101-Director's Report .pdf
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Political Signs:
1. The Council adopted the following amendments related to Political Signs and
conducted the first reading of the Sign Ordinance on August 7, 2012:
• Allow political signs in the park strip in the public right-of-way only in
Residential zones with adjacent property owner or resident consent
• Political signs placed without consent in the park strip may be removed and
disposed of by the adjacent property owner or resident
• Modify the definition of “Signs of de minimus value” to exclude political
signs
• Change enforcement process to:
o Provide two (2) business days for correction of violation
o Hold signs for 20 days
The second reading is expected to be conducted on August 21, 2012. The Ordinance
would go into effect on September 20, 2012.
The City Council also adopted a Resolution to amend the fee schedule to add a fee.
A new Sign Recovery fee for Political Signs at $3 per sign was created to be assessed
when a political sign is retrieved. The revised fee schedule will go into effect on
October 6, 2012.
2. Housing Element
In response to questions in the past about the City’s obligations related to the
Housing Element, staff has prepared the attached fact sheet to provide basic
information on Housing Element requirements.
Upcoming Dates:
Date Event Time Location
Friday, August 10
Cinema at Sundown
“Enchanted”
8:30pm
Memorial Park
Amphitheater
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org
HOUSING ELEMENT FACT SHEET
State law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan containing at least seven mandatory
elements including housing. Unlike the other general plan elements, the housing element is required to
be periodically updated and is subject to detailed statutory requirements and mandatory review by a
State agency, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The City
Council adopted Cupertino's most recent Housing Element on April 6, 2010 and HCD certified the
Housing Element on June 24, 2010.
Housing Elements have been mandatory portions of local general plans since 1969. The goals of a
Housing Element and Regional Housing Needs Plan are to:
Increase the housing supply and the mix of housing types in an equitable manner
Promote infill development and socio-economic equity
Promote an improved intra-regional relationship between jobs and housing
Housing Element law requires local governments to adequately plan to meet its existing and projected
housing needs including their share of the regional housing need. Housing Element law is the State's
primary market-based strategy to increase housing supply, affordability and choice. The law recognizes
that in order for the private sector to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments
must adopt land-use plans and a regulatory environment which provide opportunities for, and do not
unduly constrain, housing development. In order to meet the requirement of adequately planning to
meet the existing need,jurisdictions must zone adequate sites and not unduly constrain new
development.
As mentioned earlier, under state Housing Element law, a jurisdiction must plan to meet its existing and
projected housing needs, but is not expected to produce the housing units. Until recently,jurisdictions
were not penalized for poor unit production. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has
built into the recently approved RHNA methodology a means of allocating higher percentages of low
and very-low income units to those jurisdictions that have underperformed in the last RHNA cycle.
Housing Element lawsuits
Should a jurisdiction not have a Housing Element in compliance with State Law, then they may be
subject to a lawsuit. Non-compliance with an existing Housing Element is also makes a jurisdiction
susceptible to a lawsuit.
Housing Element lawsuits are typically brought forward by affordable housing advocates, property
owners and/or developers. In addition to the parties listed, the California Attorney General's Office also
has the authority to file civil action against a City. Most recently, the Attorney General's Office joined
an ongoing lawsuit against the City of Pleasanton for non-compliance with its Housing Element. In
most cases of non-compliance, the State has rescinded the Housing Element certification which means
the City may no longer receive State and Federal grants for transportation and housing. Courts may also
impose moratoria on local land use authority (take away local control of land use decisions).
Should moratoria be imposed, the City would not be able to issue permits or accept development
applications which are a primary source of revenue. While a building moratorium is a worst case
scenario, it is not outside the realm of possibility, as similar situations have occurred throughout the
1
region and the state. Below is a list of jurisdictions that have faced Housing Element lawsuits, with the
exception of Folsom, all the jurisdictions were sued for Housing Element non-compliance:
Folsom: The City of Folsom previously signed an agreement with housing advocacy groups to
produce 650 affordable units within a period of four years. The City didn't adhere to the agreement
and was sued by Legal Services of Northern California (LSNC). The Court ordered a moratorium on
development of 600 acres until the Housing Element was certified by HCD. A stipulated judgment
required the City to rezone 128 acres for affordable housing, create incentives for developers, and
create an affordable Housing Trust Fund. The City was ordered to pay attorney fees.
Folsom: In response to the lawsuit from Legal Services of Northern California, mentioned above,
the City of Folsom created several programs, including an inclusionary housing program, to further
its affordable housing goals listed in its Housing Element. The Housing Element was subsequently
approved with the goals and programs in place by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD). In November 2010, the City Council of Folsom chose to eliminate the
inclusionary housing program despite recommendations from City staff to the contrary. Shortly
thereafter, the Sacramento Housing Alliance filed a lawsuit against the City of Folsom stating that
the elimination of the program is inconsistent with the approved Housing Element. On July 19,
2012, the Court ruled with the Sacramento Housing Alliance that eliminating the program is
inconsistent with the approved Housing Element. It remains to be seen if the City of Folsom will
attempt revise the Housing Element with a General Plan amendment and whether HCD would
consider approving the Housing Element with the program eliminated.
Sacramento County: Sacramento County was sued by LSNC, claiming the County failed to
implement its Housing Element. The Court ordered the County to adopt new development standards
for multi-family projects and enact amendments to the zoning ordinance to ensure that multi-family
projects are reviewed through a simplified process. A moratorium was also imposed, prohibiting all
building except multi-family residences. Sacramento County later adopted an Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance requiring provision of affordable housing. The County was ordered to pay attorney fees.
Mission Viejo: The City of Mission Viejo failed to comply with a commitment in its adopted
Housing Element to rezone adequate sites. HCD subsequently rescinded its certification of the
Housing Element, and a lawsuit was brought by California Affordable Housing Law Project and
Legal Aid. The Court issued a writ against the City and ordered moratoria on the three sites the City
had identified but had not rezoned.
Pleasanton: The City of Pleasanton committed to rezoning 30-40 acres to high density residential in
its Housing Element. The City failed to rezone the properties, and similar to the Mission Viejo case,
HCD rescinded its certification of the Housing Element. Urban Habitat subsequently filed a lawsuit
based on Housing Element non-compliance, as well as a voter-approved growth management
ordinance. The California Attorney General joined the lawsuit in August 2009. The case remains
pending.
A partial listing of other jurisdictions who have faced legal challenges on their Housing Elements
include: Alameda, Benicia, Camarillo, Corte Madera, Dana Point, Encinitas, Fremont, Healdsburg,
Mendocino County, Napa County, Oxnard, Pasadena. Pittsburgh, Rohnert Park, San Diego, Santa Cruz
County, Santa Monica, Santa Rosa, Seal Beach, and Sonoma County.
2