income capacity in higher- resourced areas in both northern and southern parts of Sunnyvale, emphasizing the Village Centers:
a. mapping-out commercial, office, retail or parking use. b. assessing how many lower-income units can be generated, while incorporating a site-specific feasibility analysis.
c. adopting a local ordinance to implement the requirements outlined in AB 2011. d. launching a permitting process that is clear for developers.

Metric: In combination with the AB 2011 program and other policies and programs, develop 2,148 lower- income units in higher-resourced areas throughout Sunnyvale within the planning period. Allocate 1,074 lower-income units to northerly-located higher-resourced areas of the city and 1,074 lower-income units to higher-resourced areas in South Sunnyvale, including Village Centers.

Timeline: a) map AB 2011 sites by final Housing Element submission to HCD (date TBD), b) update sites inventory, including AB 2011 sites with site-specific analysis by final Housing Element submission to HCD, (date TBD), c) adopt local ordinance by December 2023, and d) implement clear permitting process by January 1st, 2024.

Attachment 2

Development Constraints

HCD highlights under section A.4 that the City’s Housing Element lacks significant detail in its analysis of governmental constraints. This is a critical first-step assessment intended to shape policy and program reforms to address these constraints. It is our understanding that staff will be proposing additional analysis of permitting procedures and at least one program to explicitly address plan review permit constraints. We are hopeful that these additions will address the issues we have identified below.

In the prior draft, H18 is the only program that directly addresses HCD’s comment on fees and exactions, but it does not explicitly state the need for analysis intended to reduce the governmental constraints of the City’s planning and development impact fees on residential development – and instead proposes only a “review”.

Development fees in Sunnyvale are among the highest in Santa Clara County and the City highlights its high fees as a constraint, but there is not a clear understanding of how planning and development fees are applied to affordable housing projects and their impact.

We also found that the timeline for permitting and approvals is unclear and incomplete, and lacks a clear analysis of how affordable housing moves through the development process. Subsequently it lacks an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the costs created by the development process. Understanding the impact of imposed costs are critical to revising the City’s permit and approvals processing. Some of these costs include timing and approval certainty, multiple rounds of plan check, the inclusion of a preliminary review process, the challenges in implementing streamlined processes via SB 330 or SB 35, and the impact of Zoning Amendment approvals by City Council.

SV@Home recommends additional analysis and appropriate action in response to these findings. The first proposed policy below is meant to provide clarity to fees as a housing constraint and specify the considerations for affordable housing development. The second proposed policy addresses the lack of a substantive analysis of any program from the City on its permitting and approvals procedures.

Proposed Policy: Conduct a full study of all planning and development fees, and taxes for single-family, small multi-family and large multi-family developments, including an assessment of the value of providing exemptions, waivers, and reductions, for affordable housing.

Metric: Clear report on this analysis, outlining the individual and cumulative impact of the various exemptions, waivers and reductions to affordable housing projects.

Timeline: Conclusion of study with recommendations by Fall 2024.

Proposed Policy: Complete analysis of building permit processing and project approval procedures.

Metric: Table 6-23 and Table 6-24 must include timelines for affordable housing and include each procedural “step,” include analysis outlining the individual and cumulative impact of the stages in the development process, and propose policy actions to address these impacts on affordable housing projects.

Timeline: Completion of analysis by 2023, and adoption of new policies and process guidelines by the end of 2024.

Attachment 2

AFFH and protections for tenants facing unequal housing opportunities and displacement risks

In finding B4, HCD recommended that “Programs to AFFH should go beyond status quo actions, include specific commitment, timing, geographic targeting and metrics or numerical targets and should as appropriate, address housing mobility, encourage new housing choices in higher resource areas, improve place-based strategies toward community revitalization and protect existing residents from displacement.”

For programs H24 and H25, we have expressed our concern directly to City Staff that the City’s effort to develop a Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance, and right to a one-year lease ordinance, have stalled in the committee review process. These policies were included in the initial draft of the Housing Element, but the revised draft replaced the more impactful actions of “establish and adopt” with “educate”, implying that the city will be relying on the protections provided by state laws SB 330 and AB 1482. Each of these laws have produced limited and uneven local implementation and effect. In discussions with City Staff and the contracted consultant supporting the Housing Element Update process we have been assured that the change in language was not intended to undermine the city's commitments to enacting these ordinances. We expect that this language will be changed in the revised document.

SV@Home recommends the City adopt local ordinances that expand on the state laws by creating local solutions to address displacement. Please refer to the letter SV@Home sent in June, it includes anti- displacement policy recommendations for the Housing Element.

Proposed Policy in-lieu of H24: Adopt a local Eviction Reduction Ordinance to expand, and enforce the state’s just cause eviction protections included in AB 1482.

Metric: Local eviction protection extended to all renters in Sunnyvale, and made effective through landlord/tenant education campaign and information on enforcement.

Timeline: Adopt a local ordinance by the end of 2023.

Proposed Policy (H25): Adopt a Sunnyvale Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance, with benefits greater than those included in SB 330.

Metric: 50 percent of tenants receiving a no-fault eviction are able to relocate within Sunnyvale or neighboring jurisdictions.

Timeline: Adopt a local ordinance by the end of 2023.

Proposed Policy: Institute a Rent Registry Program that would complement the newly adopted tenant protections (above), and provide much needed local data on the level of housing instability faced by the 55 percent of Sunnyvale’s population that live in renter households.

Metric: Change in rents, tenancy, and the cause of change in tenancy are tracked for 75 percent of units by 2026.

Timeline: Adopt ordinance requiring landlord participation by the end of 2024, and implement the registry by the beginning of 2025.

Attachment 2

Proposed Policy: Coordinate with other cities to work with the local court to make eviction data publicly available and accessible - including Unlawful Detainers filed with the court that do not result in court ordered evictions.

Metric: Tracking 100 percent of filed Unlawful Detainers, and court order evictions in the city.

Timeline: Receive quarterly data from the courts by the end of 2023.

In Sunnyvale, 55 percent of the households are renters. Renters in Sunnyvale have long faced extremely high rents relative to local wages for many working families. Rent burden and overcrowding are experienced disproportionately by BIPOC residents of the city, particularly LatinX households, senior and people with disabilities on fixed incomes. The City needs to commit to establishing the local protections needed to address displacement impacts in the Sunnyvale community.

Conclusion

SV@Home understands and appreciates the work done by City Staff, the prior City Council, and many individuals and organizations committed to Sunnyvale residents. As the City continues to make substantive changes to the Draft Housing Element in response to the detailed comments provided by HCD, our intent here has been to support this effort by proposing concrete policies and programs that will move Sunnyvale closer to adoption of a compliant plan. We look forward to further conversations, and offer our support to any additional work the city is considering to reach this shared goal.

Sincerely,

Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director

Attachment 2

TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL

September 20, 2022

Shawn Danino
California Department of Housing & Community Development Attn: Shawn Danino, Housing Policy Specialist
2020 West El Camino Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95833

Re: Comments on City of Sunnyvale’s Revised Draft Housing Element Submittal to the California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD)

Mr. Danino,

We appreciate that this letter will be received by you now as you are well along in your review of the City of Sunnyvale Housing Element Update. We are aware that HCD will consider comments received by local organizations and community members in reviewing this process and the concrete steps proposed to respond to housing needs. We are hopeful that you will find these comments helpful in shaping your forthcoming comments to the City.

The Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update (HEU) process offers important opportunities for local jurisdictions to fully assess housing needs, and to identify new tools to address these needs and constraints in the development of housing.

This process is also an opportunity to engage deliberately with the full community, and more specifically, to learn about the depths of the housing needs from the populations that have been historically excluded and are at risk of displacement.

This process is supported by clear legal and administrative guidance as outlined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in multiple documents interpreting state law.

This is a difficult process and we appreciate the work that Sunnyvale staff, elected and appointed representatives, and members of the community have done over the last nine to 12 months. We are aware that the expectations for this process are high, and jurisdictions throughout the state have struggled to generate compliant housing elements for this cycle.

After reviewing the City of Sunnyvale’s Revised Draft Housing Element as submitted to your office following the required 10-day period to incorporate public comments, we found no significant changes that were made despite the multiple concerns and changes raised by the public during the review period (see attached letter, Appendix A, from local group, Livable Sunnyvale), including our public testimony to the City Board of Directors

Kevin Zwick, Chair
United Way Bar Area

Gina Dalma, Vice Chair
Silicon Valley Community
Foundation

Candice Gonzalez, Secretary
Sand Hill Property Company

Andrea Osgood, Treasurer
Eden Housing

Shiloh Ballard
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition

Bob Brownstein
Working Partnerships USA

Amie Fishman
Non-Profit Housing
Association of Northern CA

Ron Gonzales
Hispanic Foundation
of Silicon Valley

Javier Gonzalez
Google

Poncho Guevara
Sacred Heart Community
Service

Janice Jensen
Habitat for Humanity
East Bay/Silicon Valley

Janikke Klem

Jan LIndenthal
MidPen Housing

Jennifer Loving
Destination: Home

Mary Murtagh
EAH Housing

Chris Neale
The Core Companies

Kelly Snider
Kelly Snider Consulting

Staff
Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director
Attachment 2

Council on June 21st, 2022 (public comments begin at 2:25:52/3:24:10). We believe that your (HCD) guidance has been clear about how public participation should be diligent and open throughout the entire Housing Element process, and should inform the content of the HEU.1 Towards that end, SV@Home is submitting the following comments to HCD, with City of Sunnyvale Councilmembers and staff copied in this transmittal.

Overview of Comments

SV@Home found the following seven major areas of concern with the Sunnyvale Draft Housing Element Update (hereon as Draft HEU), they include:

• Overdependence on specific plan areas in the sites inventory; • Unclear realistic capacity assumptions in the sites inventory; • Significant overdependence on the yet to be adopted, northerly-located, lower-resourced Moffett Park Specific Plan area;
• Missed opportunity to AFFH in the southerly-located, high-resourced Village Center areas; • Insufficient, meaningful public and stakeholder engagement; • Lack of transparency and accessibility to the Housing Element process; • Insufficient targeted AFFH outreach and input;
• Insufficient detail, connection to identified needs, timelines, and metrics in policies and programs; and
• Deficient assessment of governmental and non-governmental constraints.

Overdependence on Specific Plan Areas and Unclear Realistic Capacity Assumptions in the Sites Inventory

There is a tremendous reliance on major plan areas - El Camino Real, Downtown, Lawrence Station, and more significantly the yet to be adopted Moffett Park Specific Plan (we will address the Moffett Park Specific Plan in more detail below). While these are clearly areas appropriately planned for significant residential development, and are rightly planned to include significant affordable housing, most of them have been adopted relatively recently, and there is reasonable uncertainty about their success in facilitating significant development during the Sixth Cycle.

We recommend the City of Sunnyvale include progress bench-marks for each major plan area in the final HEU, which can be assessed at intervals throughout the planning period 1 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for the Housing Elements, pg. 10: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf Attachment 2

and allow for policy responses, and adjustments to the realistic capacity if the progress is delayed.

We also find that the City of Sunnyvale has not adequately met the requirements, outlined in HCD’s Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook: to assess the likelihood that each lower-income site will be redeveloped during the planning period; to outline the process used to determine realistic capacities for the sites identified; or to address factors that will constrain the funding of affordable housing.

The Draft HEU’s approach to these requirements is uneven. As noted above, and discussed below, we do not believe the likelihood to redevelopment can be based solely on changes to land-use designations. With the exception of the Lawrence Station Area Plan, where development trends were used to assess both the likelihood and realistic capacity, we did not find realistic capacity calculations for other major plan areas, or sites outside the major plan areas. There are multiple potentially constraining factors outlined in the Guidebook that we did not find evidence of in most of Sunnyvale’s Sites Inventory that lead to missing realistic capacity calculations for each site.

Therefore, we recommend that the City either provide significantly more detail about how the likelihood of sites to redevelop was determined and realistic capacities were calculated, or review the selected sites and conduct this analysis as required.

We are also concerned that we the City has not made reasonable efforts to ensure that low-income sites have been selected with the size and locational characteristics to be viable for the development of affordable housing. While selected sites meet the minimum size and zoned-density requirements, nearly half of the lower-income sites (roughly 700 units in total) each have a capacity of under 50 total units, which is well below the level where affordable developments are financially viable and competitive for funding. Of greater concern is that several of these sites are located in moderate- resourced areas, which will further limit their competitiveness for state funding. These are significant constraints on affordable development, and are not addressed as constraints or mitigated through policies or programs.

We recommend that the City re-evaluate the sites inventory, and look to identify additional sites that are large enough to be viable for affordable housing development, and are located in higher-resourced areas so they will be competitive for funding.

Attachment 2

Significant Overdependence on the Yet-to-be-Adopted Northerly-Located, Lower-resourced Moffett Park Specific Plan Area

Moffett Park is a major planned development area with mostly existing industrial uses located in the northerly portion of Sunnyvale (i.e. north of Highway 101). The City is currently in the process of developing a Specific Plan for Moffett Park, a planning effort that we highly support. We are reassured that the City envisions a truly mixed-use, high-density community growing in this area. We also expect that the City of Sunnyvale, and the major land-owner in the area, Google, are committed to including a significant proportion of affordable homes, likely 20 percent, into the residential components of the Plan area.

The Moffett Park Specific Plan (MPSP) area is largely made up of underutilized parcels that would seem to meet the basic requirements of the site selection methodology. However, the Sites Inventory Guidebook is very clear that there must be a reasonable expectation that the sites would develop during the planning period, and we believe that this requirement has not been met for the MPSP.

The City has loc
ated roughly 66 percent of the total lower-income units in the Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation ([RHNA] [inclusive of a 30 percent No Net Loss buffer]) in the plan area – 4,545 new homes. We believe this is an unrealistic assumption for the MPSP given the following:

• The plan has yet to be adopted, although it is underway. On June 21st, 2022, staff presented a last-minute change to the City Council on the day they were to decide whether the Draft HEU should be submitted to HCD. This update included reclassifying the MPSP sites and moving them to an Adequate Sites Program due to delays with the environmental review process (we would also note that this change happened without any prior public engagement). This would be the third delay the MPSP process has seen since May of 2021. The current projected adoption date for the MPSP is sometime in July 2023;
• The entire plan area is expected to have a residential capacity between 12,00 0 and 20,000 new homes at complete build-out. As noted above, this is a major mixed-use plan which will be contingent on office, commercial/retail, and residential development, that could reasonably be expected to develop over a 15 to 30-year timeframe. The low-income sites included in the inventory would be 23 percent of the maximum residential capacity for the area (4,545 units divided by 20,000 units). This is a greater percentage than is likely to be included in the plan, when adopted, and the current Draft HEU indicates that it can be reasonably expected to be met in 8.5 years;
• The incorporation of affordable housing in the MPSP area is expected to come largely from land dedications for 100 percent affordable projects in lieu of either integrated inclusionary housing units or fees. Given that Google is the primary landholder in the area, this would seem an ideal case in which direct communication with the owners of specific sites about Attachment 2

their intention to redevelop, which might elicit a tentative timeline on when these land dedications are likely to occur. If these land dedications are expected to be made immediately following adoption of the Specific Plan, that may make development more likely during the Sixth Cycle. If however, the dedications will be phased along with other development, it should be possible to more accurately assess the timing of their availability; • The land dedications, as the sole mechanism for producing the majority of affordable units, explicitly require the leveraging of public funds to construct affordable housing. Land dedications may create opportunities for more units than required by a local inclusionary ordinance, and may create opportunities for new homes to be built at deeper levels of affordability, but this is made possible by public funding and there is no estimate of the magnitude of the funding required, nor plan for even the local share of these funds; • The MPSP is located in a low-resourced part of the City, which will make 100 percent affordable projects much harder to finance through existing state and federal programs. The area falls in a low-resourced category primarily because it has no existing residents. In fact, even though the area is planned to be redeveloped as a vibrant new community with great jobs and new market rate housing, it is unlikely that the demographics of the area, drawn from an American Community Survey five-year sample, will change during the planning period. While we believe that this element of the state process for allocating low income housing tax credits and bonds is flawed, it will nonetheless make it difficult to build a truly mixed income community regardless of the City’s commitments; and • While no city can be held fully accountable for the shortfall of state or federal funds for affordable housing, they should be expected to address the core funding assumptions of a Specific Plan where the mechanisms for creating affordable housing are clear and discuss the steps that can be taken to address the structural short falls. There is no discussion in the Draft HEU of the known constraints to affordable development in the MPSP area to the development of affordable housing. There is also no discussion of policies and programs that might be put in place to further incentivize the production of 100 percent deed-restricted affordable housing developments on what will be city-owned land, for the MPSP area in the Draft HEU. We believe that this area cannot reasonably be expected to produce 66 percent of total lower-income RHNA allocation (inclusive of the 30 percent No Net Loss buffer), and unlike many other potential sites, there is ample opportunity to provide supporting evidence to the contrary.

We recommend the City of Sunnyvale reassess the realistic development potential of the MPSP, or produce additional information supporting the assumptions in the current Draft HEU. We recommend revising the Sites Inventory/Adequate Sites Program, along with incorporating explicit policies and programs that would mitigate the existing constraints on affordable development in the Plan Area.

Attachment 2

Missed Opportunity to AFFH in the Southerly-Located, High-Resourced Village Center Areas

Under the guidance provided on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing through the Housing Element process, it is clear that low-income opportunity sites are to be planned throughout the City. The Housing Element must include a serious assessment of historic patterns of exclusion, and steps must be taken to affirmatively create opportunities for low-income housing in high resourced areas that are otherwise available only to the wealthiest members of the community. The primary response to this requirement, Program H3, which introduces the potential of “Village Centers south of El Camino Real,” is lacking in both detail and timelines. The objective, as stated, of the future program is to accommodate 100 lower-income units by rezoning the Village Centers south of El Camino.

We believe that additional opportunities for high-density residential development, that could support low-income housing development, should have been clearly identified in areas in the southern part of the City. The failure to include the details and commitments of this Village Centers program is particularly important because the policy intends to address the failure to meet AFFH requirements in the sites inventory, which is focused almost entirely on northern, lower-resourced areas of the City. We believe that setting a goal of 100 units over the planning period dramatically understates the potential of these areas. Collectively, these sites make up approximately 48 acres throughout the City and roughly 23 acres in the southern, highest resourced areas of Sunnyvale.

Most of these sites are larger than half an acre, and with appropriate zoning, would be ideal locations for the development of affordable housing that would support the established AFFH requirements.

We recommend the City of Sunnyvale include the Village Centers in the Sites Inventory to produce more lower-income units with the intention of rezoning these areas to higher densities in order to take advantage of their sizes, safely meet the No Net Loss buffer, and to meet AFFH requirements.

Insufficient Meaningful Public and Stakeholder Engagement

Under current Housing Element Law, cities must document broad stakeholder outreach and meaningful, frequent, and ongoing community participation, consultation, and coordination that includes all economic segments of the community, and demonstrate how this input shaped the Draft HEU, particularly to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). We do not believe that this required level of engagement has been met.

Attachment 2

While we do not have direct knowledge of all of the meetings and discussions conducted by the City to date, we are concerned that, based on our experience and discussions with others who participated in these meetings, this outreach fell short of meaningful participation. Many of these public meetings and engagement opportunities appear to have focused primarily on very high-level overviews of the housing element process followed by solicitation of online feedback through the online community survey. State guidance is clear that these traditional tools alone are unlikely to illicit the level of required engagement, and that affirmative steps must be taken to make the process accessible and substantive. In general, there appears to have been few engaged discussions about housing needs or input on strategies to mitigate these needs, and potentially no opportunities to provide reflective input and comments on staff’s findings prior to the release of the Draft HEU.

We would strongly recommend that a concerted and robust effort to collect substantive community input on the findings, assumptions, and solutions included in the current Draft HEU be required of the City.

Insufficient Targeted AFFH Outreach and Input

We believe the limits of the public outreach and engagement efforts likely had a disproportionate impact on the requirements under AFFH to reach enumerated populations with the greatest housing needs. There is little evidence that there was sufficient targeted outreach to collect and integrate “local knowledge” from communities most impacted by the local housing crisis into the assessment of housing needs. The result is an over-dependence in assessing housing needs on descriptive demographic tables, and little discussion about the causes and constraints that might have been identified through deeper, qualitative engagement with these communities.

This pattern persists across the different sections of the Housing Element. Latinx, Black, and “Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic” households represent roughly 22 percent of the City’s population. These groups of people are more likely to live in the northern, lower-resourced area of Sunnyvale, and are disproportionately impacted by housing inequities and housing needs. They were significantly underrepresented in the online community survey, and were less likely to have participated in other public meetings. Nonetheless, there is no record that these communities were included in targeted focus group outreach.

As a result, the Housing Element does not articulate the connection between racial and economic segregation and the disproportionate housing need for protected classes. There is little effort to identify disparities in access to opportunity, or the concentration of housing needs, instability or displacement risks; and, there are subsequently few proposed policies and programs to respond to these needs. Replacing segregated housing patterns with truly integrated living patterns is one of the most important goals in statewide AFFH requirements, as is expanding housing opportunities for Attachment 2

those traditionally underserved. 2 We believe the shortcomings in meaningful and ongoing outreach and engagement have limited the scope and quality of the City’s discussion of housing needs and constraints, and subsequently the policies and programs proposed to respond to these needs.

We recommend that the City of Sunnyvale engage with protected populations left out of the process to date and incorporate policy responses that address housing issues that disproportionately impact communities of color and racialized households, such as is the case with Latinx, Black, and “Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic”.

Lack of Transparency and Accessibility to the Housing Element Process

SV@Home believes stakeholder engagement with the City was deficient in continuity and transparency. Our concerns are supported by our own participation in one of the stakeholder meetings listed in the Draft HEU, which we believe may have been one of the more in-depth engagement opportunities provided.

SV@Home participated in a meeting on February 1st, 2022 with other housing and service-based non-profit or
ganizations, listed as “Focus Group #1: Housing for Special Needs” in the Draft HEU.

While a short description is provided of this meeting, it does not reflect the full breadth and magnitude of the needs, constraints, and solutions that were provided to staff that day. It also is impossible to track how the input from this focus group was incorporated into the housing needs assessment or the proposed policies and programs. To our knowledge, none of the participants in the February 1st, 2022 meeting was contacted again to discuss and further comment on the range of needs that had been identified through the cumulative outreach process, or the range of policies that were being considered. As such, the group was not empowered to engage throughout the process.

Given the limited documentation of the content of other such meetings, we are concerned that opportunities for ongoing engagement were lacking for others as well.

We recommend the
City of Sunnyvale provide a significantly more detailed account of the input received through stakeholder engagements, and how (or whether) this input was incorporated in the policy and programmatic solutions in the current Draft HEU.

The Housing Element update process requires open and ongoing public engagement, including opportunities to understand and respond to the needs and constraints that have been identified, and to subsequently provide input and comment on policies and programs to address these needs.

Towards this end, SV@Home and Livable Sunnyvale had a correspondence with City of Sunnyvale staff in which we requested a copy of the Housing Needs Assessment and the Assessment of Fair Housing. We felt it was essential that the findings of these documents be publicly available to inform 2 Association of Bay Area Governments, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Policy Tips Memo - Learning from Southern California & Sacramento: Early Experiences in Complying with AB686, pg 2:
https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-03/Affirmatively_Furthering_Fair_Housing_Policy_Tips_Memo.pdf Attachment 2

meaningful engagement on the development of policies and programs and selection of housing opportunity sites for the inventory. This correspondence stretched between February and April 2022, ahead of the release of the Draft HEU on May 6, 2022 (see Appendix B for attached letters and email correspondences). Ultimately, we were denied access to these documents, and they were available to the public only when the Draft HEU was released.

Throughout this correspondence we reiterated the importance of having a rich, meaningful, and transparent public participation process, open to collaboration and constructive feedback with the community – all of which were ingredients to meeting the HCD Building Blocks recommendations and AFFH requirements. There is very little evidence in the current Draft HEU that identified needs and responses from the limited input received through this process. Further, the restricted engagement with the public throughout the process left the community with only the comment period to review all the pieces of the robust Draft HEU document, including the entire sites inventory, in 30 days and provide meaningful input. As a result, we believe the shortcomings of the outreach and engagement process has seriously impacted the extent to which the Draft HEU reflects the breadth of housing needs in Sunnyvale.

Under AB 686 and changes to Housing Element Law, the City must demonstrate how the input from the public shaped the Draft HEU, particularly to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). The housing element must describe meaningful, frequent, and ongoing community participation, consultation, and coordination throughout the entire process and source the housing needs and possible solutions from the community.

We recommend that, given the shortcomings of the process to date, the current Draft HEU should serve as the foundation for robust re-engagement with stakeholder groups and communities with the greatest housing needs, and that this additional input should be incorporated into future drafts of the Housing Element Update prior to certification.

Insufficient Detail, Connection to identified needs, Timelines, and Metrics in Policies and Programs

As with many other jurisdictions that we are tracking and reviewing across the state, we believe the lack of detail in many of the policies and programs included in the Draft HEU will not prove to be compliant with HCD guidance. Policies and programs are intended to address identified housing needs and mitigate constraints. They must set:

...forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy Attachment 2

programs when available. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)).

Many of the important policies and programs identified in the current Draft HEU lack clear articulation of what actions will be taken within a timeline that will produce beneficial impacts during the planning period. Instead, the descriptions lean on language such as “identify” and “evaluate” or “monitor and revise”, which are similar to “explore” and “study”; wording that HCD has warned jurisdictions are indications of a lack of confidence in clear outcomes and expected impact. 3 We
understand that, while ideal, many policies responsive to identified housing needs will not be fully formulated and adopted prior to certification. However, short of this, cities must commit to tangible actions, with concrete timelines, intended to generate specific policy and program responses to these needs, and the metrics which will be used to assess their impact. HCD has been clear that the Housing Element Update is intended to be a working document, whose implementation which will be assessed at least annually. For this to be effective, significantly clearer courses of action must be articulated.

Below are some examples of the City of Sunnyvale’s policies and programs that are missing details we believe HCD is looking for:

• Program H3, which involves identifying additional housi ng opportunity sites in the high
resourced Village Centers discussed above, lacks detail and a clear commitment to the steps that will be taken to reach this objective. This detail should include an explicit articulation of the goal to create additional capacity for high density residential development at the Village Centers south of El Camino Real and other areas in the southern part of the city, so that there are more opportunities for affordable housing in areas of high resource and ensure that lower-income housing opportunities are available throughout the City; • Policy H-5.6 commits to co
ntinuing to “enforce the adopted limitations on rent increases consistent with the Tenant Protections Act of 2019” (i.e. AB 1482). Policy H-5.5 asserts the same for the Just Cause eviction protection measures in the state law. It would be extremely helpful to know how these policies are being implemented in the City of Sunnyvale, and what is being done to assess the impact of the local enforcement. A number of jurisdictions are taking the additional steps, as proposed by HCD and ABAG guidance documents, of adopting local ordinances to extend the Just Cause eviction protections of AB 1482 to additional rental units and tenants, and to lower the current cap on rent increases to a level that would provide further protection for households in Sunnyvale that are at risk of displacement – if such actions were to be taken. This local ordinance could be built around the assessment on the effectiveness of current enforcement measures in responding to the patterns of 3 Association of Bay Area Governments, Summary of Housing Element Review Letters: Learning from Southern California & Sacramento, pg 4: https://citiesassociation.org/documents/summary-of-housing-element-review-letters/ Attachment 2

displacement in the Sunnyvale. As they are currently described, lacking detail on what steps are taken or an assessment of their impact, Policies H-5.5 and H-5.6 are impossible to assess as a response to local needs; and
• There is no program or plan provided for Policy H-2.1, which speaks to the dire need for additional affordable housing funding resources. Without a commitment to a process of evaluating specific actions that could be taken, there is nothing here that shows a commitment or timeline for responding to the identified housing need. For example, commitments could be on a local parcel tax with a dedicated expenditure plan, an increase in existing Commercial Linkage Fees, a title transfer tax, a head tax on current employers, etc.

The availability of resources for affordable development is arguably the most significant constraint on meeting RHNA goals, and will require a far more substantive local effort.

We recommend that the City provide significantly more detail on how each policy and program will have measurable outcomes and be realistically operationalized by providing the concrete, actionable steps that will be taken to achieve their intended goals.

We also recommend, that in future drafts, the City explore how the Housing Element can align with the affordable housing protection, preservation, and production requirements of the upcoming adoption of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transit Oriented Communities Policy as a way to acquire transportation funding in 2023 for the REAP

2.0/PDA Planning and Technical Assistance Grants and in 2027 under the One Bay Area Grant 4 program. This would provide opportunities to invest in lower-resourced areas and meet AFFH requirements.

Deficient Assessmen
t of Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints

We believe that the assessment of constraints on housing production is short of what is required by HCD, and less than a city like Sunnyvale should expect for itself. The constraints discussion is mostly a list of existing conditions, an explanation of processes, and what is going well, rather than a robust assessment of where additional progress could be made.

For example, there is not an assessment of the development and plan review process except to note that the average time frame is within a reasonable range. We recommend that the City take a harder look at how the process can be improved, given that the regional averages for permitting times are themselves governmental constraints. There is mention of developer feedback in the introduction to the current Draft HEU, but there is little elaboration in the later chapter focused specifically on constraints. It is subsequently very difficult to know what substantive concerns or solutions were identified. We have heard consistently from the developers we work with that the discussion of Attachment 2

governmental constraints have excluded the pre-application process and timeline. There is real concern that, much of the discretionary delay and hurdles have shifted from the formal review process to the less formal process ahead of a completed application.

We recommend that the governmental and non-governmental constraints be reassessed more thoroughly and that additional feedback be collected, carefully documented and shared for reaction and comment, and be incorporated into future drafts of the discussion of constraints.

We appreciate the communication we have had and the efforts made by the City of Sunnyvale thus far in what is a challenging, but essential Housing Element Update process. We do believe that the City has been and will continue to be committed to a successful outcome, however, the bar is higher now, and we expect this first HCD review to draw out the significant limitations of the current Draft Housing Element Update. We expect to continue to engage in this process as HCD’s comments are received by the City, and made available to the Sunnyvale community. We are hopeful that we can continue to enhance the City’s collaboration with local organizations and the public in the coming months. We are here to support the City through these next rounds of revisions, as we are confident that the Housing Element Update can rise to this new level and be sustained over the coming years.

This is an opportunity to take on the true magnitude of the housing needs in Sunnyvale and to commit to sustaining the City’s rich diversity by making it more inclusive and accessible.

Sincerely,

Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director

Mathew Reed
Director of Policy

Kenneth Javier-Rosales
Planning Senior Associate

Attachments:

Appendix A – Livable Sunnyvale July 2022 Letter to HCD
Appendix B – Joint Livable Sunnyvale and SV@Home Letters and Email Correspondences to City of Sunnyvale on Request to Release Draft Housing Needs Assessment and Assessment of Fair Housing Ahead of Draft Housing Element Public Review Period
Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 1 | Page
Submitted via email
[email protected]
c: Jenny Carloni, Housing Officer, City of Sunnyvale
[email protected]
Ryan Dyson, Housing Specialist, City of Sunnyvale
[email protected]
July 26, 2022
Dear Shawn Danino,
Livable Sunnyvale is sending this letter as a follow up to the 2023-2031 Housing Element submitted by the City of Sunnyvale on July 8th.

Who we are: Livable Sunnyvale https://www.livablesunnyvale.org/ was formed in 2016. We are an organization working toward a more vibrant, inclusive and people-friendly Sunnyvale.

We educate and activate residents and office-holders to secure an environmentally sustainable future with broadly shared prosperity and a high quality of life.

Over the past several months we have focused on the 2023-2031 Housing Element (HE). Our HE Committee would like to bring to your attention a few concerns we have regarding Sunnyvale’s Housing Element, the City’s process and share with you the correspondence we sent to City staff and City council.

AFFH: Income isolation in Sunnyvale has increased over time with wealthier households concentrated in the southern portion of the City, and lower-income households concentrated in the north. The northern area of the City has lower access to opportunity, overcrowding and a higher risk of displacement. Although the HE notes investments in northern Sunnyvale are expected to increase, there is no analysis of how these investments will improve the economic and environmental indicators in this area. The only commitment in the HE is Program H35 (Page 2-16), which will establish a single school, a single library branch, and an unquantified number of park facilities across all the low and moderate resource areas in Sunnyvale. We would like to see: either a) an analysis that this level of investment is sufficient to transform the low and moderate opportunity areas in northern Sunnyvale into high opportunity areas or b) a commitment to find a substantial number of additional lower-income sites in areas that are already identified as high opportunity.

APPENDIX A: Livable Sunnyvale July 2022 Letter to HCD
Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 2 | Page
In addition, nearly all of the new sites identified for lower-income units are in areas of the city with below-average inco
mes. In Figure 4-42 (Page 4-70) 91% of the lower-income capacity in the sites inventory are in census tracts in the northern parts of the City which have an income below Santa Clara County’s AMI of $151,300. The HE does not contain any analysis to evaluate the impact of placing the vast majority of lower-income units in census tracts with below average income. One approach would be to repeat the analysis done for Tables 4-8 (Page 4-24), Table 4-9 (Page 4-26) and Table 4-10 (Page 4-27) with the units projected to be developed in the sites inventory. Without such an analysis, it is difficult to understand how the proposed sites inventory would improve fair housing in Sunnyvale.

Sites Inventory: The Housing Element assigns approximately 60% of units in the Lawrence Station, Downtown, El Camino Real, and proposed Moffett Park areas in the lower income category. Most of those four areas are currently low or moderate opportunity areas. Planning for more than half of its new housing to be in the lower income category would likely doom the areas to remain low or moderate opportunity areas. In addition, projects which have been completed or are currently in development in these areas average only about 15% lower income units. If new developments at Lawrence Station, Downtown, El Camino Real, and Moffett Park follow historic trends, Sunnyvale will fall short of its lower income RHNA goals by nearly 2,000 units. We would like the housing element to reclassify the majority of lower income units in Lawrence Station, Downtown, El Camino Real, and Moffett Park as above-moderate income units and find additional sites for lower-income units throughout the city.

Livable Sunnyvale’s Suggestions to Distribute and Increase the Number of Lower-Income Sites in High Opportunity Areas: In letters to the City, Livable Sunnyvale suggested a number of possible changes to the Housing Element which would increase the number of lower income sites and more equitably distribute these lower income sites throughout the city. These suggestions included:
● Substantially increase the commitment in program H3 (Page 2-8 ) to find additional low- income sites in high resource areas. Program H3 only commits to finding sites for 100 new units in high-resource areas of Sunnyvale. We would like to see an analysis to determine the number of lower-income units that are needed in the southern parts of the city to improve the income isolation issues identified in Tables 4-8, 4-9, and 4-10, and then a commitment to find that number of units in program H3. Our initial suggestion was to increase the commitment to 1,500 units.
● Increase density at the Village Center sites to more than 30 units/acre. ● Add new Village Centers. Possible sites include:

Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 3 | Page
○ The 12 acre site at the corner of Hollenbeck and Homestead (Loehmann's Plaza – APNs 323-26-007, 323-26-014, 323-26-016, 323-26-033, 323-26-034) ○ The 3 acre area at the SE corner of Fremont and Wright (APNs 320-27-019, 320- 27-020, 320-27-021, 320-27-022)
○ The 3 acres of commercial/office at the corner of Wolfe and H omestead (APNs 309-51-005, 309-51-027, 309-51-028, 313-38-037, 313-38-073) ● Increase Sunnyvale’s inclusionary rate to 20%
● Increase density or allow more mixed use on El Camino Real ● Rezone most small strip malls to be mixed use sites
Thank you for reviewing our letter and considering the concerns we presented. Is it possible to schedule a time with you to discuss this letter? Please let us know your availability and we will schedule a Zoom Meeting with you. We are available after August 17th.

Chuck Fraleigh Agnes Veith
[email protected] [email protected]
Regards,
Livable Sunnyvale Housing Element Committee
Attachments:

1. Letter sent to City of Sunnyvale Housing Staff, Housing and Human Services Commission and City Council dated January 18, 2022: sent via email

2. Letter sent to City of Sunnyvale Housing Staff, Housing and City Council dated March 11, 2022: sent via email

3. Letter sent to City of Sunnyvale City Council dated June 8, 2022: sent via email Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 4 | Page
ATTACHMENT 1
Letter sent to City of Sunnyvale Housing Staff, Housing and Human Services Commission and City Council dated January 18, 2022: sent via email Subject: Livable Sunnyvale ‐ Housing Element Committee
Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 8:21:08 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Agnes Veith
To: Jenny Carloni, Ryan Dyson
CC: [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
City Staff and Consultants,
Thank you for the informative presentation at the December 13 study session with the Planning and HHS commissions. There has clearly been a lot of work put into that presentation and it was a great step to educate our community about how the City is approaching the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Livable Sunnyvale’s Housing Element Committee has several questions and comments about the information presented.

The sites inventory listed 1619 VLI/LI units in the Lawrence Specific Plan (LSP) and 298 lower income LVI/LI units in the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP). There were no moderate or above moderate units listed in either of these sites. What are the number of units planned at these income levels? The numbers presented seem to indicate the only way Sunnyvale will be successful at meeting its VLI/LI housing targets is if every unit developed in the LSP and DSP sites are lower income units which seems an unlikely scenario. A much more realistic inventory would have 10% - 15% of the units in these two sites in the lower income category.

We bring this up because during our current cycle, as of August 2021 we have attained 8% of our goal for very low income and 6.7% for low income. We are concerned this scenario Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 5 | Page
may be repeated if we do not plan for more units at the VLI/LI levels.

In addition, the presentation did not have any lower income units identified in the highest opportunity areas of Sunnyvale (https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2022-tcac-opportunity-map).

We encourage the city to identify meaningful numbers of lower income units in the highest opportunity areas. Designing the village centers to be more dense and increase building heights may be a good solution to meet our RHNA targets as well as sustainability concerns.

The site inventory also noted a number of units currently in th e development pipeline. Is it expected that the permits for all of these units will not be is sued until after January 31, 2023? If the permits are issued before that date, wouldn’t the units be counted towards the current cycle?
Thank you again for all your work and we look forward to continuing to partner with you on this important process.

Livable Sunnyvale Housing Element Committee
Cc: Planning Commissioners
Housing and Human Services
Commissioners, City Council
Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 6 | Page
ATTACHMENT 2
Letter sent to City of Sunnyvale Housing Staff, Housing and City Council dated March 11, 2022: sent via email
March 11, 2022
Jenny Carloni, Housing Officer
Ryan Dyson, Housing Specialist
Thank you for your comments at the City Council Study Session and the community workshops on the topics we raised in our letter from January 18th. We have a few more questions, follow up comments, and suggestions for policies to include in the Housing Element.

We are still concerned with the lack of affordable units in the highest resource areas of Sunnyvale. One particular area of concern is access to high schools. The two high schools (Fremont and Homestead) that serve nearly all of Sunnyvale including areas north of Highway 101 are located in the far southern part of the city. We have attached the 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map of Sunnyvale with the location of the two high schools highlighted.

Why does the site inventory exclude low and very low income housing from the highest resource areas of Sunnyvale which are the closest areas to these high schools? The proposed Village Centers at the corner of Fremont and Mary and the corner of Fremont and Sunnyvale- Saratoga are good potential sites for some affordable housing. The area zoned C1 at the northwest corner of Hollenbeck and Homestead is another good candidate for a Village Center.

While the Village Center Plans are not yet in place, if we commit to completing them early in the cycle and zone them for enough density to support affordable housing, can they be counted in the site inventory?
In addition to developing affordable housing in the highest resource areas in Sunnyvale, we can also work to increase the resource level of lower resource areas which are all in north Sunnyvale. We would like the draft housing element to contain policies to address this.

We are also still concerned about the number of low and moderate income units listed in the Lawrence, Downtown, and El Camino corridor sites inventory. In all of those sites, over 80% are listed in the low or very low income categories with the remaining units listed as moderate income. What analysis has been done to determine that 80% of these sites are suitable for L/VL development? In the downtown and Lawrence areas, the vast majority of the units developed have been market rate and only 10-15% of the units have been low and very low income units.

Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 7 | Page

This gives us pause for concern that this allocation is merely noted to meet a target but is unrealistic given past experience. A realistic development capacity for low and very-low income units in these areas seems to be 10-15% of what is currently proposed.

Using realistic development capacities for these sites requires finding other suitable affordable housing sites. Some options our committee suggests are:

● Increase the inclusionary rate from 15 to 20%.
● Increase density in the ECR, DSP, Moffett Park, Village Centers and future specific plan sites.
● Rezoning sites such as the former Fry’s location, the C1 zoned sites along Maude between Mathilda and Fair Oaks and along Fair Oaks south of 101, as well as underutilized industrial parks and other location(s) throughout the city zoned exclusively for commercial use. Is there a reason why current commercial developments cannot be reconfigured to include mixed use (commercial and residential) in the same building?

We also hope to see policies in the draft housing element to support the development of affordable and missing middle housing such as:

● Require payment of in lieu fees at the time the first permit is issued rather than at the end of the development cycle. Neighboring cities such as Mountain View have implemented this.
● Encourage SB 9 development by creating pre-approved building plans to facilitate the permitting approval process and create a single point of contact for SB 9 development.

Broaden the city’s outreach program to increase homeowners' knowledge of this new legislation.
● Design and build form-based multifamily housing throughout the city.

Finally, there are some additional policies we hope to see in the housing element, some of which we have already brought up to city leadership.

● Establish safe parking sites for vehicle residents.
● Partner with LifeMoves or another organization to build transitional housing for Sunnyvale’s unhoused.
● Anti-displacement policies such as first right of return to r esidents as well as policies to financially assist displaced residents subjected to higher rental costs when displaced as well as relocation expenses.
● Support the basic needs of residents aging in place (transpor tation, safe home review, home repairs, rental assistance…).

Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 8 | Page

● Support the needs of residents with physical and cognitive ch allenges at all ages (housing, job counseling and transportation).
● Rent stabilization programs for residential units (single fam ily homes as well as multifamily units) and small businesses. Consider limiting rent increases to annual increases not to exceed the CPI.
● Fund retrofit EV charging stations in existing developments. ● Prioritize green space by encouraging taller buildings with smaller footprints. This could be paired with a green density bonus to encourage more greenspace, especially for mid-density (R-3) projects.
● Encourage the use of carbon-negative cross-laminated timber as opposed to concrete, which is carbon intensive.
● Consider a redevelopment density bonus. As an example, if an existing apartment complex over a designated age is redeveloped, set aside deed- restricted units for existing residents. These units would not count toward the maximum dwelling units on the site, but could be counted for the state density bonus and to satisfy the city's inclusionary zoning requirement. This should also come with increased maximum heights.

Thank you for considering our comments and suggestions and we look forward to your response.

Regards,

Livable Sunnyvale Housing Element Committee

Attachment: 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map of Sunnyvale Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 9 | Page

cc: Sunnyvale City Council
Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 10 | Page
ATTACHMENT 3
Letter sent to City of Sunnyvale City Council dated
June 8, 2022: sent via email
June 8, 2022
Dear Mayor Klein and Council Members,
Livable Sunnyvale reviewed the Housing Element (HE) draft and many of our members attended and contributed to the meetings staff conducted with C ouncil and City Commissions.

We wish to acknowledge the effort that has been extended on this Housing Element. With that in mind, we have the following input.

This HE Draft classifies about 60% of housing at high density sites like Moffett Park to be in the lower-income category. That is not realistic. Even if several large 100% affordable housing projects are developed there, based on our city’s history, 20% lower-income is a much more realistic number.

Currently HCD allows this unrealistic assignment because of Moffett’s high density designation; however, as Moffett is developed and reality hits, Sunnyvale will be required to back-fill those missing lower-income sites. If Sunnyvale becomes non-compliant, the City may have to pay fines & fees, lose valuable state and regional grants, and possibly face court-issued takeover of our land-use authority (see attachment).

A second issue is that 89% of the lower-income sites are located in census tracts where the average income is already below Santa Clara County’s AMI. The HE Draft does not address how putting the vast majority of lower-income sites in locations that are already lower income will improve the fair housing issues identified in Chapter 4. There is not even a Goal listed in section 2.1 to address the fair housing issues identified in Chapter 4.

The HE Draft indicates that as Moffett is built out, more resources will also be built. However, there is no analysis to demonstrate how much the opportunity index of the Moffett Park area will improve. Furthermore, the only commitment in the HE Draft is program H34 which would build a library, park, and zone for a school. It seems unlikely that a low resource area can be transformed into a high resource area simply by building a library, park, and elementary school.

The way to alleviate both of the above problems is to increase our pool of available lower- income housing sites, especially in the southern parts of the city. Specifically, change program Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 11 | Page
H2 to provide a total of 1,500 lower-income units rather than just 100. Some possible ways to do this are:
● Zone Village Centers to be greater than 30 du/ac
● Add new Village Centers.  Possible sites include:
o Hollenbeck and Homestead (Loehmann’s Plaza)
o Fremont and Wright
o Wolfe and Homestead (Sunnyvale side)
● Increase density or allow more mixed use on ECR
● Increase Sunnyvale’s inclusionary rate to 20%
● Rezone most small strip malls to be mixed use sites
We believe these actions need to happen sooner than later because the longer the City waits, the fewer options we will have; for example, if we don't increase the density for Village Centers as soon as possible,
many Village Center sites will have been built at lower density and with less lower income housing.

Another option to increase density and better meet our RHNA goals is to address the parking standards. To be clear we are not asking to get rid of parking, we would like to see parking spaces not wasted. The ABAG-MTC Parking policy, https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/2021-10/Parking_Policy_Playbook_compiled_vF20211020.pdf , is a great resource that specifically outlines parking ideas such as unbundling, parking minimums and parking maximums. Unbundling parking would give the developers flexibility to build denser. We can also review Mountain View’s plans such as their North Bay Precise plan, https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=31204 , that is constraining parking. The past Housing Element and this current Housing Element essentially mention the same ideas for parking. We would like to see the city go further and implement these parking standards or at the very least commit to studying unbundling, parking minimums and parking maximums.

Livable Sunnyvale supports the City’s commitment to meeting RHNA goals and providing housing to all income levels. We all desire a city that can sustain diversity and a livable environment. Our input for a moderate lower-income density in Moffett Park and increased density in high opportunity areas in the southern parts of the city will give us a better chance of meeting our RHNA goals. It will also lead to a Sunnyvale where households at all income levels can live throughout the city in an integrated and sustaining environment.

Sincerely,
Livable Sunnyvale Housing Element Committee
Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 12 | Page
Attachment 2

Livable Sunnyvale 13 | Page

Attachment 2

Jenny Carloni, Housing Officer
Ryan Dyson, Housing Specialist
Livable Sunnyvale and SV@Home have a request to support a more robust community outreach for the Housing Element.

At a Housing Element Stakeholder Meeting with the City of Sunnyvale on February 1st, 2022, we were made aware by Staff that the Housing Needs Assessment and the Assessment of Fair Housing would be completed concurrently and would not be made available until they are released with the Draft Housing Element in May or June, 2022.

We believe that a plan based on meeting the needs of the community cannot be created without the full assessment of those needs. Moreover, the quality of site selections and policies and programs to implement the plan is dependent on the assessment of community needs. The housing element process is supposed to assess needs, evaluate constraints, evaluate existing tools, and then develop plans to meet needs where the tools are ineffective or insufficient. The main point is that it is difficult for the public to respond to proposed solutions without understanding the needs they are intended to address.

Therefore, it would be helpful if Staff could release the Housing Needs Assessment (outlining the problems identified), which would also include the Assessment of Fair Housing, ahead of the presentation of their proposed policies to address these needs, which may not be made public until the Draft Housing Element is released.

Since the Housing Element update is designed to address the Housing Needs Assessment, making this information available to the public will enable some feedback before the release of the full Housing Element. Otherwise, if there are concerns about the Housing Needs Assessment, we may hear that it is too late to make any changes.

No one wants to delay the completion of the Housing Element. Below are key references to our concerns from varying guidance sources provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD):
● From the HCD’s Housing Element webpage, site under “ Public Participation”:

APPENDIX B: Joint Livable Sunnyvale and SV@Home Letters and Email Correspondences to City of Sunnyvale on Request to Release Draft Housing Needs Assessment and Assessment of Fair Housing Ahead of Draft Housing Element Public Review Period
1st Letter
Attachment 2

“The inclusion of community stakeholders (including residents) in the housing-element public participation process helps ensure appropriate housing strategies are more efficiently and effectively evaluated, developed, and implemented. An inadequate public participation process may lead to anti-development initiatives, and strong, vocal community opposition to greatly needed housing development. Successful public participation is important because a diverse cross section of the population can be engaged in defining the housing problem and in crafting solutions that work for everyone in the community. Broad participation and true engagement of the public increases the likelihood that the community members involved in the discussion and planning processes will support new housing strategies and housing developments.”
● From HCD’s Housing Element webpage, “ Building Blocks” section:
“Housing Needs
Housing-element law requires local governments to adequately plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs, including their share of the regional housing needs allocation. A complete analysis should include a quantification and a descriptive analysis of the specific needs and resources available to address these needs.

Existing
● Assisted Housing Developments at Risk of Conversion
● Extremely Low-Income Housing Needs
● Housing Stock Characteristics
● Overpayment and Overcrowding
● Population, Employment, and Household Characteristics Projected
● Projected Housing Needs - Regional Housing Needs Allocation Special
● Farmworkers
● Large Families and Female-Headed Households
● People Experiencing Homelessness
● People with Disabilities, Including Developmental Disabilities Attachment 2

● Seniors”
● And from HCD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance Memorandum (pages 22 and 23):
“The housing element includes a housing needs assessment, which includes various requirements such as analysis of household characteristics (e.g., overpayment, overcrowding), housing conditions, and persons with special needs. These analyses, in turn, guide policy and action formulation. As part of the housing needs assessment, the element is now required to include an assessment of fair housing, including a summary of fair housing issues. A summary of fair housing issues is an essential step to informing and prioritizing contributing factors and, eventually, goals and actions.”
We appreciate the City of Sunnyvale’s recent efforts in public outreach, such as holding a stakeholder meeting with special housing needs groups, community workshops with interactive polls, and asking for our help to expand the online survey’s broadcast. We would also like to recommend that the City bolster its public participation efforts with the community at-large to one that is more inclusive, encourages more discussion between participants, and increases interaction with City Staff to allow for frank conversations and a deeper understanding of Sunnyvale’s housing needs. The current model the City is using is one that is primarily information collection that gives off a cold sense of “checking-off a list of checkboxes”. For example, the community workshop’s polling system was limited to people with access to smartphones or computers. Additionally, the Q&A portion of the community workshop did not leave room for City Staff to discuss participant inputs, but rather only to respond to participant questions. As we factor in the requirements for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, it is increasingly important that the City pursue the curb-cut effect approach to its outreach efforts so that the needs of special needs populations and those deeply impacted by housing gaps are clearly identified and responded to appropriately. We acknowledge that outreach is challenging, especially with virtual limitations, and the Housing Element process is challenging, but they are essential to conforming to state guidance and either have not been as visible or have been less than ideal in Sunnyvale.

We appreciate the hard work that is ongoing to complete the Housing Element update and your collaboration with Livable Sunnyvale and SV@Home. Given the timeline to complete the Housing Element update, we ask that this Housing Needs Assessment be Attachment 2

made available as soon as possible so that community outreach and feedback can take place in parallel with the work on the main document.

Best Regards,
Livable Sunnyvale Housing Element Committee
Kenneth Rosales, Planning Senior Associate| SV@Home
Attachment 2

4/1/22, 4:33 PM Mail - Kenneth Rosales - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkADU5ZmQ0ZTcxLWNmNTItNGQ2MC05MmQzLTZhNGE4ZGFkZTdiYgAQAEsY%2BJvmqC9FslkH8%2F5W7E… 1/7 RE: Livable Sunnyvale and SV@Home: Request for Housing Needs Assessment Ryan Dyson <[email protected]>
Wed 3/9/2022 3:38 PM
To: Mike Serrone <[email protected]>
Cc: Agnes Veith <[email protected]>;Charles Fraleigh <[email protected]>;Kenneth Rosales <[email protected]>;Mathew Reed <[email protected]>;Jenny Carloni <[email protected]>;Trudi Ryan <[email protected]> Good aernoon Mike,
We understand Livable Sunnyvale and SV@Home’s concern. The Housing Needs Assessment, which contains the Assessment of Fair Housing, is a vital component of the Housing Element and we are absolutely taking it into account as a guide for our policies and programs.

Since late 2021, the City and our consultant, Ascent Environmental, have been acvely working to complete each component of the Housing Element based on available informaon. Porons of the Assessment of Fair Housing rely on data supplied by the State’s Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) and the Associaon of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Unfortunately, delays in this informaon have meant that we are unable to substanally complete our Housing Needs Assessment. For example, one crical segregaon report from ABAG and UC Merced was only released in dra form in late February. Addionally, the City and other jurisdicons within Santa Clara County are awaing a separate fair housing analysis from the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborave.

With the Assessment of Fair Housing, the City must also include an analysis of how our Sites Inventory relates to fair housing issues. We are sll working to complete the full Sites Inventory, so another integral part of our Assessment of Fair Housing is sll incomplete at this me.

Nevertheless, the informaon that we do have from the Housing Needs Assessment can already be used to help inform and guide the other secons of our Housing Element. We can begin to analyze our sites, policies, and programs based on the housing needs and the segregaon paerns that we do know. As more data become available, we can connue to refine and revise these components so that we can release a comprehensive (but by no means final) dra of the Housing Element to the public.

Once all components of the Housing Element are substanally complete, they will be presented to the public as a dra version for review in May 2022. The Public Review Dra is not a final, finished product. There will be ample opportunity for public review and comment. The City will connue to incorporate public input, hold a community workshop, and conduct three separate public hearings prior to readying the dra for submission to HCD (tentavely in July 2022). We fully expect that this dra will connue to be revised throughout the year based on HCD and public comment unl it is approved by the City Council in December 2022.

Please let us know if you have any other quesons or concerns on the Housing Element.

Thank you,

RYAN DYSON
Housing Specialist
Community Development Department
408-730-7466
From: Mike Serrone <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 12:18 PM
To: Jenny Carloni <[email protected]>; Ryan Dyson <[email protected]>; Kent Steffens City of Sunnyvale Email Response to 1st Letter
Attachment 2

4/1/22, 4:33 PM Mail - Kenneth Rosales - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkADU5ZmQ0ZTcxLWNmNTItNGQ2MC05MmQzLTZhNGE4ZGFkZTdiYgAQAEsY%2BJvmqC9FslkH8%2F5W7E… 2/7 <KSteff[email protected]>; Council AnswerPoint <[email protected]> Cc: Agnes Veith <acmduff@gmail.com>; Charles Fraleigh <[email protected]>; Kenneth Rosales <[email protected]>; Mathew Reed <[email protected]> Subject: Livable Sunnyvale and SV@Home: Request for Housing Needs Assessment ATTN: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Jenny Carloni, Housing Officer
Ryan
Dyson, Housing Specialist
Livable
Sunnyvale and SV@Home have a request to support a more robust community outreach for the Housing Element.

At
a Housing Element Stakeholder Meeting with the City of Sunnyvale on February 1st, 2022, we were made aware by Staff that the Housing Needs Assessment and the Assessment of Fair Housing would be completed concurrently and would not be made available until they are released with the Draft Housing Element in May or June, 2022. We believe that a plan based on meeting the needs of the community cannot be created without the full assessment of those needs. Moreover, the quality of site selections and policies and programs to implement the plan is dependent on the assessment of community needs.

The housing
element process is supposed
to assess needs, evaluate constraints, evaluate existing tools, and then develop plans to meet needs where the tools are ineffective or insufficient. The main point is that it is difficult for the public to respond to proposed solutions without understanding the needs they are intended to address.

Therefore,
it would be helpful if Staff could release the Housing Needs Assessment (outlining the problems identified), which would also include the Assessment of Fair Housing, ahead of the presentation of their proposed policies to address these needs, which may not be made public until the Draft Housing Element is released.

Since
Attachment 2

4/1/22, 4:33 PM Mail - Kenneth Rosales - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkADU5ZmQ0ZTcxLWNmNTItNGQ2MC05MmQzLTZhNGE4ZGFkZTdiYgAQAEsY%2BJvmqC9FslkH8%2F5W7E… 3/7 the Housing Element update is designed to address the Housing Needs Assessment, making this information available to the public will enable some feedback before the release of the full Housing Element. Otherwise, if there are concerns about the Housing Needs Assessment, we may hear that it is too late to make any changes. No one wants to delay the completion of the Housing Element. Below are key references to our concerns from varying guidance sources provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD):

From the HCD’s Housing Element
webpage, site under “Public
Participation”:
“The inclusion of community stakeholders
(including residents) in the housing-element public participation process helps ensure appropriate housing strategies are more efficiently and effectively evaluated, developed, and implemented. An inadequate public participation process may lead to anti-development
initiatives, and strong, vocal community opposition to greatly needed housing development. Successful public participation is important because a diverse cross section of the population can be engaged in defining the housing problem and in crafting solutions
that work for everyone in the community. Broad participation and true engagement of the public increases the likelihood that the community members involved in the discussion and planning processes will support new housing strategies and housing developments.”
From HCD’s Housing Element webpage,
“Building
Blocks” section:
“Housing Needs
Housing-element law requires local
governments to adequately plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs, including their share of the regional housing needs allocation. A complete analysis should include a quantification and a descriptive analysis of the specific needs and resources
Attachment 2

4/1/22, 4:33 PM Mail - Kenneth Rosales - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkADU5ZmQ0ZTcxLWNmNTItNGQ2MC05MmQzLTZhNGE4ZGFkZTdiYgAQAEsY%2BJvmqC9FslkH8%2F5W7E… 4/7 available to address these needs.

Existing
·
·
· Assisted
· Housing Developments at Risk of Conversion
·
·
·
· Extremely
· Low-Income Housing Needs
·
·
·
· Housing
· Stock Characteristics
·
·
·
· Overpayment
· and Overcrowding
·
·
·
· Population,
· Employment, and Household Characteristics
·
Projected
·
·
· Projected
· Housing Needs - Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Attachment 2

4/1/22, 4:33 PM Mail - Kenneth Rosales - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkADU5ZmQ0ZTcxLWNmNTItNGQ2MC05MmQzLTZhNGE4ZGFkZTdiYgAQAEsY%2BJvmqC9FslkH8%2F5W7E… 5/7 ·
Special
·
·
· Farmworkers
·
·
·
· Large
· Families and Female-Headed Households
·
·
·
· People
· Experiencing Homelessness
·
·
·
· People
· with Disabilities, Including Developmental Disabilities ·
·
·
· Seniors”
·
And from HCD’s
Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing Guidance Memorandum
(pages 22 and 23):

Attachment 2

4/1/22, 4:33 PM Mail - Kenneth Rosales - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkADU5ZmQ0ZTcxLWNmNTItNGQ2MC05MmQzLTZhNGE4ZGFkZTdiYgAQAEsY%2BJvmqC9FslkH8%2F5W7E… 6/7 “The housing element includes
a housing needs assessment, which includes various requirements such as analysis of household characteristics (e.g., overpayment, overcrowding), housing conditions, and persons with special needs. These analyses, in turn, guide policy and action formulation.

As part of the housing needs assessment, the element is now required to include an assessment of fair housing, including a summary of fair housing issues. A summary of fair housing issues is an essential step to informing and prioritizing contributing factors
and, eventually, goals and actions.”
We
appreciate the City of Sunnyvale’s recent efforts in public outreach, such as holding a stakeholder meeting with special housing needs groups, community workshops with interactive polls, and asking for our help to expand the online survey’s broadcast. We would also like to recommend that the City bolster its public participation efforts with the community at- large to one that is more inclusive, encourages more discussion between participants, and increases interaction with City Staff to allow for frank conversations and a deeper understanding of Sunnyvale’s housing needs. The current model the City is using is one that is primarily information collection that gives off a cold sense of “checking-off a list of checkboxes”. For example, the community workshop’s polling system was limited to people with access to smartphones or computers. Additionally, the Q&A portion of the community workshop did not leave room for City Staff to discuss participant inputs, but rather only to respond to participant questions. As we factor in the requirements for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, it is increasingly important that the City pursue the curb-cut effect approach to its outreach efforts so that the needs of special needs populations and those deeply impacted by housing gaps are clearly identified and responded to appropriately.

We
acknowledge that outreach is challenging, especially with virtual limitations, and the Housing Element process is challenging, but they are essential to conforming to state guidance and either have not been as visible or have been less than ideal in Sunnyvale.

We
appreciate the hard work that is ongoing to complete the Housing Element update and your collaboration with Livable Sunnyvale and SV@Home. Given the timeline to complete the Housing Element update, we ask that this Housing Needs Assessment be made available as soon as possible so that community outreach and feedback can take place in parallel with the work on the main document.

Best
Regards,
Attachment 2

4/1/22, 4:33 PM Mail - Kenneth Rosales - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkADU5ZmQ0ZTcxLWNmNTItNGQ2MC05MmQzLTZhNGE4ZGFkZTdiYgAQAEsY%2BJvmqC9FslkH8%2F5W7E… 7/7 Livable
Sunnyvale Housing Element Committee
Kenneth
Rosales, Planning Senior Associate| SV@Home
Attachment 2

Hi Ryan,
Regarding our request for an early draft of the Housing Needs Assessment, thank you for getting back to us so quickly. We understand the challenges of this process and appreciate your thoughtful response.

Livable Sunnyvale has a long history of engagement with city staff and council. Our members have and continue to appreciate the transparency of these exchanges. At this stage in the Housing Element process we are surprised by the lack of tr ansparency
we have come to expect and appreciate.

Because the Housing Needs Assessment is the bedrock of the Housing Element and designed to evaluation current policies and programs, identify their constraints, update/develop new ones including those that re
flect AFFH requirements, without even
seeing a draft, how is our community expected to collaborate with staff to provide informed solutions to the challenges identified in the 6th cycle? Per AB 215, there will only be 30 days for the public to comment on the Housing Element draft and the City will have only 10 days to edit. This short timeframe will not allow for a robust exchange of ideas and solutions t
o the challenges staff have identified.

Another concern we have is, with such a tight timeframe between release of the draft Housing Element and finalization we will hear from staff that incorporating changes to the Housing Needs Assessment will significantly delay the completion of the Housing Element. This response will hamper public comment and engagement which is integral to the Housing Element process.

Regarding the City’s need for additional information to complete the Housing Needs Assessment, we believe there is ample available information to produce a basic dr aft
Housing Needs Assessment. While we understand that MTC/ABAG is providing some basic data on housing needs based on both publicly available census data and regularly updated analysis in the ABAG data portal, these data were made available last year and explicitly indicate that they should not serve as a substitute for a local assessment of needs.  We also understand that the segregation maps forthcoming from the state have the potential to provide insights into the di fferential access of
specific racial and ethnic groups as part of the AFFH requirements of the update. 2nd Letter in Response to City of Sunnyvale Email Response to 1st Letter Attachment 2