HC 07-05-2022 Written CommunicationsPC HC 07-05-2022
Item #1
Housing Element
Update Housing Sites
Selection Inventory
(Continued from 6/28)
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:John Zhao <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Sunday, July 3, 2022 6:13 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
2
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
John Zhao
jzhao098@gmail.com
10411 Lansdale Ave
Cupertino, California 95014
3
Cyrah Caburian
From:Neil Park-McClintick <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Sunday, July 3, 2022 6:34 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
4
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Neil Park-McClintick
cupertinoforall@gmail.com
801 Miller Avenue
CUPERTINO, California 95014
5
Cyrah Caburian
From:Ayushi S <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Sunday, July 3, 2022 7:08 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
6
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Ayushi S
ayushi_sen@yahoo.com
10341 Tonita Way,
Cupertino, California 95014
7
Cyrah Caburian
From:Louise Saadati <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Sunday, July 3, 2022 7:39 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
The following details some very important directions that the city needs to take to fulfill our
urgent and mandated need for more housing.
The community is looking at you to make meaningful strides in the below. Ineffective tangents
and finger pointing is not appreciated.
Please act promptly in constructive and meaningful ways to take the information below
seriously, honestly and with transparency.
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that
must be considered by you in positions of power as our representatives.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
8
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on upzoning feasibility so that the City can actually
produce much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please work efficiently, honestly -and with transparency for a sustainable plan that will provide
housing for all incomes and abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Louise Saadati
lwsaadati@yahoo.com
9
1153 Elmsford Dr
Cupertino, California 95014
10
Cyrah Caburian
From:Noel Eberhardt <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Sunday, July 3, 2022 10:47 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
11
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
I want the city to meet our housing requirements without spending resources fighting legal
obligations. Let’s get on the program and meet our obligations.
Noel Eberhardt
neberhardt@sbcglobal.net
21407 Krzich Place
Cupertino, California 95014
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 9:47 PM
To:Luke Connolly; Ande Flower; Cyrah Caburian
Subject:Fwd: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Sent from my iPhone
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jean Sun <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: July 4, 2022 at 8:56:29 PM PDT
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element
Site Inventory
Reply‐To: jsun888@hotmail.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission Liaison Piu Ghosh,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
2
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
3
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Jean Sun
jsun888@hotmail.com
10056 Mann Dr
cupertino, California 95014
4
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 9:05 PM
To:Luke Connolly; flower@emcplanning.com; Cyrah Caburian
Subject:Fwd: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: John Geis <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: Jul 4, 2022 6:26 PM
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site Inventory
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission Liaison Piu Ghosh,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
5
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
6
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
John Geis
jgeis@yahoo.com
10714 Deep Cliffe Dr
Cupertino, California 95014
7
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 9:05 PM
To:flower@emcplanning.com; Luke Connolly; Cyrah Caburian
Subject:Fwd: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Howard Ji <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: Jul 4, 2022 8:11 PM
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site Inventory
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission Liaison Piu Ghosh,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
8
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
9
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Howard Ji
howardji@yahoo.com
930 Gomes Ln
Milpitas, California 95035
10
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 9:05 PM
To:Cyrah Caburian; flower@emcplanning.com; Luke Connolly
Subject:Fwd: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Sydney Ji <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: Jul 4, 2022 5:17 PM
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site Inventory
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission Liaison Piu Ghosh,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
11
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
12
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Sydney Ji
sydney.y.ji@gmail.com
10056 Mann Drive
Cupertino, California 95014
13
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 9:05 PM
To:flower@emcplanning.com; Cyrah Caburian; Luke Connolly
Subject:Fwd: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Gregory Hartman <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: Jul 4, 2022 7:49 AM
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site Inventory
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission Liaison Piu Ghosh,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
14
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
15
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Gregory Hartman
ghartman17022@gmail.com
22841 Medina Ln Apt A
Cupertino, California 95014
16
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 9:04 PM
To:Cyrah Caburian; Luke Connolly; flower@emcplanning.com
Subject:Fwd: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Michelle Jenny <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: Jul 4, 2022 2:38 AM
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site Inventory
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission Liaison Piu Ghosh,
I have lived in Cupertino for almost 20 years and am ready to see our city meet the needs of
today.
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
17
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
18
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
We are ready to retire, but can’t afford to downsize in our own town.
Michelle Jenny
michellekatyajenny@gmail.com
22022 Lindy Ln
Cupertino, California 95014
19
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 9:04 PM
To:Cyrah Caburian; Luke Connolly; flower@emcplanning.com
Subject:Fwd: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Noel Eberhardt <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: Jul 3, 2022 10:47 PM
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site Inventory
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission Liaison Piu Ghosh,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
20
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
21
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
I want the city to meet our housing requirements without spending resources fighting legal
obligations. Let’s get on the program and meet our obligations.
Noel Eberhardt
neberhardt@sbcglobal.net
21407 Krzich Place
Cupertino, California 95014
22
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 9:04 PM
To:Cyrah Caburian; Luke Connolly; flower@emcplanning.com
Subject:Fwd: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Louise Saadati <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: Jul 3, 2022 7:38 PM
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site Inventory
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission Liaison Piu Ghosh,
The following details some very important directions that the city needs to take to fulfill our
urgent and mandated need for more housing.
The community is looking at you to make meaningful strides in the below. Ineffective tangents
and finger pointing is not appreciated.
Please act promptly in constructive and meaningful ways to take the information below
seriously, honestly and with transparency.
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that
must be considered by you in positions of power as our representatives.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
23
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on upzoning feasibility so that the City can actually
produce much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
24
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please work efficiently, honestly -and with transparency for a sustainable plan that will provide
housing for all incomes and abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Louise Saadati
lwsaadati@yahoo.com
1153 Elmsford Dr
Cupertino, California 95014
25
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 9:04 PM
To:Luke Connolly; Cyrah Caburian; flower@emcplanning.com
Subject:Fwd: Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Ayushi S <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: Jul 3, 2022 7:08 PM
Subject: Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site Inventory
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission Liaison Piu Ghosh,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
26
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
27
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Ayushi S
ayushi_sen@yahoo.com
10341 Tonita Way,
Cupertino, California 95014
28
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 9:04 PM
To:flower@emcplanning.com; Luke Connolly; Cyrah Caburian
Subject:Fwd: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Neil Park‐McClintick <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: Jul 3, 2022 6:33 PM
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site Inventory
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission Liaison Piu Ghosh,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
29
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
30
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Neil Park-McClintick
cupertinoforall@gmail.com
801 Miller Avenue
CUPERTINO, California 95014
31
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 8:57 PM
To:Cyrah Caburian; Luke Connolly; flower@emcplanning.com
Subject:Fwd: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: John Zhao <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: Jul 3, 2022 6:12 PM
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site Inventory
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Cc:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission Liaison Piu Ghosh,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
32
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
33
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
John Zhao
jzhao098@gmail.com
10411 Lansdale Ave
Cupertino, California 95014
34
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jean Sun <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 8:56 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
35
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Jean Sun
jsun888@hotmail.com
10056 Mann Dr
cupertino, California 95014
36
Cyrah Caburian
From:Howard Ji <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 8:11 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
37
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Howard Ji
howardji@yahoo.com
930 Gomes Ln
Milpitas, California 95035
38
Cyrah Caburian
From:John Geis <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 6:27 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
39
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
John Geis
jgeis@yahoo.com
10714 Deep Cliffe Dr
Cupertino, California 95014
40
Cyrah Caburian
From:Sydney Ji <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 5:17 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
41
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Sydney Ji
sydney.y.ji@gmail.com
10056 Mann Drive
Cupertino, California 95014
42
Cyrah Caburian
From:Gregory Hartman <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 7:50 AM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
43
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Gregory Hartman
ghartman17022@gmail.com
22841 Medina Ln Apt A
Cupertino, California 95014
44
Cyrah Caburian
From:Michelle Jenny <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, July 4, 2022 2:38 AM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
I have lived in Cupertino for almost 20 years and am ready to see our city meet the needs of
today.
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
45
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
We are ready to retire, but can’t afford to downsize in our own town.
Michelle Jenny
michellekatyajenny@gmail.com
22022 Lindy Ln
Cupertino, California 95014
46
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 11:01 AM
To:Luke Connolly; Ande Flower; Cyrah Caburian; Lauren Sapudar
Subject:Fwd: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Sent from my iPhone
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marieann Shovlin <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: July 5, 2022 at 10:59:14 AM PDT
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element
Site Inventory
Reply‐To: m.shovlin@comcast.net
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission Liaison Piu Ghosh,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
2
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
3
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Marieann Shovlin
m.shovlin@comcast.net
10277 Vista Knoll Blvd.
Cupertino, California 95014-1033
4
Cyrah Caburian
From:Balaji Seshachalam <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 12:33 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. I commend the planning commission
on many great elements of the plan to date and encourage you to continue your hard work in
upholding Cupertino resident values that balance affordability with sensible growth.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are blessed in having many pipeline projects in Cupertino. Let’s continue to find
opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the best and highest use of
land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let detractors suggest that these
pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for more pipeline projects.
2) Maintaining existing densities as is.
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer and the commission and staff have
done a good job identifying a good balance. We do not want our cities to become an
uncontrolled mess like San Jose, Sunnyvale, or Mountain View where there is both massive
housing density and lack of affordability. It's the worst of both worlds.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
5
3.) Applying the 80/20 rule.
Too many minority voices continue to pollute what the majority of Cupertino residents want. A
number of activists groups conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents
want sustainable growth strategies that balance out the environment, traffic, schools, public
safety, water needs, and infrastructure to create both affordability and quality of life. We have
an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing and please remember that the majority of residents are
counting on you to find the right balance between out of control state housing policy and local
control.
Balaji Seshachalam
bchalam@yahoo.com
18820 Barnhart ave
cupertino, California 95014
6
Cyrah Caburian
From:Caryl Gorska <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 12:53 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Planning & Housing: Thank you and carry on!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
Please keep watch over consultants and staff who require supervision to carry out reasonable
growth policies.
Like maintaining existing densities. We have a good number of sites with reasonable buffers
and commission / staff have done a good job identifying a good balance. I do not want
Cupertino to become an uncontrolled mess like San Jose, Sunnyvale, or Mountain View,
where there is both massive housing density and lack of affordability. It's the worst of both
worlds.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
Too many minority voices continue to pollute what the majority of Cupertino residents want. A
number of activists (lobbyists) confuse bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino
residents want growth that balances environment, traffic, schools, public safety, water needs,
and infrastructure needed for affordability and quality of life. We have an obligation to the
current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that Cupertinians are counting
on you to find the right balance between out of control state housing policy and local control.
Caryl Gorska
zjb1731@comcast.net
7
10103 Senate Way
Cupertino, California 95014
8
Cyrah Caburian
From:Marieann Shovlin <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 10:59 AM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
9
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Marieann Shovlin
m.shovlin@comcast.net
10277 Vista Knoll Blvd.
Cupertino, California 95014-1033
10
Cyrah Caburian
From:Susan Moore <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 1:52 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
11
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
12
Susan Moore
suemmo@comcast.net
21962 Lindy Lane
Cupertino, California 95014
13
Cyrah Caburian
From:Lisa Warren <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 2:04 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Thank you again for taking the Housing Element
(6th cycle) Very Seriously
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission and Housing Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process that your bodies are in the midst of reviewing. I commend
the Planning Commission on many great elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to
continue your hard work in upholding the interests of Cupertino residents to create and
maintain safe and sustainable affordable housing and to limit the ongoing/ramping up of
extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
14
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep very vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much
supervision and oversight to gain the best outcome for our city and it's current AND future
residents.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors continue to suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the
conditions for more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents throughout the city and State.
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain, and hopefully
imporve, standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
15
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Lisa Warren
Long time Resident
Decades of participation in local policy discussions
Lisa Warren
la-warren@att.net
10279 Judy Ave
Cupertino, California 95014
16
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 2:35 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission and Housing Commission
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
Please remember that residents are counting on you to find the right balance between
extractive land use policy enabled by the State Legislature for the benefit of real estate
investors and the necessary local control that is needed to restore housing affordability for
those who need it. To make sure the right balance is reached, continue to keep close scrutiny
over information, materials, proposals and policies to be considered.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
17
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per site. I
do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and particularly San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a
severe lack of affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! Thank you for your continual efforts.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
Cupertino Resident
Peggy Griffin
griffin@compuserve.com
10727 Randy Lane
Cupertino, California 95014
18
Cyrah Caburian
From:Eric Schaefer <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 2:49 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
19
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
20
Eric Schaefer
sericar7@gmail.com
10392 Menhart Ln.
Cupertino, California 95014
21
Cyrah Caburian
From:Sashi Begur <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 3:02 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
22
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
23
Sashi Begur
sashibegur@gmail.com
21410 Columbus Ave
Cupertino, California 95014
24
Cyrah Caburian
From:Debi Chessen <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 3:03 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
25
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
If you add housing - add to sites where schools are in danger of closing - not where we are so
impacted already. No more housing near Vallco and east of De Anza. - ENOUGH ALREADY
Stop impacting us - we need more places to enjoy open space - not more housing. Why is
density ok near me and not in other areas. Add density in other parts of Cupertino
26
Sincerely
Debi Chessen
Debi Chessen
auntiebee7@yahoo.com
10571 N Portal ave
Cupertino, California 95014
27
Cyrah Caburian
From:Anne Ezzat <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 3:14 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process and encourage you all to continue your demanding work in
upholding the interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable
affordable housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
The loudest voices in this process do not have the best interests of the community at heart,
only the bottom line. We need to build a community that is diverse economically and if we
were to follow the direction of "the affordable housing advocates," the result will be profits for
developers, not a better community. And where do these advocacy groups get their funding?
Only heaven knows, as they do not disclose where they get their funding.
In addition, a Putin-esque disinformation campaign has been launched against the city,
claiming that we are opposed to housing which we are not. We are opposed to housing that
does not get built, i.e., dormant RHNA allocations, housing built on toxic waste sites, housing
sites target exclusively for one side of the city. The housing market, like the education loan
sector, has become a racket, an only for profit and damn the consequences to society racket.
It is not mere happenstance that tuition rates have risen astronomically as the student loan
market has become an investment and it is not mere happenstance that housing prices and
rents have risen astronomically as investors have flooded the market. As a community, we are
better off with an educated and housed population.
Some involved this process have a deep and abiding contempt for the citizens of our city; they
claim to know what is best for us. It is the rationale of the tyrant. What is best for the city is a
fair and equitable distribution of housing, a mix of for purchase and rental, units that are
28
dispersed throughout the city because we are not the Titanic, and there should be no steerage
class. Housing needs to be an organic process, built on the needs of the residents. If control of
the process is handed over to the only for-profit sector, we will be burdened with overcrowded
schools, gridlock, and poor infrastructure. It is amazing that some are so mulishly determine to
replicate the failures we see in other communities.
Please consider the needs of the residents, the needs of potential future residents before you
consider the needs of the investment community.
Best regards,
Brooke Ezzat
Anne Ezzat
aezzat95014@gmail.com
10438, Plum Tree Lane
Cupertino, California 95014
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Lauren Sapudar
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 8:26 AM
To:ghartman17022@gmail.com
Cc:City Clerk; Cyrah Caburian; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Kerri Heusler
Subject:RE: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Good morning, (Planning Commission and Housing Commission Bcc’d),
Your e‐mail has been received by the City Clerk's Office and has been forwarded to the Planning Commission and
Housing Commission on this email.
Your communication will be included with the written communications for tonight's joint meeting.
Regards,
Lauren Sapudar
Deputy City Clerk
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1312
From: Gregory Hartman <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2022 7:50 AM
To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the
2
Hamptons may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even
though it was approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
3
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Gregory Hartman
ghartman17022@gmail.com
22841 Medina Ln Apt A
Cupertino, California 95014
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Lauren Sapudar
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 8:26 AM
To:ghartman17022@gmail.com
Cc:City Clerk; Cyrah Caburian; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Kerri Heusler
Subject:RE: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Good morning, (Planning Commission and Housing Commission Bcc’d),
Your e‐mail has been received by the City Clerk's Office and has been forwarded to the Planning Commission and
Housing Commission on this email.
Your communication will be included with the written communications for tonight's joint meeting.
Regards,
Lauren Sapudar
Deputy City Clerk
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1312
From: Gregory Hartman <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2022 7:50 AM
To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the
2
Hamptons may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even
though it was approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
3
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Gregory Hartman
ghartman17022@gmail.com
22841 Medina Ln Apt A
Cupertino, California 95014
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:BikeC2C (Dennis Cunningham) <BikeC2C@comcast.NET>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 3:36 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; HousingCommission
Cc:Tessa Parish; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Steven Scharf; Muni Madhdhipatla; Sanjiv Kapil;
Vikram Saxena; R Wang; Govind Tatachari; Connie Cunningham; Sue Bose; Angan Das; Kerri Heusler;
Piu Ghosh (she/her); Housing
Subject:July 5 --Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Agenda Item 1 Housing Element Site
Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Good evening Chair Scharf, Chair Parish and Commissioners:
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I urge you to
consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of missing
production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be completed in eight years, so
more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons may displace hundreds of individuals and
families, and has not started even though it was approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete within eight
years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please direct staff to find additional,
back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site development cannot begin or be completed within
the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No Net Loss Law”.
The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on key sites, or by including more
sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty
that our Housing Element is certified, and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce much-needed homes
at all income levels.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more homes along
transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can encourage more people to take
transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero)
sites on the proposed site inventory. There are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern
sides of the city to help maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with redevelopment of these sites
would displace these residents. Some of these projects would not even generate a significant number of net
2
new units. The City should avoid displacement projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building
net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and abilities, and that
will further fair housing practices.
Dennis Cunningham
Long‐time Resident and Homeowner, Cupertino
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Janice Ishii <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 3:44 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
2
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Janice Ishii
ichibanmamasan@hotmail.com
19721 Merritt Drive
Cupertino , California 95014
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Robert McKibbin <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 3:49 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning and Housing Commissions,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning and housing Commission on
many great elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in
upholding the interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable
affordable housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
The Vallco development is a prime example of what drastically goes wrong when local zoning
and development is taken out of local control and dictated from the real estate controlled
Sacramento legislatures.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight. There is a lot of pressure from the development community in these areas.
Here are things I am in favor of:
1) Maintain Existing Density and zoning. Do not upzone!!!
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per site. I
do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and San
Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
2
2) Use existing pipeline projects as part of the count (Westport, Vallco, Hampton, etc.).
With these pipelined projects that are already approved, it’s a lot of housing. It reduces the
total number of housing units needed to be upzoned.
3) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
I do not want the City of Cupertino destroyed by outside special interest groups who just want
to maximize profit by ruining out neighborhoods .
Robert McKibbin
Concerned Citizen of Cupertino for over 30 years.
Robert McKibbin
mckibbikawa@yahoo.com
20101 Las Ondas Ct
Cupertino, California 95014
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Ryan McManus <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 3:53 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
2
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Ryan McManus
lakes_snags_0a@icloud.com
82 Lewis rd.
Belmont, Massachusetts 02478
3
Cyrah Caburian
From:Dinelle Rudd <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 3:53 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
4
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Dinelle Rudd
dinelle.rudd@gmail.com
82 Lewis Road
Belmont , Massachusetts 02478
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Rick Armstrong <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:00 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
2
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
3
Rick Armstrong
rickxarmstrong@gmail.com
10785 Brookwell Dr
Cupertino , California 95014
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:04 PM
To:Cyrah Caburian; Luke Connolly; Ande Flower
Subject:Fwd: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Sent from my iPhone
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ryan McManus <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: July 5, 2022 at 3:52:34 PM PDT
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element
Site Inventory
Reply‐To: lakes_snags_0a@icloud.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission Liaison Piu Ghosh,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
2
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
3
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Ryan McManus
lakes_snags_0a@icloud.com
82 Lewis rd.
Belmont, Massachusetts 02478
4
Cyrah Caburian
From:Debra Timmers <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:04 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. I am a home owner in Cupertino and I
want to ensure that we have sufficient housing for the people whose jobs are here. I also want
Cupertino to be the type of place that my kids (and other talented kids) can afford to live in.
Regarding the updated site inventory, there are some key changes that I urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
5
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices. We look forward to continuing to have a
vibrant community going forward into the future, not just us old people. :-)
Debra Timmers
datimmers@gmail.com
22701 Medina Lane
Cupertino, California 95014
6
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:04 PM
To:Cyrah Caburian; Luke Connolly; Ande Flower
Subject:Fwd: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Sent from my iPhone
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dinelle Rudd <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: July 5, 2022 at 3:53:13 PM PDT
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element
Site Inventory
Reply‐To: dinelle.rudd@gmail.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission Liaison Piu Ghosh,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
7
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
8
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Dinelle Rudd
dinelle.rudd@gmail.com
82 Lewis Road
Belmont , Massachusetts 02478
9
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:05 PM
To:Cyrah Caburian; Ande Flower; Luke Connolly
Subject:Fwd: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Sent from my iPhone
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:
From: Debra Timmers <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: July 5, 2022 at 4:03:58 PM PDT
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element
Site Inventory
Reply‐To: datimmers@gmail.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission Liaison Piu Ghosh,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. I am a home owner in Cupertino and I
want to ensure that we have sufficient housing for the people whose jobs are here. I also want
Cupertino to be the type of place that my kids (and other talented kids) can afford to live in.
Regarding the updated site inventory, there are some key changes that I urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
10
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
11
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices. We look forward to continuing to have a
vibrant community going forward into the future, not just us old people. :-)
Debra Timmers
datimmers@gmail.com
22701 Medina Lane
Cupertino, California 95014
12
Cyrah Caburian
From:Sean Hughes <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:15 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
13
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible” are opposed to
each other.
The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-family buildings, therefore the
City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without up-zoning. The City should still
consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable housing. Concerns about
building size and aesthetics can be addressed through other policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Sean Hughes
jxseanhughes@gmail.com
7752 Huntridge Lane
Cupertino, California 95014
14
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:16 PM
To:Luke Connolly; Ande Flower; Cyrah Caburian
Subject:Fwd: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Sent from my iPhone
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sean Hughes <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: July 5, 2022 at 4:15:20 PM PDT
To: "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.org>
Subject: Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element
Site Inventory
Reply‐To: jxseanhughes@gmail.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission Liaison Piu Ghosh,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
15
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible” are opposed to
each other.
The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-family buildings, therefore the
City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without up-zoning. The City should still
consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable housing. Concerns about
building size and aesthetics can be addressed through other policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
16
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Sean Hughes
jxseanhughes@gmail.com
7752 Huntridge Lane
Cupertino, California 95014
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Vivek Hebbar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:29 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
2
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
3
Vivek Hebbar
hebby@hotmail.com
10439 Prune Tree Ln
Cupertino, California 95014
4
Cyrah Caburian
From:Gopal Kumarappan <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:29 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
5
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
6
Gopal Kumarappan
kagopal@yahoo.com
18920 Loree Ave
Cupertino, California 95014
7
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:25 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; HousingCommission
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2022-07-05 Joint PC+HC Meeting - Agenda Item 1- HE site selection - Protect our nurseries!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Planning Commission, Housing Commission Members and Staff,
Tonight you will address the South De Anza Area and Cupertino’s LAST REMAINING NURSERIES are on the Housing
Element site list. Please remove them.
They are pollinator gardens by definition.
They reduce pollution by providing local residents of many towns a place to buy plants.
With the drought and people redoing their yards, where will we go if these critical businesses are gone?
Yes, we need Housing Element sites but not our nurseries. Please.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
8
Cyrah Caburian
From:Latha Recharla <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:24 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
9
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
10
Latha Recharla
msekar@hotmail.com
20601 McClellan Rd
Cupertino , California 95014
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Sonali Padgaonkar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:33 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
2
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
3
Sonali Padgaonkar
sonali_padgaonkar@yahoo.com
Rainbow dr
Cupertino, California 95014
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Michael Mar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:40 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Make Changes to the Housing Element Site
Inventory
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory. There are some key changes that I
urge you to consider.
1) Reduce reliance on Pipeline Projects.
Reliance on pipeline projects, such as The Rise (Vallco) and the Hamptons, introduces risk of
missing production goals and displacement of current residents. The Rise will not likely be
completed in eight years, so more alternative sites are needed. Development of the Hamptons
may displace hundreds of individuals and families, and has not started even though it was
approved in 2016.
Please direct staff to provide an explanation for the assumption that the Rise will be complete
within eight years, and a housing feasibility study for the Hamptons site. Furthermore, please
direct staff to find additional, back-up sites for both these projects in the event that site
development cannot begin or be completed within the 8-year period of the Housing Element.
2) Recommend a larger buffer of housing units.
The current buffer is too low to meet the HCD requirements, and may invoke parts of the “No
Net Loss Law”. The buffer could be expanded by increasing higher permissible densities on
key sites, or by including more sites. The Housing Element itself could also include an
alternate set of back-up sites to provide more certainty that our Housing Element is certified,
and that our housing production goals are actually accomplished.
2
3) Reconsider upzoning as a policy tool.
The City’s policy priorities should focus on feasibility so that the City can actually produce
much-needed homes at all income levels.
Policies from Staff Report June 28, page 2:
“Housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between
eastern and western areas” and
“the Housing Element should avoid ‘up-zoning’ sites to the extent feasible”
are opposed to each other. The city does not currently include many sites zoned for multi-
family buildings, therefore the City cannot disperse new housing throughout the city without
up-zoning. The City should still consider upzoning as an important tool for building affordable
housing. Concerns about building bulk and aesthetics can be addressed through other
policies.
4.) Prioritize sites in the Heart of the City.
The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more
homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can
encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart
of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory. There
are several Heart of the City areas on the western and eastern sides of the city to help
maintain a balance of sites. Please add more sites inside the Heart of the City.
5.) Avoid unnecessary displacement projects.
The current site inventory proposes sites with existing homes. Going forward with
redevelopment of these sites would displace these residents. Some of these projects would
not even generate a significant number of net new units. The City should avoid displacement
projects if there are more reasonable alternatives for building net new homes.
Please continue your work for a sustainable plan that will provide housing for all incomes and
abilities, and that will further fair housing practices.
Michael Mar
megamar88@gmail.com
19503 Stevens Creek Blvd, Unit 226
Cupertino, California 95014
3
Cyrah Caburian
From:Siva G <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:45 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
4
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
5
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Siva G
siva95014@gmail.com
100
Cupertino , California 95014
6
Cyrah Caburian
From:Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:51 PM
To:Luke Connolly; Ande Flower; Cyrah Caburian
Subject:Fwd: 2022-07-05 Joint PC+HC Mtg Agenda Item #1 - HE site selection USE FEET, NOT STORIES
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
FYI…
Sent from my iPhone
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
PiuG@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:
From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Date: July 5, 2022 at 4:49:07 PM PDT
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <PlanningCommission@cupertino.org>, HousingCommission
<HousingCommission@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: 2022‐07‐05 Joint PC+HC Mtg Agenda Item #1 ‐ HE site selection USE FEET, NOT STORIES
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Planning Commission, Housing Commission Members and Staff,
I’ve been looking at the Engage Cupertino for the Housing Element, looking at each site. It specifies the
height in stories which gives the public an idea BUT it should not be used as the zoning height
requirement!
REQUEST: PLEASE replace “stories” which is currently used to describe height with a specific maximum
height in FEET.
You must use objective standards and a maximum height specified in feet is pretty clear.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
7
Cyrah Caburian
From:Anne Ezzat <aezzat95014@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:56 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Housing Element
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023‐2031 Housing Element adoption
process and encourage you all to continue your demanding work in upholding the interests of Cupertino residents to
create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment
in Cupertino.
The loudest voices in this process do not have the best interests of the community at heart, only the bottom line. We
need to build a community that is diverse economically and if we were to follow the direction of "the affordable housing
advocates," the result will be profits for developers, not a better community. And where do these advocacy groups get
their funding? Only heaven knows, as they do not disclose where they get their funding.
In addition, a Putin‐esque disinformation campaign has been launched against the city, claiming that we are opposed to
housing which we are not. We are opposed to housing that does not get built, i.e., dormant RHNA allocations, housing
built on toxic waste sites, housing sites target exclusively for one side of the city. The housing market, like the education
loan sector, has become a racket, an only for profit and damn the consequences to society racket. It is not mere
happenstance that tuition rates have risen astronomically as the student loan market has become an investment and it
is not mere happenstance that housing prices and rents have risen astronomically as investors have flooded the market.
As a community, we are better off with an educated and housed population.
Some involved this process have a deep and abiding contempt for the citizens of our city; they claim to know what is
best for us. It is the rationale of the tyrant. What is best for the city is a fair and equitable distribution of housing, a mix
of for purchase and rental, units that are dispersed throughout the city because we are not the Titanic, and there should
be no steerage class. Housing needs to be an organic process, built on the needs of the residents. If control of the
process is handed over to the only for‐profit sector, we will be burdened with overcrowded schools, gridlock, and poor
infrastructure. It is amazing that some are so mulishly determine to replicate the failures we see in other communities.
8
Please consider the needs of the residents, the needs of potential future residents before you consider the needs of the
investment community.
Best regards,
Brooke Ezzat
9
Cyrah Caburian
From:joan.lawler@gmail.com <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 5:06 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
10
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
11
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
joan.lawler@gmail.com
10162 Bilich Place
Cupertino, California 95014
12
Cyrah Caburian
From:Wayne Chin <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 5:09 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
13
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
14
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Wayne Chin
WayneFChin@gmail.com
10162 Bilich PL
Cuoertino , California 95014
15
Cyrah Caburian
From:Kanchan Balaji <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 5:10 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
16
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
17
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Kanchan Balaji
kanchancpa@yahoo.com
18820 Barnhart Ave
Cupertino, California 95014
18
Cyrah Caburian
From:Liana Crabtree <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 5:16 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
19
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are four ideas I support:
1) Improve the Frequency of Service and Expand the Service Hours of VTA Route 51.
Because adding housing increases demand for transportation infrastructure and transit
services, please encourage City Council to work with VTA to improve the frequency of service
and expand the service hours and days for VTA Bus Route 51. Route 51 serves West
Cupertino neighborhoods and is within 1/4- to 1/2-mile of approximately 25 possible priority
housing development sites. (VTA Bus Route 51, Moffett Field/Ames Center - West Valley
College: https://www.vta.org/go/routes/51) New housing must be added in all neighborhoods,
not concentrated exclusively in northeast Cupertino.
2) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
3) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
20
4) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Liana Crabtree
lianacrabtree@yahoo.com
Cupertino resident
Cupertino , California 95014
21
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 5:20 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; HousingCommission
Cc:City Clerk; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly
Subject:2022-07-05 Joint PC+HC Mtg Agenda Item #1 HE Site Selection - ERROR
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Planning Commission, Housing Commission and Staff,
Site #23L (Key Map ID) which is at 20555 Prospect Rd (an old Blue Hills Medical Group building)
“Attachment A – Sites Inventory Table.pdf”, Page 6, says the parcel is 0.48 acres with a total possible new units
being 13
BUT the “Engage Cupertino” website says 28!!!
https://engagecupertino.org/23‐south‐de‐anza
Q: Which is right? This is a small parcel, just under ½ acre so I’m guessing it should be 13?
REQUEST: Please fix the website!
22
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
23
Cyrah Caburian
From:Rahul V <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 5:51 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
24
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
25
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Rahul V
voterahul@protonmail.com
19042 Tilson ave
Cupertino, California 95014
26
Cyrah Caburian
From:Rahul V <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 5:52 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
27
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
28
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Rahul V
voterahul@protonmail.com
19042 Tilson ave
Cupertino, California 95014
29
Cyrah Caburian
From:Chitra Iyer <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 5:57 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
30
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
31
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Chitra Iyer
chitrasv@yahoo.com
10280 Farallone Dr
Cupertino , California 95015
32
Cyrah Caburian
From:Vinod Balakrishnan <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 5:58 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
33
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
34
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Vinod Balakrishnan
bvinod@hotmail.com
10447 N Blaney Ave
Cupertino, 95014
35
Cyrah Caburian
From:Sridhar Begur <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 6:04 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
36
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
37
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Sridhar Begur
pinch.serif-0k@icloud.com
21410 Columbus Ave
Cupertino, California 95014
38
Cyrah Caburian
From:Prabir Mohanty <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 6:19 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
39
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
40
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Prabir Mohanty
prabir.mohanty@gmail.com
7544 Donegal Drive
Cupertino, California 95014
41
Cyrah Caburian
From:Sunil Shukla <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 6:19 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
42
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
43
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Sunil Shukla
sunil.r.shukla@outlook.com
10227 S. Foothill Blvd.
Cupertino, California 95014
44
Cyrah Caburian
From:Krithika Srinivasan <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 6:24 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
45
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
46
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Krithika Srinivasan
krithikas@yahoo.com
10131 Parlett Pl
Cupertino, California 95014
47
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 6:29 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:18 c and 18 d public did not get to talk about
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
You didn't let the public talk about 18 c and 18 d yet.
48
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 6:30 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Don't vote on 18c and 18 d until the public gets to talk about it
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
We have a lot to say about 18 c and 18 d.
49
Cyrah Caburian
From:Soundararajan Manthiri <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 6:33 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
50
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
51
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Soundararajan Manthiri
m_soundararajan@yahoo.co.uk
20129 Suisun Dr
Cupertino, California 95014
52
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 6:27 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:You haven't talked about 18 c and 18 d yet
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
City council, we didn't get to talk about 18 c and 18 d yet.
53
Cyrah Caburian
From:Rajesh Narayanan <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 7:43 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
54
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
55
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Rajesh Narayanan
rajesh.nar@gmail.com
21123 Christensen Drive,
Cupertino, California 95014
56
Cyrah Caburian
From:Ram Sripathi <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 8:10 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
57
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
58
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Ram Sripathi
ramsripathi@yahoo.com
20681 , Mcclellan Road
Cupertino, California 95014
59
Cyrah Caburian
From:Ganesh Balaji <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 8:23 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
60
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
61
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Ganesh Balaji
2bchalam@gmail.com
18820 Barnhart Ave
Cupertino, California 95014
62
Cyrah Caburian
From:Maneesh Saxena <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 8:28 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
63
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
64
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Maneesh Saxena
centavo.octagon0c@icloud.com
11087 Linda Vista Dr
Cupertino, California 95014
65
Cyrah Caburian
From:Meeta Upadhyay <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 8:32 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
66
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
67
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Meeta Upadhyay
meetu_au@hotmail.com
19700 Alderbrook Way
Cupertino, California 95014
68
Cyrah Caburian
From:Deepa Karunakaran <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 8:36 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
69
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
70
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Deepa Karunakaran
deepa.senthilanand@gmail.com
10906 Northridge Square
Cupertino, Texas 05014
71
Cyrah Caburian
From:Venkatesan Ranganathan <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 8:36 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
72
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
73
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Venkatesan Ranganathan
n.r.v@live.com
19714 Amherst Drive
Cupertino, California 95014
74
Cyrah Caburian
From:Betty Li <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 8:54 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
75
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
76
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Betty Li
bettyatrainbow@gmail.com
7355 Rainbow Drive
Cupertino, California 95014
77
Cyrah Caburian
From:Alok Mathur <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 9:06 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
78
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
79
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Alok Mathur
alokm99@yahoo.com
1222 Bubb rd
Cupertino , California 96014
80
Cyrah Caburian
From:Snehal Panchal <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 9:11 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
81
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
82
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Snehal Panchal
spanchal@gmail.com
10335 Moretti Dr
Cupertino, California 95014
83
Cyrah Caburian
From:Durgesh Srivastava <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 9:52 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
84
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
85
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Durgesh Srivastava
durgesh@yahoo.com
10379 Krista Ct
Cupertino, California 95014
86
Cyrah Caburian
From:Deepak Balasubramaniam <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, July 5, 2022 10:22 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
87
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
88
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Deepak Balasubramaniam
deepakbalasubramaniam@gmail.com
10466 Miller Ave
Cupertino, Baden-Württemberg 95014
89
Cyrah Caburian
From:Vipin Samar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Wednesday, July 6, 2022 4:00 AM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
90
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
91
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Vipin Samar
vipin.samar@gmail.com
22361 SANTA PAULA AVE
CUPERTINO, California 95014
92
Cyrah Caburian
From:Deepika Kapil <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Wednesday, July 6, 2022 6:06 AM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
93
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
94
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Deepika Kapil
d_kapil@yahoo.com
6544 Clifford dr.
Cupertino, California 95014
95
Cyrah Caburian
From:Manish Gajjar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Wednesday, July 6, 2022 6:47 AM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
96
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
97
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Manish Gajjar
manishcgajjar@gmail.com
20644 Mapletree Pl
Cupertino , California 95014
98
Cyrah Caburian
From:Madhukar Krishnarao <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Wednesday, July 6, 2022 7:09 AM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
99
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
100
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Madhukar Krishnarao
madhukark@gmail.com
10400 byrne ave
Cupertino, California 95014
101
Cyrah Caburian
From:Pamela Hershey <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Wednesday, July 6, 2022 9:51 AM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
102
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
103
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Pamela Hershey
pamelakhershey@aol.com
19698 Wheaton dr
Cupertino, California 95014
104
Cyrah Caburian
From:Narayana Krishna <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Wednesday, July 6, 2022 11:52 AM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
105
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
106
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Narayana Krishna
emailckn@yahoo.com
10652 N Blaney Ave
Cupertino , California 95014
107
Cyrah Caburian
From:Debashish Basak <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Wednesday, July 6, 2022 6:12 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
108
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
109
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Debashish Basak
debu_basak@hotmail.com
19871 Portal Plz
Cupertino, California 95014
110
Cyrah Caburian
From:Yuva Athur <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Thursday, July 7, 2022 6:45 AM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
111
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
112
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Yuva Athur
yuvaraj.a.r@gmail.com
10530 E Estates Dr
Cupertino , California 95014
113
Cyrah Caburian
From:Ravi Kumar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Saturday, July 9, 2022 10:01 AM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
114
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
115
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Ravi Kumar
ravi4biz@gmail.com
7967 Folkestone dr
Cupertino , 95014
116
Cyrah Caburian
From:Balaram Donthi <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Saturday, July 9, 2022 10:12 AM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
117
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
118
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Balaram Donthi
bdonthi@yahoo.com
10680 Johnson Ave
Cupertino, California 95014
119
Cyrah Caburian
From:Rajendra Penna <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Saturday, July 9, 2022 11:20 AM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Joint Planning Commission & Housing Commission: Keep Up The Great Work
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
City of Cupertino Planning Commission Planning Commission,
Planning Commission,
I am writing today regarding the updated site inventory, a requirement for the 2023-2031
Housing Element adoption process. I commend the Planning Commission on many great
elements of the plan to date and encourage you all to continue your hard work in upholding the
interests of Cupertino residents to create and maintain safe and sustainable affordable
housing and to limit extractive, exploitative real estate investment in Cupertino.
In an effort to identify the root causes of the shortage of necessary affordable housing, San
Francisco Board of Supervisors have included the following language in an affordable housing
measure it intends to put before SF voters in the fall:
“…The barriers to production in high-demand market areas are primarily high land costs, high
construction costs, and heightened investor risk relating to the viability of large, high-density
projects. Upzoning and streamlining housing in hot markets results in increased land values,
which can exacerbate the instability of residents in those communities with increased market
rate development and impact the ability of the City and affordable housing developers to
compete for land.”
Source “Major Housing Policy Changes Happening—But Will They Work?” by Tim Redmond
published in 48 Hills on 6/28/2022 https://48hills.org/2022/06/major-housing-policy-changes-
happening-but-will-they-work/).
120
The SF Board of Supervisors are wise to write openly to challenge the narrative of real estate
lobbyists that adding land use entitlement lowers housing costs. Please keep the words of the
SF Board of Supervisors in mind as you recommend housing development sites and policies
to support Cupertino’s 2023-2031 Housing Element process.
Please continue to keep vigilant over the consultants and staff who require much supervision
and oversight.
Here are three things I am in favor of:
1) Continued Identification of Pipeline Projects.
We are fortunate to have pipeline projects in Cupertino that account for more than 3,000 of
the 4,500 new homes required for identification for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
cycle. Let’s continue to find opportunities to create more pipeline projects as these provide the
best and highest use of land and meet both our affordability and unit goals. Do not let
detractors suggest that these pipeline projects are at risk. Continue to create the conditions for
more pipeline projects.
2) Maintain Existing Density, as Is
We have a good number of sites and a reasonable buffer. The Planning Commission and staff
have done a good job identifying a balance of site locations and number of homes per
site. We do not support uncontrolled growth like what we see in Mountain View, Sunnyvale,
and San Jose, where these cities have both massive housing density and a severe lack of
affordability.
We can continue to meet housing unit needs while maintaining our quality of life with existing
zoning and density.
3.) Differentiate Between Policy Ideas that Benefit Real Estate Investors from Policy Ideas
Supported by Residents
Real estate lobbyists conflate bad housing policy with affordability. Cupertino residents want
sustainable growth strategies that balance concerns related to the environment, traffic
congestion, schools, public safety, water and infrastructure needs, and access to parks and
open space to create both affordable housing and to support a healthy quality of life for all
residents. We have an obligation to the current and future residents to maintain standards.
Keep up the great work you are doing! And please remember that residents are counting on
you to find the right balance between extractive land use policy enabled by the State
121
Legislature for the benefit of real estate investors and the necessary local control that is
needed to restore housing affordability for those who need it.
Rajendra Penna
rajendrapenna@gmail.com
19349 Phil Ln
Cupertino, California 95014-3429