Desk Items es ems
_ _
.
annin
. .
om m � ssion
.
mee in
�-�- /�f"-15� ��?
Piu Ghosh ��� �
From: Beth Ebben on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 8:41 AM
To: Planning Dept.;Alan Takahashi; Don Sun; Geoff Paulsen; Margaret Gong;Winnie Lee
Subject: FW: [Better Cupertino WG] Fwd:Government Code 65588(a) should trump use of
Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B)
From the Planning Department's general mailbox:
From: Govind Tatachari [mailto:gtc2k7@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2015 7:09 PM
To: better-cupertino-work-group@googlegroups.com
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; nadia.aziz@lawfoundation.org; City Council
Subject: Re: [Better Cupertino WG] Fwd: Government Code 65588(a) should trump use of Government Code
65583.2(c)(3)(B)
I had posted RHNA statistics on nextdoor.com (how Cupertino lagged badly in all categories etc but had
overbuilt the higher income requirement)
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Randy Shingai <randyshingai(�a,gLmail.com>wrote:
Dear Cupertino Planning Commission members,
I would like to call your attention to a Dec. l, 2014 e-mail that I sent to the Cupertino City Council. The City of
Cupertino's response to the letter sent from Nadia Aziz of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley commenting on
the City's draft Housing Element. It is follows below.
I think the City's contention that there is communiiy resistance to the development of affordable housing is
disingenuous. I think the proper characterization is that there is community resistance to the development of
housing in general. Given that, I think most people would like to see a good faith attempt by the City to
meet its RHNA goals. Failure to meet RHNA goals will likely result in litigation that could force the City of
Cupertino to provide low cost housing units in the future. If this were to occur after the housing units approved
in the City's proposed Housing Element are built, this would almost certainly result in more overall housing
units being built.
If the City approves housing units then these units should have a reasonable expectation of ineeting the City's
RHNA goals so that additional units do not have to be built over and above what is already planned in the
Housing Unit.
Thank you,
Randy Shingai
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Randy Shingai<randYshin�(c��mail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:48 AM
Subject: Government Code 65588(a) should trump use of Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B)
To: City Council <cit council ,cupertino.or�>, City Clerk<cit clerk ,cupertino.org>,
1
"da,paul(a�darcypaul.org" <dapaul o,darcypaul.org>, Savita Vaidhyanathan<savita4council(a�gmail.com>
Cc: "better-cupertino-work- roup�a,goo�le�roups.com" <better-cupertino-work-group(a��oo l�e�roups.com>
Dear Sirs:
This is regazding the draft Housing Element for 2014-2022 that was made available for the December 2, 2014
Regular Council Meeting, and follows up an earlier email.
Here is Government Code 65588(a):
65588. (a) Each local government shall review its housing element
as frequently as appropriate to evaluate all of the following:
(1) The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and
policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal.
(2) The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the
community's housing goals and objectives.
(3) The progress of the city, county, or city and county in
implementation of the housing element.
I believe the use of Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B) is inconsistent with Government Code 65588(a)
because it can be demonstrated that the use of 65583.2(c)(3)(B)produces consistently erroneous results within
the City of Cupertino. The City of Cupertino uses Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B)to project that high-
density housing will produce only lower income housing within the City of Cupertino. Recent and past history
has shown that high density housing rarely produces lower income housing units within the City of Cupertino.
While the City is allowed to use Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B) to calculate the number of units that can be
used to fulfill its share of the regional housing need for lower income housing, the City is not required to use
65583.2(c)(3)(B). Cupertino can instead use a more conventional approach. That is the approach described
in 65583.2(c)(3)(A).
Here is Government Code 65583.2(c)(3):
(3) For the number of units calculated to accommodate its share of
the regional housing need for lower income households pursuant to
paragraph (2) , a city or county shall do either of the following:
(A) Provide an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities
accommodate this need. The analysis shall include, but is not limited
to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, or
information based on development project experience within a zone or
zones that provide housing for lower income households.
(B) The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to
accommodate housing for lower income households:
(i) For incorporated cities within nonmetropolitan counties and
for nonmetropolitan counties that have micropolitan areas: sites
allowing at least 15 units per acre.
(ii) For unincorporated areas in all nonmetropolitan counties not
included in clause (i) : sites allowing at least 10 units per acre.
(iii) For suburban jurisdictions: sites allowing at least 20 units
per acre.
(iv) For jurisdictions in metropolitan counties: sites allowing at
least 30 units per acre.
The City of Cupertino used 65583.2(c)(3)(B)to estimate the number of lower income housing units that would
be produced by its inventory of suitable sites for housing in its 2007-20014 Housing Element. According to
Table 7.2 in the draft Housing Element Technical Report for 2014-2022, the City achieved 7.3% of its Very
Low and 10% of its Low income RHNA goals for the preceding 2007-2014 RHNA period, while at the same
time achieving 164% of its Above Moderate income RHNA goals up through 2013. So it's fair to say that there
2
has been a systematic overestimation of Very Low and Low income housing unit production and a systematic
underestimation of Above Moderate income housing unit production. I believe the use of 65583.2(c)(3)(B) is
responsible for this.
In the draft Housing Element Technical Report for 2014-2022, Tables 5.1 and 5-2 inventory a total of 1,389
possible housing units that can be constructed on 6 sites. Every one of these units are projected to have an
Affordability Level of Very Low or Low. If these projections are even half correct and these sites aze all
developed in the 2014-2022 time frame, then the City of Cupertino should easily meet its Very Low and Low
income RHNA goals for 2014-2022. However, any reasonable person would doubt that this is going to
happen.
You have an obligation to follow Government Code 65588(a), because if it can be demonstrated that you were
aware of a problem, and that you did nothing to correct it, it might have legal implications. For instance, some
housing advocacy group might decide to sue the City for not meeting its RHNA goals for lower income
housing. They might argue that the City selected an estimation method that allowed the City to shirk its
responsibility to provide lower cost housing.
Why is this important? Because if the City knows that there will be a shortfall in the number of lower cost
housing, it can start to plan mitigation measures sooner rather than latter. The other reason is that the
systematic underestimation of the number of Above Moderate income units produced result in more overall
housing units being produced.
Please make this part of the public record for the December 2, 2014 Regular Council Meeting.
Thank You,
Randy Shingai
Visit c�ur �lc�me I'a�c http://www.bettercupertino.or�/
��isit out facebaol: page https://www.facebook.com/BetterCupertino
You rcccivecl this message because l'au are subscribed to the Google Grotips "I3cttcr Cupel�tinc> VVork Group"
�raup.
To ti�ls�abseri�ae fi�ronr this group and stop recei�•i�lg e�na�ils fro�m it, send an email �to better-cupertino-work-
group+unsubscribe(a� o�o l�e�ps.com.
"I�o post to this �roup, send email to better-cupertino-work-�roup(a��oogle�roups.com.
Visit tliis gronp at http://groups.goo�le.com/ r�ou_p/better-cupertino-work-g�roup.
`1'c� vic���this discussion on thc «eb �-isit https://�roups.�oogle.com/d/msgidlbetter-cupertino-work-
group/CALmgSXYo6j2XuHPx2N44CJeo26YUOr6oUT DSztfuOJnN16bLA%40mail.�mail.com.
1�or tn�>re optiotls, r��isit https:// r�oups.google.com/d/optout.
3
�-j�-rs �G
Beth Ebben ��� � �
From: Beth Ebben
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 8:44 AM
To: Beth Ebben
Subject: FW: Please, no housing at Vallco
From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <plannin�@cupertino.org>
Date:April 13, 2015 at 8:39:47 AM PDT
To: Planning Dept. <Plannin�List@cupertino.or�>
Subject: FW: Please, no housing at Vallco
From the Planning Department's general mailbox:
From: Tim Coad [mailto:timcoad@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:31 PM
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Please, no housing at Vallco
I do not support any additional housing at the Vallco site.
First, we were told that for Vallco to work we needed to add the Rosebowl high density housing.
Before it could be built, we were told the mall won't work unless we add high density housing at
Mainstreet.
Now before Mainstreet and Rosebowl are even open, we are told the mall wont work at all, so lets add
even more high density housing.
NO. N0. N0.There is already enough high density housing in this area of Cupertino. Looks for some
other place.
Tim Coad
10292 Judy Ave
Cupertino,Ca
95014
� ��Sk�- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
�»�•• www.avast.com
1
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Figure B-5
Producer Price Index for Key Construction Costs
Producer Price Index: Steel and Lumber
x 240
a�
� 220
a� 200
u
a 180 Steel
a� 160 —Lumber
v
� 140
0
a 120 -
100
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Producer Price Index: Construction Materials
�os.o
x
� �os.o
_
� ioa.o
� Final Demand
a
d 102.0 Construct+on
u
�
Q 100.0
a
98.0
2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Source:U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,2014;MIG,2014
B-1 1 0 NCD REVIEWED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
Resolution No. 15-04 Page 5
Exhibit A
Proposed Housing Mitigation Fee Schedule
Residential Housin Miti ation Fees*
Ownershi Develo ments(1-6 Units)
Detached Single Family Residence 'E$15.00/sq. ft.
Small Lot Single Family Residence/'I'ownhome *$16.50/sq. ft.
Multi-family Attached Townhome/Aparhnent/ *$20.00/sq. ft.
Condominium(u to 35 du/ac)
Multi-family Attached Townhome/Apartment/ *$25.00/sq. ft.
Condominitun(over 35 du/ac)
*Proposed residential ownership housing mitigation fees. Final fees to be adopted by City
Council.
Residential Housin Miti ation Fees*
Rental Develo ments(1+Units)
Multi-family Attached Townhome/Apartment/ *$20.00/sq. ft.
Condominium(u to 35 du/ac)
Multi-family Attached Townhome/Apartment/ 'F$25.00/sq. ft.
Condominium(over 35 du/ac)
*Proposed residential rental housing mitigation fees. Final fees to be adopted by City
Council.
Non-Residential Housin Miti ation Fees*
Hotel/Retail 'E$10.00/sq. ft.
Office/Research&Development *$20.00/sq. ft.
(R&D)/Industrial
*Proposed non-residential housing mitigation fees. Final fees to be adopted by City
Council.