CEP 09-16-2022 (Final)City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777‐3308
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN – STRATEGIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2022
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Moore opened the meeting at 1:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commission Members present: Kitty Moore, Chair and City Councilmember
Tessa Parish, Vice Chair and Chair, Housing Commission
Liang Chao, Vice Mayor
Commissioners Members absent: Steven Scharf, Chair, Planning Commission
Staff present: Luke Connolly, Senior Planner
Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Chris Jensen, City Attorney
Outside Panelists: Ande Flower, Principal Planner, EMC Planning Group
Kylie Clark, Public Policy Coordinator, West Valley Community
Services (WVCS)
Lee Robinson, Be The Diversity
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Subject: Approve the July 25 Community Engagement Plan – Strategic Advisory Committee Special
Meeting minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the July 25 Community Engagement Plan – Strategic Advisory
Committee Special Meeting minutes
Parish moved and Chao seconded.
AYES: Moore, Parish, Chao, Scharf
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Scharf
VOTE: 3‐0‐0‐1
2. Subject: Approve the June 6 Community Engagement Plan ‐ Strategic Advisory Committee Special
Meeting minutes (continued from July 25, 2022)
Recommended Action: Approve the June 6 Community Engagement Plan – Strategic Advisory
Committee Special Meeting minutes
2
Parish moved and Chao seconded to approve version 2 of draft minutes.
AYES: Moore, Parish, Chao
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Scharf
VOTE: 3‐0‐0‐1
POSTPONEMENTS
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jennifer Griffin spoke about State Housing legislature and its impacts on local jurisdictions.
Lisa Warren spoke provided feedback about updates to the EngageCupertino Housing Element Update
site.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
3. Subject: Report from staff and EMC Planning Group regarding: 1) The upcoming September 26, 2022
Community Meeting; 2) Results of the online Housing Survey; 3) Summaries of the May 23 and July 25,
2022 Community meetings.
Recommended Action: Receive reports and provide input to staff regarding the September 26, 2022
Community Meeting and future community engagement opportunities
Staff member Connolly briefly reported out about activity since the July 25th meeting, namely to prepare
for the upcoming third community meeting to be held virtually on September 26 using feedback
gathered from the previous two community meetings and feedback from the Housing Survey.
Panelist Clark of WVCS led discussion on the previous virtual meetings (both held virtually): the first,
from May 23rd addressing Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) concerns of many in the
community; the second, held July 25th addressing student and senior housing needs. The recorded
meeting is currently being edited by staff and will be made available following the meeting.
3
The third and final Community meeting planned for September 26 from 6:00 to 8:15 p.m. and is intended
to focus on members of the community who work (but cannot afford to live) in Cupertino and “house‐
rich” homeowners who are considered low‐income. Outreach included efforts to include Cupertino
businesses, WVCS clients, emails to local busineses, farmers markets, networking with Cupertino
Chamber of Commerce, and flyer distribution in local businesses to the City’s Housing Element Update
subscription list.
Members of the public, Lisa Warren and Jennifer Griffin, both expressed concern on use of “house‐rich”
terminology.
Staff member Connolly clarified the use of “house‐rich” was intended to address homeowners in which
their homes are their only asset.
Chao asked whether the meeting will be virtual, and if arrangements are being made to accommodate
those who have a limited use of technology and suggested a physical location in which to view the
meeting and outreach to Project Sentinel. Panelisk Clark clarified while the first community meeting was
hybrid, technological concerns did not provide the intended outcome to allow the next meetings to be
held successfully in that format and offered to provide support for older residents who would like to
participate. Panelist Clark will reach out for the contact information from Chao for Project Sentinel and
the house sharing program.
Parish spoke on Project Sentinel, and Moore also suggested outreach to clients of Reach Your Destination
Easily (RYDE) and VIA shuttle to address senior mobility needs.
Staff Member Ghosh informed the Committee that staff logistics will need to be coordinated to
accommodate an in‐person or hybrid meeting.
Parish further suggested the next community meeting either be held in person, and/or be virtual, instead
of combining the two in a hybrid format.
Member of the public, Lisa Warren, suggested for in‐person attendees to watch the meeting via Zoom.
Panelist Flower led discussion on results of the housing survey, which garnered 205 responses. Of the
survey respondents:
76.2% are between the ages of 41‐50 (17.1%), 51‐60 (24.4%), 61‐70 (22%), and 71‐80 (12.7%)
77.1% live in a single family home, and 68.3% are homeowners
50.2% are full‐time employed; 34.6% both live and work in Cupertino, 31.2% live in Cupertino
but work elsewhere, and 28.3% live in Cupertino but do not work
48.8% have lived in Cupertino for more than 20 years, and 55.6% have worked in Cupertino for
about two years or less
Top three goals based on importance for families living in Cupertino were:
Providing a diverse range of housing types to meet the needs of people at all income levels
(48.8%)
Preserving the current scale and massing of single family neighborhoods (35.6%)
4
Limiting growth in hillsides and areas at risk for wildfire, Limiting height to preserve the
suburban scale and massing (tied, 29.3%)
When asked why Cupertino residents chose to reside in the City survey respondents cited:
Quality of schools (62%)
Proximity to work (52.2%)
Neighborhood safety (49.3%)
Issues facing survey respondents who wish to own a home in Cupertino but do not:
Cannot find a home within their target price range (32.7%)
Do not have the money for down payment (16.1%)
Keep getting outbid for homes by institutional investors or others able to pay cash (11.2%)
Issues facing survey respondents who wish to rent a home in Cupertino but do not:
Cannot find a home within their target price range (26.3%)
Cannot find a home that suits their needs (e.g. size, disability accommodations, etc) (8.8%)
When asked to state reasons why, survey respondents who can afford to live in Cupertino but do not
want to cited:
Getting better housing for their money in other cities (24.4%)
Lack of high‐quality mass transit (18%)
Too few retail options (13.2%)
Types of additional housing survey respondents would like to see in Cupertino:
Market‐rate condominiums and townhomes (46.3%)
Market‐rate duplexes, triplexes, etc. (44.9%)
Market‐rate single family detached homes (43.4%)
Market‐rate townhomes (owned) (42%)
Subsidized housing for seniors (40.5%)
When asked what they believe are the most urgent housing concerns in Cupertino, respondants cited:
Housing affordability (72.2%)
Housing availability (57.1%)
Homelessness (24.9%)
Biggest challenges addressing living and housing needs of lower income older adults (age 65+):
Lack of affordable older adult housing (59%)
Lack of older adult housing where services are within walking distance (46.8%)
Increased costs for goods and services (37.1%)
When asked what the best strategies for accoomodating 4,588 additional housing units, respondents
cited:
Increase the required number of affordable housing in all new projects (inclusionary housing)
(50.2%)
Increase density (i.e., smaller units, smaller lots) (44.4%)
5
Allow taller buildings with more housing units (43.4%)
How home prices and rents can be reduced, according to respondents:
Increase the required percentage of Below Market Rate housing on new projects (51.2%)
Implement vacancy control (limit percentage of rent increases when rental housing turns over)
(34.6%)
Implement rent control that goes beyond the current State limit of 5% +CPI(maximum of 10%)
(31.2%)
Pass bond measures to provide funding for new affordable housing projects (22.9%)
When asked what their views are on Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing and the City’s dedicated BMR
units are 15% (rental) and 20% (ownership) when building 7 or more units, respondents:
The required percentage of affordable units is too low and should be increased (39.5%)
The required percentage of affordable units should stay the same (31.2%)
The required percentage of affordable units is too high and should be decreased or eliminated
(16.6%)
Developers should have the option to pay in‐lieu fees instead of providing actual housing units
(12.2%)
Of respondents who both live and work in Cupertino:
Commuted less than a mile (29.8%), 10 or more miles (23.4%), or in‐between 1‐10 miles (46.8)
Most respondents commute using a vehicle (65.9%); 13.7% of respondents work from home all or
most of the time, and 14.6% either walk or operate a non‐powered bicycle (tied for 7.3%)
48.8% own or lease 2 vehicles, and 47.3% require 2 parking spaces to accommodate vehicles at
their residence (92.1% of respondents do not use a work vehicle that must be parked in their
residence)
When asked what would encourage one to consider taking public transit instead of using a private
vehicle, respondents cited:
Increased frequency of service (50.2%)
Routes that go from home to work without multiple transfers (39%)
Faster service, not any slower than driving (37.1%)
Faster service, not more than 30% slower than driving (29.8%)
Member of the public, Jennifer Griffin, spoke highly of survey and expressed concern of why question of
whether survey respondents agree with the state’s housing number requirements.
Parish recommended survey results be included for future Planning Commission hearings on new
projects addressing parking concerns.
Moore asked for survey results to be included in the written communications in addition to the survey
questions.
Chao requested the full data set to be available on the website and expressed concerns on survey
respondents’ background and impacts on their views of living spaces. Parish followed up with
6
suggestion to reach out to local businesses targeting the Asian population. While the housing survey
itself was conducted in English, the results from both WVCS’ feedback and this housing survey are
requested to be uploaded to the EngageCupertino Housing Element webpage. Staff and consultants will
look into whether budget and time constraints will impact if the survey and additional outreach can be
conducted and translated into multiple languages.
Panelists Flower and Clark concluded presentation inviting attendees to the third Community meeting
to address needs of commuters and those who work in Cupertino but cannot afford to live in the City
and homeowners who are considered low‐income and a general timeline of the evening’s events and
encourage discussion that would inform policies moving forward.
Chao provided feedback to include website on flyer and edit flyer to reduce content and increase text
size if flyer can be updated before the event.
STAFF UPDATES AND COMMISSION REPORTS
None
Committee Updates
None
FUTURE AGENDA (limitation, cannot discuss)
Next meeting: Friday, October 28th 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
WVCS and EMC will provide PowerPoint compilation, and Committee can select panelist to
present Committee accomplishments to Council at a future Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. to the next special meeting.
Respectfully submitted:
/s/Cyrah Caburian___
Cyrah Caburian
Administrative Assistant