Written CommunicationsPC 05-24-2022
Item #1
4th Study Session,
Housing Element
Site Selection
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Liang Chao
Sent:Sunday, May 22, 2022 9:21 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject:Fwd: Oral Communications for May 16, 2022 Strategic Advisory Committee
Attachments:Housing Element Flyer.pdf
Since the public comment from Robert Gomez specifically asked us to “tell City Council, Planning Commission and
Planning Department” that “Families that are dependent on subsidized housing” need parking spaces.
So, I’m forward his comments to you.
But I cannot send to the entire Council due to the Brown Act.
Robert Gomez: “Please tell the City Council, Planning Commission, and Planning Department to distribute as much as
possible of the new housing, in the sixth‐cycle RHNA, throughout the City, and put as little as possible along Stevens
Creek Boulevard.
This will help economically disadvantaged families improve their economic situation. I am not a Cupertino resident. I
work trying to place families into affordable housing. Families that are dependent on subsidized housing, that own cars,
tend to live and remain in higher‐opportunity neighborhoods—places with lower poverty rates, higher social status,
better schools, and lower health risks.”
Liang Chao
Vice Mayor
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192
From: Cyrah Caburian <cyrahc@cupertino.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 11:43 AM
To: Robert Gomez
Subject: RE: Oral Communications for May 16, 2022 Strategic Advisory Committee
(Committee moved to bcc)
Good morning Robert,
Thank you for your emails. I would like to apologize as both your emails were received in the spam folder, and therefore
not seen before or during the oral communications portion of the meeting; however, this can and will be added to the
public record of Monday’s meeting as part of late written communications:
2
1) E‐mail comments by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, May 16 to the Committee at planning@cupertino.org. These e‐mail
comments will be received by the Committee members before the meeting and posted to the City’s website after the
meeting.
2) E‐mail comments during the times for public comment during the meeting to the Committee at
planning@cupertino.org. The staff liaison will read the emails into the record, and display any attachments on the
screen, for up to 3 minutes (subject to the Chair’s discretion to shorten time for public comments). Members of the public
that wish to share a document must email planning@cupertino.org prior to speaking.
Please note the next meeting of the CEP Committee is scheduled for Monday, June 6 at 11:30, and welcome your
comments when the agenda is published closer to the date. Also attached to this email is an invitation for the
Community Engagement meeting that will be held Monday, May 23 from 6:30 to 8p that would allow you another
opportunity for your comments to be shared in this forum.
Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Best,
Cyrah Caburian
Administrative Assistant
Community Development
cyrahc@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1374
From: Robert Gomez <gomez.robert.3598@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 9:49 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>; Cyrah Caburian <cyrahc@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore
<Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Tessa Parish <TParish@cupertino.org>; Piu Ghosh
(she/her) <PiuG@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; City Attorney's Office
<CityAttorney@cupertino.org>
Subject: Re: Oral Communications for May 16, 2022 Strategic Advisory Committee
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.
My letter was not read, as required, during oral communications on May 16th. Nor was it included in the written
communications.
City Attorney: Please advise the committee chair to read remarks that are e‐mailed when oral communications is
opened.
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 11:15 AM Robert Gomez <gomez.robert.3598@gmail.com> wrote:
To be read during oral communications:
Dear Strategic Advisory Committee:
Please tell the City Council, Planning Commission, and Planning Department to distribute as much as possible of the
new housing, in the sixth‐cycle RHNA, throughout the City, and put as little as possible along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
3
This will help economically disadvantaged families improve their economic situation. I am not a Cupertino resident. I
work trying to place families into affordable housing. Families that are dependent on subsidized housing, that own cars,
tend to live and remain in higher‐opportunity neighborhoods—places with lower poverty rates, higher social status,
better schools, and lower health risks.
Vehicle ownership is directly associated with improved neighborhood satisfaction and better employment outcomes.
This is especially the case in Silicon Valley because of very poor public transit and because of the lack of a nine to five
work environment.
State Laws allow developers to ignore cities’ parking requirements and build new housing projects with little or no
parking if the project is close to a bus line even if the bus line does not serve major employment areas.
Residents of housing projects with no parking still need to own cars They simply park their cars on the street, as close
to where they live as possible. This is inconvenient for them and for the residents in the neighborhoods where they
park. Not providing necessary parking saves developers money because underground parking garages are expensive
but it exports that parking expense to the city.
Developers are now pushing Assembly Bill AB1401 that would forbid parking requirements for homes and commercial
buildings throughout California. This ludicrous bill has no support from cities or from affordable housing advocates, and
is opposed by the League of California Cities. However, other developer‐sponsored, YIMBY backed, anti‐affordable
housing bills have been signed into law in the past, and AB1401 could become law despite overwhelming opposition.
In California, a majority of electricity is generated from renewables like wind, hydro, and solar. The transition to electric
vehicles eliminates the greenhouse gas concerns of vehicle ownership.
By distributing as much of the RHNA to areas not burdened by the elimination of minimum parking requirements,
Cupertino will help to improve the lives of all residents, both those that qualify for subsidized housing, and those
fortunate enough to be able to afford to buy or rent market‐rate housing in Cupertino.
Cupertino has already approved large quantities of housing to be built along the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor,
including Vallco, Westport, and Marina, and no more is needed there.
Robert Gomez
Gomez.Robert.3598@gmail.com
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Nicholas Egan <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Sunday, May 22, 2022 5:45 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Concerns of Draft 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 as a concerned community member regarding the current draft of the Housing
Element Sites Inventory, which is extremely problematic with several key issues I would like to
see the City rectify before moving forward. While this process is no doubt difficult, we
nonetheless need to make sure we do better. In particular, I have observed the following
issues:
Bad Math: The number of planned homes (when added up) in the inventory does not actually
match the total listed. This means that Cupertino is currently undercounting affordable
housing. The analysis also relies on gross housing units, instead of net units, meaning that it is
discounting the loss of existing housing options in the process of development.
Displacement Projects: The current inventory cites several possible building sites that would
result in mass displacement of existing renters. (in some cases, without even adding more
density!) Our calculation shows 600+ families displaced under this plan.
Highly unrealistic: The draft inventory recommends sites that are highly unlikely to be built
on—such as the Hyatt House hotel, which was only recently constructed. It also assumes all
2,400 units of Vallco will be built in the next housing cycle, without any benchmarks or mention
of how this will be ensured. For reference, it has been 4 years since the project was approved,
without a shovel in the ground to this day. There is also no explanation as to how the City
arrived at the designated sites, other than a mention that they “likely” reached out to property
owners.
No affordability metrics: The inventory includes recommended new land use designations and
new site densities, but does not indicate what level of affordability each site is intended to
accommodate or why the site was chosen. We note that the city is required to list the number
2
of homes each site is anticipated to accommodate by each RHNA income affordability level
per Government Code section 65583.2(c).
The above-cited issues lead us to the following questions:
Does the map in Attachment A accurately reflect all sites recommended for inclusion in the
revised Housing Element?
Is there a higher resolution version of the map in Attachment A available to facilitate analysis?
What accounts for the discrepancy between the recommended parcels highlighted on the map
in Attachment A and those listed in Attachment B?
What accounts for the 775-home shortfall between the stated subtotal at page 2 of Attachment
B and the sum of the new capacity for the list of parcels above it?
When does the city plan to include expected RHNA income affordability levels by site per
Government Code section 65583.2(c)?
Nicholas Egan
nsmegan@gmail.com
11735 RIdge Creek Ct.
Cupertino, California 95014
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Cyrah Caburian
Sent:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 2:52 PM
Subject:FW: Concerns of Draft Site Inventory
Good afternoon Planning Commission and staff (bcc’d),
Please find attached to this email below the following which was received by the City Clerk’s office for tonight’s PC
discussion on item #1.
Thank you,
Cyrah Caburian
Administrative Assistant
Community Development
cyrahc@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1374
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nicholas Egan <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Date: May 22, 2022 at 5:45:09 PM PDT
To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Concerns of Draft Site Inventory
Reply‐To: nsmegan@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.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am writing as a concerned community member regarding the current draft of the Housing
Element Sites Inventory, which is extremely problematic with several key issues I would like to
see the City rectify before moving forward. While this process is no doubt difficult, we
nonetheless need to make sure we do better. In particular, I have observed the following
issues:
2
Bad Math: The number of planned homes (when added up) in the inventory does not actually
match the total listed. This means that Cupertino is currently undercounting affordable
housing. The analysis also relies on gross housing units, instead of net units, meaning that it is
discounting the loss of existing housing options in the process of development.
Displacement Projects: The current inventory cites several possible building sites that would
result in mass displacement of existing renters. (in some cases, without even adding more
density!) Our calculation shows 600+ families displaced under this plan.
Highly unrealistic: The draft inventory recommends sites that are highly unlikely to be built
on—such as the Hyatt House hotel, which was only recently constructed. It also assumes all
2,400 units of Vallco will be built in the next housing cycle, without any benchmarks or mention
of how this will be ensured. For reference, it has been 4 years since the project was approved,
without a shovel in the ground to this day. There is also no explanation as to how the City
arrived at the designated sites, other than a mention that they “likely” reached out to property
owners.
No affordability metrics: The inventory includes recommended new land use designations and
new site densities, but does not indicate what level of affordability each site is intended to
accommodate or why the site was chosen. We note that the city is required to list the number
of homes each site is anticipated to accommodate by each RHNA income affordability level
per Government Code section 65583.2(c).
The above-cited issues lead us to the following questions:
Does the map in Attachment A accurately reflect all sites recommended for inclusion in the
revised Housing Element?
Is there a higher resolution version of the map in Attachment A available to facilitate analysis?
What accounts for the discrepancy between the recommended parcels highlighted on the map
in Attachment A and those listed in Attachment B?
What accounts for the 775-home shortfall between the stated subtotal at page 2 of Attachment
B and the sum of the new capacity for the list of parcels above it?
3
When does the city plan to include expected RHNA income affordability levels by site per
Government Code section 65583.2(c)?
Nicholas Egan
nsmegan@gmail.com
11735 RIdge Creek Ct.
Cupertino, California 95014
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 1:34 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:Steven Scharf; Muni Madhdhipatla; Sanjiv Kapil; Vikram Saxena; R Wang
Subject:PC Agenda Item 1, Fourth Study Session on the Housing Element
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Chair Scharf and Planning Commissioners:
I am disappointed with the delay in the Housing Element process that is occurring tonight. Why has the Planning
Commission decided to discuss the Site Selection again?
At the April 26, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, there was a robust discussion of the Site Inventory, with many ideas
presented by the public as well as the Commissioners. The conclusion was to forward this action to the City Council.
Expecting City Staff and Consultant EMC to make up the time for this delay and other delays has passed from being
unreasonable to being unacceptable.
Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham
Housing Commission (self only)
PC 05-24-2022
Item #2
Current and Future
Mass Transit in Silicon
Valley Presentation
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Lane Young <laneyoung49@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 23, 2022 2:05 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Public Comment for May 24 meeting
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.
My name is Lane Young and I am a 5 year resident of Cupertino. I ask the Planning Commission to pull consent agenda
item 2 and vote not to receive the report that has been prepared.
I ask this for two reasons. First, and most importantly, the report lacks the quality of research and professional expertise
that would accompany a report of this nature prepared by staff. Far better for the commission to ask for a report on this
topic from staff than to accept this report. This is why there is the divide between staff and volunteer commissioners.
Second, I ask this because it seems like Chairman Schiff is able to even suggest that this report be received owing to his
privilege as Chair. If such a report is to be received by the Commission, better it to be received as part of a larger
consideration of the topics (such as our housing needs) rather than as a stand alone item. Alternatively, Chairman Schiff
could choose to pass the gavel to the Vice Chair and speak as a member of the public, submitting the report as a public
comment.
Thanks for your consideration and sincerely,
Lane Young
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 2:54 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Steven Scharf
Cc:Muni Madhdhipatla; Sanjiv Kapil; Vikram Saxena; R Wang
Subject:May 24, 2022 PC meeting, Agenda Item 2, Chair Scharf's presentation
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 Chair Scharf,
I am surprised at the presentation that you plan to give to the Commission. I have excerpted a
quote from your presentation below. Red underlining is yours. I can only say, "You Are
Wrong!” You state that most residents commute out, however, thousands of workers commute
in and through Cupertino. All commuting clogs our streets. Workers living closer to their jobs will
decrease car traffic. Transit will decrease car traffic. It is a regional problem, to which Cupertino
must provide its share of answers.
‐Low Income workers commute in, since only a tiny fraction of Cupertino’s housing stock is
affordable.
‐Transit is needed by many people who cannot afford to drive cars. Many of those people are
workers in our hotels, restaurants, and shops.
‐New housing can be planned to include affordable housing and Below Market Rate Housing.
Given the size of cities in the US and around the globe, it seems obvious that there is no point
where "no further job growth is possible.” People work where work is located.
The glaring issue is that some cities choose not to set land use policies that encourage housing in
manageable ways. I have had hopes that Cupertino would be able to plan
more effectively than other cities. Ideas have been suggested by many
on how to solve the housing problems, and we have the means to put the
ideas in place.
Please help the residents of Cupertino plan together with you to solve the issues of what change is
bringing. Help us acknowledge each other as human beings who all deserve a safe and decent
home.
Sincerely
Connie Cunningham
Housing Commission (self only)
2
Excerpt from Mayor Scharf’s presentation: