Sunnyvale City Council
December 12, 2023

Absent this information from the state, we still believe there is enough data available to complete a draft Housing Needs Assessment.

Again, we ask for the transparency we have become accustomed to and ask staff to please release a draft Housing Needs Assessment so the public can partner with staff to identify solutions to the issues that have been identified.

Thank you for the work you are doing and have done. If it would be helpful to set a time to talk in more detail about how we can help in this process, please let us know.

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

9/20/22, 4:41 PM Mail - Kenneth Rosales - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkADU5ZmQ0ZTcxLWNmNTItNGQ2MC05MmQzLTZhNGE4ZGFkZTdiYgAQALXPELDXyHBOiKWTE99A%2FYk… 1/3 RE: Livable Sunnyvale and SV@Home request for draft of Housing Needs Assessment Ryan Dyson <[email protected]>
Thu 4/7/2022 4:06 PM
To:Mike Serrone <[email protected]>
Cc: Agnes Veith <[email protected]>;Charles Fraleigh <[email protected]>;Kenneth Rosales <[email protected]>;Jenny Carloni <[email protected]>;Kent Steffens <[email protected]>;Council AnswerPoint <[email protected]>;Trudi Ryan <[email protected]>
Hello Mike and Kenneth,
Thank you for your leer. We understand your concern around transparency and hope to provide some clarificaon on the City’s Housing Element schedule and the HCD review process.

Currently, City staff is reviewing the first dra of the Needs Assessment. We will release the Needs Assessment chapter along with the rest of Public Dra Housing Element to the public in the first week of May. We agree that the Needs Assessment is an important component of the Housing Element and an integral part of a transparent process. However, at this me, City staff needs an opportunity to review the document to ensure that it is clear, comprehensible, and professional prior to its release. Our hope is that the public can meaningfully use the Needs Assessment to review and respond to the proposed policies and programs included in the Housing Element.

The City intends to provide ample opportunity for public review and comment on the dra Housing Element throughout the year. In the upcoming months, the City will hold the following engagement meengs:

May 11: Community Workshop #3 – Public Dra Review
May 23: Planning Commission – Public Dra Review Hearing May 25: Housing and Human Services Commission – Public Dra Review Hearing June 21: City Council – Public Dra Review Hearing
Aer these meengs, a revised dra Housing Element will be submied to HCD for review. However, the Housing Element will sll be in dra form. Public comments will connue to be accepted during this review period and addional engagement meengs will be scheduled for Fall 2022.

We also want to clarify that AB 215 only sets a minimum me of 30 days for public review prior to submial to HCD. The City will not submit the dra to HCD for their inial review unl aer the June 21 City Council Public Hearing. This will allow for closer to 60 days of public review prior to HCD review. Furthermore, the Housing Element will sll be in dra form during the HCD review period and is not considered final unl it is adopted in January 2023. As stated above, any public comment will sll be considered during HCD review.

We hope that this provides some clarificaon on the City’s Housing Element schedule and future opportunies for public comment and engagement. We look forward to hearing from Livable Sunnyvale and all Sunnyvale residents throughout the year as we complete the Housing Element update.

Thanks again,

RYAN DYSON
Housing Specialist
Community Development Department
408-730-7466
From: Mike Serrone <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 1:29 PM
City Email Response to 2nd Letter
Attachment 2

9/20/22, 4:41 PM Mail - Kenneth Rosales - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkADU5ZmQ0ZTcxLWNmNTItNGQ2MC05MmQzLTZhNGE4ZGFkZTdiYgAQALXPELDXyHBOiKWTE99A%2FYk… 2/3 To: Ryan Dyson <[email protected]>; Jenny Carloni <[email protected]>; Kent Steffens <KSteff[email protected]>; Council AnswerPoint <[email protected]> Cc: Agnes Veith <acmduff@gmail.com>; Charles Fraleigh <[email protected]>; Kenneth Rosales <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Livable Sunnyvale and SV@Home request for dra of Housing Needs Assessment ATTN: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

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 transparency 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 reflect 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 to 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
Attachment 2

9/20/22, 4:41 PM Mail - Kenneth Rosales - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkADU5ZmQ0ZTcxLWNmNTItNGQ2MC05MmQzLTZhNGE4ZGFkZTdiYgAQALXPELDXyHBOiKWTE99A%2FYk… 3/3 the City’s need for additional information to complete the Housing Needs Assessment, we believe there is ample available information to produce a basic draft 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 differential access of specific racial and ethnic groups as part of the AFFH requirements of the update. Absent this information from the state, we still believe there is enough data available to complete a draft Housing Needs Assessment.

Again,
we ask for the transparency we have become accustomed to and ask staff to please release a draft Housing Needs Assessment so the public can partner with staff to identify solutions to the issues that have been identified.

Thank
you for the work you are doing and have done. If it would be helpful to set a time to talk in more detail about how we can help in this process, please let us know.

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

1 Chelsey Payne
From: Danino, Shawn@HCD <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 1:43 PM
To: Kim Untermoser; Chelsey Payne; [email protected]; Jenny Carloni; Ryan Dyson Cc: McDougall, Paul@HCD
Subject: FW: Sunnyvale Barrier to Development
Hello City of Sunnyvale Team –

I just wanted to share this public comment we received from YIMBY regarding the City’s element for your review.

Please make sure to forward any public comments you receive as well.

From: Mendoza, Kathyren@HCD <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Housing Elements@HCD Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 1:16 PM
To: Danino, Shawn@HCD <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Sunnyvale Barrier to Development

Kathyren Mendoza | Division of Housing Policy Development Office Technician
California Department of Housing & Community Development 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 | Sacramento, CA 95833 Phone (916) 694-2607

From: Davis White <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 11:24 AM
To: Housing Elements@HCD <[email protected]>
Cc: Rafa Sonnenfeld <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Sunnyvale Barrier to Development

To whom it may concern,

The City of Sunnyvale is currently severely restricting the implementation of Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) within its community and restricting the rights of its residents. The City has a Park Dedication In‐lieu fee for large subdivisions to facilitate either the development of parks in those subdivisions or gathering funds for park projects by the city itse lf. This fee, for large developments, makes sense. However, the city has not exempted SB 9 projects from this fee, putting homeowners on the hook for a thirty to ninety thousand dollar fee if they wish to split their lot or convey units built separately. An exemption should be made or it will risk entirely discouraging residents from utilizing the rights brought by SB 9. As it Attachment 2

2 stands, this fee represents a significant barrier to development. If the city wants to follow through with Policy H‐1.6 of their Housing Element, this exemption must be made. This could greatly benefit house‐rich homeowners who are cash‐ poor, since the prospect of selling off the newly‐created lot can make such projects feasible in the first place. Simply relying on ADUs alone is not enough.

Please encourage the city to exempt SB 9 projects fr
om their Park In‐lieu fee.

Sunnyvale Housing Element:
https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3614/637928808544770000 [sunnyvale.ca.gov]

Sunnyvale Park Dedication Fee (Municipal Code §19.74):
https://library.qcode.us/lib/sunnyvale_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_19‐article_5‐chapter_19_74 [library.qcode.us]

Current Fee Levels set by Sunnyvale City Council:
https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3398/637889955002670000 [sunnyvale.ca.gov]

SF Chronicle Article on High Fee: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California‐housing‐density‐law‐SB9‐ 17295074.php [sfchronicle.com]

Sincerely,
Davis White

‐‐
Davis White he/him
yimbylaw.org [yimbylaw.org]
415 298 0788

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Attachment 2

Dear Sunnyvale City Council,
In our past two comment letters we have noted the exorbitant multi-family park-in-lieu fee that is a significant impediment to development. HCD in their July comment letter states, “ pursuant to public comments, the City should analyze its $72,560 park in lieu fee applied to all multifamily units”.

Since we provided our feedback we have done additional analysis of the methodology for the park-in-lieu fee. We have a number of concerns in our findings:

I. The city should not appraise the park-in-lieu-fee based off of residential land sales The city's appraisals specifically target residential land sales, which is problematic because this method uses the price of one of the most expensive types of properties to set the fee and implies the City will purchase residentially zoned properties for parks. ○ There are two issues with this approach. One, this conflicts with the Housing Element sites inventory if the City intends to purchase residential property for parks. Two, if the City purchases more appropriately zoned property at lower prices for parks, the City is inflating the park impact fee on new housing.

II. The methodology the city is using is inappropriate to justify the exorbitant park-in-lieu fee
In order to calculate the park-in-lieu fee the city analyzes all the residential property sales of the given year. They remove the outliers (the highest and the lowest sale) and find the average. The fee is then “adjusted” by 25% in order to account for the adjustment from an entitled property to an unentitled property.

In the following exhibit we analyzed the three residential property sales that occurred in 2022, (1175 Aster Ave.) (1139 Karlstad Dr.) and (1101 S Wolfe Rd). In order to find the average and calculate the 2023 park-in-lieu fee, the highest sale (Wolfe) and the lowest sale (Aster) would be Attachment 2

removed as outliers, and the only sale left to analyze is the (Karlstad) sale.

As such,
● The park-in-lieu fee for 2023 is reportedly based on one property sale, which is inappropriate for determining a high fee on new housing. ● Additionally, there is an unsupported assumption that entitled property is worth 25%-30% more than unentitled property. Given the significant time and expense of entitling property in California, the value increase is likely much more. The city needs to provide backup for this adjustment, especially since the properties used to set the fee are entitled sales comps but they intend to value unentitled land.

We recommend that the city does not base the park-in-lieu fee based on this methodology.

As stated in previous letters, Sunnyvale’s park-in-lieu fee is exorbitantly high relative to the region. As such, we recommend that the city reduces the fee by at least 50% in order to allow development to occur in Sunnyvale.

In solidarity,
Ali Sapirman, Housing Action Coalition
Jordan Grimes, Greenbelt Alliance
Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Dear Sunnyvale City Council,
I’m following up on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition on my April 27 , 2023 leer with additional comments on the current dra Housing Element (the Element). The Element update is a great opportunity for Sunnyvale to proactively promote abundant, aordable, and secure housing opportunities for its existing and future residents. We commend the work city sta have put into both processes. Given the city’s hard work on the Moe Park Specic Plan (MPSP) and its pending approval in the very near future, we think these comments are timely for your consideration with this plan.

Unfortunately, some of the City’s existing ordinances will hinder the success of the goals outlined in the Housing Element dra
, and should be remedied before HCD certi es a nal Element. Speci cally, Sunnyvale’s in-lieu park fee and inclusionary aordable housing requirements impose excessive cost burdens that undermine the nancial feasibility of multifamily development, which will, in turn, defeat the 2031 housing production goals outlined in the Element.

Excessively High In-lieu Park Fees
Sunnyvale’s $72,527-per-unit in-lieu fee for multifamily projects is 300% higher than the average park fee in Santa Clara County (see Appendix A for a list of comparable cities and their respective in lieu fees). Even nearby jurisdictions that command higher average rents have substantially lower fees such as Palo Alto at $47 ,893 per multi-family unit and Los Altos at $48,800 per multi-family unit. Additionally, high park in-lieu fees incentivize lower density developments that include on-site parks, disincentivizing dense development in areas where it's most needed. Finally, the city’s park “level of service,” pegged at 5 acres per 1,000 residents, is 67% higher than many of its neighbors, including adjacent Mountain View, which requires 3 acres per 1,000 residents. This high level of service deters developers from o
ering land dedication in-lieu of paying the fee, further undermining the nancial feasibility of development.

Inexible & Expensive Inclusionary Aordable Housing Requirements Sunnyvale's 15% inclusionary aordable housing requirement is generally consistent with the requirements of neighboring jurisdictions, but the depth of aordability required--5% of units aordable to very low income households and 10% of units a ordable to low income households--is much deeper (and therefore much more expensive) than many surrounding jurisdictions, which only require that units be aordable, on average, to households earning 100% AMI. In addition, the city has adopted regulatory ‘penalties’ that discourage land dedication as a means of compliance. Compared to Mountain View, the Sunnyvale code is ~33% more expensive to satisfy.

A large portion of Sunnyvale’s 11,966 unit RHNA obligation is required to be a ordable to very low and low income households. Land dedication is an e cient and proven means to deliver a large number of these deeply aordable units because non-prot developers building 100% aordable units can take advantage of federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits that aren’t available for on-site inclusionary units.

Accordingly, it is critical that cities encourage--not penalize--compliance options like land dedication to meet their a
ordable housing targets.

Attachment 2

Other Considerations
As you know, Sunnyvale’s average rents are 15-20% less than similar units located in many neighboring cities, which reduces the economic feasibility of new construction from the start. This disparity means that Sunnyvale must be more
exible with its fee requirements and compliance methods to promote housing development now, ideally in time to encourage timely construction in the MPSP area.

In addition to rent disparities, we encourage the city to look at other unique factors that may hinder development, such as infrastructure costs. When looking at the recently approved North Bayshore Master Plan, there is an overall FAR of 1.92 across 123 acres. The Mo e Park Specic Plan, by
comparison, is seeking to approve an overall FAR of just 0.92, across a signi cantly larger area of 1,156 acres. To connect needed infrastructure across this larger area, for only half the resulting density per acre, suggests a high likelihood of much more infrastructure costs per acre, and consequently per dwelling unit, needed to serve similar development needs. And, we might observe that the new Mo e
Park aspirations are seeking a much more ambitious level of transformation than the existing, more built out Mountain View North Bayshore area, implying higher infrastructure costs as well. By implication, infrastructure costs are ~50% higher in Sunnyvale.

Conclusions
In this challenging economic climate the City of Sunnyvale should ensure that its development policies actually incentivize the production of more housing at all income levels, in line with the City’s RHNA requirement to add 11,966 units by 2031. With fees 40%+ higher than adjacent cities and rents 15-20% lower, the plan zones for housing but it doesn’t enable the building of housing. It can accomplish this by reducing its in-lieu fee park/open space requirements to be in line with neighboring cities, right-sizing the infrastructure burden on projects, and being more exible with its inclusionary
housing requirements to support land dedication and alternate compliance methods. In conclusion, we support the October 6, 2022 HCD le
er to the City and recommend the City perform a feasibility study in 2023 that compares the plans to adjacent plans that have proven production of housing, thus enabling the 20,000 MPSP residential units to be built, not just zoned.

We appreciate your time and consideration and hope you’ll recognize this amazing opportunity Sunnyvale has right now.

In solidarity,
Ali Sapirman
South Bay & Peninsula Organizer / A
ordable Housing Advocate
Housing Action Coalition
Attachment 2

Appendix A:

Comparison between Sunnyvale’s Multifamily In-Lieu Park Fee vs. Comparable Jurisdictions Sunnyvale $72,527 (multi-family) per the Housing Element Mountain View $50,180 to $58,545*
*The City of Mountain View’s 2023-2031 Housing Element recommended that its park in-lieu fees be reduced by 20%; current fees are $62,726 to $73,181/unit Saratoga $21,562 (multi-family)
Palo Alto $45,885 (multi-family)
Los Altos $48,800 (multi-family)
Santa Clara ranged from $37 ,609-$65,263
- Formula = average density for specied dwelling unit category x park land dedication standard / one thousand population
Redwood City $11,940 (condo 8-20 units), $12,793 (apartment 8-20 units), $9,382.42 (condo 21+ units), $12,430.70 (apartment 21+ units)
San Carlos $2,651 per bedroom
Cupertino
Attachment 2

YIMBY Law
877 Cedar Street #150
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]
6/5/2023
Department of Housing & Community Development
[email protected]; [email protected]
RE: Sunnyvale Housing Element
To Whom It May Concern,
YIMBY Law wishes to call attention to the City of Sunnyvale’s extreme Park Dedication In-Lieu Fees. We encourage HCD to withhold certi fication of Sunnyvale’s Housing Element absent clearer and far more rapid commitments to mitigate this fee. We believe this fee warrants additional HCD scrutiny for four reasons:

1. Sunnyvale’s Park In-Lieu Fee is among the highest in California. According to the city’s own housing element, Sunnyvale’s park in-lieu fee is “signi ficantly higher than
other jurisdictions.” (p.6-50). We understand the fee to be as high as $72,527 for each unit of housing in densities above 14 dwelling units per acre (higher than Housing Element cites a per-unit cost of $62,726).

The park fee has a signi
ficant impact on the cost of housing, and increases costs for future renters and owners, making Sunnyvale less a ordable.

2. Sunnyvale’s Park In-Lieu Fee has increased too much in the past decade. The fee has averaged a 10% increase per year since the 2013/2014 Fiscal Year - a 168% total increase in that period. This extreme rise in fee costs places a signi ficant burden on the already high costs of residential development. The chart below – created from City of Sunnyvale data – demonstrates the rapid fee increase on a square foot and per-unit basis.
1 Attachment 2

3. The City’s methodology in assessing property value and justifying fee increases is unclear. The zoning code authorizes the City’s Community Development Director to propose increasing fees to the City Council, but provides no guidance on assessing the “fair market value” of land. There is no obvious source of economic analysis provided by the City to support its yearly reassessments.

4. The City’s plan for expanding the availability of park land within city limits is unknown. No vision or master plan for new park space is apparent, raising questions as to where fee revenue is getting allocated. If the City continues to levy steep park fees on new housing developments, sites should be identi
fied as potential acquisitions for
conversion into much-needed park land.

In closing, HCD should have Sunnyvale commit to reduce its Park In-lieu fee. The fee adds outsized costs to new multi-family development, disincentivizes density, and adds a great deal of
financial uncertainty to housing development projects. Please find the City’s latest draft housing element out of compliance absent much stronger commitments to remove this constraint on the development of housing.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
2 Attachment 2

From: Danino, Shawn@HCD
To: Chelsey Payne; Ryan Dyson; Trudi Ryan; Jenny Carloni; McDougall, Paul@HCD Subject: FW: Errata to Revised HCD Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Available Date: Friday, July 7, 2023 10:52:51 AM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

FYI – new public comment received regarding fees.

From: Keith Diggs <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 6:48 PM
To: Danino, Shawn@HCD <[email protected]>; Housing Elements@HCD <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Errata to Revised HCD Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Available

Hi Shawn --

Wanted to chime in quickly on Sunnyvale's recent errata (below), responding in part to our letter about their park in-lieu fees.

Sunnyvale imposes some of the highest fees in the Bay Area. We're glad to see the city partially address the problem in program H19, but it appears only to apply to lot splits. In order to make a dent in housing production, we'd like to see the city reduce its park in-lieu fees for multifamily projects in addition to lot splits.

Appreciate your time. Thanks,

Keith Diggs ♂
Attorney
703-409-5198
[yimbylaw.org]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: City of Sunnyvale, CA <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 1:40 PM
Subject: Errata to Revised HCD Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Available To: <[email protected]
>

Give us your feedback!

Having trouble viewing this email? [lnks.gd]View it as a Web page [lnks.gd].

Attachment 2

From: Agnes Veith
To: Danino, Shawn@HCD
Cc: Jenny Carloni; Ryan Dyson; [email protected]; Council AnswerPoint Subject: Livable Sunnyvale: Revised Housing Element Draft Date: Saturday, July 15, 2023 4:22:46 PM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

Submitted via email
Shawn Danino, MPP/MSI
Housing and Community Development
[email protected]
C: Jenny Carloni, Housing Officer, City of Sunnyvale
[email protected]
Ryan Dyson, Housing Specialist, City of Sunnyvale
[email protected]
Trudi Ryan, AICP
Director, Community Development Department, City of Sunnyvale [email protected]
Sunnyvale City Council
[email protected]
July 15, 2023
Dear Shawn,
Attachment 2

We understand you are in conversation with City Staff regarding the Revised HCD Draft.

We have read the Errata published on June 30, 2023 and are in complete support of these revisions. As you probably remember, Livable Sunnyvale has been working closely with City Staff for well over a year to ensure the Housing Element identifies and meets the needs of our community. As residents of Sunnyvale who also represent our community we have a vested interest in the outcome of this process.

Programs: In general, the language is more definitive and the completion dates have been pulled in.

We commend City Staff for listening to our
concerns and editing programs we discussed. A few programs of interest to us are noted below.

Program H3. Increase Affordable Housing Opportunities in High Resource Areas
In the initial stages of the HE process, Livable Sunnyvale advocated for affordable housing throughout our city as well as increasing the units per acre in the Village Centers from 18 units/acre to 30 units/acre. This program creates at least 750 lower-income units of additional capacity for high density residential by increasing the allowed density in the Village Centers to 30 units/acre.

Again, City Staff listened to our request to increase the units/acre in the Village Centers.

Program H4. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Livable Sunnyvale asked to pull in the initial completion date and the City did.

In addition, the City has included language regarding monitoring ADU affordability and production every 2 years. This program will increase housing stock in mixed-income neighborhoods in areas of high and highest resources, providing additional housing throughout our City.

Program H19.

Review Park Dedication Requirements
Reducing park dedication fees for lot splits will encourage building in existing neighborhoods.

This in turn will support affirmatively furthering fair housing in single family neighborhoods throughout our city. Again, this program supports Livable Sunnyvale’s request to add housing stock throughout our City.

Program H33. Capital Projects to Address Homelessness
Addressing the needs of our unhoused community members is extremely important to our organization and a concern we have repeatedly expressed to the city council and staff for many years.

Supporting the creation of 200
units serving individuals experiencing homelessness will address our concerns.

Livable Sunnyvale has advocated for a 20% inclusionary rate. We Attachment 2

understand some housing advocates and others believe raising the inclusionary rate will dissuade developers from building in Sunnyvale because their builds will not pencil out. By creating a study issue, the City will have the data it needs to make an informed decision which we think is a sound approach and one we support.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter and would like to discuss them, please let us know.

Agnes Veith
Chuck Fraleigh
[email protected] [email protected] Regards,
Livable Sunnyvale Housing Element Committee
Attachment 2

From: Agnes Veith
To: Danino, Shawn@HCD
Cc: Jenny Carloni; Ryan Dyson; Trudi Ryan; Council AnswerPoint Subject: Livable Sunnyvale: Housing Element Comments
Date: Friday, August 11, 2023 1:35:25 PM
WARNING - This email came from an EXTERNAL source. Confirm the sender and its contents are safe before responding, opening attachment or links.

August 11, 2023
Submitted via email
Shawn Danino, MPP/MSI
Housing and Community Development
[email protected]
C: Jenny Carloni, Housing Officer, City of Sunnyvale
[email protected]
Ryan Dyson,Housing Specialist, City of Sunnyvale
[email protected]
Trudi Ryan
Director, Community Development Department, City of Sunnyvale [email protected]
Sunnyvale City Council
[email protected]
Dear Shawn:

As you may remember, Livable Sunnyvale https://www.livablesunnyvale.org/ was formed in Attachment 2

2016. We are an organization which promotes a livable, sustainable city with affordable housing and transportation solutions for all members of our community through education, outreach and advocacy. We educate and activate residents and office-holders to secure an environmentally sustainable future with broadly shared prosperity and a high quality of life.

Livable Sunnyvale has been working closely with City Staff for well over a year to ensure the Housing Element identifies and meets the needs of our community.

As residents of
Sunnyvale who also represent our community we have a vested interest in the outcome of this process.

Livable Sunnyvale has been working closely with City Staff for well over a year to ensure the Housing Element identifies and meets the needs of our community.

As residents of
Sunnyvale who also represent our community we have a vested interest in the outcome of this process.

We would like to address several of the points raised in Paul McDougall, Senior Program Manager’s letter of
July 21. Appendix A1 and B3 mention concerns about AFFH. Livable Sunnyvale shared many of these concerns with respect to the original draft housing element Sunnyvale submitted in July 2022. We highlighted these concerns in a previous letter to HCD and discussed the concerns with the City. We feel that the City listened to our concerns and that the second draft housing element submitted in May 2023 made significant progress addressing AFFH. Specifically, we support the revised program H3.

The revised program is specific in terms of the location of additional sites (the Village Centers), it contains specific density targets (30 units/acre or more), and it commits to

finding additional sites in South Sunnyvale beyond the existing Village Centers. We also think the total number of units, 750, is a substantial improvement over the initial commitment of 100 and is a good compromise with our initial request of 1,500 units.

Appendix A3 and B2 mention concerns about development constraints, specifically commercial requirements, open space requirements, and park fees. Our experience in Sunnyvale is that these requirements and fees have not been a barrier to development for market-rate housing. In the previous RHNA cycle, Sunnyvale’s target for above-moderate income units was 1,974 and it permitted 4,638 units. The commercial requirements, open space requirements, and park fees do not seem to have imposed a constraint on development. In fact, we feel that these requirements and fees are necessary to provide the retail and open space needed to support additional Sunnyvale residents.

We do agree with Program H17 as written in the May 2023 draft. Sunnyvale has fallen short of its RHNA targets for moderate income and below units, so reducing or ideally eliminating the commercial requirements for 100% affordable developments makes sense, but we would be opposed to removing commercial requirements for market-rate developments.

Sunnyvale is losing grocery stores and other retail, especially in the lower-income sections of the city, and the commercial requirements are one of the few tools the city has to Attachment 2

maintain retail.

We also support Program H19 as written in the May 2023 draft. The park fees are a burden for individual homeowners wishing to do a lot split, but we do not feel it is a significant burden for large multifamily developments. Developers have managed to afford the fees for the thousands of units built in the previous cycle and the funds have been a valuable source of revenue to maintain and grow Sunnyvale’s park system.

Appendix A2 discusses the realistic capacity analysis and analysis of non-vacant sites.

Livable Sunnyvale believes that the City has done a thorough, good-faith analysis of the development potential of the sites listed in the sites inventory. In fact, we thought this was one of the stronger parts of both the July 2022 and May 2023 housing element drafts.

Virtually all of the recent developments in Sunnyvale that we are aware of reach or exceed the maximum base density. This is, in part, the result of advocacy Livable Sunnyvale has done to increase housing density Downtown, along El Camino, at Lawrence Station, and in Moffett Park; as well as the advocacy we do to maximize the amount of housing when individual proposals come before the Planning Commission and City Council. We are not concerned that mixed-use developments will be proposed at anything less than the maximum base density. We also think that the City did a thorough analysis and was fairly conservative when selecting which parcels are likely to redevelop during the next cycle.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter and would like to discuss them, please let us know.

Agnes Veith
Chuck Fraleigh
[email protected] [email protected] Regards,
Livable Sunnyvale Housing Element Committee
Attachment 2

June 30, 2023
Aastha Vashist
456 W Olive Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Re: 1154 Sonora Court Project – UPDATED State Density Bonus Law Application Dear Aastha:

We represent SKS Partners (“SKS”) in connection with its application for the 1154 Sonora Court Project (the “Project”), a mixed-use development at 1154 Sonora Court (the “ Project Site”) in Sunnyvale, California. The 1.887 acre Project Site is within the Lawrence Station Area and is currently developed with a single story building and surface parking lot. The Project would redevelop the Project Site with a total of 174 multi-family residential rental units and 142,270 square feet of office space. Consistent with both the City’s inclusionary housing requirements and the requirements of the State Density Bonus Law, 24% of the Project’s base residential units (28 total units – see below for further details ) would be provided at the lower income affordability level – consisting of 19% low income (22 units) and 5% very low income (6 units).

The purpose of this letter is to serve as SKS’s application for certain rights under the State Density Bonus Law. Pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law and Zoning Code Chapter 19.18.025, because it will provide 24% of its base units at the lower income affordability level, the Project is entitled to all of the following separate categories of incentives:
(1) An up to 50% density bonus over the maximum allowable residential density1; (2) Up to three mandatory concessions or incentives (three identified – see details below); (3) any required physical waivers of development standards to accommodate the Project (three identified – see details below); and
(4) applicable mandatory maximum residential parking standards (not required due to SB 2907 – see details below).

Details on each of the above categories is provided below:
1 Gov. Code Section 65915(f), 65915(o)(4).

Attachment 2

1. Up to 50% Density Bonus

The Project proposes 28 lower income units (24% of the base maximum with 7 LSAP incentive points – please see below and enclosed Plan Set for details). The State Density Bonus Law provides that the base density used to calculate the affordable housing requirements do not include any bonus units under the State Density Bonus Law.
2 Because the Project provides 24% of its base
density units as lower income units, the Project qualifies for a mandatory density bonus of up to 50%.3

Base Maximum (per LSAP) 54 du/acre
LSAP Incentive Points
• Below Grade Parking – 7 points
7 du/acre
Base + 7 Incentive Points Maximum 61 du/acre
Total Base Maximum Units 61 x 1.887 acres = 116 units4
Lower Income Units Required for 50% Bonus 24% x 116 units = 27.84 rounded to 28 units Maximum Units w/ 50% Density Bonus 116 units + 50% = 174 total permitted units Total Units Proposed 174, consistent with 174 unit maximum

2. Up to Three Mandatory Concessions or Incentives – Three Identified

Because the Project provides 24% of its base density units as lower income units, it is eligible for up to three (3) mandatory concessions or incentives.
5 A concession is defined to include “approval
of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development.” It is also defined to include, among other things, “reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements,” including a reduction in setbacks and square footage requirements, and “[o]ther regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city, county, or city and county that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs.”
6,7 SKS has identified three concessions or incentives at this time.

2 Gov. Code Section 65915(b)(3).
3 Gov. Code Section 65915(b)(1)(A), (f)(1).
4 61 x 1.887 acres = 115.107, which is rounded up to 116 pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65915(q), which specifies that "each component of any density calculation…resulting in fractional units shall be separately rounded up to the next whole number."
5 Gov. Code Section 65915(d)(2)(C).
6 Gov. Code Section 65915(k).
7 Pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65915(d)(4), "the city…shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive." Further, the City cannot require a pro forma or other study from the applicant, beyond reasonable documentation to establish eligibility. (Gov. Code 65915(a)(2)).

Attachment 2

Incentives:

3) Exceed Maximum Office Floor Area Ratio by 23%

SKS has identified a need to exceed the 150% maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) provided in the recently amended Lawrence Station Area Plan for projects zoned MXD- I/S,8 by 23% (for a total of 173%. Please see Sheet G.A.007 for FAR calculation details.

For this mixed-use project, the conjunction of commercial office with housing reduces the cost of housing. The office component yields higher returns than the residential component, and when combined, makes the overall project financially feasible. It is clear that the State has recognized this fact, given that as noted above, one of the specific incentives provided for in Govt. Code Section 65915(k) is to allow mixed -use zoning on a property. Furtherm ore, the additional office square footage results in identifiable and actual cost reductions for both the affordable and market rate units. Feasible and marketable office area is critical to the economic health of the project and ensures a high -density project can be built, consistent with the Lawrence Station Area Plan and the City’s Housing Element. The Bay Area has the highest multi-family construction costs in the state, rising 119% between 2008 and 2018, compared to 25% statewide . 9 In 2019 The Bay Ar ea
was ranked the third most expensive region to build in the world, behind only Tokyo and Hong Kong,
10 and construction costs escalated 15% in 2021.11 Given the high, and ever-rising, costs of developing multi -family housing, the revenue from the office component will help to secure commercially reasonable financing and subsidize the construction of housing units.

The specific amount of office requested is a result of building layout and construction efficiencies.

Given site constraints, such as setbacks and fire access, and required functional ground floor services, 150% FAR would limit the office area to two and a half building levels. The result is a split third level, with both office and residential uses. The most cost -efficient way to construct housing over an office is to build units with a wood stud structural system (Type V or Type III).

In the scenario of a split level, the units on the third level w ould be built in the more robust and costly system of the office, most likely concrete and metal studs (Type I), increasing the already high cost of the housing, contrary to the intent of the State Density Bonus Law . 12 Structural and
constructability factors would warrant a full third level concrete slab, similar to lower building levels. Further, the California Building Code would require these units to have higher fire ratings than the upper levels and the third level would need an additional vertical fire separation between the office and residential portions. Additionally, a small handful of units would need to be built in 8 City of Sunnyvale, Ordinance No. 3181-21, Section 19.35.060, Table 19.35.060. 9 “The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California” Terner Center for Housing Innovation UC Berkeley March 2020. 10 See https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/07/26/bay-area-tops-list-as-one-of-t he-worlds-most-expensive-regions- to-build/
11 Engineering News-Records Building Cost Index
12 “The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California” Terner Center for Housing Innovation UC Berkeley March 2020.

Attachment 2

a different system from the rest, requiring separate building trades. For these reasons, construction costs of the residential units would rise, and any economic benefits captured from the half level of office would be eliminated by added costs. To offset this impact, the project would need to remove the third split level, limiting the office to two full levels, and reducing affordable units.

In addition to the proposed office area directly reducing housing costs, the economic benefits also enable higher quality spaces. They allow more flexibility and creativity to provide terraced open spaces and courtyards, giving both office and res idential tenants higher access to fresh air and sunlight. The proposed office space also enables a wider range of architectural expression and higher quality materials. Overall, the project will be better positioned to deliver a dense mixed-use project and help Sunnyvale meet its housing goals, with a higher FAR.

2) No Development Agreement

The LSAP purports to require a Development agreement (“DA”) for projects that propose FAR above the 35% office base maximum through the LSAP incentive program. 13 However, we note
that a DA is a fully voluntary contract, and a jurisdiction may not require an applicant to enter into one.14 While SKS has been voluntarily negotiating the potential terms of a DA in good faith with City staff for approximately a year, on March 30th the City relayed a “best offer” for the Project’s community benefit contribution that would make the Project financially infeasible for SKS, in part because the offer fails to provide credit for significant contributions SKS is making, including 60% more affordable housing than the LSAP requires.15 Accordingly, SKS has decided not to pursue a Development Agreement. The City did not ever issue SKS an invoice for the associated $7,313 fee and SKS never submitted (nor does the City have) an application form for a DA. However, to the extent the City does consider SKS to have formally applied for a Development Agreement, we hereby revoke that application/request.

As explained above in relation to the Project’s first incentive request, the revenue from the office component will help to secure commercially reasonable financing and subsidize the construction of housing units. In order to achieve a rate of return that makes the Project economically feasible, the Project cannot also pay an additional over $5 Million 16 in an “over and above” contribution
that outweighs the incentive provided to the Project by allowing the office space. Not entering into a Development Agreement will also directly reduce entitlement costs for the Project, by avoiding the need for any hearings at City Council (without a Development Agreement the Project will only be required to proceed to Planning Commission), the $7,313 Development Agreement processing fee, and the assessment of any further fees for staff and legal time (in addition to our own fees) in a protracted negotiation process.

13 LSAP pages ES.3, ES.5, 3.10.
14 Gov. Code Section 65865.
15 The LSAP requires 15% affordable housing, whereas the Project is providing 24%. 16 This total includes both this project and 1170 Sonora Court. While they are separate projects, they are being entitled and evaluated at the same time as related projects, and, at this stage, have integrated financial aspects.

Attachment 2

3) Extend Two-Year Entitlement Expiration (With One-Year Pote ntial Extension) to Five Years (With 1-Year Potential Extension) for Total of Six Years

At this time, the City’s Zoning Code specifies that a Major Special Development Permit expires in two years, with a potential discretionary one-year extension. In order to maintain the certainty that it may accomplish the construction of the large and complicated Project (which SKS is losing due to the stalling of its voluntary Development Agreement), SKS hereby requests an incentive to extend the life of its Major Special Development Permit to 5 years, with a potential discretionary 1-year extension (for a total of 6 years as opposed to 3 years).

Automatically extending the life of the Major Special Development Permit will result in actual and identifiable costs reductions for the Project because it will avoid the need for SKS to go through a process to obtain a discretionary one -year extension, which process has associated processing costs. And, most importantly, an extended life to the entitlement would mitigate the risk of raising additional capital, and spending additional time, to re -entitle the project if the City does not decide to issue a d iscretionary extension, all of which increases the cost of housing. In the current economic environment, I ncluding the highest inflation in forty years and large bank failures, longer approvals are critical to securing construction financing.

3. Waivers – Three Identified

In addition to a limited number of concessions/incentives, the State Density Bonus Law specifies that a project is entitled to a waiver from “any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development . . . at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section.”
17 Waivers are separate from and additional to
concessions/incentives, are unlimited, and approval is mandatory if the standard would preclude development of the Project at its permitted density and with its incentives/concessions incorporated. SKS has identified the need for three waivers, as follows:

1) Landscape frontage strip

The Zoning Code requires a 15’ wide landscaped frontage strip from the inside of a public sidewalk.
18 The requirement to preserve the redwood trees fronting Sonora Court, and the need to locate the public sidewalk behind them, prevents the Project from meeting this requirement. The Project is in a somewhat unique position rel ative to other sites to which this requirement would apply, and strict compliance would negatively impact the project. As a result of the redwood trees, the proposed sidewalk on Sonora Court is already set back 25’ and the building is set back 35’ from the curb. Requiring the 15’ landscaped frontage strip behind the proposed sidewalk would result in a front setback of 46’, which would reduce the Project’s density, precluding it from being constructed at its permitted densities and qualifying it for a waiver from this requirement. 17 Gov. Code Section 65915(e)(1).
18 Zoning Code Section 19.37.040(c).

Attachment 2

The proposed design includes 25’ of landscaping between the curb and sidewalk, and a 4’ planting strip between the sidewalk and building façade. SKS believes preserving the redwood trees and incorporating appropriate landscaping features is still in line with the C ity’s goals. The proposed design is illustrated below:

2) Solid waste and recycling management

The Zoning Code requires that solid waste enclosures be located within 150 feet by path of travel from any dwelling unit or commercial business .
19 However, the proposed vertical mixed -use
development combines both residential and office uses, and strictly meeting the requirement would greatly impact the usability of the office space. This would not only be detrimental to the project, but also to future office tenants who want to locate their business in Sunnyvale. Further, s trict compliance with the requirement would reduce the Project’s density, as residential units would need to be lost in order to provide an additional chute or chutes. Accordingly, the Project qualifies for a waiver from this requirement. We note that relatively few residential units are out of compliance with the requirement, and the furthest distance for units is 230 feet.

SKS hereby reserves the right to identify any further necessary modifications or waivers through the City’s application review and approval process.

3) Reduce minimum landscape area

The Zoning Code requires a minimum of 20% landscaped area. 20 SKS requires a waiver from this
requirement because the project is providing a public sidewalk within the project lot area, which takes up land that would otherwise be planted and counted as landscaped area. This is necessary 19 Zoning Code Section 19.38.030(e)(1)(K).
20 Zoning Code Section 19.25.090.

Attachment 2

to preserve the mature redwood trees lining Sonora Cour t, and to provide a safe and accessible sidewalk for the public.

Due to the sidewalk being located within the lot, the project does not provide the required landscaped area (it is short on decorative stone and provides 18.59% overall – please see detail below), and in order to do so it would need to reduce its residential density, qualifying it for a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law. Nonetheless, the project is still within the 80% maximum lot coverage. In addition, it provides 25’ of frontage landscaping that includes the redwood trees and a variety of other vegetated areas on site, as well as low landscaping within the emergency vehicle access area which will be available unless there is a serious emergency.

4. Mandatory Maximum Residential Parking Standards

Pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, the Project has the right to meet mandatory maximum residential parking standards under the State Density Bonus law of no more than: 0.5 spaces per unit, because it provides at least 20 percent lower income units (19% low income, 5% very low income); and is within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop with unobstructed access. 21 However, the Project is not applying for a parking reduction under the State Density Bonus Law.

Rather, SKS hereby applies under AB 2097, which became effective on January 1, 2023. 22 We have been unable to locate a City form to assert the Project’s qualification under AB 2097, and are therefore including this statement regarding qualification here. Under AB 2097, the City may not impose minimum automobile parking requirements for residential and commercial uses 21 Gov. Code Section 65915(p)(2).
22 Bill Text - AB-2097 Residential, commercial, or other development types: parking requirements. (ca.gov) Attachment 2

for projects within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop , and the Project qualifies .23 Accordingly, the Project is not required to provide parking, but will voluntarily provide 254 parking spaces.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, we look forward to working with the City on bringing this project to fruition.

Sincerely yours,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Tamsen Plume
Genna Yarkin

23 Gov. Code Section 65863.2(a), (e)(5).

Attachment 2

July 11, 2023
Shawn Danino
California Department of Housing and
Community Development
Re: Stakeholder Comments on the Sunnyvale Housing Element and Errata – SKS Partners
Dear Shawn:

We represent SKS Partners (“SKS”) in connection with two pending applications for the 1154 Sonora Court Project and the 1170 Sonora Court Project (together, the “Projects”), located within the area governed by the Lawrence Station Area Plan (the “LSAP”) 1 in Sunnyvale (the “City”).

On behalf of SKS, we hereby submit the enclosed comments in response to the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, including the draft the City submitted on May 24th, and the Errata Sheet that the City most recently published on June 30, 2023. 2 We understand that the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) prefers that the public provide comments during the first 30 days of its review of a Housing Element where possible, but we hope that these comments are still helpfu l at this later date, especially in light of the recent Errata. We may also submit a request for technical guidance to HCD as it pertains to this matter.

Projects and Procedural Background
As currently proposed, the 1154 Sonora Court Project would contain 174 multifamily residential units (including 28 low income units) and 142,270 square feet of office space, and the 1170 Sonora Court Project would contain 107 multifamily residential units (including 18 low income units) and 79,211 square feet of office space. Because the Projects do not provide at least 2/3 residential square footage, the Projects do not qualify for the protections of the Housing Accountability Act .

However, both Projects have been designed to meet the requirements of the LSAP, as well as the City’s Vision Zero Plan, Climate Action Playbook, and the General Plan. 1 Available at: https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/business-and-de velopment/projects-in-sunnyvale/long-range-planning- initiatives/lawrence-station-area-plan.
2 Available at: https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4577/638237288729500000.

Attachment 2

The Projects also provide 24% low income housing units (as applied to the maximum base density), and therefore qualify for the benefits of the State Density Bonus Law. An essential part of the Projects’ State Density Bonus Law approach is an incentive request to exceed the LSAP’s overall maximum office Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) of 150%, by 23% for the 1154 Sonora Court Project and 17% for the 1170 Sonora Court Project. The office component yields higher returns than the residential component, and when combined, makes the Projects financially feasible. The rentable, marketable office floor area is critical to the economic health of the Projects and ensures a high-density product can be built, including the Project’s affordable units. Please see the enclosed State Density Bonus Law applications provided as Exhibit A and Exhibit B to this letter for further details regarding the Projects’ current requests.

As revised in 2021, the LSAP purport s to require a Development Agreement (“DA”) for projects that propose an FAR above the 35% office base maximum (up to an absolute maximum of 150% as expressed above).3 However, the Project is entitled to and has requested a State Density Bonus Law incentive/concession to exceed the FAR. Further, as we have previously discussed with the City, a DA is a fully voluntary contract that cannot be required by a jurisdiction.4 While SKS voluntarily negotiated the terms of a DA with the City for more than a year in good faith (during which time the City cancelled multiple meetings, further extending the Projects’ review time), on March 30 of this year the City abruptly announced a “final offer” (in the absence of any previous offers) for a community benefit contribution amount that would make the Projects financially infeasible in combination with the City’s already high development impact fees (including its park in -lieu fee which HCD previously advised that the City must analyze more deeply in its Housing Element as a significant impediment to providing housing).

Thus after two full years of working on the Projects and meeting with the City, SKS was presented with a potentially insurmountable barrier to bringing much-needed housing to this community, on sites that are ideal for housing and would assist the City in meetings its RHNA obligations. Both Projects are accounted for in the Housing Element as inventory sites on which projects are currently “proposed,”5 with the following assumptions:

3 LSAP pages ES.3, ES.5, 3.10.
4 Govt. Code Section 65865.
5 Housing Element Table 5-8 on page 5-30.

Attachment 2

6 To ensure the continued feasibility of the Projects, SKS has added a concession/incentive request to each State Density Bonus Law application to eliminate the purported requirement for a DA.7 It appears from follow up conversations with the City that staff may oppose this request.

The following provides more detailed information about the Projects’ review timeline:
• July 1, 2021: Informal introductory meeting with the Planning Department • July 17, 2021: Informal introductory meeting with the Fire Department • August 20, 2021: Follow up meeting with the Planning Department • September 7, 2021: SKS submitted preliminary informal application for the Projects • October 27, 2021: Planning comments on preliminary application • March 16, 2022: Meeting with Planning
• April 13, 2022: Meeting with Planning re State Density Bonus Law approach and requests • April 22, 2022: Planning Submittal – Formal Application #1 • June 1, 2022: Planning comments – Formal application #1 • June 22, 2022: Meeting with Planning re Development Agreement • July 12, 2022: Staff cancelled Development Agreement meeting • July 14, 2022: Meeting with Planning and Waste Management • July 21, 2022: Meeting with Planning
• July 27, 2022: Meeting with Planning re Development Agreement • August 8, 2022: Meeting with Planning re Development Agreement • August 15, 2022: Meeting with Planning
• August 25, 2022: Staff cancelled Development Agreement meeting • September 6, 2022: Meeting with Planning
• September 8, 2022: Meeting with Planning regarding Development Agreement • September 21, 2022: SKS inquired about Local Transportation Analysis (“LTA”) • September 22, 2022: Staff cancelled Development Agreement meeting • October 7, 2022: Planning Submittal – Formal Application #2 6 Housing Element Table 5-9 on page 5-35.
7 A DA is a negotiated contract that “ may” be entered into. Govt. Code Section 65865. The nature of a DA as a voluntary, negotiated agreement means that the City is not permitted to mandate an applicant enter into a DA.

Nonetheless, SKS has made an incentive request to ensure the Projects can exceed the appli cable FAR maximum without a DA.

Attachment 2

• October 18, 2022: Meeting with Planning re Development Agreement • October 31, 2022: Staff cancelled Development Agreement meeting • November 4, 2022: Planning comments – Formal application #2 • November 8, 2022: Meeting with Planning re Development Agreement • November 30, 2022: Meeting with Planning regarding Development Agreement • December 5, 2022: Meeting with Public Works
• December 13, 2022: Meeting with Planning
• December 14, 2022: Meeting with Planning re Development Agreement • December 16, 2022: SKS inquires again about beginning LTA • January 12, 2023: SKS inquires again about beginning LTA • January 13, 2023: Planning Submittal – Formal Application #3 • January 24, 2023 – Staff cancelled Development Agreement meeting • February 2, 2023: Meeting with Planning re Development Agreement • February 9, 2023: SKS inquires again about beginning LTA • February 15, 2023: Planning comments – Formal application #3 • February 22, 2023: SKS holds community meeting regarding the Projects • February 27, 2023: Planning Commission Study Session (positive feedback) • March 29, 2023: LTA consultant fee paid and received by City • March 30, 2023: Planning abruptly emails a “best offer” for the Project’s community benefit contribution that would make the Projects financially infeasible for SKS , in part because it failed to give any credit for significant contributions that SKS would be making, including 60% more affordable housing than the LSAP requires8 • April 26, 2023: SKS formally rescinds request for Development Agreement, amends State Density Bonus Law requests to include an incentive/concession for each project to avoid a DA
• May 1, 2023: LTA finally begins almost 6 months after SKS inquired • May 12, 2023: Planning Submittal – Formal Application #4, including revisions to address Planning Commission feedback
• May 24, 2023: Sunnyvale submits draft Housing Element to HCD, including the above - listed assumptions for development on the Properties
• June 13, 2023: Planning comments – Formal Application #4 • June 30, 2023: Sunnyvale publishes Errata to the Housing Element Comments/Requests
Given the history of the Projects thus far, SKS remains deeply concerned about its ability to achieve approval of the Projects without HCD intervention, and in a timely enough manner to maintain the Projects’ economic feasibility. SKS shares this concern as it relates to other projects in the LSAP area, which the Housing Element relies on to achieve its RHNA goals. SKS is also concerned about the assumptions the City has made with regard to th ese Properties in the site 8 The LSAP requires 15% of base maximum be affordable, whereas the Projects each provide 24%.

Attachment 2

inventory, which issues likely carry over to other sites. We would therefore like HCD to consider the following in its review of the Housing Element and Errata:
• The Housing Element’s inventory assumptions for the Properties are unrealistic and not based on the Projects proposed with applications pending. The inventory assumes that of 227 total units on the Properties (SKS proposes a total of 281), 136 would be low income (SKS proposes 46 low income) , 34 would be moderate income (SKS does not propose any), and only 57 would be market rate or above moderate (SKS proposes 235) . SKS is providing 24% of the base maximum units as on-site low income units, consistent with the City’s regulations and the State Density Bonus Law. SKS is concerned that especially if other sites have similarly unrealistic assumptions for affordable unit counts, the City will be forced to make “no -net-loss” findings for these Properties and other sites pursuant to SB 166, even with a buffer.
• The LSAP process purports to require Development Agreements for any mixed use development that contains enough commercial use to make dense residential development economically feasible. The process of negotiating a Development Agreement with the City has been incredibly long and difficult, and eventually yielded an abrupt “final offer” (without any previous offers) that would make the Projects economically infeasible. Other projects may face this same significant barrier to producing housing, and this should be taken account of in the City’s Housing Element.
• The City’s process requires that it contract directly with consultants to prepare required environmental studies such as the Projects’ LTA. SKS originally inquired about beginning the LTA in September, 2022 and followed up often thereafter. The LTA did not begin until May, 2023, and will take a significant amount of time to complete. This significantly impacts the Project’s schedule. Other projects may face this same barrier to produc ing housing, and this should be taken account of in the City’s Housing Element. • The Housing Element assumes that there is a 100% chance of the Projects being constructed (see above chart with assumptions indicating 100% “redevelopment likelihood”). This does not reflect the significant barriers SKS has experienced and is continuing to experience.

Attachment 2

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. We would be happy to discuss this further if desired.

Sincerely yours,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

Tamsen Plume
Genna Yarkin

cc: Kent Steffens - City Manager
Connie Verceles - Deputy City Manager
Trudi Ryan - Community Development Director
George Schroeder - Principal Planner

Attachment 2

June 30, 2023
Aastha Vashist
456 W Olive Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Re: 1170 Sonora Court Project – UPDATED State Density Bonus Law Application Dear Aastha:

We represent SKS Partners (“SKS”) in connection with its application for the 1170 Sonora Court Project (the "Project"), a mixed -use development at 1170 Sonora Court (the “Project Site”) in Sunnyvale, California. The 1.088- acre Project Site is within the Lawrence Station Area and is currently developed with a sin gle-story building and surface parking lot. The Project would redevelop the Project Site with a total of 107 multi-family residential rental units and 79,211 square feet of office space. Consistent with both the City's inclusionary housing requirements and the requirements of the State Density Bonus Law, 24% of the Project's base residential units (18 total units - see below for further details) would be provided at the lower income affordability level - consisting of 19% low income (14 units) and 5% very low income (4 units).

The purpose of this letter is to serve as SKS's application for certain rights under the State Density Bonus Law. Pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law and Zoning Code Chapter 19.18.025, because it will provide 24% of its base maximum units at the lower income affordability level, the Project is entitled to all of the following separate categories of incentives:
(1) An up to 50% density bonus over the maximum allowed residential density1; (2) Up to three mandatory concessions or incentives (three identified – see details below); (3) any required physical waivers of development standards to accommodate the Project (three identified- see details below); and
(4) applicable mandatory maximum residential parking standards (not required due to SB 2907 – see details below).

Details on each of the above categories is provided below:
1 Gov. Code Section 95915(f); (o)(4).

Attachment 2

1. Up to 50% Density Bonus

The Project proposes 18 lower income units (24% of the base maximum with 11 LSAP incentive points applied - please see below and enclosed Plan Set for details). The State Density Bonus Law provides that the base density used to calculate the affordable housing requirements do not include any bonus units under the State Density Bonus Law.
2 Because the Project provides 24% of its
base density units as lower income units, the Project qualifies for a mandatory density bonus of up to 50%.3

Base Maximum (per LSAP) 54 du/acre
LSAP Incentive Points
• Below grade parking - 7 points
• Bike repair station - 2 points
• Street furniture - 2 points
• Total: 11 points
11 du/acre
Base + 11 Incentive Points Maximum 65 du/acre
Total Base Maximum Units 65 x 1.088 acres = 71 units4
Lower Income Units Required for 50% Bonus 24% x 71 units = 185 Maximum Units w/ 50% Density Bonus 71 units + 50% = 1076 total permitted units Total Units Proposed 107, consistent with 107 unit maximum

2. Up to Three Mandatory Concessions or Incentives - Three Identified

Because the Project provides 24% of its base density units as lower income units, it is eligible for up to three (3) mandatory concessions or incentives.7 A concession is defined to include “approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development.” It is also defined to include, among other things, “reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements,” including a reduction in setbacks and square footage requirements, and “[o]ther regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city, county, or city and county that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide 2 Gov. Code Section 65915(b)(3).
3 Gov. Code Section 65915(b)(1)(A), (f)(1).
4 65 x 1.008 acres = 70.72, which is rounded up to 71 pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65915(q), which specifies that "each component of any density calculation…resulting in fractional units shall be separately rounded up to the next whole number."
5 .24 x 71 = 17.04, rounded up to 18 pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65915(q). 6 71 + 50% = 106.5, rounded up to 107 pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65915(q). 7 Gov. Code Section 65915(d)(2)(C).

Attachment 2

for affordable housing costs.”8,9 SKS has identified three concessions or incentives at this time.

Incentives:

1) Exceed Maximum Office Floor Area Ratio by 17%

SKS has identified a need to exceed the 150% maximum office Floor Area Ration (FAR) provided in the recently amended Lawrence Station Area Plan for projects zoned MXD -I/S, 10 by 17% (for
a total of 167%). Please see Sheet G.B.008 for FAR calculation details.

For this mixed-use project, the conjunction of commercial office with housing reduces the cost of housing. The office component yields higher returns than the residential component, and when combined, makes the overall project financially feasible. It is clear that the State has recognized this fact, given that as noted above, one of the specific incentives provided for in Govt. Code Section 65915(k) is to allow mixed -use zoning on a property. Furthermore, the additional office square footage results in identifiable and actual cost reductions for both the affordable and market rate units. The rentable, marketable office floor area is critical to the economic health of the project and ensures a high- density project can be built, consistent with the Lawrence Station Area Plan and the City’s Housing Element. The Bay Area has the highest multi-family construction costs in the state, rising 119% between 2008 and 2018, compared to 25% statewide

11. In 2019 The Bay
Area was ranked the third most expensive region to build in the world, behind only Tokyo and Hong Kong,
12 and construction costs escalated 15% in 2021. 13 Given the high, and ever -rising, costs of developing multi -family housing, the revenue from the office component will help to secure commercially reasonable financing and subsidize the construction of housing units.

The specific amount of office requested is a result of building layout and construction efficiencies.

Given site constraints, such as setbacks and fire access, and required functional ground floor services, 150% FAR would limit the office area to two and a half building levels. The result is a split third level, with both office and residential uses. The most cost- efficient way to construct housing over an office is to build units with a wood stud structural system (Type V or Type III).

In the scenario of a split level, the units on the third level would be built in the more robust and costly system of the office, most likely concrete and metal studs (Type I), increasing the already 8 Gov. Code Section 65915(k).
9 Pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65915(d)(4), "the city… shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive." Further, the City cannot require a pro forma or other study from the applicant, beyond reasonable documentation to establish eligibility. (Gov. Code 65915(a)(2)). 10 City of Sunnyvale, Ordinance No. 3181-21, Section 19.35.060, Table 19.35.060. 11 “The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in Californis” Terner Center for Housing Innovation UC Berkeley March 2020." 12 See https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/07/26/bay-area-tops-list-as-one-of-t he-worlds-most-expensive-regions- to-build/.
13 Engineering News-Records Building Cost Index.

Attachment 2

high cost of the housing, contrary to the intent of the State Density Bonus Law .14 Structural and constructability factors would warrant a full third level concrete slab, similar to lower building levels. The California Building Code would require these units to have higher fire ratings than the upper levels and the third level would need an additional vertical fire separation between the office and residential portions. Additionally, a small handful of units would need to be built in a different system from the rest, requiring separate building trades. For these reasons, construction cos ts of the residential units would rise, and any economic benefits captured from the half level of office would be eliminated by added costs. To offset this impact, the project would need to remove the third split level, limiting the office to two full levels, and reducing affordable units.

In addition to the proposed office area directly reducing housing costs, the economic benefits also enable higher quality spaces. They allow more flexibility and creativity to provide terraced open spaces and courtyards , giving both office and residential tenants higher access to fresh air and sunlight. The proposed office space also enables a wider range of architectural expression and higher quality materials. Overall, the project will be better positioned to deliver a dense mixed-use project and help Sunnyvale meet its housing goals, with a higher FAR.

2) No Development Agreement

The LSAP purports to require a Development agreement (“DA”) for projects that propose FAR above the 35% office base maximum through the LSAP incentive program. 15 However, we note
that a DA is a fully voluntary contract, and a jurisdiction may not require an applicant to enter into one.16 While SKS has been voluntarily negotiating the potential terms of a DA in good faith with City staff for approximately a year, on March 30th the City relayed a “best offer” for the Project’s community benefit contribution that would make the Project financially infeasible for SKS, in part because the offer fails to provide credit for significant contributions SKS is making, including 60% more affordable housing than the LSAP requires.
17 Accordingly, SKS has decided not to pursue a
Development Agreement. The City did not ever issue SKS an invoice for the associated $7,313 fee and SKS never submitted (nor does the City have) an application form for a DA. However, to the extent the City does consider SKS to have formally applied for a Development Agreement, we hereby revoke that application/request.

As explained above in relation to the Project’s first incentive request, the revenue from the office component will help to secure commercially reasonable financing and subsidize the construction of housing units. In order to achieve a rate of return that makes the Project economically feasible, the Project cannot also pay an additional over $5 Million in an “over and above” contribution 18 14 “The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California” Terner Center for Housing Innovation UC Berkeley March 2020. 15 LSAP pages ES.3, ES.5, 3.10.
16 Gov. Code Section 65865.
17 The LSAP requires 15% affordable housing, whereas the Project is providing 24%. 18 This total includes both this project and 1154 Sonora Court. While they are separate projects, they are being entitled and evaluated at the same time as related projects, and, at this stage, have integrated financial aspects.

Attachment 2

that outweighs the incentive provided to the Project by allowing the office space. This will als o directly reduce enti tlement costs for the Project, by avoiding the need for any hearings at City Council (without a Development Agreement the Project will only be required to proceed to Planning Commission), the $7,313 Development Agreement processing fee , and the assessment of any further fees for staff and legal time (in additional to our fees) in a protracted negotiation process.

3) Extend Two-Year Entitlement Expiration (With One -Year Potential Extension) to F ive Years (With 1-Year Potential Extension) for Total of Six Years

At this time, the City’s Zoning Code specifies that a Major Special Development Permit expires in two years, with a potential discretionary one -year extension. In order to maintain the certainty that it may accomplish the construction of the large and complicated Project (which SKS is losing due to the stalling of its voluntary Development Agreement), SKS hereby requests an incentive to extend the life of its Major Special Development Permit to 5 years, with a potential discretionary 1-year extension (for a total of 6 years as opposed to 3 years).

Automatically extending the life of the Major Special Development Permit will result in actual and identifiable costs reductions for the Project because it will avoid the need for SKS to go through a process to obtain a discretionary one -year extension, which process has associated processing costs. And, most importantly, an extended life to the entitlements would mitigate the risk of raising additional capital, and spending additional time, to re -entitle the project if the City does not decide to issue a discretionary extension, all of which increases the cost of housing. In the current economic environment, including the highest inflation in forty years and large bank failures, longer approvals are critical to securing construction financing.

3. Waivers – Three Identified

In addition to a limited number of concessions/incentives, the State Density Bonus Law specifies that a project is entitled to a waiver from “ any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development . . . at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section.”
19 Waivers are separate from and additional to
concessions/incentives, are unlimited, and app roval is mandatory if the standard would preclude development of the Project at its permitted density and with its incentives/concessions incorporated. SKS has identified the need for three waivers, as follows:

1) Landscape frontage strip

The Zoning Code re quires a 15’ wide landscaped frontage strip from the inside of a public sidewalk.
20 The requirement to preserve the redwood trees fronting Sonora Court, and the need to 19 Gov. Code Section 65915(e)(1).
20 Zoning Code Section 19.37.040(c).

Attachment 2

locate the public sidewalk behind them, prevents the Project from meeting this requirement. The Project is in a somewhat unique position relative to other sites to which this requirement would apply, and strict compliance would negatively impact the project. As a result of the redwood trees, the proposed sidewalk on Sonora Court is already set back 25’ and the building is set back 35’ from the curb. Requiring the 15’ landscaped frontage strip behind the proposed sidewalk would result in a front setback of 46’, which would reduce the Project’s density, precluding it from being constructed at its permitted densities and qualifying it for a waiver from this requirement.

The proposed design includes 25’ of landscaping between the curb and sidewalk, and a 4’ planting strip between the sidewalk and building façade. SKS believes preserving the redwood trees and incorporating appropriate landscaping features is still in line with the C ity’s goals. The proposed design is illustrated below:

2) Solid waste and recycling management

The Zoning Code requires that solid waste enclosures be located within 150 feet by path of travel from any dwelling unit or commercial business.
21 However, the proposed vertical mixed -use
development combines both residential and office uses, and strictly meeting the requirement would greatly impact the usability of the office space. This would not only be detrimental to the project, but also to future office tenants who want to locate their business in Sunnyvale. Further, strict compliance with the requirement would reduce the Project’s dens ity, as residential units would need to be lost in order to provide an additional chute or chutes. Accordingly, the Project qualifies for a waiver from this requirement. We note that relatively few residential units are out of compliance with the requirement, and the furthest distance for units is 240 feet.

21 Zoning Code Section 19.38.030(e)(1)(K).

Attachment 2

3) Reduce minimum landscape area

The Zoning Code requires a minimum of 20% landscaped area.22 SKS requires a waiver from this requirement because of two important considerations. First, the project is providing a public sidewalk within the project lot area, which takes up land that would otherwise be planted and counted as landscaped area. This is necessary to preserve the mature redwood trees lining Sonora Court, and to provide a safe and accessible side walk for the public. Second, the project is also providing a hardscaped public access path to the Caltrain station within the lot area. Public transportation ridership and area connectivity are key goals of the LSAP and the city. The path connection serves an important purpose by making the station more identifiable, accessible, and convenient for pedestrians and bicyclists. Again, this is a paved path within the lot that would otherwise be counted as landscaped area.

Due to the sidewalk and Caltrain access path being located within the lot, the project does not provide the required landscaped area (it is low on planted area but provides 19.54% overall, please see details below), and in order to do so it would need to reduce its residential density, qualifying it for a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law. Nonetheless, the project is still within the 80% maximum lot coverage. In addition, it provides 25’ of frontage landscaping that includes the redwood trees and a variety of other vegetated areas on site.

SKS hereby reserves the right to identify any further necessary modifications or waivers through the City’s application review and approval process.

4. Mandatory Maximum Residential Parking Standards

Pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, the Project has the right to meet mandatory maximum residential parking standards of no more than : 0.5 spaces per unit, because it provides at least 20 22 Zoning Code Section 19.25.090.

Attachment 2

percent lower income units (19% low income, 5% very low income); and is within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop with unobstructed access.23

However, the Project is not applying for a parking reduction under the State Density Bonus Law.

Rather, SKS hereby applies under AB 2097, which became effective on January 1, 2023. 24 We
have been unable to locate a City form to assert the Project’s qualification under AB 2097, and are therefore including this statement regarding qualification here. Under AB 2097, the City may not impose minimum automobile parking requirements for residential and commercial uses for projects within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop , and the Project qualifies . 25 Accordingly, the
Project is not required to provide parking, but will voluntarily provide 135 parking spaces.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, we look forward to working with the City on bringing this project to fruition.

Sincerely yours,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Tamsen Plume
Genna Yarkin

23 Gov. Code Section 65915(p)(2).
24 Bill Text - AB-2097 Residential, commercial, or other development types: parking requirements. (ca.gov) 25 Gov. Code Section 65863.2(a), (e)(5).

Attachment 2

A.2 Community Engagement Flyers

Attachment 2

Sunnyvale is updating its Housing
Element and needs your input.

What types of housing should we have
in Sunnyvale? Where should we locate
new housing? The Housing Element is
our 8-year plan to address the housing
needs of everyone in the community and
shows how the City will accommodate its
fair share of housing.

Get involved!
Share your concerns,
ideas, and solutions for
housing at upcoming
workshops or in a
survey.

Visit the project website,
sunnyvale.ca.gov, search
“housing element”to learn
more about the City’s
Housing Element Update
Attend a Virtual Workshop
ENGLISH & ESPAÑOL
Feb. 3rd, 2022
6:30pm – 8:00pm
Register here:
qrco.de/sunnyvale1
ENGLISH & 中文
Feb. 9th, 2022
6:30pm – 8:00pm
Register here:
qrco.de/sunnyvale2
Take the Community Survey
Available from January 31 to February 23 in the following languages:

ENGLISH ESPAÑOL 中文
City of Sunnyvale
2023-2031

HOUSING

ELEMENT
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale 正在更新 《住房要素》 ，
需要您的宝贵意见。
Sunnyvale 应该拥有哪些类型的住
房？ 应该在哪里建造新住房？ 《住房
要素》 是 Sunnyvale的八年计划， 旨
在满足社区中每个人的住房需求，
并阐释本市公平分配住房的方式。
请您参与！
请在即将举行的研讨
会或调查问卷中， 分
享您对住房的疑虑、
想法和解决方案。
访问项目网站
sunnyvale.ca.gov, 搜
索 “住房要素” ， 了解本
市 《住房要素更新》 的更
多信息。
参加虚拟研讨会
英文 & 西班牙文
2022 年 2 月 3 日
下午 6:30 至晚上 8:00
在此注册：
qrco.de/sunnyvale1
英文 & 中文
2022 年 2 月 9 日
下午 6:30至晚上 8:00
在此注册：
qrco.de/sunnyvale2
填写社区调查问卷
1 月 31 日至 2 月 23 日提供以下语言版本：
英文 西班牙文 中文
Sunnyvale 市
2023-2031
年住房要素
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale está actualizando su elemento
de vivienda y necesita su opinión.
¿Qué tipos de viviendas deberíamos tener
en Sunnyvale? ¿Dónde deberíamos ubicar las
nuevas viviendas? El elemento de vivienda
es nuestro plan de 8 años para abordar las
necesidades de vivienda de todos en la
comunidad y demuestra cómo la ciudad tendrá
una distribución adecuada de viviendas.
¡Participe!
Comparta sus
preocupaciones,
ideas y soluciones en
materia de vivienda en
los próximos talleres o
en una encuesta.

Visite el sitio web del proyecto,
sunnyvale.ca.gov, y busque “housing
element” (elemento de vivienda)
paraobtener más información sobre
la actualización del elemento de
vivienda de la ciudad.

Asista a un taller virtual
INGLÉS Y ESPAÑOL
3 de febrero de 2022
De 6:30 p.m. a 8:00 p.m.

Regístrese aquí:
qrco.de/sunnyvale1
INGLÉS Y CHINO
9 de febrero de 2022
De 6:30 p.m. a 8:00 p.m.

Regístrese aquí:
qrco.de/sunnyvale2
Realice la encuesta a la comunidad
Disponible del 31 de enero al 23 de febrero en los siguientes idiomas:

INGLÉS ESPAÑOL CHINO

CIUDAD DE SUNNYVALE

ELEMENTO DE

VIVIENDA DEL
2023 AL 2031
Attachment 2

A.3 February 3 Polling Responses

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

A.4 February 9 Polling Responses

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

A.5 Online Survey Responses (English)

Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 1 / 26

93.62% 367

6.38% 25
Q1 Are you a resident of Sunnyvale? (Choose one)
Answered: 392 Skipped: 6
TOTAL 392
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 2 / 26

2.55% 10

22.70% 89

74.74% 293
Q2 Do you currently rent or own your home? (Choose one) Answered: 392 Skipped: 6
TOTAL 392
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
None of the
above
Rent
Own

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
None of the above
Rent
Own
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 3 / 26
Q3 Which of the following best describes your household? (Choose one) Answered: 395 Skipped: 3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
None of the
above
One person
living alone
Couple with no
children
Single-parent
with childre...

Couple with
children und...

Large
household (F...

Couple or
single paren...

Grandparent(s)
raising...

Multi-generatio
nal...

Unrelated
individuals...

Multiple
families liv...

Household
includes one...

Other (please
specify)
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 4 / 26

1.01% 4

9.37% 37

32.41% 128

2.53% 10

32.66% 129

7.09% 28

7.34% 29

0.76% 3

4.81% 19

1.77% 7

0.51% 2

2.53% 10

2.28% 9
Total Respondents: 395

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
None of the above
One person living alone
Couple with no children
Single-parent with children under 18 years old
Couple with children under 18 years old (For households of 4 or less members) Large household (For households of 5 or more members)
Couple or single parent with children over 18 years old Grandparent(s) raising grandchild(ren)
Multi-generational (grandparents, parents, and grandchildren) Unrelated individuals living together
Multiple families living together
Household includes one or more persons with special needs or disability Other (please specify)
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 5 / 26

66.67% 262

5.09% 20

13.99% 55

10.69% 42

0.76% 3

2.04% 8

0.25% 1

0.51% 2
Q4 What type of housing do you live in? (Choose one)
Answered: 393 Skipped: 5
TOTAL 393
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Single Family
Home
Duplex/triplex/
fourplex
Condominium or
Townhouse
Apartment
Accessory
Dwelling Uni...

Mobilehome or
Manufactured...

Homeless or
living in...

Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Single Family Home
Duplex/triplex/fourplex
Condominium or Townhouse
Apartment
Accessory Dwelling Units (granny flats/second units/guest houses) Mobilehome or Manufactured Home
Homeless or living in tent/car
Other (please specify)
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 6 / 26

56.96% 221

34.79% 135

8.25% 32
Q5 How much of your gross income (before taxes) do you spend on housing costs (rent, mortgage payments, etc) each month? Answered: 388 Skipped: 10
TOTAL 388
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Less than 30%
30% to 50%
More than 50%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Less than 30%
30% to 50%
More than 50%
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 7 / 26

48.46% 189

12.56% 49

7.69% 30

13.85% 54

7.69% 30

28.72% 112

8.21% 32

5.90% 23
Q6 Have you or are you experiencing any of the following housing issues? (Choose all that apply)
Answered: 390 Skipped: 8
Total Respondents: 390
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
None of the
above
Adult child
living at ho...

Struggle to
pay rent or...

Lack funding
to make...

Significant
rent increase
Want to move
but can’t...

Too many
people livin...

Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
None of the above
Adult child living at home due to inability to afford housing Struggle to pay rent or mortgage (e.g., sometimes paying late, not paying other bills to pay rent, not buying food or medicine)
Lack funding to make necessary home repairs
Significant rent increase
Want to move but can’t find/afford a home that meet my and/or my family’s needs Too many people living in one home (overcrowding)
Other (please specify)
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 8 / 26

0.76% 3

35.37% 139

31.04% 122

20.61% 81

10.43% 41

0.25% 1

1.53% 6
Q7 How would you rate the physical condition of your home or apartment? (Choose one)
Answered: 393 Skipped: 5
TOTAL 393
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
None of the
above, I do ...

Excellent
condition
Shows signs of
minor deferr...

Needs one or
more modest...

Needs one or
more major...

Is not safe
for habitati...

Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
None of the above, I do not live in a home or apartment.

Excellent condition
Shows signs of minor deferred maintenance (i.e., peeling paint, chipping stucco) Needs one or more modest rehabilitation improvements (i.e., new roof, new wood siding, new paint, window repairs) Needs one or more major upgrades (i.e., new foundation, new plumbing, new electrical) Is not safe for habitation in its current condition (i.e., structurally unsound, severe mold growth) Other (please specify)
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 9 / 26
Q8 What do you feel is the most significant housing problem facing Sunnyvale residents? (Choose up to three)
Answered: 389 Skipped: 9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Youth who grow
up in the ar...

Not enough
housing for...

Not enough
housing for...

Lack of
variety in...

Housing is not
affordable f...

Housing sizes
don’t meet...

Housing
conditions a...

Too expensive
to maintain ...

Not enough
housing opti...

Not enough
shelters and...

Other (please
specify)
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 10 / 26

52.19% 203

25.45% 99

12.60% 49

11.31% 44

69.92% 272

12.08% 47

5.91% 23

18.25% 71

18.77% 73

24.68% 96

14.14% 55
Total Respondents: 389

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Youth who grow up in the area cannot afford to live here when they are adults Not enough housing for sale
Not enough housing for rent
Lack of variety in housing types
Housing is not affordable for people who work in retail/service industry, teachers, police, fire, and health care workers cannot afford to live in Sunnyvale.

Housing sizes don’t meet family needs
Housing conditions are poor
Too expensive to maintain my home as a property owner
Not enough housing options to accommodate seniors or people with disabilities Not enough shelters and transitional housing for the homeless, along with services to help move individuals into permanent housing.

Other (please specify)
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 11 / 26
Q9 What types of housing does Sunnyvale need the most? (Rank your answer by order of priority)
Answered: 390 Skipped: 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Micro-units
(less than 4...

Apartments
with 1 bedro...

Apartments
with 2 bedrooms
Apartments
with 3 bedro...

Accessory
Dwelling Uni...

Condominiums /
Townhomes
Interim,
transitional...

Single-family
homes
Senior housing
and housing ...

Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 12 / 26

8.78%
31 5.10%
18 7.08%
25 7.37%
26 9.07%
32 7.08%
25 14.45%
51 23.23%
82 17.85%
63 353

3.95 7.00%
25 10.36%
37 14.01%
50 14.29%
51 15.13%
54 17.93%
64 11.76%
42 7.00%
25 2.52%
9 357

5.29 11.11%
40 15.28%
55 17.22%
62 17.50%
63 19.17%
69 9.72%
35 7.78%
28 1.67%
6 0.56%
2 360

6.10 5.68%
20 12.22%
43 17.05%
60 17.05%
60 10.23%
36 16.19%
57 9.66%
34 9.66%
34 2.27%
8 352

5.37 3.08%
11 10.08%
36 10.92%
39 9.52%
34 11.76%
42 14.01%
50 13.17%
47 16.25%
58 11.20%
40 357

4.40 9.92%
36 21.21%
77 11.02%
40 12.12%
44 13.22%
48 6.06%
22 12.67%
46 8.54%
31 5.23%
19 363

5.60 17.55%
63 8.08%
29 7.24%
26 6.96%
25 7.24%
26 10.03%
36 10.31%
37 9.47%
34 23.12%
83 359

4.64 37.02%
134

8.01%
29 5.80%
21 4.70%
17 3.59%
13 3.31%
12 4.42%
16 9.94%
36 23.20%
84 362

5.54 7.67%
28 15.07%
55 13.42%
49 9.59%
35 8.49%
31 12.60%
46 12.33%
45 10.68%
39 10.14%
37 365

5.02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL SCORE
Micro-units
(less than 400
square feet)
Apartments
with 1
bedroom or
less
Apartments
with 2
bedrooms
Apartments
with 3
bedrooms or
more
Accessory
Dwelling Units
(granny
flats/second
units/ guest
houses)
Condominiums
/ Townhomes
Interim,
transitional,
and supportive
housing for
individuals and
families
experiencing
or at risk of
homelessness
Single-family
homes
Senior housing
and housing
for people with
disabilities
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 13 / 26

11.31% 44

78.41% 305

10.28% 40
Q10 Have you or a neighbor been displaced from your home in the last five years?
Answered: 389 Skipped: 9
TOTAL 389
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
Maybe/ Unsure

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Maybe/ Unsure
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 14 / 26

43.59% 34

17.95% 14

3.85% 3

14.10% 11

20.51% 16
Q11 Which of the following best describe the reason you (or a neighbor) were displaced?
Answered: 78 Skipped: 320
TOTAL 78
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Rent increased
more than I...

Landlord
selling home
Was living in
unsafe...

Personal
reasons
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Rent increased more than I could pay
Landlord selling home
Was living in unsafe conditions
Personal reasons
Other (please specify)
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 15 / 26

26.84% 102

5.53% 21

58.16% 221

9.47% 36
Q12 When you looked for housing in Sunnyvale in the past 10 years, did you ever feel you were discriminated against?
Answered: 380 Skipped: 18
TOTAL 380
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not Applicable
Yes
No
Maybe/ Unsure

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Not Applicable
Yes
No
Maybe/ Unsure
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 16 / 26
Q13 Why do you think you were discriminated against? (Choose all that apply)
Answered: 95 Skipped: 303
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Race/
Ethnicity/...

Sex/
Gender/LGBTQ
Income status
/ Income too...

Age
Familial
status / Hav...

Disability
Criminal
history
History of
eviction,...

Being homeless
Religion
Other:

Other (please
specify)
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 17 / 26

32.63% 31

7.37% 7

30.53% 29

12.63% 12

12.63% 12

4.21% 4

0.00% 0

3.16% 3

3.16% 3

2.11% 2

0.00% 0

37.89% 36
Total Respondents: 95

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Race/ Ethnicity/ Language spoken
Sex/ Gender/LGBTQ
Income status / Income too low
Age
Familial status / Having children
Disability
Criminal history
History of eviction, foreclosure, bad credit
Being homeless
Religion
Other:

Other (please specify)
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 18 / 26

38.30% 144

4.79% 18

56.91% 214
Q14 When you looked for housing in Sunnyvale in the past 10 years, were you ever denied rental housing?
Answered: 376 Skipped: 22
TOTAL 376
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not Applicable
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Not Applicable
Yes
No
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 19 / 26
Q15 Why were you denied rental housing?
Answered: 81 Skipped: 317
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Another tenant
willing to p...

Income too low
Bad credit
Eviction
history
Lack of stable
housing record
Size of
family; too...

I have a
housing vouc...

Landlord
didn’t accep...

Unknown/ Not
sure / Was n...

Other:

Other (please
specify)
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 20 / 26

8.64% 7

12.35% 10

1.23% 1

0.00% 0

1.23% 1

1.23% 1

1.23% 1

0.00% 0

18.52% 15

0.00% 0

55.56% 45
TOTAL 81

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Another tenant willing to pay more
Income too low
Bad credit
Eviction history
Lack of stable housing record
Size of family; too many people
I have a housing voucher
Landlord didn’t accept the type of income I earn
Unknown/ Not sure / Was not given a reason
Other:

Other (please specify)
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 21 / 26
Q16 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Answered: 371 Skipped: 27
My
neighborhood...

Schools in my
neighborhood...

My family or
my neighbors...

My
neighborhood...

I am looking
to buy a hom...

I am a renter
and I have...

Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 22 / 26

66.58%
247

21.02%
78 12.40%
46 371

1.46 52.85%
195

30.08%
111

17.07%
63 369

1.64 27.30%
101

32.16%
119

40.54%
150

370

2.13 17.62%
65 36.31%
134

46.07%
170

369

2.28 17.36%
63 53.72%
195

28.93%
105

363

2.12 22.91%
82 67.60%
242

9.50%
34 358

1.87 2.25%
8 91.01%
324

6.74%
24 356

2.04 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Agree Neutral/ N… Disagree
I can find a
rental unit...

AGREE NEUTRAL/ NOT

APPLICABLE

DISAGREE TOTAL WEIGHTED

AVERAGE
My neighborhood is safe
Schools in my neighborhood are of good quality.

My family or my neighbors won’t need to leave our
neighborhood because of rising rents.

My neighborhood has housing that is accessible and
affordable for people with disabilities.

I am looking to buy a home and I have enough of a down
payment to afford it.

I am a renter and I have enough of a security deposit to rent an apartment or a house
I can find a rental unit even though I have a conviction on my record.

Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 23 / 26

0.54% 2

27.42% 102

1.08% 4

1.08% 4

43.28% 161

8.33% 31

16.40% 61

1.88% 7
Q17 What is your race?
Answered: 372 Skipped: 26
TOTAL 372
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
American
Indian or...

Asian
Black or
African...

Native
Hawaiian or...

White
Multi-racial
(Two or More)
Prefer not to
Answer
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
Multi-racial (Two or More)
Prefer not to Answer
Other (please specify)
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 24 / 26

6.83% 25

72.40% 265

20.77% 76
Q18 Which best describes your ethnicity?
Answered: 366 Skipped: 32
TOTAL 366
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Hispanic,
Latino, or...

Not Hispanic,
Latino, or...

Prefer not to
Answer

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin
Not Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin
Prefer not to Answer
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 25 / 26

0.00% 0

0.82% 3

18.90% 69

43.01% 157

24.38% 89

12.88% 47
Q19 What is your age?
Answered: 365 Skipped: 33
TOTAL 365
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Under 18
18 - 24
25 – 34
35 – 49
50 – 64
65 and above

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Under 18
18 - 24
25 – 34
35 – 49
50 – 64
65 and above
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale Housing Element Community Survey February 2022 26 / 26
Q20 Do you have any additional housing related comments that are not listed above and should be considered in the Housing Element update process?
Answered: 179 Skipped: 219
Attachment 2

A.6 Survey Responses (Spanish)

Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
1 / 25
100.00% 5

0.00% 0
Q1 ¿Es residente de Sunnyvale? (Elija una opción)
Answered: 5 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sí
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Sí
No
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
2 / 25

0.00% 0
100.00% 5

0.00% 0
Q2 ¿Actualmente alquila o es propietario de su vivienda? (Elija una opción)
Answered: 5 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Ninguna de las
anteriores
Alquilo
Soy propietario

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Ninguna de las anteriores
Alquilo
Soy propietario
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
3 / 25
Q3 ¿Cuál de las siguientes opciones describe mejor su grupo familiar? (Elija una opción)
Answered: 5 Skipped: 0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Ninguna de las
anteriores
Una persona
que vive sola
Una pareja sin
hijos
Monoparental
con hijos...

Pareja con
hijos menore...

Hogar numeroso
(Para hogare...

Pareja o
padre/madre...

Abuelo(s) que
cría(n) a su...

Multigeneracion
al (abuelos,...

Personas sin
parentesco q...

Varias
familias que...

Hogar incluye
una o más...

Otro
(especifique)
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
4 / 25

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

60.00% 3

0.00% 0

20.00% 1

0.00% 0

20.00% 1

0.00% 0

20.00% 1

20.00% 1

0.00% 0
Total Respondents: 5

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Ninguna de las anteriores
Una persona que vive sola
Una pareja sin hijos
Monoparental con hijos menores de 18 años
Pareja con hijos menores de 18 años (Para hogares de 4 miembros o menos) Hogar numeroso (Para hogares de 5 miembros o más)
Pareja o padre/madre soltero(a) con hijos mayores de 18 años Abuelo(s) que cría(n) a su(s) nieto(s)
Multigeneracional (abuelos, padres y nietos)
Personas sin parentesco que viven juntas
Varias familias que viven juntas
Hogar incluye una o más personas con necesidades especiales o discapacidad Otro (especifique)
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
5 / 25

0.00% 0

20.00% 1

0.00% 0

80.00% 4

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0
Q4 ¿En qué tipo de vivienda vive? (Elija una opción)
Answered: 5 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Vivienda
unifamiliar
Dúplex/tríplex/
cuádruplex
Condominio o
casa adosada
Apartamento
Unidades de
vivienda...

Casa móvil o
casa...

Personas sin
hogar o que...

Otro
(especifique)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Vivienda unifamiliar
Dúplex/tríplex/cuádruplex
Condominio o casa adosada
Apartamento
Unidades de vivienda complementarias (anexos/subunidades/casas de huéspedes) Casa móvil o casa prefabricada
Personas sin hogar o que viven en una tienda de campaña/coche Otro (especifique)
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
6 / 25

0.00% 0

40.00% 2

60.00% 3
Q5 ¿Qué proporción de sus ingresos brutos (antes de impuestos) gasta en costos de vivienda (renta, hipoteca, etc.) cada mes? Answered: 5 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Menos del 30%
30% a 50%
Más del 50 %

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Menos del 30%
30% a 50%
Más del 50 %
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
7 / 25

0.00% 0

60.00% 3

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

20.00% 1

60.00% 3

20.00% 1

0.00% 0
Q6 ¿Ha tenido o tiene alguno de los siguientes problemas de vivienda? (Elija todos los que correspondan)
Answered: 5 Skipped: 0
Total Respondents: 5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Ninguna de las
anteriores
Hijo mayor de
edad que viv...

Dificultad
para pagar e...

Falta de
fondos para...

Aumento
significativ...

Quiere
mudarse, per...

Demasiada
gente vivien...

Otro
(especifique).

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Ninguna de las anteriores
Hijo mayor de edad que vive en casa porque no puede costearse una vivienda Dificultad para pagar el alquiler o la hipoteca (por ejemplo, a veces paga con retraso, no paga otras facturas para pagar el alquiler, no compra alimentos o medicinas)
Falta de fondos para realizar las reparaciones necesarias en la vivienda Aumento significativo del alquiler
Quiere mudarse, pero no puede encontrar o pagar una vivienda que satisfaga sus necesidades o las de su familia Demasiada gente viviendo en una casa (hacinamiento)
Otro (especifique).

Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
8 / 25

20.00% 1

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

20.00% 1

40.00% 2

0.00% 0

20.00% 1
Q7 ¿Cómo calificaría la condición física de su casa o apartamento? (Elija una opción)
Answered: 5 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Ninguna de las
anteriores, ...

Excelente
condición
Muestra signos
de postergac...

Necesita una o
más mejoras...

Necesita una o
más mejoras...

No es segura
para ser...

Otro
(especifique)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Ninguna de las anteriores, no vivo en una casa ni apartamento.

Excelente condición
Muestra signos de postergación en el mantenimiento menor (p. ej., pintura descascarada, estuco desconchado) Necesita una o más mejoras modestas de rehabilitación (p. ej., techo nuevo, revestimiento de madera nuevo, pintura nueva, reparación de ventanas)
Necesita una o más mejoras importantes (p. ej., cimientos nuevos, tuberías nuevas, sistema eléctrico nuevo) No es segura para ser habitada en su condición actual (es decir, estructuralmente insegura, crecimiento severo de moho)
Otro (especifique)
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
9 / 25
Q8 ¿Cuál cree que es el problema de vivienda más importante al que se enfrentan los residentes de Sunnyvale? (Elija hasta tres opciones) Answered: 5 Skipped: 0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Los jóvenes
que crecen e...

No hay
suficientes...

No hay
suficientes...

Falta de
variedad en ...

La vivienda no
es asequible...

El tamaño de
las vivienda...

Las
condiciones ...

Es demasiado
caro mantene...

No hay
suficientes...

No hay
suficientes...

Otro
(especifique)
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
10 / 25

60.00% 3

20.00% 1

20.00% 1

0.00% 0

40.00% 2

40.00% 2

0.00% 0

20.00% 1

20.00% 1

20.00% 1

20.00% 1
Total Respondents: 5

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Los jóvenes que crecen en la zona no pueden costearse vivir aquí cuando son adultos.

No hay suficientes viviendas a la venta.

No hay suficientes viviendas en alquiler
Falta de variedad en los tipos de vivienda.

La vivienda no es asequible para las personas que trabajan en comercio/industria de servicios; los maestros, la policía, los bomberos y los trabajadores de la salud no pueden permitirse vivir en Sunnyvale.

El tamaño de las viviendas no se ajusta a las necesidades de las familias.

Las condiciones de vivienda son deficientes.

Es demasiado caro mantener mi vivienda como propietario.

No hay suficientes opciones de vivienda que se adapten a las personas mayores o a las personas con discapacidad.

No hay suficientes refugios y viviendas de transición para las personas sin hogar, junto con servicios que ayuden a trasladar a las personas a una vivienda permanente.

Otro (especifique)
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
11 / 25
Q9 ¿Qué tipos de vivienda son los que más necesita Sunnyvale? (Clasifique su respuesta por orden de prioridad)
Answered: 5 Skipped: 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Microunidades
(menos de 40...

Apartamentos
con un...

Apartamentos
con 2...

Apartamentos
con 3...

Unidades de
vivienda...

Condominios/Cas
as adosadas
Viviendas
provisionale...

Viviendas
unifamiliares
Viviendas para
personas...

Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
12 / 25

0.00%
0 40.00%
2 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 20.00%
1 0.00%
0 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 5

0.00%
0 0.00%
0 40.00%
2 60.00%
3 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 5

40.00%
2 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 0.00%
0 20.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 5

40.00%
2 20.00%
1 0.00%
0 20.00%
1 0.00%
0 20.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 5

0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 0.00%
0 40.00%
2 5

0.00%
0 0.00%
0 40.00%
2 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 5

0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 20.00%
1 40.00%
2 0.00%
0 40.00%
2 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 5

20.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 40.00%
2 0.00%
0 5

0.00%
0 20.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 0.00%
0 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL SC
Microunidades (menos de
400 pies cuadrados)
Apartamentos con un
dormitorio o menos
Apartamentos con 2
dormitorios
Apartamentos con 3
dormitorios o más
Unidades de vivienda
complementarias
(anexos/subunidades/casas
de huéspedes)
Condominios/Casas
adosadas
Viviendas provisionales, de
transición y de apoyo para
personas y familias sin
hogar o que corren el riesgo
de quedarse sin hogar
Viviendas unifamiliares
Viviendas para personas
mayores y para personas
con discapacidades
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
13 / 25

20.00% 1

80.00% 4

0.00% 0
Q10 ¿Ha sido usted o algún vecino desplazado de su hogar en los últimos cinco años?
Answered: 5 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sí
No
Quizás/No
estoy seguro

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Sí
No
Quizás/No estoy seguro
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
14 / 25

0.00% 0
100.00% 1

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0
Q11 ¿Cuál de las siguientes opciones describe mejor la razón por la o algún vecino que fue desplazado?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 4
TOTAL 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
El alquiler
aumentó más ...

El propietario
vendió la casa.

Vivía en
condiciones...

Razones
personales.

Otro
(especifique)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
El alquiler aumentó más de lo que podía pagar.

El propietario vendió la casa.

Vivía en condiciones inseguras.

Razones personales.

Otro (especifique)
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
15 / 25

0.00% 0

60.00% 3

20.00% 1

20.00% 1
Q12 Cuando buscó vivienda en Sunnyvale en los últimos 10 años, ¿se sintió discriminado alguna vez?
Answered: 5 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No aplica
Sí
No
Quizás/No
estoy seguro

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
No aplica
Sí
No
Quizás/No estoy seguro
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
16 / 25
Q13 ¿Por qué cree que fue discriminado? (Elija todas las opciones que correspondan)
Answered: 4 Skipped: 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Raza/Etnia/Idio
ma
Sexo/Género/LGB
TQ
Situación de
ingresos/Ing...

Edad
Situación
familiar/Ten...

Discapacidad
Antecedentes
penales
Historial de
desalojos,...

Estar sin hogar
Religión
Other:

Otro
(especifique).

Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
17 / 25
100.00% 4

0.00% 0

75.00% 3

25.00% 1

50.00% 2

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0
Total Respondents: 4

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Raza/Etnia/Idioma
Sexo/Género/LGBTQ
Situación de ingresos/Ingresos demasiado bajos
Edad
Situación familiar/Tener hijos
Discapacidad
Antecedentes penales
Historial de desalojos, ejecución hipotecaria, mal crédito Estar sin hogar
Religión
Other:

Otro (especifique).

Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
18 / 25

0.00% 0

60.00% 3

40.00% 2
Q14 Cuando buscó vivienda en Sunnyvale en los últimos 10 años, ¿alguna vez se le negó una vivienda en alquiler?
Answered: 5 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No aplica
Sí
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
No aplica
Sí
No
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
19 / 25

0.00% 0

66.67% 2

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

33.33% 1

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0
Q15 ¿Por qué se le negó?
Answered: 3 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Otro inquilino
estaba...

Ingresos
demasiado bajos
Mal crédito
Historial de
desalojos
Falta de
historial de...

Tamaño de la
familia;...

Tengo un bono
de vivienda
El propietario
no aceptó el...

Desconocido/No
estoy seguro...

Other:

Otro
(especifique)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Otro inquilino estaba dispuesto a pagar más
Ingresos demasiado bajos
Mal crédito
Historial de desalojos
Falta de historial de vivienda estable
Tamaño de la familia; demasiadas personas
Tengo un bono de vivienda
El propietario no aceptó el tipo de ingresos que tengo
Desconocido/No estoy seguro/No me dieron una razón
Other:

Otro (especifique)
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
20 / 25
Q16 ¿En qué medida está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con las siguientes afirmaciones?:

Answered: 5 Skipped: 0
Mi vecindario
es seguro.

Las escuelas
de mi...

Mi familia o
mis vecinos ...

Mi vecindario
cuenta con...

Quiero comprar
una vivienda...

Soy inquilino
y tengo un...

Puedo
encontrar un...

Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
21 / 25

60.00%
3 40.00%
2 0.00%
0 5

1.40 60.00%
3 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 5

1.60 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 60.00%
3 5

2.40 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 100.00%
5 5

3.00 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 100.00%
5 5

3.00 0.00%
0 20.00%
1 80.00%
4 5

2.80 0.00%
0 60.00%
3 40.00%
2 5

2.40 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
De acuerdo Neutral/No… En desacue…
DE

ACUERDO

NEUTRAL/NO
APLICA
EN

DESACUERDO

TOTAL WEIGHTED

AVERAGE
Mi vecindario es seguro.

Las escuelas de mi vecindario son de buena calidad.

Mi familia o mis vecinos no tendrán que abandonar
nuestro vecindario por el aumento de los alquileres.

Mi vecindario cuenta con viviendas accesibles y
asequibles para las personas con discapacidades.

Quiero comprar una vivienda y tengo suficiente dinero
para pagarla.

Soy inquilino y tengo un depósito de garantía suficiente para alquilar un apartamento o una casa.

Puedo encontrar una vivienda en alquiler, aunque tenga
una condena en mi historial.

Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
22 / 25

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

40.00% 2

60.00% 3
Q17 ¿Cuál es su raza?
Answered: 5 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Indio
americano o...

Asiático
Negro o
afroamericano
Nativo de
Hawái o de...

Blanco
Multirracial
(dos o más)
Prefiero no
contestar
Otro
(especifique)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Indio americano o nativo de Alaska
Asiático
Negro o afroamericano
Nativo de Hawái o de otras islas del Pacífico
Blanco
Multirracial (dos o más)
Prefiero no contestar
Otro (especifique)
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
23 / 25
100.00% 5

0.00% 0

0.00% 0
Q18 ¿Cuál de las siguientes describe mejor su origen étnico? Answered: 5 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Origen
hispano, lat...

No es de
origen hispa...

Prefiero no
contestar

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Origen hispano, latino o español
No es de origen hispano, latino o español
Prefiero no contestar
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
24 / 25

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

20.00% 1

80.00% 4

0.00% 0

0.00% 0
Q19 ¿Cuántos años tiene?
Answered: 5 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Menores de 18
años
18 – 24
25 – 34
35 – 49
50 – 64
65 o más

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Menores de 18 años
18 – 24
25 – 34
35 – 49
50 – 64
65 o más
Attachment 2

ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL ELEMENTO DE VIVIENDA DE SUNNYVALE ENCUESTA A LA COMUNIDAD FEBRERO de 2022
25 / 25
Q20 ¿Tiene algún comentario adicional relacionado con la vivienda que no se haya incluido en la lista anterior y que deba tenerse en cuenta en el proceso de actualización del elemento de vivienda?
Answered: 4 Skipped: 1
Attachment 2

A.7 Survey Responses (Mandarin)
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
1 / 26
100.00% 16

0.00% 0
Q1 您是 Sunnyvale 市的居民吗？（单选）
Answered: 16 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 16
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
是
否

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
是
否
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
2 / 26

0.00% 0

25.00% 4

75.00% 12
Q2 您目前是租房还是自有房产？（单选）
Answered: 16 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 16
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
以上都不是
租房
自有房产

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
以上都不是
租房
自有房产
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
3 / 26
Q3 以下哪一项能最好地描述您的家庭？（单选）
Answered: 16 Skipped: 0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
以上都不是
一人独居
没有子女的伴侣
有 18 岁以下儿童
的单亲家长
有 18
岁以下子女的伴侣
大家庭（5 人及以
上的家庭）
有 18
岁以上子女的伴侣
母、父母和孙子女）
抚养孙辈的祖父母
缘关系的人住在一起
多个家庭住在一起
家庭包括一名或多
残疾的人
其他（请注明）
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
4 / 26

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

62.50% 10

18.75% 3

6.25% 1

18.75% 3

0.00% 0

6.25% 1

0.00% 0

18.75% 3

6.25% 1
Total Respondents: 16

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
以上都不是
一人独居
没有子女的伴侣
有 18 岁以下儿童的单亲家长
有 18 岁以下子女的伴侣（4 人及以下的家庭）
大家庭（5 人及以上的家庭）
有 18 岁以上子女的伴侣或单亲家长
多代（祖父母、父母和孙子女）
抚养孙辈的祖父母
没有亲缘关系的人住在一起
多个家庭住在一起
家庭包括一名或多名有特殊需要或残疾的人
其他（请注明）
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
5 / 26

56.25% 9

0.00% 0

18.75% 3

18.75% 3

0.00% 0

6.25% 1

0.00% 0

0.00% 0
Q4 您住在什么类型的房子里？（单选）
Answered: 16 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 16
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
独栋住宅
一栋两户/三户/四户
公寓
(Condominium...
公寓 (Apartment)
附属住宅单元（祖
/客房）
移动房屋或预制房屋
可归或住在帐篷/车里
其他（请注明）。

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
独栋住宅
一栋两户/三户/四户
公寓 (Condominium) 或联排别墅
公寓 (Apartment)
附属住宅单元（祖母房/二级单元/客房）
移动房屋或预制房屋
无家可归或住在帐篷/车里
其他（请注明）。
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
6 / 26

43.75% 7

50.00% 8

6.25% 1
Q5 您每月的总收入（税前）中，有多少钱花在了住房成本（房租、抵押贷
款等）上？
Answered: 16 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 16
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
少于30%
30% 至 50%
多于50%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
少于30%
30% 至 50%
多于50%
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
7 / 26

26.67% 4

20.00% 3

0.00% 0

20.00% 3

26.67% 4

40.00% 6

13.33% 2

0.00% 0
Q6 您是否曾经或正在面临以下任何住房问题？（选择所有适用项）
Answered: 15 Skipped: 1
Total Respondents: 15
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
以上都不是
成年子女因无力负
里
难以支付租金或抵
时迟交、为支付租
缺乏资金，难以进
修
租金大幅上涨
想搬家但找不到/无
和/或我家人需要的
住一间住宅（挤迫）
其他（请注明）。

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
以上都不是
成年子女因无力负担住房而住在家里
难以支付租金或抵押贷款（例如有时迟交、为支付租金而不缴纳其他账单、不购买食品或药品）
缺乏资金，难以进行必要的房屋维修
租金大幅上涨
想搬家但找不到/无力负担满足我和/或我家人需要的房子
太多人同住一间住宅（挤迫）
其他（请注明）。
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
8 / 26

12.50% 2

18.75% 3

25.00% 4

25.00% 4

12.50% 2

6.25% 1

0.00% 0
Q7 您如何评价您住宅或公寓 (Apartment) 的实际状况？（单选）
Answered: 16 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 16
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
以上都不是，我不
(Apartment) 居住
状况极佳
有轻微延期维护的
落、灰泥碎裂）
需要一项或多项中
新屋顶、新木壁板
需要一项或多项重
基、新管道、新电
目前的状况危及居
不牢固、霉菌生长
其他（请指明）

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
以上都不是，我不在住宅或公寓 (Apartment) 居住。
状况极佳
有轻微延期维护的迹象（即油漆剥落、灰泥碎裂）
需要一项或多项中度修整改善（即新屋顶、新木壁板、新油漆、窗户维修）
需要一项或多项重大升级（即新地基、新管道、新电气）
目前的状况危及居住安全（即结构不牢固、霉菌生长严重）
其他（请指明）
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
9 / 26
Q8 您认为 Sunnyvale 市居民面临的最严重的住房问题是什么？（最多选择
三项）
Answered: 15 Skipped: 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
本地长大的年轻人
力负担生活
出售房屋不足
出租房屋不足
住房类型缺乏多样性
零售/服务行业的员
房，教师、警察、
面积不满足家庭需求
住房状况很差
维护住宅的费用太高
没有足够多供老年
住的住房选择
没有为无家可归者
护所和过渡性住房
其他（请注明）。
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
10 / 26

53.33% 8

20.00% 3

6.67% 1

6.67% 1

53.33% 8

26.67% 4

13.33% 2

33.33% 5

26.67% 4

0.00% 0

0.00% 0
Total Respondents: 15

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
本地长大的年轻人成年后在当地无力负担生活
出售房屋不足
出租房屋不足
住房类型缺乏多样性
零售/服务行业的员工无力负担住房，教师、警察、消防和卫生保健工作者无力负担在 Sunnyvale 市的生活。
住房面积不满足家庭需求
住房状况很差
业主维护住宅的费用太高
没有足够多供老年人或残障人士居住的住房选择
没有为无家可归者提供足够多的庇护所和过渡性住房，没有帮助个人搬入永久住房的充足服务。
其他（请注明）。
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
11 / 26
Q9 Sunnyvale 市最需要什么类型的住房？（按优先顺序排列你的答案）
Answered: 16 Skipped: 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
微型单元（小于
400
平方英尺）
一间或更少的公
寓
(Apartment)
两间公寓
(Apartment)
三室或以上的公
寓
(Apartment)
附属住宅单元（祖
/客房）
公寓
(Condominium...
为正在经历或面临
个人和家庭提供临
独栋住宅
住房和残障人士住房
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
12 / 26

25.00%
4 12.50%
2 18.75%
3 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 18.75%
3 12.50%
2 12.50%
2 16

5.50 0.00%
0 18.75%
3 12.50%
2 12.50%
2 25.00%
4 12.50%
2 12.50%
2 6.25%
1 0.00%
0 16

5.38 18.75%
3 0.00%
0 12.50%
2 37.50%
6 12.50%
2 6.25%
1 6.25%
1 6.25%
1 0.00%
0 16

6.00 6.25%
1 12.50%
2 18.75%
3 25.00%
4 12.50%
2 12.50%
2 6.25%
1 6.25%
1 0.00%
0 16

5.81 0.00%
0 12.50%
2 6.25%
1 0.00%
0 18.75%
3 18.75%
3 31.25%
5 12.50%
2 0.00%
0 16

4.31 6.25%
1 18.75%
3 12.50%
2 12.50%
2 12.50%
2 6.25%
1 18.75%
3 12.50%
2 0.00%
0 16

5.38 0.00%
0 12.50%
2 0.00%
0 6.25%
1 6.25%
1 18.75%
3 0.00%
0 6.25%
1 50.00%
8 16

3.06 31.25%
5 6.25%
1 12.50%
2 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 6.25%
1 0.00%
0 12.50%
2 31.25%
5 16

5.00 12.50%
2 6.25%
1 6.25%
1 6.25%
1 12.50%
2 18.75%
3 6.25%
1 25.00%
4 6.25%
1 16

4.56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL SCORE
微型单元（小
于 400 平方英
尺）
一间或更少的
公寓
(Apartment)
两间公寓
(Apartment)
三室或以上的
公寓
(Apartment)
附属住宅单元
（祖母房/二级
单元/客房）
公寓
(Condominium)
/联排别墅
为正在经历或
面临无家可归
风险的个人和
家庭提供临
时、过渡和支
持性住房
独栋住宅
老年人住房和
残障人士住房
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
13 / 26

6.25% 1

81.25% 13

12.50% 2
Q10 在过去五年中，您或邻居是否曾被迫离开住宅而流离失所？
Answered: 16 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 16
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
是
否
也许/不确定

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
是
否
也许/不确定
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
14 / 26

33.33% 1

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

66.67% 2

0.00% 0
Q11 以下哪一项能最好地描述您流离失所的原因？
Answered: 3 Skipped: 13
TOTAL 3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
超出了我的支付能力
房东卖房
居住环境不安全
个人原因
其他（请注明）。

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
租金上涨，超出了我的支付能力
房东卖房
居住环境不安全
个人原因
其他（请注明）。
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
15 / 26

6.25% 1

12.50% 2

68.75% 11

12.50% 2
Q12 在过去十年中，您在 Sunnyvale 市找房时是否觉得自己受到歧视？
Answered: 16 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 16
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
不适用
是
否
也许/不确定

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
不适用
是
否
也许/不确定
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
16 / 26
Q13 您认为您为什么受到歧视？（选择所有适用项）
Answered: 5 Skipped: 11
Race/
Ethnicity/...

Sex/
Gender/LGBTQ
Income status
/ Income too...

Age
Familial
status / Hav...

Disability
Criminal
history
History of
eviction,...

Being homeless
Religion
Other:
种族/族裔/语言
性别/LGBTQ
收入状况/收入过低
年龄
家庭状况/有孩子
残障
犯罪记录
止赎、不良信用历史
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
17 / 26

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

80.00% 4

0.00% 0

40.00% 2

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

20.00% 1

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0
Total Respondents: 5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
无家可归
宗教
其他（请注明）。

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Race/ Ethnicity/ Language spoken
Sex/ Gender/LGBTQ
Income status / Income too low
Age
Familial status / Having children
Disability
Criminal history
History of eviction, foreclosure, bad credit
Being homeless
Religion
Other:
种族/族裔/语言
性别/LGBTQ
收入状况/收入过低
年龄
家庭状况/有孩子
残障
犯罪记录
驱逐、止赎、不良信用历史
无家可归
宗教
其他（请注明）。
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
18 / 26

18.75% 3

6.25% 1

75.00% 12
Q14 在过去十年中，您在 Sunnyvale 市找房时是否曾租房被拒？
Answered: 16 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 16
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
不适用
是
否

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
不适用
是
否
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
19 / 26
Q15 您为什么被拒绝？
Answered: 3 Skipped: 13
Another tenant
willing to p...

Income too low
Bad credit
Eviction
history
Lack of stable
housing record
Size of
family; too...

I have a
housing vouc...

Landlord
didn’t accep...

Unknown/ Not
sure / Was n...

Other:
户愿意支付更高租金
收入太低
不良信用
驱逐历史
缺乏稳定的住房记录
家庭规模；人太多
我有住房补助券
不接受我的收入类型
不确定/没有给出原因
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
20 / 26

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

33.33% 1

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

66.67% 2

0.00% 0
TOTAL 3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
其他（请注明）。

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Another tenant willing to pay more
Income too low
Bad credit
Eviction history
Lack of stable housing record
Size of family; too many people
I have a housing voucher
Landlord didn’t accept the type of income I earn
Unknown/ Not sure / Was not given a reason
Other:
另一位租户愿意支付更高租金
收入太低
不良信用
驱逐历史
缺乏稳定的住房记录
家庭规模；人太多
我有住房补助券
房东不接受我的收入类型
未知/不确定/没有给出原因
其他（请注明）。
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
21 / 26
Q16 您同意或不同意以下陈述的程度：
Answered: 16 Skipped: 0
我的街区很安全。
区的学校是优质学校
我的家人或邻居
不会因租金...
我的街区有残障
人士可以获得且
负
担得起的住房。
足够的首付来买房。
我租房且有足够
的押金来租...

Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
22 / 26

31.25%
5 43.75%
7 25.00%
4 16

1.94 62.50%
10 25.00%
4 12.50%
2 16

1.50 31.25%
5 31.25%
5 37.50%
6 16

2.06 25.00%
4 43.75%
7 31.25%
5 16

2.06 31.25%
5 31.25%
5 37.50%
6 16

2.06 56.25%
9 37.50%
6 6.25%
1 16

1.50 6.25%
1 81.25%
13 12.50%
2 16

2.06 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
同意 中立/不适用 不同意
即使有犯罪记
录，我也可以找
到出
租单元。
同意 中立/不适用 不同意 TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE
我的街区很安全。
我所在街区的学校是优质学校
我的家人或邻居不会因租金上涨而需要离开居住的街区。
我的街区有残障人士可以获得且负担得起的住房。
我想买房且有足够的首付来买房。
我租房且有足够的押金来租住公寓 (apartment) 或住宅。
即使有犯罪记录，我也可以找到出租单元。
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
23 / 26

0.00% 0

93.75% 15

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

6.25% 1

0.00% 0
Q17 您的种族是？
Answered: 16 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 16
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
人或阿拉斯加原住民
亚裔
黑人或非裔美国人
民或其他太平洋岛民
白人
种族（两个或以上）
保密
其他（请指明）

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
美洲印第安人或阿拉斯加原住民
亚裔
黑人或非裔美国人
夏威夷原住民或其他太平洋岛民
白人
多种族（两个或以上）
保密
其他（请指明）
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
24 / 26

0.00% 0

68.75% 11

31.25% 5
Q18 哪一项能最好地描述您的族裔？
Answered: 16 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 16
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
拉美裔或西班牙血统
拉美裔或西班牙血统
保密

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
西班牙裔、拉美裔或西班牙血统
非西班牙裔、拉美裔或西班牙血统
保密
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
25 / 26

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

18.75% 3

62.50% 10

18.75% 3

0.00% 0
Q19 您的年龄是？
Answered: 16 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 16
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
18岁以下
18 – 24 岁
25 – 34 岁
35 – 49 岁
50 – 64 岁
65 岁及以上

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
18岁以下
18 – 24 岁
25 – 34 岁
35 – 49 岁
50 – 64 岁
65 岁及以上
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE 市住房要素更新 社区调查  2022 年 2 月
26 / 26
Q20 您是否有关于住房的其他意见未在上文列出，且应在住房要素更新过
程中予以考虑？
Answered: 6 Skipped: 10
Attachment 2

ALL COMMENTS AND VERBATIM RESPONSES TO “OTHER”
Question 2 – Do you currently rent or own your home?
• I am nearly 40, married with a son, living in my elderly father's house and not able to pay rent despite working full time
• I am a Sunnyvale landlord
• Homeless/ live in a rv
• Live with family. I work in Sunnyvale and would like to live here. • Rent apartment
• Was renting, now with parents because house was sold
• live with parent who owns
• Live with parents, who own
• Pay space rent
Question 3 – Which of the following best describes your household? • Married Couple with children and their girlfriends frequently living at home • Couple with 1 "child" over 18 and one child under 18
• siblings
• Couple in main house, grown child with partner in ADU • Single parent with son > 18yo
• Single disabled parent 3 children
• Plus one on the way
• Single adult siblings living together
• Couple with a grewup child
• 4人家庭 [Family of 4]
Question 4 – What type of housing do you live in?
• Room
• Single Family Home with ADU on site.

Question 6 – Have you or are you experiencing any of the following housing issues? • Rising HOA fees
• property taxes, and services (garbage, water, etc.) prices keep going up. :-( • HOA fees significantly increasing every year
• Thanking of active living senior housing but don't like the current options • Cold, cant cook, or shower BC there's no hookups anywhere around here for all the rv's to go • Not enough single family homes for sale.
• Adult child moved out once she got a ft position
• Too much taxes and NOTHING of equal value in return
• Taxes on gains from sail make it impossible to even consider moving. • Even with a co-signor parent who will help with rent, it's hard to compete with a techie applicant for housing.

Attachment 2

• Elderly parent living in home because she can't afford senior living • Don't want increase rent to good tenants.
• Landlord is unwilling to repair property
• Want to move, but capital gains tax is ridiculous.
• Want to move because the city is not as safe as before • Housing density TOO HIGH, in Sunnyvale
• Want to purchase on Sunnyvale but comparable costs too high • Too much house tax
• adult child with disability
• neighborhood safety
• Getting too crowded. Plan to move away soon
• Worrying about security
• Want to buy a condo/townhouse, but extremely limited inventory and extremely expensive.

Question 7 – How would you rate the physical condition of your home? • Needs upgrades to be green (all electric) & to complete dry landscaping • It’s ok
• Wanted to replace my roof/upgrade it and I deeply regretted that decision due to extreme harassment by the Permit process and those who were in the final process of approving it. My wife and I were in tears. This is not the way our residents were to be treated. It was so shameful. The big builders had no issues. What does this say?
• City should assist in “low water” landscape for owner of property • It is perfect No way owner will ever recover his investments. • older home - exterior excellent, but can use some interior remodeling • Mojo y pisos rechinable la madera muy vieja de los pisos [Dirty and old creaky wood floors] Question 8 – What do you feel is the most significant housing problem facing Sunnyvale residents?
• Housing is too expensive unless you work for big tech companies. • Planning Department too restrictive.
• Too many tech companies and their workers with too much $$$ from equity compensation, competing for housing with low to mid-income people. Not everyone working for Apple, Google, FB , etc. needs to live in Silicon Valley or Sunnyvale. There's no need for ginormous tech campuses w/ every worker on-site in the Bay Area.
• Too expensive to build (permits, fees, and regulation cost) • Planning Commission and City Council are ruining the city by overbuilding. This was a comfortable city 20 years ago with fewer apartments and fewer people. Now it is becoming a zoo! • more high density housing needed!
• Too many apartments for the infrastructure
• Lack of affordability is confused with lack of availability. There is availability but not affordability - too many luxury housing developments have been green-lighted by Sunnyvale. • Too many houses near my residence is making traffic congested and too crowded • Not enough parking. Getting too crowded. Decreasing safety.

Attachment 2

• Not enough affordable housing for larger families
• Housing not affordable period. That includes tech workers • too much housing. No longer the small town that I knew. Might as well combine, sunnyvale, santa clara, cupertino, etc., into one big city.
• Quality of schools
• Housing here is not appropriate for young adults - shared housing is difficult to find - mostly we have expensive studios & 1-BRs
• Too many (foreign) investors buying up property just to rent it at the highest price the market will bear
• Not enough affordable housing that could accomodate a variety of different groups (ie singles, families, lower ses people, seniors/disabled people with special housing needs/pocketbooks.) Not everyone has IPO stock and we need a wide variety of different people (ses, age, ethnicities) in order to make Sunnyvale the great place where we work (or are retired), play, and live comfortably. • Capital Gains Taxes: If government would cancel capital gains, many homes will become available and the housing shortage will be over.
• too many ugly highrise condos and apartments
• Need MUCH denser zoning in Sunnyvale. It’s wrong how low density it is given housing crisis. • It's not affordable. It seems that any BMR opportunity are rigged and that the process is not transparent and there is related corruption. There's an option above, but I think it's a gross error to lump retail/service industry workers and teachers with POLICE and FIRE workers--especially in Santa Clara County where these workers make 6-figures, double dip, and can make upwards of $200K a year. Shame on who ever made this survey.
• not enough single family homes.
• The community has become less safe to residents in the past year. That’s our biggest concern. If it continue with this trend, we may have to move out
• Permits granted to builders not residents. Too much red tape but guess it's based on bank account and letting H1 visas come by up housing that should be for residents. • The main reason for the housing problem is skyrocketing value of homes in Santa Clara County.

High tech companies are the reason for that. They should be the ones to be blamed for that. They should be the ones building accommodations and rent them to their employees and should not be allowed to purchase homes as they make a lot of money and can easily gobble up the homes thus driving up the prices and making housing unaffordable to the middle /lower income people. High tech companies have saturated the county. If Apple could spend Billions of building a space ship type office complex, wouldn't they be able to build accommodations for their hard working employees? Isn't it time to look ion this direction of building accommodations for their employees to a certain percentage at least to ease housing crunch? • Housing density too high!! Quality of life “down.” Too many people, too much traffic, no place to walk to, for “ Peace and quiet!!”
• The city continues to allow more housing on too small lots. This over building is stretching our resources such as water and adding to congestion and noise. We never see the police stopping speeding on our residential street because they have too many other problems. And the housing being built is not low income, just more expensive condos and apartments. The city is being ruined. • Not enough housing for medium income household
Attachment 2

• too much development for wealthy and business, leaving regular folks behind, who cant afford to live here, thus move out of area
• Housing is not affordable even for people in tech! I think most first time home buyers are locked out
• Need more single family homes, that’s where the demand is • Housing is permitted and built in accordance to desires of developers and has no correation with actual housing needs of community. Typically treated as investment commodity and largely sits empty (due to overpricing), creating false impression of actual housing stock and locking essential service workers out of the market.
• As a retired person, it is very expensive to maintain my home without an income. So repairs remain undone.
• Irresponsible over-development over the past few year, rezoning, lacking foresight and investment for infrastructure to accommodate the dramatic increase of households and population, resulting in low quality of life for for all Sunnyvale residents.
• Houses are more and more expensive, the environment are getting worse, more and more homeless are coming
• No more shelters & transitional housing for the homeless in residential and school area. • Safety is the most important thing
• Crimes. Homeless shelter being put in the neighbor causing significant safety conerns. • this area has become more crowded with influx of people, and many crimes including all kinds of theft
• Too many people, too little parks and open space. Too little water. Too much traffic at all hours of the day and night.
• Feeling unsafe in the neighborhood
• Too many shelters ,transitional housing and PSH for the homeless around Sunnyvale. Palo Alto , Los Altos and Saratoga should build more shelters, TH and PSH for those poor people. Second, Sunnyvale can not accomodate all people who can not afford to own/rent here. Palo Alto, Los Altos, Saratoga & Los Gatos should build more affordable housing for people who need a space. • Sunnyvale is over-developed with too many companies and too many high rise apartments. It is becoming more and more unfriendly and over-crowded for families to live • Too many apartments so that there are no enough parking spaces. Streets are jammed with cars • Safety issue in Sunnyvale due to crimes, thefts and homeless. • too many homeless shelters on the border without local residents’ approval • Rental control too strict. Overall community safety decreasing. • Too many houses and people but not enough public facilities.e.g. parks, parking lots, grocery stores, restaurants, etc.
• Major problem of homeless is drug addiction. Providing more shelters and housing won't solve it.

You have to fix the root cause!
• Homeless shelter around the area makes me feel unsafe • Many shelters that are near schools, residential areas • Not enough housing near good public transit
• houses: concern that homeowners rent/leave the area but don't maintain property; or investors leave houses empty for long time/no maintenance.

Attachment 2

• The market supply of homes is artificially constrained, which inflates prices • Housing prices are too high for everyone.
• No hay un control de renta, los precios son muy altos para nuestros ingresos [There is no rent control, prices are too high for our income]
Question 11 – Which of the following best describe the reason you (or a neighbor) were displaced?
• they lost job and could not afford mortgage
• Owner could not pay mortgage because they took out too many loans on property. • One neighbor sold their home and moved away.
• owned home but not enough income to maintain
• Foreclosure. Could not pay mortgage.
• Landlord decided to rent home to other family members • Could not afford mortgage
• Landlord demolishing property to rebuild
• Divorce and then inability to afford housing here
• Rent too high
• Live there 25 yrs Townhomes we’re sold at auction rent tripled • Unemployed
• Landlord decided to move back in
• not sure but seems to be landlord selling home that was being rented, then remodeling Question 13 – Why do you think you were discriminated against? • Not perceived as "rich" enough
• Even at S/vale BMR program I was treated less than that was 15 yrs ago and still to this day my name has never come up on the list but my new neighbors to California has they only lived in s/vale a yr when I called to ask why I ask if it was my race and I was told s/vale didn’t need my crap I told to feel free to move cities and the lady didn’t say crap she used the other word hey BMR I’m still waiting
• Housing Voucher
• not sure
Question 15 – Why were you denied rental housing?
• Not applicable to me, but I’m aware that housing vouchers are challenging in a competitive market like Sunnyvale
• No pets
• When I showed up as a single parent w/ two little kids, I was told the place was already rented (but I know it wasn't).

Question 17 – What is your race?
• Arab-American
• Latina
Attachment 2

• Mexican
• Hispanic
• Latinx
• Latino
• Jewish
• Latinoamericano
• Latino o hispano
• Hispana
Do you have any additional housing related comments that are not listed above and should be considered in the Housing Element update process?
• I'm not in favor of R1 zoning.
• Unless you’re in real estate (which I am), tech, or health science, it’s impossible to buy a home on your own without substantial help from wealthy relatives (if you have any). I do mortgage financing for a living and see the income levels and back ground of people buying in the silicon valley, east bay, central valley, etc. It’s impossible for teachers, healthcare workers, public safety to buy a home unless their spouse happens to be in one of the high earning fields I mentioned. To keep quality essential people here, there should be a down payment assistance program catered to them specifically. The ones available are a joke and is a catch 22. You only qualify for assistance if you make under x amount but if you make under x amount, you want be able to qualify for an average price home here. We have BMR units but they are not a good long term solution. The deed restrictions on these units cap the future resale value which put the owners at a disadvantage. Owners aren’t able to build wealth through real estate like everyone else. Instead, I recommend giving these essential workers assistance of up to 10% of the sales price with repayment waived for x amount of years of service in their field. In addition, all tax supported services (hospitals, schools, fire dept, police station, etc) will pay housing allowance as part of the employee compensation package. Employees can use the money towards rent or mortgage. In addition, there should be a real estate tax of 15% for non US citizens or non permanent resident aliens that buy a home. That tax goes to the county to help pay for the down payment assistance program and employer paid housing allowance I mentioned earlier. Canada has this foreign tax in place for years to curb their heated housing market. Other countries outright ban foreigners from owning properties. Building more home won’t matter if people we’re trying to keep in the community can’t afford to pay for it. The truth is, their salary is a joke. Teachers have been fighting for decades for increase pay and there has been no significant change. We lured all of these service workers in with a great pension and benefits when they retired but how come we don’t take care of them now? Especially with the pandemic, we know they are valuable and irreplaceable. • As Sunnyvale develops more housing, I would like the city to consider providing more public transportation including more and safer bike lanes, etc. to ensure that our roads do not get too congested.
• Crime in Sunnyvale has increased in the past few years and housing remains unaffordable for most looking to buy. My wife and I lucked out buying a townhome in 2015 at Sunnyvale Roundtree. I do appreciate the city services including police, as they are very responsive when I call in and take suggestions or complaints seriously.

Attachment 2

• There is not enough water available for the current residents let alone an additional 12,000 units.

Where do the additional natural resources come from? Solar power needs to be a major component of any new housing. PG&E needs to make hookup and buy-back more reasonable to encourage green energy. Traffic needs to be planned and implemented BEFORE any housing is built. Low/medium income needs to be a majority of the housing. Maybe the cost should be a percentage of income vs flat rate.
• Sunnyvale is doing a great job compared to neighboring towns and it should keep doing that and go beyond. Build more housing, communities need it.
• Allow for more dense development through zoning.
• Services such as water, sewer, emergency, schools, etc. need to be considered when creating all this new housing. As it is there's barely any sun left in Sunnyvale with all the new high rises. In addition, there is traffic and parking to consider. The bike lanes on Fair Oaks are a joke - no one uses them, and Sunnyvale is not set-up to be a car-less city. Maybe some of the gigantic employers could spread their employees out across the country instead of having them all located here. This would improve everyone's quality of life. We are losing nurses, teachers, janitors, retail workers, and only retaining tech employees as they are the only ones who can afford housing. A 3 bedroom/2 bath home built in 1962 currently selling for over $3M is ridiculous. More housing is not the answer, we need fewer people, but with a better mix of what type of work they do so we don't have just tech employees represented in town.
• Why not make it easier for people to build larger homes? • "Density, ownership. We need raw loft spaces near the center of town and more density in zoning next to the train station. We need to curb foreign investment in our properties and stop investment companies that are backed by the fed from buying and renting in residential neighbourhoods, we need to have laws and consequences to protect zoning and community. • All golf courses need to be redeveloped especially one’s city or state owned." • Stop tearing down single family housing and replacing with multi unit apartments and stop building mor high rise apartments buildings!
• No
• I'm more concerned about housing density and infrastructure. Roads can't handle more traffic higher density of housing would bring and existing homeowners are experiencing reduced home value as a result of these multi-family units being built up right next door. • Please build more homes so people can put down roots in this area. • BMR housing is not big enough for large families. We have 5 kids and our BMR home has 3 bedrooms
• "Housing density and walkable/bikeable communities is *MUCH* better than suburban sprawl and car-based everything!
MIXED communities with different kinds of (dense) housing, bringing together people from many cultures and walks of life is how to build a city for the future.

NIMBY's have had their say. They made their millions. The world is SO much worse for that.

Change it!"
• Honestly there is entirely too much property owned by large entities and this is going to ruin the city in the long run.
• More housing near commercial areas/transportation. In general, more housing to increase supply. • Transit-oriented development, walking and biking corridors Attachment 2

• "New developments should blend in with existing properties. Don't permit 4-story condos adjacent to single story single family homes. The proposed 4-story condos at Fremont Corner Shopping Center will tower over the homes on Berwick and Bobolink, reducing the privacy and property value for existing residents."
• Specifically need more ADA units for non-seniors. Myself and friends found it near impossible to find available wheelchair accessible units that weren't only for seniors • I'd like to see taxes imposed on unoccupied housing to deter companies/people from buying houses as an investment and letting them sit empty. A sliding tax based on last occupied rental rate or purchase price would be amazing.
• Demand for single family homes continues to raise...building more condos does not address this demand.
• Please consider effects on school. Existing schools are becoming too large. Need new schools • "Higher density housing along public transportation lines is needed.

It's OK to build in my backyard. We need affordable housing for young people. TY." • Before adding more housing please plan the infrastructure. Schools, playgrounds, retail, roads, parking. Schools are the most important. Currently the schools are very crowded. Elementary schools are not neighborhood schools, missing at least one high school. • Please improve the quality of schools. Hire good teachers. Invest in your future generation. • I’d love to own our house instead of rent, but there is no way I could afford it while working in healthcare. Even our tech friends can’t find a house because they keep getting outbid. They quit looking out of frustration.
• I feel we are building too many condos and townhouses. • Sunnyvale does not need more housing. Sunnyvale needs more affordable housing. It is irrational and somewhat biased to believe that someone who grew up in Sunnyvale should be able to live as an adult/raise a family in Sunnyvale. Frankly, that sounds like entitlement. A former councilmember who now works with Governor Newsom lamented on his first day as a Sunnyvale councilmember that many people who grew up in Sunnyvale could not afford to live here as adults. When looking for a home, I chose Sunnyvale because it was affordable. My first choice wasn't affordable. Life is like that-sometimes people don't get what they want. Sunnyvale continually favors developers of luxury housing as opposed to affordable housing. Luxury housing is significantly more profitable for developers/investors/government entities than affordable housing. This is likely a major reason for the shortage of affordable housing in Sunnyvale. If Sunnyvale is being required by the state to build 12,000+ more units by 2031, the area to consider for such development is the Moffet Park area, similar to Santa Clara's general plan and development near Levi Stadium. • There's no mention of mobile home parks in this survey. I do not live in a mobile home park, but the way that companies have bought up these parks in Sunnyvale and then demanded high increases in space rents is appalling. The city should support everything it can to keep mobile home parks affordable - including helping residents turn the parks into resident-owned communities.

Also, we must increase the amount of housing in developments that is reserved for low-income residents to more than the current 15%. Mixed income housing developments are the best way to get residents housed and avoid the stigma that comes with "the projects." • There are too many houses in my residential area. If new houses are required it needs to be planned where there is space and does not crowd the area. • We need a mix of affordable housing options. We need to support housing for the homeless.

Attachment 2

• no
• I actually think the housing in Sunnyvale is by far the most varied and diverse compared to our northern neighbors, but I also think it's incredibly expensive to live here regardless. So it's not actually that there is a lack of housing that is the biggest barrier- it's the lack of affordable housing.

Without any outside interventions like rental caps or rules restricting foreign or large investor property ownership, it is almost impossible to keep it affordable. I think the city can raise the number of affordable units or below market housing caps on developers to keep a healthy inventory.
• My husband was underemployed for several years, and paying rent was really hard to do. He just got a well-paying job, which is the only reason we’re able to afford our current place, which is really well-maintained and new-looking
• If you are not working for a corporate company here you can not afford living in Sunnyvale comfortably
• Homes need to be affordable. 2 over 40 adults working in tech making 200k a year should be able to afford. Single family home
• Feel unsafe to walk on street .
• We need to help people find good neighborhoods and affordable housing. • More mixed-use zoning! More affordable housing!
• I love seeing all of the new construction of high density housing- we need it! People should be able to live here instead of commuting so far for jobs that are here. • Sunnyvale has become unsafe. :-(. Me and my neighbors do not feel safe walking around. More housing brings more people. We would rather have the money spent on quality school education and reducing food insecurity. No more building!
• "Schools are too crowded - we do not have enough schools or teachers to support the population.

Traffic is dangerous to kids - we live in the ponderosa neighborhood and kids are assigned to Braly Elementary school. Little kids need to cross Wolfe to get to school. This is dangerous and unacceptable. Don’t build more housing if you can’t come up with proper school solutions for the kids who already live here.
—I’ve lived in Sunnyvale all my life and don’t want to leave because my whole family is here. For those of us who are here - make the situation better not worse" • You should allow builders to build two story or three story duplexes or single families that have in- law (self contained) units inside of them, like say a ground floor. When two homes share a same wall, you save space. But you still get a small backyard this way. Sharing a wall doesn’t reduce privacy bc of sound barrier construction options now. This satisfies those who want a single family type home as well as have in-law needs. Or if no in-laws, can be rentable space to help with mortgages.
• "Green space and playgrounds in our community to foster outside time and community Housing and how it affects traffic.

Safe neighborhoods"
• I live in a single family home that I own. If you build homeless housing or apartments across the street from me, then that would be a good thing. Please ignore all the shrieks from racist, classist home-owners who only want to be able to see other rich people on their street. • My rent increased 120% within the last ten years, my salary didn’t, it’s not sustainable Attachment 2

• I’d like you to include insulation/air conditioning/heating availability as climate changes and it becomes difficult to handle summers without AC
• This needs to be more widely advertised.
• I'd like Sunnyvale to choose 1 or more locations to designate as walkable villages, with high density apartment buildings (maybe 8-16 stories?), transit hub, & onsite basics (grocery, school, restaurants, shopping, playground, dog park), and LIMITED parking, where seniors, disabled, and others could live without requiring a car. Those areas could handle high growth without adding to the traffic problem.
• "I want to reduce my purchases on Amazon but find a challenge as many malls and stores are closing,
We do not have good malls in Sunnyvale. You have to travel to eastridge or valley fair mall to shop" • need to comply with HCD guidance to identify and address constraints to housing • "There has been a lot of new construction in Sunnyvale which leads to overcrowded schools. I hope the Housing Element will work to ensure that more schools open instead of leasing Sunnyvale schools to private entities.

Also, property tax makes it very difficult for families to be mobile. " • Need improvement/increase in public transit along with housing - bus route through my neighborhood was eliminated.
• My children don't want to live here because they think it's becoming a dorm for young engineers with none of the culture a real city should have.
• There are a LOT of office buildings going up in Sunnyvale! I am concerned about the infrastructure being able to withstand this, the actual necessity of more office space, and propose an equal number of housing opportunities are created as the number of employees each of these office buildings will need.
• We need more affordable housing, more variety and more dense housing. Not more single family homes.
• Rent control
• City needs to approve plans and permits more efficiently and with more clarity to allow for production in general, homeowner remodels/additions and ADUs. Need more housing to increase affordability.
• MUCH more affordable housing is needed for our diverse economic population. The process to build more housing is too slow, bureaucratic, and expensive. • There should be some RV hook up areas for people to rent to have electricity, running water, and warmth or be able to cook a meal or take a shower or use a toilet and not have to use a bottle or bag to go to the bathroom in!
• no
• Affordable housing should be made available in all districts of the city of Sunnyvale. • "We should build a lot more housing in the south side of Sunnyvale. Both high schools are in the south side which means a long commute for those living in the north side. And the Cupertino Union School District are closing schools due to low enrollment. That is wasting resources not to utilize existing resources.

We also have many amenities such as grocery stores, drug stores, and all sorts of services on the south side."
• Recommend garage conversion adu policy funding in exchange for providing affordable housing Attachment 2

• It is very difficult to find reasonably priced housing for substantially disabled people with very low incomes.
• Our city is in a crisis stage with its housing stock. I look to city staff to write a housing element section of our general plan to address the low housing stock, infill housing and multiple multifamily size units.
• I have family that would like to move here from Los Banos but can’t afford it. • The focus seems to be on issues that are affecting very few people. Wish there was more focus on regular people and there needs.
• We need a lot more affordable housing
• Build single family housing. That should be the priority for all of California. • Build more medium density housing. Build more high density housing. Then go build even more medium density housing.
• I think that, as with Santa Cruz County, houses that are vacant for a good portion of the year (second houses, AirBNB, houses that are owned by non-legal residents and/or citizens) should be taxed at a much higher amount that owned, occupied properties. I see a lot of this in Palo Alto, where large (and smaller)houses sit vacant because owners are investing their money from abroad over here to safeguard it.
• More BMR housing for large families.
• We need high density housing and mass transportation
• Housing should be grouped. High density housing should be near transportation, shopping, etc. • "1. City needs more entry level for-sale housing i.e., townhomes, condos (so people can invest in the city.

2. The city's fees & regulations are an obstacle to housing production and need to be reformed

3. While the city does plan well, the plans take too long to complete i.e, specific plans, precise plans. Need to complete faster so housing can meet ""current"" needs." • The new downtown plan is good, and I encourage the council to allow as much density as they can.

But I'd love to see the housing around that area, within walking distance, add townhomes, duplexes, etc. that are denser.
• Need a diversity of housing sizes. Too many small units BMR's cause the developers to do small units.
• I’ve been a Sunnyvale resident and a techie for 25 years, so housing is not a problem for me personally. But I feel strongly about our inability to do enough for the unhoused people in Sunnyvale and want to use this survey to make their voice heard by the City. Regular residents can’t solve this issue without engagement and commitment from the city. Thanks! • prioritize housing near transit! if there isn't enough space by transit we need to build more dense areas ready to add into into our transit systems
• I have lived in Sunnyvale my whole life raised 5 intelligent children sent the to all Nimitz, sunnyvale middle, Homestead and two to Stanford I worked El Camino hospital as an RN till being hit by a car going into work being disabled in sunnyvale isn’t easy I’ve been treated amazingly when trying to get help but also being treated so awful for being extremely low income I’ve worked my whole only to be treated like this it’s not my fault I was hit I don’t ask for a hand out but a hand up it’s not fair Ive been over looked for the BMR program because of the pigment or lack of pigment in my skin or the balance in my checking account it’s one thing to be poor it’s another thing to be treated bad because you are and still I never want to leave Sunnyvale but we all know sunnyvale will leave me Attachment 2

not I say or have said will make a difference to anyone I’ve lost two children because of homelessness but I choose to live for the 3 remaining we’ve been homeless off and on since my husbands suicide on lakeknoll Dr after his death the home being a family home of his parents was sold at auction I don’t wish this on anyone my two babies in their twenties still have Faith it will turn around for us. I only ask you keep us in your prayers I know God has us in the palm of his hand • The density in Sunnyvale and other parts of Silicon Valley is too low. I some more support dramatic increases to density, especially near transit but in other areas too. We have to solve our housing crisis by taking hugely bold moves. We also need more rail transit but if the very least should have much higher density near the rail we do have.
• I feel I am fortunate that I have an income that I can pay my rent. I am 74 still working, but when I retie, that may be a different story :( I have live here for 12 years and really don't want to leave. My son does has good income, also, but his rent is almost my take home pay !!! • We need more housing close enough to rail systems to be reached on foot. • Actually speak to your citizens about the housing they want. Do not assume everyone wants these colossal apartment complexes. Build more homes.
• Rent keeps going up and house market is too expensive. Even mobile home park have high space rent.
• My greatest concern and complaint is the deteriorating safety of the community. We choose to live in here to raise our young family because of the quality and safety of the neighborhood. Anything that take away that is utterly unfortunate. It may drive away good families like us. • I love that Sunnyvale is allowing higher density development (apartment buildings) close to the Caltrain station in downtown Sunnyvale. I'm scandalized by the rental prices though - they are so high! Can more of these units be offered for sale, so we have high density homeowners, as well as renters?
• Stop building large condos there are not enough schools. Traffic is a mess and too many dogs without yards they use home owners lawns as toilets. You are driving out all the Sunnyvale residents. Builders come in with no restrictions because of the size of their wallets. This is no longer Sunnyvale but only for profit when city can line pockets. More parks less condos. They aren't even affordable.
• Expand the building options. Reduce zoning restrictions. Reduce builder red tape. Think very hard on what is really required. Don't force affordable housing, focus on volume. • this survey seems very bias, it's obvious to me what answers you are looking for. • Neighborhoods with a mix of higher density and lower density housing zoned for the same school would help with reducing racial and economic segregation that we currently see between North and south Sunnyvale. I'm sure you know that teachers in Sunnyvale often live 30-45 minutes away because of the lack of affordable options here; this leads to higher staff turnover which is suboptimal for our schools.
• N/a
• Repeal prop 13.
• Please build more micro apartments for single people. • Condos should be for sale not just rent/lease. Why is the city against ownership of condos? Not a single condo unit of the downtown area is for sale.

Attachment 2

• With many businesses now allowing remote work or at least hybrid schedules, more families need bigger houses/apartments since they are spending more time in them. Don’t destroy our single family neighborhoods.
• preserve single family home neighborhoods
• Please keep Sunnyvale safe place to live. Converting hotel or motel in the city is not the way to help homeless with mental health or drug issue. People who works hard and spends wisely can survive here.
• Please look into the Assembly bill for Social Housing • The City has allowed saturation of high tech companies to build multi storied buildings. They are are the ones that need to build multi storied buildings as rental accommodation for those employees as long as they work for them. Quit then vacate it. If provided accommodation why would they venture to buy houses and drive out the seniors and other low income residents ? I am sure the City can put this in the permit process. Look at the conditions and harassments how owners face when they go to get permits for home improvement. I haver made up my mind to never go again to the City myself to get a permit. They drive you to tears in the process. What a shame to us Seniors to go and cry in front of the permit department • "Need more for-sale Studios (for people who need to build equity and no longer rent).

Need ways to encourage and fund ADUs."
• Don't build more homeless shelters. No, it's NOT a solution to the homeless problem. • We desperately need more housing anywhere it can be built/expanded in the city. • "Yes. I personally feel the city is only concerned with “tax revenues,” when it comes to “housing,”.

There is currently a over supply of rentals in the city, particularly near El Camino Real and Lawrence Expressway all along El Camino Real. The new “ Murphy Station“ apartments displaced a previous RV rental location. We DON’T need more high density housing!! The monstrosity recently built on Lawrence Expressway and Keifer, is what, 2,700 housing units in a already congested location across from the over used Costco across the street. We don’t need this!! • Life in the city has gone downhill from what it was, 30 plus years ago. So sad. Just like the city of Cupertino, all the city wants, is additional “tax revenues,” at the expense of “quality of life.” Sad reality, nothing I could do. My wife sadly said “ this is how “progress” looks like. So ugly. To even consider building more housing is Ludacris, as this state is entering a “Mega-drought.”(s/p). So lack of water, lack of infrastructure currently to handle wastewater treatment, as Sunnyvale goes about a “25-year plan,” to increase the ability to handle the current and future demands. Lack of 100% reliable electrical supply, and Newsom requesting in a few short years, only EVs, could be sold.

With the lack of water for future hydroelectric electric demands, how can Sunnyvale and particularly the entire State of California, going to meet these demands?? We should have a “ moratorium“ on ALL future housing builds, until we FIRST are able to supply the resources needed to meet the demands of a growing population.
• No one is looking at the Big Picture, and have their “head in the sand”, hoping someone else address the problems they created. Please, NO MORE DEVELOPMENT, until we have the resources and infrastructure in place. And more importantly, focus on the local quality of life for your citizens, instead of looking for more tax revenues."
• A neighbor has built some sort of unit in their very small backyard. The unit is within feet of our back fence. This is ridiculous. We had no warning and just discovered the completed unit after a period of noise. We assume it’s a rental. It faces our direction. We might as well move to SF the Attachment 2

calm of Sunnyvale is gone and yet we still have unhoused people. We have made Sunnyvale community services our main charity and hope the city leaders understand that the residents want quiet spaces to live. Stop the over building of four story expensive residences. • The Bay Area needs to build more housing. Maybe some SROs. I admit that I wouldn't want to live next door to a homeless shelter. Government should fully fund Section 8. • Only long term solution to housing problem in Silicon Valley is too stop adding jobs. In the 45 years I have lived here the number of new jobs has increased at a rate that no housing plan could keep up.
• There is BMR units available the waiting list is years to get an apartment usually residents in bmr units never move out and the residents that get priority are they first priority for city residents • "i moved to the suburbs from san francisco in 1988. i loved the suburbs instead of the city life of san francisco, however, sunnyvale is no longer the cute open suburbs of yesteryear, which wasn't very long ago,
sunnyvale is nearly unrecognizable with the tremendous amount of building developments over the years. Time for me to seek the country again to get out of the city that's been built in my time here.

It used to be quaint and cute, with easy parking and open fields and views to the hills. I guess you can't slow down ""progress"" but is it really progress? The biggest distraction and travesty is the number of RV's and blatant homelessness allowed on our streets. I love to camp too, but shouldn't camping be restricted to campgrounds and not just anywhere you choose to park or set up a tent, in any one's community and it be allowed? This can't be OK. Please offer maps to the nearest campsites so they can enjoy their camping experience properly, rather than behind safeway or on my street. its getting disgusting. There should be some standards established and laws enforced about camping and it shouldn't be within city limits where others pay taxes and follow rules to reside there.

Maybe more campgrounds are needed, rather than housing, seems that's what they prefer anyway.

Then guide them to park and ""live"" there. Affordably and with dignity.

Thank you"
• Stop cramming as many people as possible into the limited space we gave • My immediate neighborhood is reaching a tipping point in which too many single family homes are occupied by renters. The properties are poorly maintained and the renters seem to be here too briefly to form attachments to civic life.
• Part of our challenge with rental housing is pets - very limited single family housing market allowing pets that are too large for condos or need a backyard. Seems like a Sunnyvale is building mainly condos
• "I have no objection to building taller buildings to accommodate more residents as long as the taller buildings do NOT impact single family neighborhoods. For example, high rise housing in Downtown Sunnyvale, or intermixed with newly planned business areas makes sense. These high-rise buildings should at minimum be 1 bedroom units, or large enough units to accommodate families.

Currently there seems to be a blatant attack on single family zoning, and that is concerning to residents who have been living in Sunnyvale for decades. As long-time residents, it often feels like outside forces are trying to steal our homes. -Homes that we worked very hard, and sacrificed a great deal to finally reach. I have heard comments from some Sunnyvale groups that single family zoning should be eliminated. This is disturbing.

Attachment 2

When I moved to Sunnyvale, I had to progress from one apartment to another, then to progress by purchasing multiple cheaper homes on the other side of the bay, before I had enough capital to buy a single-family home in Sunnyvale. It took me more than 15 years of planning, hard work, sweat equity, and sacrifice to reach my goal of buying a home in Sunnyvale, and I never complained, and never expected someone to give me anything. I reached the goal by very hard work and sacrifice.

Now people want to take our quality of life away, and steal what they are not willing to work hard for. I’ll admit, I am angry about those who will not lift a finger, and expect everything to be given to them without working for it.

Affordable housing and increased density in areas without impacting single family neighborhoods makes perfect sense. However, single-family neighborhoods and single-family home zoning are important to preserve.

One other note: When considering affordable housing and/or especially permanent supportive housing (PSH), I would recommend NOT using Santa Clara County resources managed by the Office of Supportive Housing (OSH). OSH appears to be incapable of managing or populating PSH effectively – For example, crime adjacent to those facilities skyrockets- per a study published last August 2021.
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/76629/637659099894900000 See Page 8 of the report -
Chart B, which shows the Permanent Supportive housing facilities (Second Street Studios & Villas At the Park in San Jose), clearly shows that the two PSH facilities had ""a sharp increase in calls to SJPD within that block.""
• Page 7 excerpt:
• ""While the report states that studies have shown affordable housing and/or permanent supportive housing (PSH) does not depress or negatively impact property values or the surrounding communities, it would be remiss to say that a senior affordable housing development affects a neighborhood in the same way a 100% PSH development does. This is based on the experiences of Districts 3 and 7, which have two of the largest PSH developments in the nation."" • IMO – This shows that OSH is incapable of effectively selecting the client mix or managing PSH facilities. OSH track record is poor, and an extreme rise in crime is experienced due to their obvious mismanagement of these types of facilities. Best to find more capable resources and funding for affordable housing/PSH. Stay away from OSH or County resources that designate OSH as the managing facility.
• “Please partner with Destination: Home to end homelessness in Sunnyvale.

I'm very much against cramming more people into single family home neighborhoods. We must maintain our relatively low-density housing neighborhoods.

We do not have the infrastructure to handle all these multiple high rise places being forced on our city. The state and city leaders aren't thinking clearly by approving this high density housing. (And I think this survey is pretty biased.

Ethnicity note related to being denied rental housing in past: I'm white, but my children are Latina and African American. Race was likely a factor in difficulty finding housing. • I know single family homes give less housing for the land use. But those are most in demand. Those are the most expensive (a mortgage is way higher the rental costs which shouldn’t be the case). We need more single family homes to meet the demand and to stabilize the housing prices.

Attachment 2

• "There's plenty of housing. We do not have a ""housing"" crisis, we have a housing *affordability* crisis. This is due to several factors: Apartment complexes (especially newer ones) are charging exorbitant rents and sitting largely empty rather than lower rents to *true* market rates; short- term rentals (both legal and illegal) are removing homes for purchase or rent from the market thus driving up prices; investors (largely absentee) are purchasing properties and letting them sit empty, again reducing stock and driving up prices (ironically, loosening ADU rules has further exacerbated this situation by making all SFH properties even *more* valuable as investment commodities); the city continues to approve new office building and expansion for an industry that essentially imports 100% of its workforce growth from outside of the region.

Until we have adopted serious measures to address these issues affecting housing *affordability*, we should *not* approve further housing developments and zoning changes. Our transportation infrastructure, schools, and and city services will face serious challenges if even our current vacant housing stock experienced a sudden rise in occupancy. Serious measures to address the housing *affordability* crisis would include: Levying a *vacancy tax* significant enough to motivate apartment complex and rental property owners to lower rents to *true market rates*; complete *ban* on short-term rentals that eat up available homes for purchase and rooms for rent; suspension of ADU permits (to reduce desirability for absentee investors flooding the single-family home market); requirement for all multi-unit rental dwellings to transition to mixed-income rental pricing representative of actual community needs; explore *all available options* to deter absentee investment in our local housing market; full stop to new office starts and expansions. Until such measures to truly deal with the *affordability crisis* have been undertaken, we should *not* permit new housing which will only remain unaffordable for now, and could prove burdensome to support from a transportation and services standpoint if full-occupancy is achieved at some point in the future. Permitting and building more overpriced housing solves nothing now, and could cause huge problems down the road. "
• Trying to buy a home with yard near downtown Sunnyvale is impossible. • I support having a variety of housing options, including allowing ADU’s and duplexes on a single- family zoned lot.
• "Need to address homelessness/displaced people/people living in RVs/ tent cities Prior to more high density housing need to address traffic issue on major roads (el camino, central, homestead, lawrence, fair oaks, mathilda, fremont) and expand schools. " • The practice of fair housing should be shared by all cities across the Bay Area, not just Sunnyvale.

The real expensive neighborhoods are not joining the conversation and the same time Sunnyvale is overly developed, making Sunnyvale a second-choice for the young generation residents as they prefer higher quality lifestyle which is detrimental for our city's future with this great sacrifice at Sunnyvale residents' expense.
• Please update zoning to allow more density. Please reduce our eliminate parking minimums to reduce traffic and lower the cost of new housing.
• The city of Sunnyvale should do better to spread new housing throughout the city and not just rely on Moffett Park and the LSAP to accommodate all growth. Sunnyvale should also pursue HCD's Pro- housing designation by adopting policies found on the application at this site:
https://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/prohousing/ Sunnyvale should permit missing middle housing uses (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes) by right in existing low-density, single-family residential zones and eliminate parking minimums.

Attachment 2

• Don’t bring homeless from other places into this city, Don’t accommodate criminals in the city.

Safety is most important to all residents
• Sunnyvale should not put high rise buildings in Single family area. It creates too much traffic congestion.
• The school in this district need more support
• There are already too many people in this area. We don't need more condos/apartments/lofts built up.
• "Not support homeless shelter in residential and school.

Security is biggest concern now."
• "Multi-unit housing will impact schools and if such need arises, then the developers should mitigate the costs for new schools."
• "1. Community safety is the most important thing. I feel our community isn't as safe as before.

2. don’t bring homeless from other places into this city

3.don’t accommodate criminals in the city"
• Strongly oppose homeless shelters, interim housing, etc., being putting into neighborhoods • I've noticed more and more safety concern recently in the neighborhood, also rising number of homeless shelter projects are on the way to the residence area, which is greater concern over the safety.
• Do not put homeless housing in our communities. Increase police presence. • From talking to my neighbors, safety is what people want the most, and is clearly lacking these days.
• Quality of life in sunnyvale continues to be crushed by too much density, and over development driving out all recreational businesses and places I like to shop • I support affordable housing for low income families and seniors. But I am strongly against the city and county trying to put homeless shelters in the middle of family oriented neighborhoods. This year, The neighboring cities Santa Clara and Mountain View had tried to sneak in homeless shelters in the middle of family oriented neighborhood. Apparently, there was a strong push back from the residents. Please don’t do it again. You are damaging the resident’s feelings, forcing us moving out of our beloved community, and encouraging violence and stealing. This is not a healthy community is supposed to be. Thanks
• I have concerns about more and more break in for houses and cars , robbery and stolen mail packages. Our neighbor cities like Palo Alto, Los Altos and Saratoga should contribute more affordable housing, shelters, TH and PSH. Sunnyvale has done a lot for this part. Enough is Enough. • Sunnyvale is over developed, over built and over crowded. Not safe to live anymore. It is at the wrong direction. There are too many influence from big tech companies, real estate developers and progressive politicians. All need to be changed so it becomes a family centered, safe, quiet, and prosperous suburban town.
• 1. The survey questions are crafted in a very misleading way skewed towards the direction of assuming the housing condition in Sunnyvale is not fair/affordable. I am not sure if this is the best way to design a public survey. 2. Many SFHs in Sunnyvale do not have pedestrian/sidewalk ways around their house. This compromises safety. 3. There are thefts and gunshots in residential areas.

Again safety is a big issue.
• Recently, they are too many shelters built at Sunnyvale border. All the decisions are made without Sunnyvale residents’ approval. Even though local residents expressed the concerns about safety Attachment 2

and lack of management and lack of transparency during city council meetings, our voices are not heard.
• Top priority is to keep Sunnyvale a safe and healthy city! Drug facilities and shelters can bring huge safety and health issues to us residents who pay high property taxes to our city. • It is not a priority to support homeless in Sunnyvale; instead, a safe neighborhood suitable for families with multiple generations is more desirable in our city. • I am against the housing first policy, which has been proven to be a failure. We should have better law enforcement, control the drug supply and have dedicated mental health program in order to alleviate homeless problem
• San Francisco has policies that attracts many homeless people from other states. Major problem of many of them is drug addiction (said themselves). For Sunnyvale to build more shelters and transitional housing for homeless won't solve this problem. Do not make Sunnyvale unsafe and unattractive like the shithole San Francisco!
• No more shelter
• More incidents and crimes are happening as more homeless are coming to the neighborhood. No shelters around the residential neighborhood!!
• Homeless and homeless shelter around neighborhood makes it unsafe and i experienced homeless people breaks into my yard and sleep inside it
• Airplane noise
• Don't put high density interim housing/ supportive housing in the sfh neighborhood. • Do not bring homeless from other places into the town. Do not bring criminals into the town. • Top priority is to increase housing capacity and affordability for low income workers(not homeless people with mental or drug problems)! And to make this community safe! • Keep Sunnyvale small and safe and more SFH
• "Build more housing near public transit. Also build more public transit.

Single family housing should be the exception, not the default" • Improve the public schools!
• homes with a lot of sq footage on street corners would be an option to convert to duplex since you could have entrances on either side and still roomy. could be 2 small attached homes/home ownership. Also support not allowing short term rentals (airbnb style), especially by investor/owners from out of state. these prevent people who live and work in or near sunnyvale from finding homes/rentals
• Many BMR apartments are not affordable to the working class. Rent was increased in the program despite average rental market in Sunnyvale declining over the past two years. Excessive building charges by corporate landlords are confusing and out of renter’s control to save money. • Build different types of housing - duplex/fourplex/missing middle/ flats.., • One thing we don’t need in Sunnyvale is the dense housing that has been allowed in recent years. I thought that buildings over 7 stories were not allowed in Sunnyvale but recently learned that a 12 story building is going to be built downtown. Please, consider the lack of water, traffic and schools.

Thanks!
• Care should be taken not to stress the existing infrastructure. Traffic concerns and burden on public utilities should be seriously considered
Attachment 2

• I totally and vehemently oppose the "right" of developers to sweep into residential neighborhoods, buy up single family properties, and tear them down to build up to 4 story buildings among single family residences with no requirements for accompanying infrastructure such as parking, improved streets, etc.
• I would love to be able to participate in housing ownership in Sunnyvale, but it is impossible with prices that have risen far beyond my ability to save a down payment. Can the city do anything to facilitate lower cost ownership options such as co-op apartment buildings? • Expansion of the BMR program would be amazing, especially if it can include more single-family dwellings and less townhomes or condos that are apartment-like. Also, who keeps green-lighting luxury apartments? They are an absolutely ridiculous concept that just drive up rents and home values all around.
• Inclusion of supportive services with housing for homeless. • "Missing middle" and mixed used developments need to be prioritized. Lot splitting should be incentivized, especially as it relates to providing alternatives to "luxury" homes in the Sunnyvale real estate market.
• "One serious issue is the lack of so-called ""starter homes""--market-rate units which are nevertheless relatively affordable. In general, this survey groups condos and townhouses; however, townhouses are typically far more expensive than stacked flat condos, and townhouses make up the majority of new ownership development in the city. The city should be exploring ways to encourage the production of smaller, stacked-flat condominiums rather than townhouses to increase the available stock of starter homes.

Furthermore, the survey fails to examine issues of geographic equity. New housing construction in Sunnyvale has been concentrated north of ECR, and especially north of Caltrain. However, the highest opportunity areas of the city are in the South. In order to meet the state mandate to affordably further fair housing, the City MUST add substantial new housing opportunities to the highest opportunity areas in South Sunnyvale."
• Remove the constraints on new housing and allow the developers to build what they think they can sell.
• House sales at 40-70% over listing price are not normal. A normal family even with tech jobs has a hard time finding a house in a safe neighborhood in this market. It doesn’t feel like we are competing with other families but probably with investors. We will have to leave Sunnyvale when we finally find a home to buy.
• There should be a rent cap in Sunnyvale. Big tech companies pay for corporate apartments in apartment complexes and cause a huge increase in rental prices. • I would like to see duplexes and triplexes in Sunnyvale. Affordability for all but the highest incomes is the number one issue for the region. It took my husband and I 13 years and a pandemic with no childcare expenses to save enough money to purchase our first home. We bought three months ago. We are nearly 50 and will most likely need to sell in 12 or 15 years when we retire because we will not be able to pay our mortgage and property taxes on our retirement income. I know a half dozen people who have had to move out of the area because they could not afford rents. I have coworkers who commute from San Juan Batista and Turlock to work in San Jose because they wanted to buy a house. These are people who make six figure salaries. I have met an elderly woman who works at Wendy's in Sunnyvale on Mathilda and commutes 2 hours one way to work on the bus from Gilroy because she can't afford closer housing. My children will not be able to live Attachment 2

near us when they graduate high school unless there are cheaper housing options. Increase density, build more apartments, condos, ADU's, and enact rent control. Our community suffers when people can't put down roots.
• My father worked in the blue cube when I was growing up and I returned back to Sunnyvale. We had to purchase a mobile home because it was all we could afford soon because of space rent, we will be priced out. Affordable housing for everyone is a necessity, more senior communities are needed.
• We do noy need high density housing. We are ruining our city by over crowding it • Please greenlight housing accessible to lower income residents. Thank you. • Solamente quería información para poder ser parte de las personas que están en lista de espera para comprar una propiedad por housing tengo 30 años viviendo en Sunnyvale y no e podido comprar mi propio hogar [I just wanted information to be part of the people who are on the waiting list to buy a property for housing I have lived in Sunnyvale for 30 years and I have not been able to buy my own home]
• Solo los costos de vivienda que cada día son más altos y no hay un control de rentas y aparte la gente que tiene más ingresos puede ocupar estos departamentos más fácilmente que una persona que tiene día empleos o mas [Only that housing costs are higher every day and there is no rent control and apart from that people who have more income can occupy these apartments more easily than a person who has jobs or more.]
• Pago impuestos y no calificó para ayuda de vivienda no es justo para personas como yo solo necesitamos un poco de ayuda gracias [I pay taxes and didn't qualify for housing assistance it's not fair to people like me, we just need a little help thank you] • 最关系安全问题。最近犯罪率提升了。[Most concerned with security issues. The crime rate has increased recently.]
• consider traffic issue and attracts more restaurants and grocery stores when permits more condos / apartments buildings
• 我最为关注社区安全。[I am most concerned with community safety.] • no homeless shelter anymore for criminals and drug addictors. do background check, give the good people who want to get out of homeless the chance to fight back, instead of giving the criminals and drug addictors the chance to ruin others life. the government is not helping people back to job, but helping people back to crime. use the money to really help them go to training, college, do background check, use your wisdom. I already dont feel safe on the road, playground, park, where I usually take kids to. Sunnyvale is getting dangerous and if you live in sunnyvale you should feel this already.
• For those who have severely disabilities and are unable to work due to their disability, their only income is $1000 SSI . Sunnyvale is unable to provide affordable rental for them. Especially when their parents are also low income and are not able to support them to pay the rent. Please have extremely low income affordable rental for this population.

Attachment 2

Visit the project website,
sunnyvale.ca.gov , search
“housing element”to learn
more about the City’s
Housing Element Update
City of Sunnyvale
2023-2031

HOUSING

ELEMENT

SHARE YOUR

FEEDBACK ON OUR

HOUSING PLAN
The City of Sunnyvale has been
working to update the 2023-2031
Housing Element. We want to hear
your input on the public draft. Share
your ideas on how the City can meet
the housing needs of everyone in
the community at a virtual workshop
or public hearing.

You’re Invited

REVIEW THE
DRAFT 2023-2031

HOUSING ELEMENT
On May 6, 2022, the public draft
2023-2031 Housing Element will be
available on the project website.

Provide your comments to:

Ryan Dyson
Sunnyvale’s Housing Specialist
Phone: 408-730-7466
Email: [email protected]
Virtual Workshop
Wednesday, May 11, 2022
Time: 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.
(Spanish and Chinese interpretation
will be provided)
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, May 23, 2022
Time: 7 p.m.

Housing and Human Services
Commission Meeting
Wednesday, May 25, 2022
Time: 7 p.m.

City Council Meeting
Tuesday, June 21, 2022
Time: 7 p.m.

REGISTER HERE

ATTEND HERE

ATTEND HERE

ATTEND HERE
qrco.de/sunnyvale4
qrco.de/sunnyvale5
qrco.de/sunnyvale6
qrco.de/sunnyvale3
Attachment 2

Visite el sitio web del proyecto,
sunnyvale.ca.gov, y busque “housing
element” (elemento de vivienda) paraobtener
más información sobre la actualización del
elemento de vivienda de la ciudad.

CIUDAD DE SUNNYVALE

ELEMENTO DE

VIVIENDA DEL
2023 AL 2031

COMPARTA SUS

COMENTARIOS

SOBRE NUESTRO

PLAN DE VIVIENDA
El Municipio de Sunnyvale ha
preparado una actualización del
Elemento de Vivienda 2023-2031.

Queremos escuchar su opinión sobre
el documento preliminar público.

Comparta sus ideas sobre cómo
podemos satisfacer las necesidades
de vivienda de todos en la comunidad
mediante su participación en un taller
virtual o una audiencia pública``.

You’re Invited

REVISE EL DOCUMENTO

PRELIMINAR DEL

ELEMENTO DE
VIVIENDA 2023-2031
El 6 de mayo de 2022, el borrador
público 2023-2031 del Elemento de
Vivienda estará disponible en el sitio
web del proyecto. Comparta sus
comentarios con:

Ryan Dyson
Sunnyvale’s Housing Specialist
Teléfono: 408-730-7466
Correo electrónico:
[email protected]
Taller Virtual
Miércoles, 11 de mayo, 2022
Hora: 6:30 p.m. a 8 p.m.
((Habrá interpretación a español y chino)
Sesión de Comisión de
Planificación
Lunes, 23 de mayo, 2022
Hora: 7 p.m.

Sesión de Comisión de
Servicios Sociales y Vivienda
Miércoles, 25 de mayo, 2022
Hora: 7 p.m..

Sesión del Concejo Municipal
Jueves, 21 de junio, 2022
Hora: 7 p.m.

INSCRÍBASE AQUÍ:

INSCRÍBASE AQUÍ:

INSCRÍBASE AQUÍ:

INSCRÍBASE AQUÍ:
qrco.de/sunnyvale4
qrco.de/sunnyvale5
qrco.de/sunnyvale6
qrco.de/sunnyvale3
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale 市
2023-2031
年住房要素
分享您对我们的住
房计划的反馈
Sunnyvale 市一直在更新
2023-2031 年住房要素。 我们
希望听到您对公开草案的意
见。 请在虚拟研讨会或公开听
证会中， 分享您的想法， 谈谈
您认为本市如何能满足社区
中每个人的住房需求。
邀请函

审查2023-2031年
住房要素草案
2022年5月6日， 2023-2031年住
房要素公开草案将在项目
网站 上发布。 请将您的意见提交
给本市住房专员Ryan Dyson：
致电 408-730-7466 或发送电
邮至
[email protected]。
虚拟研讨会
2022年5月11日， 周三
时间： 下午6点30分 至晚上 8点
(将提供西班牙语和中文口译)
规划委员会会议
2022年5月23日， 周一
时间： 晚上7点
住房和人类服务委员会会议
2022年5月25日， 周三
时间： 晚上7点
市议会会议
2022年6月21日， 周二
时间： 晚上7点
在此注册：
在此注册：
在此注册：
在此注册：
qrco.de/sunnyvale4
qrco.de/sunnyvale5
qrco.de/sunnyvale6
qrco.de/sunnyvale3
访问项目网站
sunnyvale.ca.gov, 搜 索“ 住
房要素” ， 了解本市 《住房要
素更新》 的更多信息。
Attachment 2

SUNNYVALE HOUSING ELEMENT
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY WORKSHOP MAY 2022
Overview
On May 11, 2022, the City of Sunnyvale held a virtual community workshop on the Draft Housing Element.

The workshop started with a presentation by the Consultants providing an overview of the contents of the Draft Housing Element. Throughout the workshop, audience members provided comments through interactive polling, and the workshop concluded with a question and answer and discussion session.

Simultaneous Spanish and Mandarin interpretation was provided. 30 participants attended the workshop.

Summary of Feedback
The following is a summary of the key themes of the comments provided through the interactive polling and discussion. The full polling results are attached.

Sites Inventory
• The assumed percentage of lower-income units on high-density zoned sites seems too high given that inclusionary requirement is only 15 percent
• Support for adding more lower-income housing opportunities in the Village Centers • Not enough housing sites in south Sunnyvale
Promoting Affordable Housing in High Resource Areas
• Increase density of Village Centers and add new Village Centers • Programs and incentives for building accessory dwelling units and Senate Bill 9 lot splits/duplexes in single family neighborhoods
Most Effective Programs
• Safe RV parking and programs to prevent homelessness
• ADU toolkit
• Housing for very low income people with developmental disabilities and other special needs populations
Additional Program Ideas to Consider
• Increase density in Village Centers
• Increase inclusionary requirements
• Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) and Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) • No net loss provisions beyond the SB 330 sunset date and one-to-one replacement at same or deeper level of affordability for demolished units
Attachment 2

Sunnyvale HE Community
Workshop - May 2022
10 - 16 May 2022
Poll results
Attachment 2

Table of contents
Were there any findings that stood out to you as signi ficant or surprising? What are your reactions to the sites inventory?
Do you have suggestions to further promote affordable housing in high resource areas?
Which programs do you think are most effective?
Are there additional programs or ideas you would like to see the City consider? Attachment 2

Open text poll
Were there any findings that stood out to you
as significant or surprising?
0 1 3
Overpaying percentages
33% of renters are cost burdened
Given current price of homes…when
homes are $4million who will buy
them
Population growth may have slowed
since 2019.

Census track is confusing including
San Jose and Sc
No
None, possibly income level
requirements and population size
overall as 2nd largest to SJ
Significant that we have 12%
extremely low income
no
Price of homes is currently closer to
$2.1 million
No surprises.

Increase in senior population
Slightly surprised at income needed
to buy medium priced home.
no
Not surprising.

Data made sense
None
Attachment 2

Open text poll
What are your reactions to the sites inventory?
(1/3)
0 1 4
How can you accurately reflect
opportunity in north Sunnyvale if no
one lives there?
The site inventory needs to more
clearly reflect how it will address
AFFH.

I don't understand why above-
median income RHNA numbers
increase so much more than lower
income.

Interested in learning how ADU
units factor into spacing for the city
and overall plan
Moffett Park and El Camino will
have high percentage of lower
income housing!
Normally areas with large lower
income housing do not become
high resourced area.

Correction - wishing to see any
Lower-Income sites at Village
Center.

Is it possible to go over some of the
slides with lots of data
Low resource areas are based on
more than just demographics. HCD
wants cities to increase housing
access in High Resource areas why
are majority of sites in low resource
areas?
I'm glad we're over planning for
lower income units-
Attachment 2

Open text poll
What are your reactions to the sites inventory?
(2/3)
0 1 4
we don't want to leave our
vulnerable populations up to
developer whims! I'm excited about
the village centers, a great way to
bring density to our sprawl
I am concerned that Moffet Park is
going to severely impact our
job/business. This will impact our
budget.

Should have way more sites in
South Sunnyvale.

How did you determine a 60 percent
building assumption.

Wishing to see more Lower-income
sites at Village Centers
The percentage of lower income
sites in Moffett and other high
density areas seems way too high.

Interested in learning more about
the AUD units
Moffett Park Plan assumes >50%
low-income units, but the city only
requires developers to build 15%
below market-rate units. What is
assumed to greatly increase low
income units?
Not much planned in south
sunnyvale
I do not understand any of the
slides you presented. You
Attachment 2

Open text poll
What are your reactions to the sites inventory?
(3/3)
0 1 4
went much too fast with too much
data on each slide
Moffett Park is confusing
considering the census tract.

It makes sense that the greatest
capacity is in Moffit Park, Lawrence
Station and ECR..

A lot of eggs being thrown in the
MPSP area. Not sure if it aligns with
AFFH.

I am impressed you made the RHNA
all fit!
Attachment 2

Open text poll
Do you have suggestions to further promote
affordable housing in high resource areas?
(1/2)
0 0 9
Have a very strong program to help
seniors (and other) build ADUs
Pass rent stabilization ordinance.

Work with small developers to
convert SF homes to townhomes or
rowhouses
Providing a live/continuously
updated count of progress towards
RHNA housing goals
Since the state now allows up to 4
units on a formerly single family lot,
perhaps there could be incentives
offered by the city for a converting
single family lots into 4 units of
lower income housing with design
guidelines
Lower parking minimums to allow
more units
Increase density of village centers.

Add shopping center at corner of
Hollenbeck/Homestead to village
center list. Increase density and
provide incentives for R3 zoned
block between
Hollenbeck/Homestead/Sunnyvale-
Saratoga.

Higher density in village centers
Attachment 2

Open text poll
Do you have suggestions to further promote
affordable housing in high resource areas?
(2/2)
0 0 9
I'd love to see affordable units in
village centers
Increase village center minimum
density.

Identify more strip malls as village
centers.

Why can't all areas become high
resource areas? Why do we keep
some areas as low resource?
Expand/reduce constraints to
voucher program.

City buy land in village centers for
non profits
A dashboard for factors assessed in
the displacement
risk populations, especially near
schools, community resources
Attachment 2

Open text poll
Which programs do you think are most
effective?
(1/2)
0 0 9
Make sure low and very low ami are
a priority
We need better job assistance and
healthcare for the unhoused, not
just housinhg
G35, we need to make sure low
income areas are receiving bike and
ped infrastructure
ADU toolkit
Safe parking is a pleasant surprised.

And TOPA.

Wish to have seen COPA in there.

Housing for very low income people
with developmental disabilities
Safe rv parking
H 24, the best way to help the
unhoused is to make sure they
never lose the roof over their head
Low barrier navigation centers, and
support for aging in place home
renovations
H23 and H25
Difficult to say until the completion
dates are noted and the language
reviewed.

Prioritizing City funding for projects
which include special needs
populations.

Attachment 2

Open text poll
Which programs do you think are most
effective?
(2/2)
0 0 9
Review of development fees
Attachment 2

Open text poll
Are there additional programs or ideas you
would like to see the City consider?
(1/2)
0 0 8
Prioritize Deed-Restricted,
Affordable Housing on Publicly
Owned Land
End free street parking
Increase inclusionary percent to 20.

Waiver for first and last month rent
deposit, support funds
If parking minimum is deceased,
there need to be checking that
residents do not own cars - and not
just use streets as parking garages.

Include SB 35 provisions without a
sunset date
Inclusionary zoning should apply to
rental housing. Waive all or some
impact fees for 100% affordable
projects.

Increase village center minimum
density.

Assistance with purchasing e bikes
so those living in new, denser areas
can easily navigate
Set asides for people with
developmental disabilities in new
developments
Student based housing support and
navigation centers for seniors,
intergenerational and
Attachment 2

Open text poll
Are there additional programs or ideas you
would like to see the City consider?
(2/2)
0 0 8
limited income resources at
navigation centers with non profits
overall
Find a way to allow low income
residents to buy.

Displaced tenants should have the
right of first refusal to rent new
comparable units at the same rent
as demolished units.

Mandate one-to-one replacement
that also applies the same or a
deeper level of affordability as the
housing units demolished.

Decrease parking minimums.
35 programs are a lot! I
hope they all get implemented
Include the no net loss provisions
currently outlined in SB 330, without
a sunset date.

Attachment 2

Appendix B Glossary
Attachment 2

Above Moderate-Income Unit: A housing unit suitable to accommodate above moderate-income households (i.e., households earning above 120 percent of the County median family income).

Accessible Housing: The construction or modification of housing to enable independent living for individuals with disabilities.

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): A self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from, and in addition to, the primary residential unit on a single lot. Sometimes known as “granny flat” or “second unit.” Acre: a unit of land measure equal to 43,560 square feet. Net acreage refers to the portion of a site exclusive of existing or planned public or private road rights-of-way.

Access to Opportunity: Geographic access to goods, resources, and services (including employment, education, and transportation) that offer individuals, particularly low- income households and individuals, the best chance at economic advancement, high e ducational attainment, and good physical and mental health. Low-income communities and communities of color often have disproportionate access to opportunity. Access to opportunity is generally expressed as “high resource” or “low resource” Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH): A state mandated requirement for government agencies and grantees to take meaningful actions to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to strengthen fair access to housing and more inclusive communities.

Affordable Housing: Under State and federal statutes, housing which costs no more than 30 percent of gross household income. Housing costs include rent or mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, insurance, homeowner association fees, and related costs.

Age in Place: The ability to live in one’s own home and community safely, independently, and comfortably, regardless of age, income, or ability level.

Assisted Housing: Housing that has received subsidies (such as low interest loans, density bonuses, direct financial assistance, etc.) by federal, state, or local housing programs in exchange for restrictions requiring a certain number of housing units to be affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG): The regional government agency authorized by the Federal and State Government to address regional transportation, housing, and other planning issues in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties.

At-Risk Housing: Assisted rental housing that is at risk of losing its status as housing affordable for extremely low, very low-, low-, and moderate-income residents due to the expiration of federal, state or local agreements.

California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD): The State Department responsible for administering State-sponsored housing programs and for reviewing housing elements to determine compliance with State housing law.

Census: The official United States decennial enumeration of the population conducted by the federal government.

Census Tract: A relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or statistically equivalent entity, generally including a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people. The spatial size of census tracts varies widely depending on the density of settlement.

Attachment 2

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): A grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitlement communities and by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for non -entitled jurisdictions. This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development, including public facilities and economic development.

Condominium: A building or group of buildings in which units are owned individually, but the structure, common areas and facilities are owned by all owners on a proportional, undivided basis.

Continuum of Care: A community plan to organize and deliver housing and services to meet the specific needs of people who are homeless as they move to stable housing and maximum self-sufficiency. It includes action steps to end homelessness and prevent a return to homelessness.

Covenant: A property title agreement which places resale or rental restrictions on a housing unit.

Density: The number of dwelling units per unit of land. Density usually is expressed “per acre,” (e.g., a development with 100 units located on 20 acres has density of 5.0 units per acre).

Density Bonus: The allowance of additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is otherwise permitted usually in exchange for the provision or preservation of affordable housing units at the same site or at another location.

Development Impact Fees: Fees required by City code, ordinance, resolution or other City law to be paid as a condition of, or prerequisite to, issuance of a building permit for the development of residential uses, as those fees may be amended from time to time.

Displacement: Occurs when certain groups of individuals or households (often low- income) are forced to move from neighborhoods as a result of rising housing costs and neighborhood conditions associated with new investments in those neighborhoods.

Diversity: The practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.

Dwelling Unit: means one or more rooms that include permanent provision for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation that are occupied for residential purposes by one or more persons living as a single housekeeping unit. (Sacramento City Code 17.108)
Energy Conservation: Reducing the consumption of energy through using less of an energy service. This can be achieved either by using energy more efficiently or by reducing the amount of service used.

Emergency Shelter: Emergency shelter is defined as housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. (See Government Code, § 65582, subd. (d) and Health and Safety Code, § 50801, subd. (e).)
Fair Market Rent (FMR): Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are freely set rental rates defined by HUD as the median gross rents charged for available standard units in a county or metropolitan area. Fair Market Rents are used for the Section 8 Rental Program and other HUD programs.

Attachment 2

First-Time Home Buyer: Defined by HUD as an individual or family who has not owned a home during the three - year period preceding the HUD-assisted purchase of a home. Jurisdictions may adopt local definitions for first-time home buyer programs which differ from non-federally funded programs.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The ratio of gross building area (GBA) of development divided by the total net lot area (NLA).

For example, a one-story building covering its entire lot would have a FAR of 1.0. A two-story building covering half its lot would also have an FAR of 1.0. The formula for calculating FAR is GBA/NLA = FAR.

General Plan: The General Plan is a legal document, adopted by the legislative body of a City or County, setting forth policies regarding long-term development. California law requires the preparation of seven elements or chapters in the General Plan: Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. Additional elements are permitted to address local needs.

Gentrification: The process by which higher income households displace lower income residents of a neighborhood, changing the essential character of that neighborhood.

Group Quarters: A facility which houses groups of unrelated persons not living in households (U.S. Census definition). Examples of group quarters include institutions, dormitories, shelters, military quarters, assisted living facilities and other quarters, including single -room occupancy (SRO) housing, where 10 or more unrelated individuals are housed.

High Resource Area(s): Area(s) identified by HCD and the Tax Credit Allocation Committee’s Opportunity Area Mapping Tool that offer low- income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health.

HOME Program: The HOME Investment Partnership Act, Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990.

HOME is a Federal program administered by HUD which provides formula grants to States and localities to fund activities that build, buy, and/or rehabilitate affordable housing for rent or home ownership or provide direct rental assistance to low-income people.

Homelessness: As defined in the HEARTH act, homeless means: (1) an individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, such as those living in an emergency shelter, transitional housing, or places not meant for habitation; (2) an individual or family who will imminently lose their primary nighttime residence (within 14 days), provided that no subsequent housing has been identified and the individual/family lacks support networks or resources needed to obtain housing; (3) unaccompanied youth under 25 years of age, or families with children and youth, who qualify under other Federal statutes, such as the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, have not had a lease or ownership interest in a housing unit in the last 60 or more days, have had two or more moves in the last 60 days, and who are likely to continue to be unstably housed; (4) an individual or family who is fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, has no other residence, and lacks the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing.

Household: The U.S. Census Bureau defines a household as all persons living in a housing unit whether or not they are related. A single person living in an apartment as well as a family living in a house is considered a household.

Household does not include individuals living in dormitories, prisons, convalescent homes, or other group quarters.

Household Income: The total income of all the persons living in a household. Household income is commonly grouped into income categories based upon household size, and income, relative to the regional median family income. The following categories are used in the Housing Element:
 Extremely Low: Households earning less than 30 percent of County median family income; ATTACHMENT 2

Attachment 2

 Very low: H
ouseholds earning less than 50 percent of County median family income;  Low: Households earning 51 percent to 80 percent of the County median family income;  Moderate: Households earning 81 percent to 120 percent of County median family income; and  Above- Moderate: Households earning above 120 percent of County median family income.

Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly Section 8 vouchers): A tenant-based rental assistanc e program that subsidizes a family’s rent in a privately owned house or apartment. The program is administered by local public housing authorities. Assistance payments are based on 30 percent of household annual income. Households with incomes of 50 percent or below the area median income are eligible to participate in the program.

Housing First: A homeless assistance approach or policy that prioritizes providing permanent housing to people experiencing homelessness as quickly as possible, and other supportive services afterward.

Housing Problems: Defined by HUD as a household which: (1) occupies a unit with physical defects (lacks complete kitchen or bathroom); (2) meets the definition of overcrowded; or (3) spends more than 30 percent of income on housing cost.

Housing Subsidy: Housing subsidies refer to government assistance aimed at reducing housing sales or rent prices to more affordable levels. Two general types of housing subsidy exist. Where a housing subsidy is linked to a particular house or apartment, housing subsidy is “project” or “unit” based. In Section 8 rental assistance programs the subsidy is provided to the family (called “tenant -based”) who can then use the assistance to find suitable housing in the housing unit of their choice.

Housing Un it: A room or group of rooms used by one or more individuals living separately from others in the structure, with direct access to the outside or to a public hall and containing separate toilet and kitchen facilities.

Inclusion: This is an active state of being valued, respected and supported. Inclusion focuses on the needs of every individual and ensures the right conditions are in place for each person to achieve his or her full potential. An inclusive environment ensures equitable access to resources and opportunities for all. It also enables individuals and groups to feel safe, respected, engaged, motivated, and valued for who they are and for their contributions toward organizational and societal goals.

Infill: The process of developing vacant or under-utilized parcels within existing developed areas.

Integration: Generally, a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.

Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU): An additional, independent living unit created through the conversion of an existing legally permitted bedroom in a single-family dwelling. (See definition of Accessory Dwelling Unit) Large Household: A household with five or more members.

Low Barrier Navigation Center(s): A “Housing First”, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. For emergency shelters, creating a “low barrier” environment means removing as many pre - conditions to entry a s possible and responding to the needs and concerns of people seeking shelter.

ATTACHMENT 2

Attachment 2

Lower-Income Unit: A housing unit suitable to accommodate extremely low-, very low-, or low-income households (i.e., households earning less than 80 percent of the County median family income).

Manufactured Housing: Housing that is constructed of manufactured components, assembled partly at the site rather than totally at the site. Also referred to as modular housing.

Market-Rate Housing: Housing which is available on the open market without any subsidy. The price for housing is determined by the market forces of supply and demand and varies by location.

Median Income: The annual income for each household size within a region which is defined annually by HUD. Half of the households in the region have incomes above the median and half have incomes below the median.

Missing Middle Housing: Housing typologies such as duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units that tend to be more affordable to middle-income households.

Mobile Home: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is at least 8 feet in width and 32 feet in length, is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling unit when connected to the required utilities, either with or without a permanent foundation.

Moderate-Income Unit: A housing unit suitable to accommodate moderate -income households (i.e., households earning 81 percent to 120 percent of the County median family income).

Mortgage Revenue Bond: A state, county or city program providing financing for the development of housing through the sale of tax-exempt bonds.

Overcrowding: As defined by the U.S. Census, a household with greater than 1.01 persons per room, excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches. Severe overcrowding is defined as households with greater than 1.51 persons per room.

Overpayment: The extent to which gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 30 percent of gross household income, based on data published by the U.S. Census Bu reau. Severe overpayment exists if gross housing costs exceed 50 percent of gross income.

Parcel: The basic unit of land entitlement. A designated area of land established by plat, subdivision, or otherwise legally defined and permitted to be used, or built upon.

Public Housing: A project -based low- rent housing program operated by independent local public housing authorities. A low-income family applies to the local public housing authority in the area in which they want to live.

Racial Equity: A core value in which race does not affect life outcomes. Regardless of one’s identity, equity is when all people have just treatment, access to opportunities necessary to satisfy their essential needs, advance their well- being and achieve their full potential while i dentifying and eliminating barriers that have prevented the full participation of some groups.

Redlining: A discriminatory practice in which services or goods by federal government agencies were denied or restricted in certain areas of a community, often based on race or ethnicity.

Reasonable Accommodations: Amendments to a City’s standard procedures for processing permits or application in order to enable people with disabilities to participate fully in the process.

Attachment 2

Regional Housing Needs Plan: A quantification by a Council of Government or by the State Department of Housing and Community Development of existing and projected housing need, by household income group, for all localities within a region.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): Each city and county in the Regional Housing Needs Plan receives a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of a total number of housing units that it must plan through their General Plan Housing Elements within a specified time period (June 30, 2022, through December 15, 2030, for this Housing Element period). Allocations are also distributed within four economic income categories; these four categories must add up to the total overall number a jurisdiction is allocated.

Rehabilitation: The upgrading of a building pre viously in a dilapidated or substandard condition for human habitation or use.

Residential Energy: The total energy used in residential buildings, including heating, cooling, and “plug load” from appliances, lights, and electrical devices.

Segregation: The separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area. Neighborhood level (intra-city) segregation refers t o the s egregation of race and income groups from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. Regional (inter-city) segregation refers to race and income divides between jurisdictions in a region.

Senior Household: One- or two- member (family or nonfamily) households in which the head or spouse is age 65 or older.

Service Needs: The particular services required by special populations, typically including needs such as transportation, personal care, housekeeping, counseling, meals, case management, personal emergency response, and other services preventing premature institutionalization and assisting individuals to continue living independently.

Single Room Occupancy (SRO): An SRO is a cluster of residential units of a smaller size than normally found in multiple dwellings within a residential hotel, motel, or facility providing sleeping or living facilities in which sanitary facilities may be provided within the unit and/or shared, and kitchen or cooking facilities may be provided within the unit or shared within the housing project.

Special Needs Groups: Those segments of the population which have a more difficult time finding decent affordable housing due to special circumstances. Under California Housing Element statutes, these special needs groups include older adults, people with disabilities, large families with five or more members, female-headed households, farmworkers, extremely low- income households, and the homeless. A jurisdiction may also choose to consider additional special needs groups in the Housing Element, such as students, military households, other groups present in their community.

Subdivision: The division of a lot, tract, or parcel of land in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.).

Substandard Housing: Housing which does not meet the minimum standards in the State Housing Code.

Jurisdictions may adopt more stringent local definitions of substandard housing. Substandard units which are structurally sound and for which the cost of rehabilitation is economically warranted are considered suitable for Attachment 2

rehabil
itation. Substandard units which are structurally unsound and for which the cost of rehabilitation is considered infeasible are considered in need of replacement.

Supportive Housing: Housing with a supporting environment, such as group homes or Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing and other housing that includes a supportive service component such as those defined below.

Supportive Services: Services provided to residents of supportive housin g for the purpose of facilitating the independence of residents. Some examples are case management, medical or psychological counseling and supervision, childcare, transportation, and job training.

California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC): TCAC allocates federal and state tax credits to the developers of affordable rental housing projects. TCAC verifies that the developers have met all the requirements of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program and ensures the continued affordability and habitability of the developments for the succeeding 55 years.

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: A form of rental assistance in which the assisted tenant may move from a dwelling unit with a right to continued assistance. The assistance is provided for the tenant, not for the project.

Transitional Housing: Transitional housing is temporary (often six months to two years) housing for a homeless individual or family who is transitioning to permanent housing. Transitional housing often includes a supportive services component (e.g., job skills training, rehabilitation counseling) to allow individuals to gain necessary life skills in support of independent living.

Non-Vacant Site: Non-vacant sites that have structures or other site improvements but are capable of being redeveloped with residential uses at a high er density under the zoning and General Plan land use designations.

Examples include sites with vacant or abandoned buildings, surface parking lots, and large sites that are only partially developed.

Universal Design: The design of buildings, products, an d environments that make them accessible and safe to all people regardless of age, size, ability, or disability.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): The cabinet level department of the federal government responsible for housing, housing assistance, and urban development at the national level. Housing programs administered through HUD include Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME and Housing Choice Vouchers, among others.

Vacant Site: A vacant site is a site without any houses, offices, buildings, or other significant improvements on it.

Improvements are generally defined as development of the land (such as a paved parking lot, or income production improvements such as crops, high voltage power lines, etc.) or structures on a property that are permanent and add significantly to the value of the property.

Zoning: Local codes regulating the use and development of property. A zoning ordinance divides the city or county into land use districts or “zones”, represented on zoning maps, and specifies the allowable uses within each of those zones. It establishes development standards for each zone, such as minimum lot size, maximum height of structures, building setbacks, and yard size.

Attachment 2

CITY OF SUNNYVALE 6-1
2023-2031 Housing Element | SECOND REVISED HCD DRAFT OCTOBER 2023 CHAPTER 6 Constraints to the Development of Housing
The provision of adequate and affordable housing opportunities is an important goal of the City. However, the ability of the housing market to supply an adequate number of new dwellings to meet demand is affected by a variety of factors, or constraints. This chapter identifies those governmental and nongovernmental constraints that inhibit the development, maintenance, or improvement of housing. The first section focuses on potential governmental constraints, or those constraints that are within the City’s control, such as policies and regulations that could affect the City’s ability to meet future housing needs. The second section looks at nongovernmental constraints, or those constraints that are largely market driven and cannot be controlled by local government, such as land, materials, and labor costs. Table 6-1 includes a summary of the findings from the constraints analysis and the programs included in the Housing Element to address the identified constraints.

Table 6-1: Summary of Identified Constraints
Identified Issue Implementation
Programs
Description of Programs and Objectives
Governmental Constraints
Land Use Controls
ECRSP Commercial requirement may
constrain affordable housing
development
H17. El Camino Real
Specific Plan
Commercial
Requirement
Develop a program to facilitate a minimum of two 100%
affordable developments. Continue to require inclusionary units within market rate developments.

Mixed-use parking requirements
involve the use of a parking
calculator that is not available to the
public. Parking requirements for
studios and efficiency units could be
reduced.

H23. Zoning Code
Amendments
Amend the zoning code to provide clear and transparent
parking standards for mixed use developments and reduce parking requirements for studio and efficiency units to no more than one space per unit, inclusive of guest parking.

Open space requirements may be
higher than some other nearby
jurisdictions
H18. Private Open
Space
Requirements
Review and modify the City's private open space
requirements to reduce constraints on housing
development in higher density residential areas (R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5 zoning districts) and adopt open space
requirements that facilitate missing middle style
development.

Several residential design guidelines
are subjective, which has the
potential to delay planning
approvals
H43. Objective
Design Standards
Adopt new objective design standards for multifamily and residential mixed-use development to establish clear,
objective design standards and streamline residential
development.

Continue to support the production
of ADUs by limiting constraints and
ensuring that the zoning code
complies with State law
H4. Accessory
Dwelling Units
Establish an ADU toolkit to promote and facilitate ADU
production for homeowners. Review the zoning code
annually and amend as necessary to ensure compliance
with State law.

Zoning Code does not explicitly
allow employee housing for six or
fewer employees, which may
constrain farmworker housing
H23. Zoning Code
Amendments
Amend the zoning code to allow employee housing for six or fewer employees and treat this use the same as other single family uses.

Zoning Code may result in
constraints to housing types for
persons with special needs,
H23. Zoning Code
Amendments
Amend the zoning code to ensure compliance with State
law, including permitting group homes with more than six persons in all residential zones and revise procedures to ERRATA NOVEMBER 17, 2023
Attachment 2

CHAPTER 6 |CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SUNNYVALE 6-34
2023-2031 Housing Element | SECOND REVISED HCD DRAFT OCTOBER 2023

DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Table 6 -20 outlines the parking requirements for residential uses within the Downtown Specific Plan District.

Tandem parking is permitted for multi-family dwellings in the Downtown Specific Plan District. In addition, up to 10 percent of the total number of unassigned parking spaces may be compact in parking lots of 10 or more spaces.

The parking requirement of 1.5 spaces per studio apartment unit was identified by HCD as a potential constraint.

However, it should be noted that i n 2022, AB 2097 was passed b y the Legislature, which eliminates parking minimums within one-half mile from a major transit stop for most developments. The Housing Element includes a program to reduce the parking requirement for studio and efficiency units in the Downtown Specific Plan to no more than 1 space per unit, inclusive of guest parking, and to modify parking requirements to comply with AB 2097 (i.e., Government Code Section 65863.2).

Table 6-20: Parking Requirements within the Downtown Specific Plan District Land Use Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Required
Single-Family Residential 1 assigned and covered per unit + 1 uncovered per unit Multiple-Family Residential Studio or 1 Bedroom 1 assigned and covered per unit + 0.5 uncovered per unit Multiple-Family Residential 2-Bedroom 1 assigned and covered per unit + 0.7 uncovered per unit Multiple-Family Residential 3-Bedroom and larger 1 assigned and covered per unit + 1 uncovered per unit Retail (mixed use) 2 per 1,000 square feet
Source: City of Sunnyvale Municipal Code, Title 19. 2021.

In addition, the parking requirements for sen ior and affordable housing described in Table 6 -19 above are applicable in the Downtown Specific Plan area.

LAWRENCE STATION AREA PLAN PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Table 6-21 outlines the parking requirements for residential uses within the Lawrence Station Plan Area. Parking locations, types, and criteria for parking reductions will be determined as part of the project review on a case -by- case basis. It should be noted that implementation of AB 2097, as described above, will result in the removal of parking minimums in many cases within the LSAP area.

Table 6-21: Parking Requirements within the Lawrence Station Area Plan Residential Unit Type
Number of Parking Spaces Required
Minimum (per unit) Maximum (per unit)
Studio and one-bedroom 1 1.5
Two bedrooms 1.25 2
Three or more bedrooms 1.7 2
Senior housing Multiply bedroom requirement by 0.5
Affordable housing (deed restriction) Multiply bedroom requirement by 0.5 Source: City of Sunnyvale Municipal Code, Title 19, 2021.

ERRATA NOVEMBER 17, 2023
Attachment 2

CHAPTER 6 |CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF SUNNYVALE 6-35
2023-2031 Housing Element | SECOND REVISED HCD DRAFT OCTOBER 2023

EL CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Table 6-22 outlines the parking requirements for residential uses in the ECRSP area. Parking management plans are required to provide information on peak hour use, vehicular circulation, needs of specific users, etc. Shared parking is allowed for differing uses on the same property and is encouraged for trip reduction programs. Parking locations, types, and criteria for parking reductions will be determined as part of the project review on a case -by-case basis.

Special housing developments are subject to the parking requirements listed in Table 6-19.

Table 6-22: Parking Requirements within the El Camino Real Specific Plan Residential Unit Type
Node Segment
Minimum (per unit) Maximum (per
unit) Minimum (per unit) Maximum (per
unit)
Studio and one-bedroom 1 1.5 1 1.5
Two bedrooms 1.25 2 1.5 2.25
Three or more bedrooms 1.7 2 2 2.25
Source: City of Sunnyvale Municipal Code, Title 19, Chapter 19.36, 2022.

In addition, new development within the ECR SP is required to provide short -term and long -term bicycle parking.

Short-term bicycle parking, or Class II, includes bicycle racks or corrals. Long-term bicycle parking, or Class I, includes lockers, check -in facilities, monitored parking, restricted access parking, and personal storage. Bicycle parking requirements for residential uses are listed in Table 6-23.

Table 6-23: Bicycle Parking Requirements within the El Camino Real Specific Plan Residential Uses 1 Short Term (Class II) Long Term (Class I) General/low-income/senior housing 1 space per 15 units 2 spaces per 3 units 11 Minimum of four unassigned Class I bicycle parking spaces shall be provided for each residential development.

Source: City of Sunnyvale Municipal Code, Title 19, Chapter 19.36, 2022.

CONCLUSION
MidPen Housing, an affordable developer in the region, identified the City’s reduced parking requirements for special housing developments as a best practice in their review of housing elements in the Bay Area region. The reduced parking requirements increase the feasibility of affordable and senior housing . In addition, the City is targeting parking standards below the City wide parking standards for the Moffett Park Specific Plan Update .

However, the parking requirements for mixed use development outside o f specific plan areas are not fully transparent as they require use of a parking calculator tool that is not publicly available . In addition , parking standards for studio units were noted by HCD as excessive. The Housing Element includes programs to provide clear and transparent parking standards for mixed use developments outside of specific plan areas and to reduce the parking requirement for studios to no more than one space per unit, inclusive of guest parking.

ERRATA NOVEMBER 17, 2023
Attachment 2

C H A P T E R 2 | H O U S I N G P L A N
CITY OF SUNNYVALE 2-13
2023-2031 Housing Element | SECOND REVISED HCD DRAFT OCTOBER 2023 ▪ Timeframe: Annually monit or rent adjustments based on inflation, provide resident assistance on an ongoing basis.
▪ Responsible Department or Agency: Community Development Department, Housing Division H15. Foreclosure Prevention Resources. Provide continuous information about available foreclosure counseling services, warnings about foreclosure -related scams, and available legal resources on the City’s website . Provide biannual social media campaigns using the City’s public outreach channels (website, Housing newsletter, media releases, City blog, etc.) to educate residents. Continue to refer any homeowners in default to the services available.

Provide materials in multiple language s and work with commun ity-based organizations to distribute materials to residents most at-risk of foreclosure. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Program 13] ▪ Objective: Provide foreclosure assistance to 10 homeowners throughout the planning period. ▪ Policy(ies) Implements: H-5.4
▪ Timeframe: Biannual social media campaigns starting in 2023 ▪ Responsible Department or Agency: Community Development Department, Housing Division H16. Complete the “Retooling the Zoning Code” Project . Complete the Retooling project and update the Zoning Code to provide clarity of processing and permitting procedures for the community. [Source: 2015-2023 Housing Element, Program 16]
▪ Objective: Accelerate housing production by adopting a comprehensive zoning code update. ▪ Policy(ies) Implements: H-4.1
▪ Timeframe: 2026
▪ Responsible Department or Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division H17. El Camino Real Specific Plan Commercial Requirement. Implement a program to address the commercial requirement for 100 percent affordable housing developments in the El Camino Real Specific Plan (ECRSP) on sites zoned for mixed -use by providing a range of options including condominium style ownership to enable separate retail and housing ownership for vertical mixed use, horizontal mixed use options (retail in a separate building from the residential development) with or without a lot split , or a reduction in the minimum commercial requirement . [Source: New program]
▪ Objective: Remove constraints to 100% affordable housing developments in high resource areas along El Camino Real to facilitate a minimum of two 100% affordable developments . Continue to require inclusionary units within market rate developments as well. ▪ Policy(ies) Implements: H-1.1, H-1.2, H-1.3
▪ Timeframe: Establish program for 100% affordable developments by December 2023 ▪ Responsible Department or Agency: Community Development Department, Housing and Planning Divisions H18. Usable Open Space Requirements. Collaborate with developers and other stakeholders to review and modify usable open space requirements , including private usable open space requirements, in higher density residential areas (R-2, R -3, R-4 and R -5 zoning districts ) to reduce constraints on housing development , while balancing community desires for high quality design and access to open space. The City shall review open space requirements in conjunction with implementation of Program 21 to adopt open space requirements that facilitate missing middle housing. Continue to implement significantly lower usable open space requirements in very high density specific ERRATA NOVEMBER 17, 2023
Attachment 2

C H A P T E R 2 | H O U S I N G P L A N
CITY OF SUNNYVALE 2-14
2023-2031 Housing Element | SECOND REVISED HCD DRAFT OCTOBER 2023 plan areas. The City shall annually monitor open space requirements to determine whether or not they are a constraint to housing production and report findings in the annual progress report (APR). The City shall conduct a midcycle review of open space requirements an d if determined to be a constraint, shall take action within six months to mitigate the constraint. [Source: New program] ▪ Objective: Reduce potential constraints on residential development by reviewing and modifying the City’s usable open space requirements in R-4 and R -5 zoning districts to maintain access to high quality open space while reducing the financial impact to residential development. ▪ Policy(ies) Implements: H-4.1
▪ Timeframe: Complete review and modifications no later than 2026. Annually monitor open space requirements and report findings in the APR. Conduct a midcycle review of open space requirements in 2028 and if determined to be a constraint, take action within six months to further reduce open space requirements.
▪ Responsible Department or Agency: Community Development Department, Housing and Planning Divisions H19. Review Park Dedication Requirements. Establish reduced Park Dedication In-lieu fees for Dual Urban Opportunity (DUO) lot splits to remove barriers to infill housing in single -family neighborhoods. Reduced fees for DUO lots splits will be below the cost of land acquisition. Pursuant to public comments, reduce park dedication in- lieu fees on missing middle housing (as described in Program H21) to be no greater than $60,000 per unit. Continue to exempt affordable rental units from the Park Dedication requirements (including In-lieu fees) and adopt fee reductions and/or exemptions for housing that serves other special needs populations (e.g., senior housing, single room occupancy [SRO] units) so that park dedication fees are no greater than $35,000 per unit for SROs and efficiency units . Continue to evaluate the Park Dedication requirements (including In-lieu fees ) based on new demographic information and make adjustments to fees to mitigate constraints , particularly on multifamily housing. Adopt a tiered approach based on density and/or size of unit to reduce park dedication in -lieu fees on multifamily units, targeting an average reduction of about 30 percent. Continue to ensure that all Park Dedication in-lieu fees do not exceed the cost of unentitled land acquisition. The City shall annually monitor the fees to determine whether or not fees are a const raint to housing production and report findings in the annual progress report (APR). The City shall conduct a midcycle review of fees and if determined to be a constraint, shall take action within six months to mitigate the constraint.
▪ Objective: Affirmatively further fair housing in single family neighborhoods by reducing Park Dedication In- lieu fees for Dual Urban Opportunity lot split projects and reduce constraints on multifamily and special needs housing.
▪ Policy(ies) Implements: H-4.1
▪ Timeframe: Establish reduced fees in 2024. Annually monitor fees and report findings in the APR. Conduct a midcycle review of fees in 2027 and if determined to be a constraint, take action within six months to mitigate constraint.
▪ Responsible Department of Agency: Community Development Department, Housing and Planning Divisions H20. Housing Development Plan Review Permit. Establish a new, non-discretionary permit type for housing development projects. This new permit type will simplify the permitting processes by creating one permit type for all housing development projects regardless of underlying zoning . The Plan Review Permit process will involve Planning Commission review and approval for consistency with objective development and design standards.

ERRATA NOVEMBER 17, 2023
Attachment 2

C H A P T E R 2 | H O U S I N G P L A N
CITY OF SUNNYVALE 2-15
2023-2031 Housing Element | SECOND REVISED HCD DRAFT OCTOBER 2023 ▪ Objective: Create new residential permit type to r emove constraints on housing development and implement objective thresholds of approval.
▪ Policy(ies) Implements: H-4.1 and H-4.6
▪ Timeframe: Establish new permit type by 2024
▪ Responsible Department of Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division H21. Missing Middle Housing. Establish regulatory modifications to encourage construction of missing middle product type housing units . Missing middle housing types are defined as smaller units, such as tri -plex, four-plex, cottage courts, townhouses, and Dual Urban Opportunity (DUO) units that are “affordable by design” for workforce- income households earning up to approximately 1 50 percent of Area Median Income. Modifications will increase housing opportunities in higher resource areas with low-density, single family zoning and may include the following:
▪ Zoning modifications to allow smaller lot sizes, modified setbacks, and shared easements to ensure maximum allowable densities are feasible
▪ Tiered fee structures
▪ Expedited/priority plan review
▪ Combining districts/small lot subdivisions in zoning districts such as R1.5 and R1.7 ▪ Density bonus and/or inclusionary requirements
▪ Reducing or eliminating parking minimums for projects within a half mile of public transit , pursuant to Government Code Section 65863.2.
▪ Regulatory modification to result in ministerial approval processes for certain product types not requiring lot splits. [Source: New program]
▪ Objective: Remove constraints and add incentives to the development of smaller, cost -effective housing options that are affordable for workforce-income households in higher opportunity neighborhoods. Target production of 75 new missing middle units.
▪ Policy(ies) Implements: H-1.6, H-2.5, and H-4.1
▪ Timeframe: Establish regulatory modifications no later than 2025 ▪ Responsible Department of Agency: Community Development Department, Housing, Planning, and Building Divisions
H22. Adaptive Reuse. Evaluate, and if appropriate, amend the Zoning Code to remove potential constraints for adaptive reuse of vacant or underperforming non-residential buildings (including motels and hotels) for housing or other shelter. Evaluation will examine review or approval processes and fees, while ensuring that buildings meet required safety standards . Consider regulatory incentives or waivers related to parking, open space, trash, and landscaping requirements. [Source: New program]
▪ Objective: Evaluate whether review or approval processes and development standards are a constraint on adaptive reuse or interim reuse . If barriers to adaptive reuse or interim use are identified that State law does not already enable, modify processes and fees and/or adopt incentives as appropriate. ▪ Policy(ies) Implements: H-1.1 and H-4.1
▪ Timeframe: Establish regulatory modifications no later than 2025 ERRATA NOVEMBER 17, 2023
Attachment 2

C H A P T E R 2 | H O U S I N G P L A N
CITY OF SUNNYVALE 2-16
2023-2031 Housing Element | SECOND REVISED HCD DRAFT OCTOBER 2023 ▪ Responsible Department or Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division H23. Zoning Code Amendments. The City shall amend the zoning code to ensure compliance with State law as follows:
▪ Allow “low barrier navigation center” developments by right in mixed -use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, consistent with Government Code Section 65662. ▪ Allow for the approval of 100 percent affordable developments that include a percentage of supportive housing units, either 25 percent or 12 units, whichever is greater, to be allowed without a conditional use permit or other discretionary review in all zo ning districts where multifamily and mixed -use development is permitted, consistent with Government Code Section 65651(a). ▪ Establish appropriate parking standards for residential care homes and identify clear parking requirements for emergency shelters consistent with Government Code 65583. ▪ Provide clear and transparent parking standards for mixed use developments outside of specific plan areas. ▪ Amend the zoning code to permit group homes with more than six persons in all residential zones and revise procedures to promote objectivity and approval certainty. ▪ Establish a written procedure to implement streamlined ministerial approval in compliance with Senate Bill 35. ▪ Allow employee housing for six or fewer employees and treat this use the same as any single family home. ▪ Review and r evise the Single Room Occupancy (SRO) regulations to remove the minimum parking requirement and remove the maximum occupancy limitation , as necessary for consistency with the California Building Code.
▪ Allow SROs by right in R4 and R5 zoning districts. Identify additional zoning districts such as C-2, MS-POA, and select mixed use zoning districts in specific plan areas (e.g., El Camino Real Specific Plan) to allow SROs by right.
▪ Amend the definition of “family” to remove language about possession of the entire unit. ▪ Reduce parking requirements for studio and efficiency units to no more than one parking space per unit, inclusive of guest parking, and Rremove minimum parking requirements for most developments within one-half mile of transit, pursuant to Government Code Section 65863.2. [Source: New program] ▪ Objective: Amend the zoning code in compliance with State law. ▪ Policy(ies) Implements: H-4.1, H-4.2, H-4.3, and H-5.12 ▪ Timeframe: Complete zoning code amendments by December 2024 ▪ Responsible Department or Agency: Community Development Department, Housing and Planning Divisions H24. Fair Housing Program. Ensure information related to fair housing is accessible to all community members by implementing the following:
▪ Continue to contract with qualified fair housing agencies to provide comprehensive and culturally - appropriate fair housing services and/or tenant/landlord mediation to the extent funding is available. ▪ Provide multi-lingual fair housing brochures at City Hall, the Sunnyvale Library, Senior Center, Recreation Center, and the Columbia Neighborhood Center , and work with area organizations and non -profits to disseminate information to non-English speaking populations in Sunnyvale.

ERRATA NOVEMBER 17, 2023
Attachment 2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911
/ FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
October
6, 2022
Trudi Ry
an, Director
Community Development Department
City of Sunnyvale
456 West Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Dear Trudi
Ryan:

RE: City
of Sunnyvale’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Thank you for
submitting the City of Sunnyvale’s (City) draft housing element update received for review on July 8, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on September 6 and 22, 2022 with you, Ryan Dyson, Housing Specialist; Jenny Carloni, Housing Officer; and your consultants, Chelsey Payne, Kim Untermoser, and Rebecca Pope. In addition, HCD considered comments from YIMBY Law, Livable Sunnyvale, TransForm, Greenbelt Alliance, and SV @ Home, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The draft
element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).

The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

Public p
articipation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

Several f
ederal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill

EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2

(SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.

HCD appreciates the hard work and dedication you, Ryan Dyson, Housing Specialist; Jenny Carloni, Housing Officer; and your consultants, Chelsey Payne, Kim Untermoser, and Rebecca Pope, provided in preparation of the City’s housing element and looks forward to receiving the City’s adopted housing element. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Shawn Danino, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager

Enclosure
Attachment 2

APPE
NDIX

CITY OF SUNNYVALE

The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)

Disproportionate Housing Needs, Including Displacement Risk: The element reports data on housing conditions and persons experiencing homelessness; however, it should also utilize local data and knowledge and analyze the patterns and magnitude of needs throughout the City. For example, the element discusses a housing condition survey and observations by City staff but could also discuss neighborhood planning areas with higher and less concentrations of housing rehabilitation needs. Further, the element briefly mentions the number of persons experiencing homelessness and disproportionate needs relative to protected characteristics such as disability and race but should also discuss patterns (areas of higher and lower need) throughout the City and access to opportunities such as shelter and services.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) and Identified Sites: The element provides some analysis of the identified sites and socio-economic concentrations and brief statements on areas such as displacement vulnerability in the downtown area and high proportion of the regional housing need allocation (RHNA), including lower-income in northern planning areas. However, it should provide some quantification by area and evaluate the impacts on the existing patterns of socio-economic characteristics. For example, the element should discuss the impacts of isolating a large portion of the RHNA by income group or lack of RHNA by income group in other planning areas. A complete analysis should fully assess how the site inventory is expected to improve and/or exacerbate fair housing conditions. This analysis should address the location, number of units by income group, magnitude of the impact and any isolation of the RHNA and could consider topics such as existing or proposed anti-displacement policies and place-based investments, and how such strategies will improve fair housing conditions when paired with the identified sites. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the element should add or modify programs.

Attachment 2

Local D
ata and Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors: The element provides demographics and information on housing choice vouchers and location of publicly supported affordable housing. However, the purpose of local data and knowledge and other relevant factors is to complement state and federal data and complete an analysis of fair housing conditions. The element could consider knowledge from City officials such as the Neighborhood Preservation staff and other related planning and needs assessment documents such as infrastructure assessments or capital improvement programs. Other relevant factors could include past and current land use and zoning practices (e.g., low intensity, specific plans, inclusionary) and state, federal and local investments, including transportation relative to socio-economic patterns.

Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Conditions: Based on a complete analysis, the element should re-assess and prioritize contributing factors.

Goals, Priorities, Metrics, Actions & Milestones: 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. In addition, all actions related to AFFH must contain specific commitment, timing, geographic targeting and metrics or numerical targets.

The element may, for example, as discussed on the August 11, 2022 call, revise Program H20 (Zoning Code Amendments) to make a firm commitment for removing design review requirements and establishing development standards for missing middle housing types that are feasible in higher opportunity or income areas. The element may also, for example, revise Program H20 to allow SROs by right in additional zones, for example in the El Camino Real Specific Plan Area. To improve housing opportunities for persons experiencing homelessness or lower-income households employed in the City, the element could also evaluate zones to expand residential uses, including the North Washington District or target investments such as Project Homekey in areas of higher need and opportunity. The City may also, for example, discuss its efforts to improve pedestrian safety and active mobility as a way to increase access to opportunity.

Additionally, the element should commit to assessing and revising programs through a mid-cycle review. Please see HCD’s AFFH memo for more information:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27- 2021.pdf#page=23.

2. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).)

Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).)

Attachment 2

Analy
ze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).)

Extremely Low-Income (ELI) Households: The element includes analysis regarding ELI households such as the number of households and overpayment but must also identify projected housing needs. The projected housing need for ELI households can be calculated by using available census data to determine the number of very low-income households that qualify as ELI households or presume that 50 percent of the RHNA for very low-income households qualify as ELI households.

Overpayment: The element must quantify and analyze the number of lower-income households overpaying by tenure (i.e., renter and owner).

Housing Costs: While the element includes estimated rents for residents, it utilizes American Community Survey (ACS) data. The element should supplement census data with other sources (e.g., local knowledge).

Special Needs Populations: While the element quantifies the City’s special needs populations, it must also analyze their special housing needs, particularly for persons with disabilities, large households, and female-headed households. For a complete analysis, the element should discuss challenges faced by the population, the existing strategies, and resources to meet those needs, an assessment of any gaps in resources and magnitude of needs, and proposed policies, programs, and funding to help address those needs.

3. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)

Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The City’s RHNA may be reduced by pending, approved, or completed projects; however, the element must demonstrate their availability in the planning period. The element lists many projects by affordability and status in various stages of the entitlement process, including several projects that are pending approval. The element should generally discuss any remaining steps, barriers to development, phasing, build out or planning horizons and other relevant factors to demonstrate their availability in the planning period.

Realistic Capacity: The element describes a realistic capacity of 9,626 units as part of the Moffett Park Specific Plan, 3,852 of which will be available to lower-income households, with a realist capacity of 100 percent of allowable densities in the planning period. However, the element must clarify, as stated on the September 22, 2022 call, the build out period for the Specific Plan and provide supporting evidence that these units will be constructed during the planning period.

Attachment 2

Add
itionally, the element should support or adjust realistic residential capacity assumptions in the Downtown Specific Plan and El Camino Real Specific Plan. For the Downtown Specific Plan, the element should support the assumption of 100 percent of maximum base densities based on land use controls and recent trends by affordability.

This analysis may utilize minimum density policies (Policy H-1.4). For the El Camino Real Specific Plan, the element should discuss assumptions relative to the 10 to 15 year build out period that exceed the 8 year housing element planning period.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must include analysis demonstrating the potential for additional development on nonvacant sites. While the element mentions underutilized sites were identified based on assessed value (AV) and floor area (FAR) ratios, it must support the validity of these assumption in demonstrating the potential for redevelopment. For example, the element could utilize recent development activity. In addition, the element should consider additional factors such as building age, structural conditions, expressed interest in residential development and reflect those values in the sites inventory. Finally, the element should account for the extent existing uses impede additional residential development including market demand for the existing use and existing leases or contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent additional residential development.

In addition, if the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).).

Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.

Environmental Constraints: While the element generally describes environmental constraints were considered (p. C-68), it must also describe any other known environmental or other conditions (e.g., shape, easements, contamination) that could impact housing development on identified sites in the planning period.

Priority Water and Sewer: For your information, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) The element should demonstrate compliance with this requirement or include a program to establish a procedure by a specified date.

Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD.

Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and- community-development/housing-elements for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.

Attachment 2

Zoning f
or a Variety of Housing Types:

• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): HCD records indicate permitted ADUs of 29 in 2018, 17 in 2019, 56 in 2020, and 30 in 2021, figures that are inconsistent with those in the element submitted. The element should reconcile these numbers, resubmit Annual Progress Reports (APRs) and adjust assumptions as appropriate.

In addition, after a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered some areas which are not consistent with State ADU Law. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU non-compliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should add a program to update the City’s ADU ordinance to comply with state law.

• Single Room Occupancies (SRO): The element describes the zones in which SROs are currently permitted. However, given the success of SROs in providing housing for ELI households, the element should also describe how zoning will encourage and facilitate SRO development.

4. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)

Land Use Controls: The element identifies many land use controls as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. However, the analysis should analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls. The analysis should specifically address requirements related to floor area ratios, open space, setbacks, height limits, parking and limits on allowable densities. The analysis should address any impacts on cost, supply, housing choice, affordability, timing, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities and include programs to address identified constraints.

Fees and Exactions: The element includes some discussion of required fees for single family and multifamily housing development, including impact fees. However, the element must analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could identify the total amount of fees on ADUs, Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), and other forms of small housing, and analyze their proportion to the development costs for both single family and multifamily housing. Specifically, the element must analyze the use of its $95,832 park in-lieu fee applied to lot splits in addition to all “Sense of Place” fees provided. For additional information and a sample analysis and tables, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/constraints/fees-and- exactions.shtml.

Attachment 2