The URL can be used to link to this page

17a. General Plan Amendments Housing ElementCOMMUNITY DEVELOF~MENT DEPARTMENT CUPERTINO CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 Summary Agenda Item No: ~ Q- Agenda Date: June 2, 2009 Application Summary: Consider General Plan Amendments, Application Nos. GPA-2008-01, EA-2009-05, City of Cupertino, Citywide (continued from May 5): a) Adopt a draft 2007-2014 Housing Element and forward to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council review the attached 2007-2014 Draft Housing Element (Attachment A) including the Policy and Goals section, the Housing Resources section and the Tier 1 Sites Inventory and direct staff to forward the draft Housing Element to HCD for review. Background: In accordance with State law, California cities rnust have an adopted General Plan which must contain a Housing Element. While all elements of a General Plan are reviewed and revised regularly to ensure that the plan remains current, state law requires that the Housing Element be updated every five years. The current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and certified by the State in 2001 and was most recently amended by the Ciry Council as part of the comprehensive General Plan update on November 15, 2005. The draft document under review shows the City's plan to accommodate ABAG's lZegional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1170 units. Since 453 units approved or built since January 2007 can be credited towards the RHNA goals, the City's remaining allocation is 717 units. The Planning Commission reviewed the Housing Element at its April 14, and April 28, 2009 meetings and made reconunended forwarding the Housing Element to the Council with some changes. In addition to a more thorough examination by staff, the Commission made suggestions on sites to be added or removed. Table F.3 in the attached draft Housing Element shows the sites that the Planning Commission suggested staff consider acid which staff and the consultant did not believe would meet the criteria (see section titled "Tier 1 Sites" for criteria definition). Sites the Planning Commission suggested and meeting the criteria have been included on the Tier 1 list. Also included to facilitate discussion are the April 14 and 28, 2009 Planning Commission staff reports (Attachments B and D), the April 14, 2009 draft Planning Commission minutes 17a-1 Consider General Plan Amendments, Application Nos. GPA-2008-O1, EA-2009-05, City of Cupertino, Cit}'wide (continued from May 5): a) Adopt a draft 2007-2014 Housine Element and forvvazd to the Stare Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) June 2, 2009 2of4 (Attachment C) and the April 28, 2009 Planning Commission minutes (Attachment E). The revised Available Sites Inventory has been divided into two categories, "Tier 1" and "Tier 2". In order to develop the revised sites inventory, staff toured the city with BAE on April 22, 2009. The tour allowed the consultant to evaluate first-hand whether each site has realistic redevelopment potential per HCD criteria described below. Tier 1 Sites The State Government Code requires that the Housing Element include an "inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment" (Section 65583(a)(3)). Cities such as Cupertino that have limited vacant land resources can also rely on vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate its RHNA. Examples of such sites include under-developed properties with mixed use potential, blighted areas with vacant or abandoned buildings, publicly-owned surplus property, and any other suitable underutilized land. The large majority of sites identified to accommodate the City of Cupertino's RHNA are underutilized infill properties. The Housing Element must demonstrate that the non-vacant, underutilized sites in the inventory can be realistically developed with residential uses at appropriate densities within the planning period. The condition and age of existing uses on underutilized properties and the potential for such uses to be discontinued and replaced with housing within the planning period are important factors in determining the sites' "realistic" development potential. In some cases, existing uses may continue on a portion of the site and new housing could be constructed by increasing the intensity of development on the site (i.e. housing above commercial uses or parking lots). The Housing Element should also address the realistic potential of this type of development occurring where appropriate. As Table 4.2 of the Housing Element indicates, the City of Cupertino has already approved 453 housing units that can be counted towards its RHNA for the 2007-2014 planning period. As a result, the City's outstanding RHNA is 717 units. The City must demonstrate that it has sufficiently zoned residential land to accommodate these 717 units on vacant or underutilized sites that can be realistically developed within the planning period. Furthermore, since the remaining RHNA needs to meet the needs of low income households, the minimum zoning should be 20 units/acre or higher per HCD requirements. Table F.1 identifies 15 `"Tier 1" sites to be forwarded to HCD. The 15 sites are comprised of 30 parcels that have the potential to accommodate 1,059 units (763 of which would accommodate low and very low income households). These Tier 1 sites have the most realistic potential to be developed within the 2007-2014 planning period. The Planning Commission reconunended City Council forward to HCD enough sites to accommodate the 717 units, plus a small amount of additional sites to accommodate any disqualification. The Housing Element will include an implementation program which states that the City will rezone the identified Tier 1 sites to allow for residential uses at appropriate densities where necessary. HCD requires that necessary rezoning and General Plan Amendments be completed early enough to reasonably permit development during the planning period. Specifically, rezoning and land use changes should be completed within the first two years of the planning period. 17a - 2 g:\planning\pdreport\pc gpa reports\2008\gpa-2008-Olcc.doc Consider General Plan Amendments, Application Nos. GPA-2008-O1, E.A-2009-05, Ciry of Cupertino, Citywide (continued from May 5): a) Adopt a draft 2007-2014 ~-lousine Element and forward to thc: State DeparUnent of Housing and Community Development (HCD) June 2, 2009 3 of 4 Tier 2 Sites In addition to the Tier 1 sites, there are other sites that the City may want to consider for redevelopment for mixed-use including residential development in the future (see Table F.2). However, the potential for these "Tier 2" sites to be redeveloped within the planning period is less likely for varying reasons and this list will not be included in the Housing Element draft submitted to HCD. For example, the site may contain a fully occupied office building in good or fair condition or an existing viable commercial lase. Because of the low potential for Tier 2 sites to be redeveloped within the planning period, HCD would be less likely to determine that these sites are acceptable to accommodate the City's 1ZHNA units. Other Tier 2 sites would yield too few units to justify a city initiated rezoning. . Tier 2 sites are not necessary to meet the Cit~~'s RHNA or satisfy other HCD requirements. Rather, the City has identified Tier 2 sites for its own internal planning purposes to have an understanding of where future long term residential development could potentially locate and which can achieve specific goals such as balancing land uses or providing supporting residential development to complement regional commerce:l.l districts. Although the Tier 2 list will not be subntted to HCD in the draft Housing Element, it is being sent to the Council for future consideration of sites for residentiaUmixed-use d~:velopment. Public Input: Four residents and the Cupertino Chamber of (~ommerce spoke at the April 14 and 28, 2009 public hearings. The Chamber of Commerce thanked the City for the opportunity to participate in the process and expressed support for the additional office allocation for Apple and Hewlett Packard. Below is a bulleted list of the comnlents from the residents with staff responses in italics: • The City needs to evaluate infrastructure ~~vhen making decisions on housing allocations. Infrastructure is evaluated duri~zg the environmental a~zalysis a~ul i~z the Initial Study. • Too many sites are in the eastern side of the city. Staff and the Plarzni~zg Conznzissio~z Izave selected sites that meet HCD's criteria. • Add Morley Brothers site on Pruneridge ~~venue to the inventory since it is zoned for residential. Property is zoned reside~ztial but the density is less than 20 d. u./acre. • Schools are overcrowded and this needs to be evaluated when locating residential sites. Staff routinely requires residential property developers to aTZalyze the effects the developme~zt would leave o~z schools wizen a use permit applicatio~z is reviewed. • The Vallco Redevelopment Area has specific requirements on the construction of low and extremely low income housing units. Ho~v are the property owners in the redevelopment project area addressing this issue? Staff explai~zed that as development proposals come forward i~z the project area the developer ~zzust meet the requirenze~zts. • Add the Cupertino De Oro Club and the Independent Order of the Odd Fellows as potential residential sites. Staff explained i`liat the De Oro Club is listed i~z the Ge~zeral Pla~z as a historical resource a~zd we cannot achieve a high enough yield oiz the Odd Fellows property to justify the rezoning. 17a-3 g:\plannin~\pdreport\pc Qpa reports\2008\Qpa-2008-Olcc.doc Consider General Plan Amendments. Application Nos. GPA-2008-O1, EA-2009-05, City of Cupertino, Citywide (continued from May 5): a) Adopt a draft 2007-2014 Housine Element and forward to the State Departrnent of Housing and Community Development (HCD) June 2, 2009 4of4 In addition to the public hearing, staff also received an e-mail inquiry from Cupertino resident Keith Murphy regarding whether the City could count existing second units and senior units towards meeting the RHNA goal. While any new units and a percentage of preserved units can count towards the meeting the RHNA goals, only post 2007 units are eligible. Since 2007, the City has recorded the production of 11 second units which, along with the units listed in table 4.2 of the draft Housing Element, have been subtracted from Cupertino's RHNA goal of 1,170. (Please see Attachment C of the April 28, 2009 Planning Commission staff report for more information on this subject). Next Steps: After the Ciry Council review, the draft Housing Element will be sent to HCD for preliminary comments. After the Ciry Council has finalized the Tier 1 Sites Inventory, the consultant will complete the environmental analysis, which will be reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the City Council in June/July 2009. After the comments are received from HCD, City staff will return to the City Council with the final Housing Element document with revisions (if necessary) to address HCD's concerns. Final adoption of the Housing Element and environmental review is expected in September/October 2009. Legally, Bay Area cities are required to have an adopted and certified element in place by the June 30, 2009 deadline. However, it appears that a majority of the cities, including Cupertino, have been delayed in their processes and will not meet this goal. BAE believes that it is good practice to have the draft Housing Element submitted to HCD by before the deadline so that they can begin the review process. The State has up to 60 days to review and comment on the draft. Prepared by: Vera Gil, Senior Planner Reviewed by: o~ ~~% ,0 Ke Kline Economic Development Submitted by: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Approved for submission. to the City Council: David W. Knapp City Manager Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Housing Element Attachment B: April 14, 2009 Planning Comnssion staff report Attachment C April 14, 2009 approved minutes Attachment D: April 28, 2009 Planning Commission staff report Attachment E: Apri128, 2009 draft minutes 17a-4 g:\plannin~\pdreport\pc gpa reports\2008\Qpa-2008-Olcc.doc Attachment A }f. 4;, ;: h ~ u ~ ~ ` ' r e~~ r mss'-~,=' r ~> f,kr ~~; ~i ~y:, CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 City of Cupertino Housing Element Update 2007-2014 Bay Area Economics Headquarters 510.547.9380 1285 66th Street fax 510.547.9368 San Francisco Bay Area Sacramento New York N~ashinoton, D.C. Emeryville, CA 44608 bael@bael.com bay reaeconomics.com 17a-5 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26!2009 Tabfe Qf Gan~erl~~ 1. 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6. 3 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 3.8. 4. 4.1. 4.2. 5. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 6. 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. Introduction ..................................................................................................1 Role and Content of Housing Element .................................................................... ... 1 Public Participation .................................................................................................. ... 2 Organization of Housing Elernent ........................................................................... ... 3 Review of Prior Housing Element ............................................................ ...4 Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for All Economic Segments .... ... 4 Goal B: Housing that is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households........ ... 5 Goal C: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods ........................................................ ... 6 Goal D: Ser~7ices for Special Needs Households ..................................................... ... 6 Goal E: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities ..................................................... ... 6 ABAG Housing Production Goals ........................................................................... ... 7 Housing Needs Assessment ............................................ 8 ......................... .. Regional Context ...................................................................................................... .. 8 Population & Household Trends ............................................................................... .. 8 Employment Trends & Jobs/Housing Balance ......................................................... 13 Housing Stock Characteristics .................................................................................. 16 Market Conditions & Income Related to Housing Costs .......................................... 22 Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion .................................................................. 31 Special Housing Needs ............................................................................................. 36 Suminaiy ................................................................................................................... 47 Regional Housing Needs Determinations 2007-2014 .............................. 49 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) .......................................................... 49 Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households ......................................... 50 Housing Constraints .................................................................................. 52 Government Constraints ........................................................................................... 52 Economic and Market Constraints ............................................................................ 65 Environmental, Infi-astiucture & Public Service Constraints .........:.......................... 68 Opportunities for Energy Conservation .................................................................... 74 Sumrnaiy ................................................................................................................... 75 Housing Resources .................................................................................... 77 Overview of Available Sites for Housing ................................................................. 77 General Plan Residential Allocations ....................................................................... 77 Residential Capacity Analysis .................................................................................. 78 17a-6 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 6.4. Zoning for Emergency Shelters and 'Cransitional ..................................................... 88 Housing ................................................................................................................................ ... 88 6.5. Financial Resources for Housing ........................................................................... ... 88 7. Housing Plan .................................................................... 91 ....................... ... 7.1. Quantified Objectives ........................................................ 91 7.2. .................................... Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for All Economic Segments .. ... ... 92 7.3. Goal B: Housing is Affordable fora ]diversity of Cupertino Households ............. ... 93 7.4. Goal C: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods ...................................................... ... 98 7.5. Goal D: Services for Special Needs households ................................................... . 100 7.6. Goal E: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities ................................................... . 101 7.7. Goal F: Coordination with Local School Districts ................................................. . 102 8. Analysis of Consistency with General Plan ...........................................103 8.1. Land Use/Community Design .................................................... 103 8.2 ......... ... ................ Circulation . . 8.3. .............................................................................................................. 103 Environmental Resources/Su t i bili s a na ty ................................................................ 104 8.4. Health and Safety ........................................ 104 ............................................................. 9. Appendix A: Review of Previou:~ Housing Element .............................. 106 10. Appendix B: List of Organizations Contacted ....................................... 112 11. Appendix C: Windshield Survey ........................ . 113 ... ................................. 12. Appendix D. Maximum Affordable Sales Price Calculations ............... 114 13. Appendix E: Summary of City Z~~ning Standards ................................. 116 14. Appendix F: Residential Site Inventory .................................................. 117 17a-7 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 "f ~ C1~COE~L1G~ldll Cupertino is a unique community with ahigh-quality of life, a renowned school system and a robust high-tech economy. The long-term vitality of the Cupertino community and local economy depend on a full range of housing to meet the needs of all segments of the City's population. As Cupertino looks towards the future, the increasing range and diversity of housing options will be an integral aspect of the City's development. Consistent with Cupertino's goal of becoming a balanced community with a full range of land uses, this plan sets forth a vision for guiding future residential development, as well as for preserving and enhancing existing residential areas. 1.1. Role and Content of Housing Element The purpose of this Housing Element is to adopt a comprehensive, long-term plan to address the housing needs of the City of Cupertino. Along with seven other mandated elements, the State requires that a Housing Element be a part of the General Plan. Updated every five to seven years, the Housing Element is Cupertino's primary policy document regarding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all econonuc segments of the population. Per State Housing Element law, the document must • Outline a community's housing production objectives; • List policies and implementation programs to achieve local housing goals; • Examine the need for housing resources in a community, focusing in particular on special needs populations; • Identify adequate sites for the production of housing serving various income levels; • Analyze~the potential conshaints to production; and • Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other components of the General Plan. Authority Housing elements are required as a mandatory element of General Plans by Sec. 65580(c) of the Government Code. In 1980, the State Legislature passed a bill (AB2853) which put into statute much of the former advisory guidelines regarding housing element content including: the needs assessment; goals, objectives and policies; and implementation program. Since that tune, the Legislature has made a number of modifications to the law, which are reflected in this update. Status This document is an update to the Housing Element of the City of Cupertino General Plan. The cun•ent Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and certified by the State in 2001 and the General Plan was most recently amended by the City Council on November 15, 2005. This updated Housing Element focuses on housing needs fi-om January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2014, in accordance with the Housing Element planning period for San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions 17a-8 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 established by State law. Relationship with General Plan State law requires that a General Plan and its constituent elements "comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of ,policies." This implies that all elements have equal legal status and no one element is subordinate to any other element. The Housing Element must be consistent with land use goals and policies set forth in the Land Use Element, and closely coordinated with the Circulation Element of the G eneral Plan. As part of the implementation process for this Housing Element, the City of Cupertino will initiate and complete amendments to the City's General Plan as necessary to achieve internal consistency. 1.2. Public Participation This Housing Element has been developed with e;ctensive participation from members of the Cupertino community. The public participation process described below engaged a diverse set of community stakeholders in a productive dialog on housing issues, including residents, local small and large employers, school dishicts' adininistlators and parents, and other interested parties. Key Stakeholder Interviews. BAE interviewed 24 members of the Cupertino community to gain a better understanding of the goals for and concei7is about housing in the City. Focus Group Meetings. The City and BAE convened a key stakeholder Focus Group, which included 27 leaders in the Cupertino Community. Focus Group participants included members from organized groups interested in housing issues, parents and faculty from the local school districts, and local business leaders. This Focus Group worked through complex issues associated with housing through a series of four meetings. • Focus Group Meeting #1 (August 21, 2008) -This meeting summarized the purpose of the Housing Element Update, the key corriponents of the Housing Element, the City's legal requirements, and the implications of having an uncertified Element. In addition, the meeting focused on the local housing need in Cupertino. • Focus Group Meeting #2 (September 25, 2008) -The second meeting focused on the impacts associated with new housing development. Housing impacts discussed at the meeting included fiscal and economic, traffic, open space, and school impacts. • Focus Group Meeting #3 (October 23, 21)08) -This meeting discussed housing design issues and provided information to participants about different housing product types, densities, and heights. • Focus Group Meeting #4 (November 20, 2008) -The final meeting involved a discussion of housing programs and policies. The Focus Group reviewed the accomplishments of the programs and policies from the City's previous Housing Element and discussed potential L 17a-9 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 housing goals, programs, and policies for this Update. City Commissions. BAE also met with the City's Housing Conunission and made a formal presentation to the City's Senior Commission to solicit feedback on senior housing needs. Online Educational Materials. Presentation inateiials and web cast archives of Focus Group meetings were made available on the City's website. These materials were meant to introduce the issues and outcomes of each Focus Group meeting to the wider community. The Focus Group meetings were also broadcast live on the City of Cupertino's website. Community Workshop. On January 22, 2009, a conununity workshop was held to introduce the Housing Element, present a selection of educational materials from the Focus Group meetings, and give participants an opportunity to comment on the Update process. 1.3. Organization of Housing Element Following this introduction, the Housing Element includes the following major components: • A review of the prior (2001) Housing Element, including an analysis of housing production over the previous ABAG fair share period; • An analysis of the City's current and future housing needs; • An analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing production; • An inventory and analysis of housing resources; and • A housing plan setting forth goals, policies, prograns, and quantified objectives to address the City's housing needs. 3 17a - 10 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2409 2. Review of E~r~ar ~aus~ng Element A thorough review of the City's housing plan con,~titutes an important first step in updating the Cupertino Housing Element. This section providers an evaluation of the City's progress towards achieving housing goals and objectives as set forth in the prior Housing Element, and analyzes the efficacy and appropriateness of the City's housing; policies and programs. This review forms a key basis for reshucturing the City's housing plan to meet the housing needs of the Cupertino community. Adopted by the City Council and certified by the ;hate HCD in 2001, the prior Housing Element contained five major goals, 12 related policies, an~j 33 implementation programs. These goals and policies are listed in Appendix A of this document, along with key achievements that relate to one or more of the listed policies. The following discussion provides an overview of City housing accomplishments grouped by major policy area. 2.1. Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for All Economic Segments The City's previous Housing Element identified housing production goals for each of the City's 11 Planning Areas. Specifically, the Element indicated the City would designate sufficiently residentially-zoned land at appropriate densities to provide adequate sites to meet and exceed its RHNA of 2,325 units for the 2001-2006 planning period. An analysis conducted by the City indicated that there were sufficient residentially zoned sites to accommodate 2,523 units at the time the Hosing Element was adopted. As such, rezoning was not necessary to meet Cupertino's RHNA for the previous planning period. Appendix A provides a breakdown of the nmiiber of units that could be accommodated in each Planning Area. As shown in Table 2.1, the City permitted 1,070 housing units betveen 2001 and 2006. Note that the total of 1,070 units permitted beriveen 201 and 2006 differs from the total housing produced during the previous RHNA period, which ran from 1999 to 2006. 4• 17a - 11 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 2.1: Housing Production by Planning District, 2001-2006 Units Permitted Remaining Planning D(strict Allocated Units 2001-2006 Allocation Monta Vista 142 57 85 Neighborhood Other Areas 400 200 200 Vallco Park South 711 311 400 Heart of the City 332 116 216 Homestead Road 300 0 300 Commercial Other Areas 300 0 300 City Center 437 337 100 North De Anza 146 49 97 Vallco Park North 300 0 300 Bubb Road 94 0 94 Employment Other Areas 100 0 100 Total (a) 3,262 1,070 2,192 Notes: (a) The total units permmitted between 2001 and 2006 differs from the total housing units produced during the previous RHNA period, which ran from 1999 to 2006. Sources: City of Cupertino, 2008; BAE, 2008 2.2. Goal B: Housing that is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households In addition to encouraging overall housing production through land use policies, the City has promoted affordable housing through a variety of policies and programs. Cupertino's Housing Mitigation Plan requires developers to pay fees into an Affordable Housing Fund or provide below market-rate (BMR) units as part of their developments. In 2007, the City updated the "O~ce and Industrial Mitigation" fee after completing an updated nexus study to determine appropriate fee levels. hi addition, the City continues to require residential developers to provide BMR units or pay an in-lieu fee. Beriveen 1999 and 2006, 25 very low-income and two low-income units were built by developers through the residential mitigation program. Through its Affordable Housing Fund, the City assisted the construction of the 24-unit Vista Village affordable rental development and purchased surplus property from CalTrans on Cleo Avenue for affordable housing. Beyond the Housing Mitigation Plan, the City of Cupertino has continued to implement a number of programs that encourage the development and preservation of affordable housing. The City offers a density bonus to developers who provide housing for very low- and low-income households and provides regulatory incentives such as park fee waivers and parking reductions for affordable projects. 5 17a - 12 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 2.3. Goal C: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods The City seeks to enhance residential neighborhoods by maintaining and rehabilitating older housing and conserving the existing stock of owner and rental units that provide affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. The City has made HOME and CDBG funds available on a competitive basis to developers to acquire and rehabilitate rental units for very low- and low-income households. During the 2007-2008 fiscal year the City of Cupertino received approximately $357,900 in CDBG funds. The City also successfully preserved the Sunnyview West development, the only affordable housing project that had expiring federal subsidies during the Housing Element period. Cupertino had three programs which assisted with maintenance and home repair for lower-income individuals. The Housing Rehabilitation program provided financial assistance to very low- and low-income homeowners to rehabilitate their homes and the Home Access program provided assistance with minor home repairs and accessibility improvements for lower-income, disabled households. The Weatherization program assists very low-income homeowners with weatherization improvements to their homes. The Housing Rehabilitation Program was eliminated in 2002 after a sharp decline in the number of annual loans. The average number of loans dropp~:d from five to approximately one a year. City staff attributed the sharp decline in interest in the program to gentrification. Many seniors who would have applied for the program simply chose to sell then homes for a large profit and move out of the area. Younger more economically stable families purchased their homes. In 2006, Economic and Social Opportunities (ESO) dissolved its Handyworker, Home Access and Weatherization programs. Like many cities in Santa Clara County, Cupertino has struggled to find a replacement. However, in 2007, the City began Funding Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley who will provide a volunteer based rehabilitation for qualified Cupertino residents. The agency has also begun a Neighbor to Neighbor program that provides minor repairs and modifications for eligible home owners. 2.4. Goal D: Services for Special Needs Households Cupertino's previous Housing Element included a .number of programs for special needs households, including the homeless and elderly. Currently West Valley Community Services (formerly Cupertino Community Services) operate> a rotating shelter progran~ for the homeless at churches throughout Cupertino. The City has not yet revised its Zoning Ordinance to allow permanent emergency shelter facilities in the BQ quasi-public zoning district. 2.5. Goal E: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities 6 17a - 13 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 To support equal housing opportunities in Cupertino, the City contracts with Project Sentinel to address fair housing complaints and resolve landlord/tenant dispute in the City. Project Sentinel receives $30,000 from the City annually, and serves approximately 200 Cupertino residents a year. During the 2007-2008 fiscal year, Project Sentinel received 201 calls from Cupertino residents and handled 41 cases. In addition, the City has a contract with Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing (MCFH) to provide assistance to victims of housing discrimination. Both Project Sentinel and MCFH services are offered to Cupertino residents free of charge. 2.6. ABAG Housing Production Goals Cupertino's RHNA for the 1999 to 2006 Housing Element period was 2,720 units. During that time period, the City issued building permits for 1,339 units accounting for 49 percent of their RHNA (See Table 2.2). Most of the City's petznits were issued for above moderate-income housing units. The City issued permits for approximately nine percent of its very low-income allocation and 6 percent of its low-income allocation. Table 2.2: RHNA Accomplishments, 1999-2006 Percent of Permits Allocation RHNA Issued Permitted Very Low-Income 412 36 8.7% Low-Income 198 12 6.1% Moderate-Income 644 79 12.3% Above Moderate-Income 1,466 1,212 82.7% Total 2,720 1,339 49.2% Sources: ABAG, 2007; BAE, 2009 7 17a - 14 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26/2009 3. Housing. ~le~ds ~~ss~s~mel~~ The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to describe housing, economic, and demographic conditions in Cupertino, assess the demand for housing for households at all income-levels, and document the demand for housing to serve various special needs populations. The Housing Needs Assessment is intended to assist Cupertino in developing housing goals and formulating policies and programs that address local housing needs. To facilitate an understanding of how the charactf;ristics of Cupertino are similar to, or different from, other nearby communities, this Housing Needs Assessment presents data for Cupertino alongside comparable data for all of Santa Clara (:ounty and, where appropriate, for the San Francisco Bay Area and the state of California. This Needs Assessment incorporates data from nt:merous sources, including the United States Census; the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); the State of California, Department of Finance; and Claritas, Inc., a private demographic data vendor. In addition, BAE contacted local service providers to discuss housing needs for special needs populations in Cupertino. Appendix B includes a list of organizations contacted. 3.1. Regional Context Cupertino is a suburban city of 10.9 square miles :Located in Santa Clara County. The city was incorporated in 1955 and grew from a small agricultural community into a suburban community during the expansion of Silicon Valley. The cities; of Los Altos and Sunnyvale limit the northern frontiers of Cupertino while the cities of Santa Clara and San Jose lie to the east and Saratoga lies to the West of Cupertino. Unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County foizn the southern and western boundaries of the city. Cupertino is dominated by single-family subdivisions with distinctive commercial and employment centers s<;parated from the surrounding residential areas. Because of the suburban pattern, the city has a lar;;ely automobile-based land use and transportation system. Highway 85 functions as tl~e main north/south traffic route through the city and Interstate 280 is a major east/west route through Cupertino. 3.2. Population & Household TrE~nds Population As presented in Table 3.1 below, Cupertino's population grew at a slightly slower rate than Santa Clara County and the San Francisco Bay area as a whole behveen 2000 and 2008. During this period, Cupertino grew from 50,600 to 55,600 persons, which translates to an increase of 10 percent. However, a portion of this population growth can be attributed to the City's annexation of 17a - 15 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 168 acres of land between 2000 and 2008. Cupertino's annexation of Garden Gate, Monta Vista, and scattered islands, resulted in an increase of 1,600 new residents. After removing population increases from annexation, the City of Cupertino experienced seven percent increase in its population. By comparison, Santa Clara County's population grew by nine percent while the nine- county Bay Area's population grew by eight percent. Overall, the state of California's population grew more rapidly beriveen 2000 and 2008, increasing by 12 percent. Households A household is defined as a person or group of persons living in a housing unit, as opposed to persons living in group quarters, such as dormitories, convalescent homes, or prisons. According to the California Department of Finance, there were 19,700 households in Cupertino in 2008 (see Table 3.1). The City added approximately 600 new households between 2000 and 2008 through annexation. • After adjusting for household increases due to annexation, the number of households in Cupertino grew by five percent beriveen 2000 and 2008. During the same time period, the number of households in Santa Clara County increased by eight percent. Average Household Size Average household size is a function of the number of people living in households divided by the number of occupied housing units in a given area. In Cupertino, the average household size in 2008 was 2.80, slightly lower than the Santa Clara County figure of 2.97. Because population growth has outpaced the increase in households in Cupertino and the County, the average household size has increased for both jurisdictions since 2000. Household Type Households are divided into rivo different types, depending on their composition. Family households are those consisting of two or more related persons living together. Non-family households include persons who live alone or in groups of unrelated individuals. As shown in Table 3.1, Cupertino has a very large proportion of family households. In 2008, family households comprise 75 percent of all households in Cupertino, compared with 70 percent of Santa Clara County households. Household Tenure Households in Cupertino are more likely to own than rent their homes. Approximately 64 percent of households living in Cupertino owned their own homes in 2008, a figure essentially unchanged from 2000. By comparison, only 59 percent of households in Santa Clara County owned their own residences in 2008. 9 17a - 16 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 3.1: Population and Household Trends, 'x:000-2008 Total Change Annexation less annexations Percent Change City of Cupertino 2000 2008 (est.J 2000.2008 (a) 2000-2008 2000-2008 Populatton (b) 50,602 55,551 1,563 3,386 6.7% Households (b) 18,223 19,660 578 659 4.7 Average Household Size (b) 2.75 2.60 Household Type Families 74.8% 75.0° Non-Families 25.2% 25.0% Tenure Owner 63.6°/ 64.0°I° Renter 36.4% 36.0% Santa Clara County Population (b) 1,682,565 1,837,075 154,490 9.2% Households (b) 565,863 608,652 42,789 7.6% Average Household Sfze (b) 2.92 2.97 Household Type Families 69.9% 69.9% Non-families 30.1% 30.1% Tenure Owner 59.8% 59.3% Renter 40.2% 40.7% Bay Area (c) Population (b) 6,764,348 7,301,080 516,732 7.6% Households (b) 2,466,020 2,643,390 177,370 7.2% Average Household Size (b) 2.69 2.71 Household Type Families 64.7% 64.8% Non-Families 35.3% 35.2% Tenure Owner 57.7°h 57.8% Renter 42.3% 42.2 California Population (b) 33,873,066 38,049,462 4,176,376 12.3% Households (b) 11,502,871 12,653,045 1,150,174 10.0% Average Household Slze (b) 2.87 2.94 Household Type Families 68.9% 69.0°k Non-Families 31.1% 31.0% Tenure Owner 56.9% 57.6% Renier 43.1% 42.4% Notes: (a) Between 2000 and 2008, the City of Cupertino annexed 168 acres of land. The population and househod increases resulting from annexation are not included in population and household growth calculations for the City. (b) Population, households, and household size figures from California Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2000 and 2006. (c) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. Sources: Califomia, Department of Finance, 2008; Claritas, 2008; BAE 20C8. 1C 17a - 17 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Age Distribution Cupertino's age distribution, shown in Table 3.2, is relatively similar to that of Santa Clara County with a few notable exceptions. In both Cupertino and Santa Clara County, there are significant proportions of persons under 20 years old. However, the proportion of Cupertino residents under the age of 20 years old has declined since 2000. Compared to the County as a whole, Cupertino has a lo~~~er proportion of adults in the 25 to 34 age range but a higher proportion of 45 to 54 year old adults. From 2000 to 2008, the fastest growing segment of the community was residents in the 45 to 54 year old age category, which increased from 1 ~.4 to 18.0 percent of the total population. The proportion of residents in the 25 to 34 age range and the 35 to 44 cohort showed the sharpest decline between 2000 and 2008. Cupertino's elderly population, residents age 65 years old and above, increased from 11 percent to 13 percent behween 2000 and 2008. In 2008, the median age in Cupertino was 40.8, increasing from 37.9 in 2000. Santa Clara County experienced a parallel aging of its population as evidenced by an increase in the median age from 34.0 to 36.7 years. Table 3.2: Age Distribution, 2000 and 2008 City of Cupertino Santa Clara County Age Cohort 2000 2008 2000 2008 Under 15 22.4% 19.8% 20.9% 21.2% 15 to 17 4.3% 5.1% 3.9% 3.9% 18 to 20 2.5% 3.5% 3.9% 3.8% 21 to 24 2.7% 4.8% 5.4% 5.0% 25 to 34 12.1 % 8.1 % 17.8% 13.4% 35 to 44 21.0% 16.5% 17.6% 16.7% 45 io 54 15.4% 18.0% 13.0% 14.9% 55 to 64 8.7% 11.7% 8.0% 10.4% 65 to 74 5.8% 6.5% 5.2% 5.9% 75 to 84 3.8% 4.2% 3.3% 3.5% 85 + 1.4% 1.9% 1.1 % 1.4% Median Age 37.9 40.8 34.0 36.7 Sources: Claritas, 2008; BAE 2008. Household Income According to Claritas estimates, the median household income in Cupertino in 2008 was $115,400. This figure is significantly higher than the estimated median household income of $85,454 for Santa Clara County and $74,300 for the Bay Area. Over half of Cupertino households (58 percent) earned more than $100,000 in 2008, whereas only 42 percent of Santa Clara households and 35 percent of Bay Area households fall into this income category. 11 17a - 18 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 On a per capita basis, Cupertino is also wealthier than Santa Clara County and Bay Area. In 2008, the per capita income in Cupertino was $52,200, compared to $37,500 in the County and $36,300 in the Bay Area. Table 3.3 summarizes the distribution of househo]d incomes for Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area. Table 3.3: Household Income Distribution. 2006 Household Income Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $249,999 $250,000 to $499,999 $500,000 and over Totat (b) Median Household Income Per Capita Income City of Cupertino _Santa Clara County Bay Area (a) Number Percent tJumber Percent Number Percent 802 4.3% 37,893 6.4% 208,322 8.1% 692 3.7% 30,785 5.2% 163,949 6.4% 632 3.4% 34,517 5.8% 177,443 6.9% 1,031 5.6% 58,619 9.9% 291,229 11.4% 2,318 12.5% 99,221 16.7°/a 450,515 17.6% 2,343 12.7% 86,440 14.5% 362,903 14.2% 4,402 23.8% 122,222 20.6% 474,017 18.5% 4,100 22.2% 87,039 14.6% 292,620 11.4% 1,466 7.9% 25,535 4.3% 89,355 3.5% 666 3.7% 12,090 2.0% 46,437 1.8% 18,472 100.0% 594,361 100.0% 2,556,790 100.0% $115,466 $85,454 $74,256 $52,153 $37,470 $36,322 Notes: (a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Ciara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. (b) Total number of households here may differ from population and household estimates provided by CA Department of Finance. Sources: Claritas, 2008; BAE 2008. 1 ?_ 17a - 19 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26/2009 3.3. Employment Trends & Jobs/Housing Balance Table 3.4 and Table 3.5 provide a summary of employment by industry sector and the number of employed residents in Cupertino and Santa Clara County based on data fiom California Employment Development Department. Local Employment Opportunities As shown in Table 3.4, the number of jobs in Cupertino grew by 14 percent between the 2003 and 2007, double the growth in jobs for Santa Clara County as a whole. Cupertino added 3,700 jobs in the four year period, for a total of 30,900 jobs in 2007. With the exception of retail trade and riansportation and warehousing, all industry sectors grew in Cupertino bet\veen 2003 and 2007. By far, the manufacturing industry added the largest absolute number of jobs (4,600), followed by wholesale trade (900) and professional, scientific, and technical services (800). Manufacturing represents the largest job sector in both Cupertino and Santa Clara County. However, Cupertino has a much higher proportion of manufacturing jobs (34 percent) than Santa Clara County (19 percent). The manufacturing sector includes the production of computer, elechonic, and communication equipment and includes such major employers as Apple and HP. With the recent collapse of the financial and credit markets and the worldwide recession, Cupertino and the broader Silicon Valley region lost some of the gains in key sectors that were achieved between 2003 and 2007. As of February, 2009, unemployment in Santa Clara County stood at 9.9 percent compared to 10.5 percent in California and 8.1 percent in the nation as a whole. The impacts of the econonuc downturn, though serious, have been somewhat localized to particular sectors and industries such as finance and insurance, construction and retail trade. Fortunately for Cupertino, high-tech employment has not declined at the same rate as the rest of the economy and long-term prospects for this sector remain strong. 13 17a - 20 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/2612009 Table 3.4: Jobs by Sector, 2003-2007 (a) City of Cupertino Santa Clara County 03 2003 (b) 03 2007 (e) % Change 03 2003 (b) 03 2007 (c) % Change Industry Sector Jobs % Total Jobs %Total 2003-2007 Jobs % Total Jobs % Total 2003.2007 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (d) 11 0% Na Na Na 4,778 1 % 4,541 1% -5 Mining (d) Na Na Na Na Na 173 0% 262 0% 51 Construction 395 1% 462 1 % 17% 39,961 5% 46,824 5% 17% Manufacturing 6,061 22% 10,618 34% 75% 172,236 2D°~ 165,665 19% -4% Utilities (d) Na Na Na Na Na 1,474 0% 1,843 0% 25% Wholesale Trade 760 3% 1,682 5% 121% 33,751 4% 39,622 4% 17% Retell Trade 3,247 12% 3,085 10% -5% 80,100 10% 83,356 9% 4% Transportation and Warehousing 126 0% 94 0% -25% 12,146 1% 11,513 1% -5% Information 1,243 5% 1,697 5% 37% 31,572 4% 40,202 4% 27% Finance and Insurance 691 3 % 696 2% 1% 19,876 2% 21,631 2% 9% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 350 1% 699 2 % 100% 14,978 2 % 15,889 2% 6 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 1,937 7% 2,699 9 % 39 % 98,608 12 % 112,335 13 % 14 Management of Companies and Enterprises (d) Na n/a Na Na Na 15,632 2% 9,197 1 % -41 Administrative and Waste Services 1,197 4% 1,335 4% 12% 52,271 6 % 56,791 6% 9% Educational Services 276 1% 502 2% 62% 21,461 3% 26,533 3% 24% Health Care and Soctal Assistance 1,350 5 % 1,618 5% 20 % 65,159 8% 70,834 8% 9 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 154 1% 230 1% 49% 11,047 1 % 11,591 1% 5% Accommodation and Food Services 1,951 7% 2,456 8 % 26% 58,094 7% 64,416 7 % 11% Other Services, except Public Administration 546 2 % 758 2% 39% 26,553 3% 30,619 3% 15% Unclassified (d) Na n/a Na Na Na 57 0% 16 0% •72% Government (d) (e) Na Na Na Na Na 81,057 10% 80,580 9 % -1 Total 27,199 100%. 30,862 100% 13% 841,004 100% 894,260 100% 6% (a) Includes all wage and salary employment covered by unemployment Insurance. (b) Represents employment for third quarter, 2003. (c) Represents employment for third quarter, 2007. (d) Local employment for Agriculture, Foresty, Fishing and Hunting (2007 only), Mining, Management of Companies and Enterprises, Unclassified, and Govemment was suppressed by EDD due to the small number of firms in Cupertino reportirn) in this category. Total employment includes jobs in these categories. (e) Govemment employment includes workers in all local, stale and Federal sectors, not just public administration. For example, all public school staff are in the Govemment category. Sources: Cal'domia Employment Development Department, 2008; BAE, 2008. Employed Residents Cupertino's job growth outpaced the City's growth in employed residents. While the number of jobs grew by 14 percent, Cupe).-tino's population o f residents with jobs grew from 22,300 to 23,300, or by five percent between 2003 and 2007. Santa Clara County's employed residents also grew by five percent, but the County's job growth was more modest at six percent between 2003 and 2007. Cupertino can be characterized as an increasingly "jobs rich" community, meaning that the number of jobs exceeds the number of working residents. [n 2003, the number of employed residents stood at 82 percent of the number of jobs in Cupertino (see Table 3.5). Over the next four years, the number of employed residents dropped to just 7611ercent of the number of jobs. Cupertino added more than hvice as many jobs as employed residents beriveen 2003 and 2007. This phenomenon was present but less pronounced in Santa Clara County overall. In 2007, the county's number of employed residents represented 91 percent of its e)nployment. 1 ~I 17a-21 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 3.5: Employment Trends, Cupertino Cupertino Santa Clara County Percent Percent Change Change 2003 (a) 2007 (a) 2003-2007 2003 (a) 2007 (a) 2003-2007 Employed Residents 22,300 23,300 4.5% 779,200 814,700 4.6% Total Jobs 27,199 30,862 13.5% 841,004 894,260 6.3% Employed ResidentslTotal Jobs 0.820 0.755 0.927 0.911 Unemployment rate 5.4% 3.0% 8.3% 4.7% Notes: -- (a) Represents employed residents and jobs in the third quarter of 2003 and 2007 Sources: California Employment Development Department, 2008; BAE 2008 Long Term Projections Table 3.6 presents population, household, and job grov~~th projections for Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the nine county Bay Area beriveen 2005 and 2035. The figures represent the analysis conducted by ABAG using 2000 Census data and a variety of local sources. Cupettino's population is expected to grow by 7,100 residents from 53,500 in 2005 to 60,600 in 2035. This translates into an increase of 13 percent. ABAG projects Santa Clara County and the Bay Area as a whole will experience much larger population increases of 35 percent and 27 percent, respectively. Job growth is expected to continue to outpace population and household growth in Cupertino, compounding the "jobs rich" nature of the city. 15 17a - 22 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 3.6: Population, Household, and Job Projections, 2005-2035 Total Change % Change City of Cupertino 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2005 - 2035 2005 - 2035 Population 53,500 55,400 5fi,600 57,9DD 58,500 59,200 60,600 7,100 13.3% Households 19,250 19,910 20,360 20,780 21,040 21,430 22,000 2,750 14.3% Jobs 31,060 32,35D 33,730 35,140 36,60D 38,100 39,660 8,600 27.7% Santa Clara County Population 1,763,000 1,667,500 1,971,100 2,085,300 2,177,800 2,279,700 2,380,400 617,40D 35.0% Households 595,700 628,870 665,OOD 701,47D 732,830 769,750 806,210 210,510 35.3% Jobs 872,860 938,330 1,017,060 1,098,290 1,183,840 1,272,95D 1,365,810 492,950 56.5% Bay Area (a) Population 7,096,100 7,412,SOD 7,730,000 8,069,70) 8,389,600 8,712,800 9,031,500 1,935,400 27.3% Households 2,583,080 2,696,560 2,819,030 2,941,76D 3,059,130 3,177,440 3,292,530 709,450 27.5% Jobs 3,449,640 3,693,920 3,979,200 4,280,70) 4,595,170 4,921,680 5,247,78D 1,796,140 52.1 Notes: (a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Morin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties Sources: Association of Bay Area Governments, 2008; Bay Area Economics, 2008. 3.4. Housing Stock Characteristiics Housing Stock Conditions The age of Cupertino's housing stock is similar to that of Santa Clara County. As shown in Table 3.7, the largest proportion of homes (30 percent) v~~as built behveen 1960 and 1969 in Cupertino. In both Cupertino and Santa Clara County, the median year housing structures were built was 1970. Unless carefully maintained, older housing stock can create health, safety, and welfare problems for occupants. Even with normal maintenance, dvs•ellings over 40 years of age can deteriorate, requiring significant rehabilitation. 16 17a - 23 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 3.7: Housing Structures Year Built, Cupertino Year Built 1999 to March 2000 1995 to 1998 1990 to 1994 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 1950 to 1959 1940 to 1949 1939 or earlier Cuaertinio Number Percentage 356 1.9% 1,198 6.4% 1,021 5.5% 2,287 12.2% 4,466 23.9% 5,622 30.0% 2,952 15.8% 591 3.2% 221 1.2% Santa Clara County Number Percentage 10,402 1.8% 29,525 5.1 26,941 4.7% 77,749 13.4% 145,718 25.2% 132,161 22.6% 96,285 16.6% 30,002 5.2% 30,546 5.3% Total 18,714 100.0% Median Year Built 1970 579,329 100.0% 1970 Sources: US Census, SF3-H34, 2000; BAE, 2008. Notwithstanding this finding, the City's housing stock remains in relatively good condition. Data on the number of units which lack complete plumbing and kitchen facilities are often used to assess the condition of a jurisdiction's housing stock. As Table 3.8 indicates, virtually all of Cupertino's housing units contain complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. The 2000 Census indicates that less than one percent of the City's units lack these facilities. 17 17a - 24 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 3.8: Housing Conditions, Cupertino, 2000 Plumbing Facilities Number Percent of Total Owners Complete plumbing facilities 11,521 63.2% Lackirig complete plumbing facilities 19 0.1 Renters Complete plumbing facilities 6,653 36.5% Lacking complete plumbing facilities 24 0.1 Total 18,217 100.0% Kitchen Facilities Owners Complete kitchen facilities 11,532 63.3% Lacking complete kitchen facilities 8 0.0% Renters Complete kitchen facilities 6,653 36.5% Lacking complete kitchen facilities 24 0.1% Total 18,217 100.0% Sources: US Census, SF3-H48 and H51, 2000; BAE, 2008 To characterize the physical conditions of Cupertvro's stock of older residential structures, a windshield survey was performed for this Housing; Element (inspecting exterior. building components visible from the public right-of--way only). The windshield survey was conducted for the Rancho Rinconada residential neighborhood in. the eastern part of Cupertino. This neighborhood, which is bordered by Lawrence'Exl~ressway, Bollinger Road, Miller Avenue, and Stevens Creek Boulevard, is one of the City's older neighborhoods with many small, single-story homes built in the 1950s. In the 1990s, new home~wrrers in the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood began demolishing and rebuilding much larger sin;;le-family homes. Nevertheless, much of the neighborhood continues to be fairly representative of Cupertino's older housing stock. The windshield survey assessed the exterior condition of dilapidated housing units, including a review of each unit's foundation, roofing, siding and/or stucco, and windows.' Over half of the several dozen homes surveyed in this area had shingles missing from the roof while nearly all had siding or stucco that needed to be patched and repainted. Many of the dilapidated homes surveyed were characterized by a lack of maintenance ~a~ith overgrown yards or garbage and debris on the property. Appendix C provides a sample windshield survey form. 18 17a - 25 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Distribution of Units by Structure Type As shown in Table 3.9, a majority of housing units in Cupertino are single-family detached homes; 61 percent of homes were single-family detached dwelling units in 2008. This is a slightly smaller share than the 61 percent proportion that single-family detached homes represented in 2000, but a much larger share than Santa Clara County's 54 percent in 2008. Large multi-family housing units (defined as units in structtues containing five or more dwellings) represent the second largest housing category in Cupertino and have experienced the most rapid growth between 2000 and 2008. The number of large multi-family housing units grew by 14 percent while single-family detached dwellings grew by seven percent between 2000 and 2008. But at 20 percent in 2008, Cupertino still has a smaller proportion ofmulti-family housing units compared to Santa Clara County, where over a quarter (26 percent) of all housing was in large multi-family shuctures. Single-family attached homes comprised the third largest housing category in Cupertino at 11 percent in 2008, a higher figure than the nine percent of all homes in Santa Clara County. The remaining housing categories, small multi-family homes (defined as units in structures containing 2-4 dwellings) and mobile homes represented relatively small proportions of Cupertino's housing stock in 2008 and have experienced little or no growth since 2000. 18 17a - 26 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26/2009 Table 3.9: Housing Units by Type, 2000-2008 Percent 2000 2006 Change City of Cupertino Number of Untts Percent of To1:al Number of Units Percent of Total 2000-2008 Single Family Detached 11,425 61.1% 12,235 60.7% 7.1% Single Family Attached 2,028 10.8% 2,145 10.6% 5.8% Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 1,663 8.9% 1,698 8.4% 2.1% Multifamily S+Units 3,576 19.1% 4,085 20.3% 14.2% Mobile Home 9 0.0% 9 0.0% 0.0% Total 18,701 100,0°/ 20,772 100.0% 7.9% Percent Change Santa Clara County Number of Units Percent of Total Number of Units Percent of Total 2000-2008 Single Family Detached 323,913 55.9% 336,196 54,0% 3.8% Single Family Attached 52,739 9.1% 55,834 9.D% 5.9% Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 46,371 S.D% 46,932 7.5% 1.2% MultifamilyS+Units 136,628 23.6% 164,151 26.4% 20.1% Mobile Home 19,678 3.4% 19,666 3.2% -D.1% Total 579,329 100.0% 622,779 100.0% 7.5% Percent Change .Bay Area Number of Units Percent of Total Number of Units Percent of Total 2000-2008 Single Family Detached 1,376,861 53.9% 1,466,501 53.7% 6.5% Single Family Attached 224,824 8.8% 233,612 8.5% 3.9% Mulfrfamlly 2 to 4 Units 266,320 10.4% 272,843 10.0% 2.4% Multifamily 5+Unlts 623,388 24.4% 699,127 25.6% 12.1% Mobile Home 61,011 2.4% 61,328 2.2% 0.5% Total 2,552,404 100% 2,733,411 100% 7.1% Sources: CA Department of Finance, E-5 2008; BAE, 2008 Building Permit Trends Building permit trends demonstrate that while Cuf~ertino experienced growth in multi-family unit between 1999 and 2008, new residential development has largely focused on detached single- family homes. Since 1999, Cupertino issued 970 ltuilding permits for single-family homes, compared to only 418 permits for all duplex and >r~ulti-family units (See Table 3.10). 2C1 17a - 27 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 3.10: Building Permits Issued by Building Type in Cupertino 1999-2008 Total Building Type 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1999-2008 Single Family 240 112 45 111 36 87 114 78 83 65 971 2 Units 0 0 B 4 0 0 0 0 0 42 54 3 8 4 Units 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 or More Units 80 14 24 252 0 0 0 48 0 0 418 Total Permits Issued 320 126 77 371 36 87 114 126 83 107 1,447 Sources: U.S. Census, 2008; BAE, 2008. Overcrowding Overcrowding refers to a household with an average of 1.01 or snore persons per room, with those rooms being bedrooms, kitchens, and dining rooms but not bathrooms. Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered to be severely overcrowded. As shown in Table 3.11 Cupertino households were less likely to be overcrowded than Santa Clara households in 2000. Of all households in Cupertino, 10 percent of households were overcrowded or severely overcrowded versus 14 percent in Santa Clara County. Overcrowding was much more common in Cupertino's renter-occupied households, with 17 percent overcrowded, while only five percent ofowner- occupiedhouseholds in Cupertino were overcrowded. Table 3.11: Overcrowded Households, 2000 (a) Owners Renters Total Overcrowded Cupertino Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent 1.51 or more persons per room(Severely Overcrowded) 148 1.3% 528 7.9% 676 3.7% 1.01 to 1.50 (Overcrowded) 452 3.9% 626 9.4% 1078 5.9% 1.00 or less 10,940 94.8% 5,523 82.7% 16,463 90.4% Total 11,540 100.0% 6677 100.0°/. 18,217 100% Overcrowded by Tenure 5.2 % 17.3 % 9,6% Owners Renters Total Overcrowded Santa Clara County Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent 1.51 or more persons per room (Severely Overcrowded) 13,216 3.9% 33,048 14.5 % 46,264 8.2% 1.01 to 1.50 (Overcrowded) 14,695 4.3% 19,945 8.6% 34,640 6.1% 1.00 or less 310,725 91.8% 174,234 76.7% 484,959 65.7% Total 338,636 100.0% 227,227 100.0% 565,863 100% Overcrowded by Tenure 8.2 % 23.3% 14.3 Notes: (a) The U.S. Census defines overcrowded an unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens). Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered sevedey overcrowded. Sources: U.S. Census, SF3-H2O, 2000; BAE, 2008. 21 17a - 28 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 3.5. Market Conditions & Income Related to Housing Costs This section of the needs assessment provides information on market conditions for housing in Cupertino. This information is important, because it reveals the extent to which the private housing market is providing for the needs of various economic segments of the local population. The information on housing market conditions is comt~ined with information on the demographics of the local population to identify those segments of the population that face difficulties in securing housing in Cupertino at costs that do not place theirs under excessive housing cost burden. Rental Market Characteristics and Trends A review of rental market conditions in Cupertino was conducted for this Housing Element by reviewing advertised apartment listings, and by obtaining Real Facts apartment data. Real Facts is a commercial database service that tracks rental a}~artment occupancy statistics and rents within Cupertino and other California cities. As shown nl Table 3.12, Real Facts reports rents for studios averaging $1,260 a month, a $1,685 average monthly rent for one-bedroom units, and a monthly rent of $1,915 and $2,849 for tvvo and three bedroom units, respectively. Cupertino rents were higher than current levels in 2000 at the peak of the dot com boom. Average irionthly rents subsequently declined to $1,519 in 2004 before rising again to $2,030 in 2008. Between 2004 and 2008, apartment rents within Cupertino have outpaced inflation, increasing by 34 percent. 2?_ 17a - 29 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 3.12: Overview of Rental Housing Market, Cupertino, 4t" Quarter 2008 (a) CURRENT MARKET DATA: Percent Avg. Avg. Avg. Unit Type Number of Mix Sq. Ft. Rent Rent/Sq. Ft. Studio 135 3% 466 $1,272 $2.73 Jr1BR/16A 69 2% 660 $1,115 $1.69 1 BRN BA 1,539 36% 720 $1,727 $2.40 1 BR TH 12 0% 909 $1,933 $2.13 2 BR/1 BA 582 13% 920 $1,844 $2.00 26R/1.5 BA 0% 2 BR/2 BA 1,350 31% 1,057 $2,319 $2.19 2 BR Townhouse 353 8% 1,070 $2,509 $2.34 3 BR/1.5 BA 3 BR/2 BA 172 4% 1,276 $2,762 $2.16 3 BR/3 BA 3 BR Townhouse 106 2% 1,321 $2,628 $1.99 Totals 4,318 100% 909 $2,032 $2.24 AVERAGE RENT HISTORY: 2006-2007 2007-2008 Unit TYpe 2006 2007 Change 2008 (b) Change studio $1,071 $1,199 12.0% $1,272 6.1% jr 1bd $1,265 $1,402 10.8% $1,115 -23.9% 1bd 1bth $1,444 $1,630 12.9% $1,727 8.1% 2bd lbth $1,719 $1,885 9.7% $1,844 -3.4% 2bd 2bth $1,997 $2,157 8.0% $2,319 13.5% 2bd TH $1,992 $2,306 15.8% $2,509 16.9% 3bd 2bth $2,450 $2,644 7.9% $2,762 9.8% 3bd TH $2,201 $2,433 10.5% $2,628 16.3% All $1,744 $1,928 10.6% $2,032 8.7% OCCUPANCY RATE: Average Year Occupancy 2004 95.8% 2005 96.2% 2006 96.7% 2007 96.5% 2008 96.3% AGE OF HOUSING INVENTORY (by Project): Percent of Year Projects 1960s 29% 1970s 33% 19805 5% 19906 33% 20005 0.0% Notes: (a) Represents only housing complexes with 50 units or more Sources: RealFacts, Inc., 2008; Bay Area Economics, 2008, 23 17a-30 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Home Sale Trends Home values in Cupertino have increased significantly since 2000. According to DataQuick Infoin~ation Systems, the median sales price for asingle-family Dome increased by 40 percent fi~om 5825;040 in 2000 to 51;153;000 in 2008. Condomituum sale prices experienced a parallel increase. gro~~,~ing by 42 percent from $450,000 to $680.000 bet~~~een 2000 and 2008. A~~l.~ile other areas of the state and nation have experienced do~~ nturns in the housing market recently, Cupertino home values have continued to gl-o~~~ (See Figure 3.1). Figure 3.1: Annual Median Home Price for Cupertino, 1990-2008 ~ 1, 400, 000 ~ 1, 200, 000 ~ 1, 000, 000 ~soo,ooo X600, 000 $400,000 S200, 000 $0 -Condos -Single Family Homes Sales volume for single-family homes peaked in 1949 ~a ith 812 units sold. The number of single- family home sales declined to 436 ututs in 2001 during the economic do~vntutn in Silicon ~~'alley. Sales volume of both single-family homes and condominiums in the City has fluctuated since 2001. As shown in Figure 3.2, condominium sales volwne parallel trends for single-family homes. In 2008, 337 suzgle-fatrtily homes and 140 condon>sniums ~~~ere sold in Cupertino. The decline in home sales in 2008 is indicative of the tightening credit market and cun-ent recession. 24 17a - 31 O ~- N c'~ ~ t.!) O ~ q O O N M rt tf') co t~ q 67 O O O) O m ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ O ~ O ~ O G7 O O O O O O N O O O N CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5l26/2009 Figure 3.2: Homes Sales Volume, Cupertino, 1990 - 2008 900 800 700 600 y 500 c ~ 400 300 200 100 0 --- Condos - Single Family FEorr~es Vacancy Rates and Trends Based on U.S. Census data, the vacancy rate for housing units in Cupertino ~~ as very low iii 2000. The Census reported a vacancy i ate of 2.7 percent in Cupertino, slightly higher than Santa Clara's vacancy rate of 2.3 percent (See Table 3.13). Ho~~ ever. Real Facxs; which sui~~eys large apartment comple?:es, reports that the 2008 vacancy rate for rental housing is higher at 4.6 percent. The rental vacancy rate has increased since 2004 «~hen 42 percent of Cupertino rental units «~ere not occupied. 25 17a - 32 O ~- N c7 ~t ~7 c~ ti ~ O O N c') ct tl> co r- o0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c~ rn c~ o~ u~ rn rn rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ r' ~ ~ r ~ ~- r- •-- ~ N N N N N N N N N CIT1( COUNCIL DRAFT5l26/2009 Table 3.13: Housing Occupancy and Vacancy Status, 2000 Occupancy Status Occupied Housing Units Vacant Housing Units For rent For sale only Rented or sold, not occupied For seasonal, n:creationa! or occasional use For migrant workers Other vacant (a) Total Cupertino Number Percent 18,217 97.3% 497 2.7% 132 0.7% 135 0.7% 65 0.3% 83 0.4% 53 0.3% 29 0.2% Santa Clara Coun Number Percent 565,863 97.7% 13,466 2.3% 4,450 0.8% 2,155 0.4% 2,294 0.4% 2,821 0.5% 202 0.0% 1,544 0.3% California Number Percent 11,502,870 94.2% 711,679 5.8% 201,388 1.6% 115,343 0.9% 54, 785 0.4% 261,950 2.1 2,194 0.0% 76,019 0.6% 18,714 100% 579,329 100% 12,214,549 100% Note: (a) If a vacant unit does not fall into any of the classifications specified above, it is classified as "other vacant." For example, this category includes units held for occupancy by a caretaker or janitor, and units held by the owner for personal reasons. Sources: US Census, SF3-H6 and He, 2000; BAE, 2D08. Housing Affordability According to the federal government, housing is considered "affordable" if it costs no more than 30 percent of the household's gross income. Often, affordable housing is discussed in the context of affordability to households with different income levels. Households are categorized as very low- income, low-income, moderate-income, or above moderate-income based on percentages of the Area Median Income (AMI) established annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Income limits vary by household size. Table 3.14 provides the maximum income limits for a four person household in Santa Clara County in 2008. Very low- and low-income households are eligible for federal, state, and local affordable housing programs. Moderate-income households are eligible for some state and local housing programs. These income categories are also used by the Association of Bay Area Governments in their Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Table 3.14: Household Income Limits, Santa Clara County, 2008 Income Category Extremely Low Income Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Santa Clara Median of Area Median Income Top of Income Range (a) 0% to 30% $31,850 31% to 50% $53,050 51% to 80% $84,f)00 80% to 120% $117,~t00 100% $97,f~00 Notes: (a) Based on HCD 2008 Household Income Limits a househcld of four in Santa Clara County. Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2008; BAE, 2008. 26 17a - 33 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26/2009 Another way to think of the household income categories is to consider what types of jobs people in these different categories might have. Figure 3.3 provides representative households for Santa Clara County, with hypothetical jobs and family compositions. Figure 3.3: Representative Households, Santa Clara County, 2008 Moderate Income Household (80% -120% AMI) ~ ~ • • Estimated Annual Income: $84,900 - $117,400 ~~~~ Dad works as an elementary school teacher, mom works as a secretary; they have two children. Low Income Household (50% - 80%AMI) ~ ~ • • Estimated Annual Income: $53,050 - $84,900 ~~~+~ Dad works as an office building janitor, mom works as a childcare provider; they have two children. Very Low Income Household (Up to 50%AMI) ~ • Estimated Annual Income: Up to $42,450 ~~ Mom works as a retail clerk and is the only source of financial support in her family; she has one child. Sources: Calfironia Department of Housing and Community Development, 2008; Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, 2008; BAE, 2008 Ability to Purchase/Rent Homes Table 3:15 shows affordability scenarios for four-person households with very low-, low-, and moderate-incomes. The analysis compares the maximum affordable sales price for each of these. households to the market rate prices in Cupertino between June 1, 2007 and June 1, 2008. The maximum affordable sales price was calculated using household income limits published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, conventional financing teams, and assuming that households spend 30 percent of gross income on mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance. Appendix D provides details the calculations for the maximum affordable sales price. Home sales data for Cupertino bet\veen June 1, 2007 and June 1, 2008 was obtained from DataQuick Information Systems. As shown in Table 3.15, the median sales price for a tluee bedroom, single-family home was $1,081,000. In comparison, the highest cost residence that amoderate-income family (earning up to 120 percent of AMI) could afford is $477,000. Only 1.7 percent of three bedroom single-family homes sold between June 1, 2007 and June 1, 2008 fall within this puce range. This analysis indicates that for all but above moderate-income households, current market prices present a 27 17a-34 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5I26/2009 serious obstacle to single-family homeownership. Condominiums are also out of reach for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Cupertino condominiums sold for a median price of $665,000 between June 1, 2007 and June 1, 2008 with an average cost per square foot of $521. As discussed previously, afour-person, moderate-income household could qualify to purchase a residence costing up to $477,000, which is still well below the median tluee bedroom condominium price of $886,000. There were no three bedroom condominiums sold between June 1, 2007 and June 1, 2008 that would be affordable to a four person, moderate income household. Current market rate rents for three-bedroom units in Cupertino were compared to the maximum affordable monthly rents for afour-person household in Santa Clara County. Maximum affordable monthly rents assumed that households pay 30 percent of gross income on rent and utilities. According to Real Facts, the average monthly rent for a three bedroom unit in Cupertino in the first quarter of 2008 was $2,762. This analysis suggests that low-, very low-, and extremely low- income households must pay significantly in excess of 30 percent of their incomes to compete in the current market without some foi7n of rental subsidy. The gap is especially large for extremely low- and very low-income households who have to pay more than 60 percent of their income to afford current market rents. Only moderate-incorle households can afford average monthly rents in Cupertino. 28 17a - 35 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 3.15. Affordability of Market Rate Housing in Cupertino (a) Max. Affordable For Sale Sale Price (b) Very Low-Income (Up to 50%AMI) $219,000 Low-Income (Up to 80%AMI) $350,500 Moderate-Income (Up to 120% AMI) $484,700 Median Sale Pdce Percent of SFRs Percent of Condos on Market within on Market within Price Range (c) Price Range (c) 0.6% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Single-Family Residence (c) Condominiums (c) $1,081,300 $885,800 Max. Affordable Average Market Rental Monthly Rent (d) Rent (e) Extremely Low Income (Up to 30%AMI) $640 $2,760 Very Low-Income (Up to SD°h AMI) $1,170 $2,760 Low-Income (Up to 80°k AMI) $1,960 $2,760 Moderate-Income (Up to 120% AMI) $2,780 $2,760 (a) Affordable sale price and rent based on aoour-person household income, as defined by CA HCD for Santa Clara Couniy. (b) Assumptions used to calculate affordable sale price. Annual Interest Rate (Fixed) 6.6% Freddie Mac, ten-year average. Tenn of mortgage (Years) 30 Percent of sale price as down payment 2pq, Initial property tax (annual) 1,10% Mortgage insurance as percent of loan amount 0.00 % Assumes 20% down payment. Annual homeowners insurance rate as percent of sale pdce 0.04% CA Dept. of Insurance, average, assuming $150K coverage. Percent of household income available for PITT 3p% PITT =Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance (c) Based on all full and verified sales of units with 3 bedrooms in Cupertino between June 1, 2007 and June 1, 2008. (d) Assumes 30 percent of household income spent on rent and utilities, based on Santa Clara Housing Authority utility allowance. (e) For three-bedroom units in Cupertino, per RealFacts. Based on rent survey from first quarter 2008. Sources: Data Quick, 2008; RealFacts, 2008; Santa Clara County Housing Authority, 2007; CA HCD, 2006; BAE, 2008. To augment this analysis, the household incomes of select occupations were analyzed to evaluate these workers' ability to rent or purchase a home in Cupertino. Figure 3.4 summarizes the household incomes for a range of occupations in Santa Clara County, based on 2000 Census data, with all incomes adjusted to 2008 dollars. Teachers, fue fighters, police officers, and nurses were selected for this analysis because these occupations are often considered vital to communities. This analysis shows that of these four vital professions, teachers have the lowest household incomes. Thirty-six percent of households with teachers are very low-, low-, and moderate-income households; 28 percent of firefighter households, 33 percent of police officer households, and 31 percent of nurse households earn less than 120 percent of AMI. Based on the analysis previously provided, these households earning moderate-incomes or less would have difficulty purchasing 29 17a - 36 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5126(2009 homes in Cupertino. Figure 3.74: Household Income of Select Occupations, Santa Clara County, 2000 (a) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50°io 40°~0 30% 20% ~ 0°° 0°0 s Above A/ioderate Income hAoderate Income h4edian Income Low Income Very Low income ~ Extremely Low Income Overpayment Acc.ordina to Department of Housing and Urban Development (HL~) standards, a household is considered to be '`cost-burdened" (i.e. overpa}ping for housing) if it spends more than 30 percent of gross income on housing-related costs. Households are "severely cost burdened" if they pay more than ~0 percent of their income on housing cost. The 2000 Census reports that 31 percent of renters and 28 percent of homeowners ~~~ere overpaying for housing in Cupertino in 2000. Ln Santa Clara County; 36 percent of renters and 28 percent of homeowners were cost-burdened. in 2000. The housing cost burden is particularly pronounced for extremely low- and very to«~-income households. In 2000, 61 percent of Cupertino's extremely low-income renters and 72 percent of very low-income renters ~~-ere severely cost burdened. This finding is consistent ~~.ith the analysis of the local housing market; ~~~hich revealed a significant gap betv~~een prices and rents and the ability oflower-income households to afford adequate housing. 30 17a-37 Teachers (b) Firefighters (c) Police Officers (d) 1Jurses (e) CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/2612009 Figure 3.5: Housing Cost Burden by Household Income Level, Cupertino ZOOU Renters i oo°i° - 90°0 - ao°io - 7o°i° - 60% -~~~ 60% - 40% - 30°io - 20% - i0% - 0% -- Extremeley Low \/ery Low Low (Jiedian and All Households Above No cost burden ~ Cost burden 30-50% Se~~~ere burden > 50% Homeowners 90% - - 80% - - 70% - - 60% -- - - 50% - - - 30% - 20% - ~~ Eriremeley Low Very Low Low hhedian and All Households Above Nocost burden ~ Cost burden 30-50% Severe burden > 50% 3.6. Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion State Law requires local Housing Elements to include an inventory of affordable housing developments that could be at risk of conversion to market rates during the 10-year pei~od that foliows the adoption of the Element. For those units found to be at risk of conversion, the Housing 31 17a - 38 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/2612009 Element must estimate the cost to preserve or replace the at-risk units, to identify the resources available to help in the preservation or replaceme~it of those units, and to identify those organizations that could assist in these efforts. Inventory of Existing Affordable Units Table 3.16 presents the inventory of affordable housing units in the City of Cupertino and indicates the earliest dates of tei7nination of affordability restrictions for each project. The affordable units that were developed as part of the City's below-market-rate program, which requires 15 percent of units be developed as BMRs are required to be affordable for 99 years and are not yet at risk of converting to market rate. 3~? 17a - 39 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26/2009 Table 3.16. Inventory of Affordable Rental Housing Units Number of Household Income Earliest Maturity Affordable Developments Affordable Units Very Low or Low Moderate Termination Date Date Sunnyview West 100 100 0 5/31/2004 8/1/2019 22449 Cupertino Rd. Stevens Creek Village 40 40 0 5!1/2037 19140 Stevens Creek Bivd. LeBeaulieu Apartments 27 27 0 9l12I2015 10092 Bianchi Way WVCS Transitional Housing 4 4 0 10311-10321 Greenwood Ct. Park Circle East 8 B 0 20651-20653 Park Circe East Beardon Drive 8 8 0 10192-10194 Beardon Dr. Vista Village 24 24 0 10114 Vista Drive TOTAL 211 211 0 Group Homes Adult Toward Independent Living 8 persons 19147 Anne Ln. Pacific Autism Center for Education 12 persons 19681 Drake Dr. 7576 Kirwin Ln Simms House 5 households Below Market Rate (BMR) Rental Units Lake Biltmore Apartments 10159 South Blaney Ave. 2 2 0 City Center Apartments 4 4 0 20380 Stevens Creek Blvd. The Hamptons 34 34 0 19500 Pruneridge Ave. Arioso Apartments 20 20 0 19608 Pruneridge Ave. Forge-Homestead Apartments 15 15 0 20691 Forge Way Aviare Apartments 22 22 0 20415 Vla Paviso Chateau Cupertino 10 10 0 10150 Tore Ave. TOTAL 107 107 0 Source: City of Cupertino, 2008; BAE, 2008 Units At Risk of Conversion During Next Ten Years The affordable housing developments at risk of conversion during the next ten years include those whose affordability restrictions expu•e in 2017 or earlier. As presented in Table 3.16, the lone project with affordability restrictions which will expire within the 10 year period following adoption of this element is the Le Beaulieu project with affordability restrictions expiring in September 2015. Cupertino Community Housing originally developed Le Beaulieu in 1984 and 33 17a - 40 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 utilized project based Section 8 vouchers. Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, a nonprofit organization, acquired and rehabilitated the projec~: in 1998. Le Beaulieu contains 27 one- and two- bedroom units for adults with physical disabilities who are able to live independently. All units are handicap accessible and affordable to low income households (less than 50 percent of AMI). Options for retaining this affordable housing resource in the community include preserving the units, or replacing them. An analysis of these two options follows. Preserve Affordability The HUD established Fair Market Rents (FMR) for Santa Clara County are generally lower than prevailing market rents in the Cupertino market arf;a. As shown in Table 3.17, cumulatively, the monthly subsidy being provided to these 27 units is $15,900 per month, or $191,200 per year in 2008 dollars. If the property owner is willing to enter into a rental subsidy agreement with the City or some other entity that would subsidize the rents on behalf of the lower-income renters, this would be the ongoing cost to provide equivalent subsidies. Table 3.17: At-Risk Housing Preservation Analysis Unit Type # Units FMR (a) Market Rents (b) Per Unit Gap (c) Total Gap (d) 1 BR 21 $1,113 $1,727 $614 $12,894 2 BR 6 $1,338 $1,844 $506 $3,036 Total 27 $15,930 Yeariy Cost to Preserve 2T Units (e) Total Cost to Replace Units (f) $191,180 $2,278,271 Notes: (a) 2009 Fair Market Rents for Santa Clara County as established by HUD. (b) Prevailing market rents in the City of Cupertino, as reported by RealFacts. (c) Represents the difference between Fair Marker Rents and prevailing market rents. (d) The total difference between rents received by project spon:~ors and the potential rental income the project could receive if ail units were rented ai prev~3iling market rates. (e) Represents the yearly cost to preserve current affordability levels in current 2008 dollars. (f) Represents the net present value of the yearly rent subsidy teased on a 30 year mortgage period and an interest rate of 7.5 percent. Source: BAE, 2008 Replace Affordable Units As an alternative to providing ongoing monthly rent subsidies, the City or another entity could attempt to purchase or develop replacement housin;; units that could be rented to the displaced lower-income households at similar rents. In order to make this possible, it would be necessary to provide a subsidy for the purchase or construction of the replacement units that would be the 34 17a - 41 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26!2009 equivalent of $191,200 per year in current dollars. The initial investment in existing or new housing units that would be necessary to allow a $191,200 reduction in annual rent can be estimated by calculating the net present value of mortgage payments equal to $15,900 per month on the theory that if the property manager (e.g., anon-profit housing organization) can reduce its required mortgage payments by $15,900 per month, then it could reduce the rents that it needs to charge its tenants by a similar amount. Based on a 30-year mortgage term at 7.5 percent interest, it would take an initial investment of approximately $2.28 million to reduce the monthly debt service by $15,900 per month. This analysis, however, likely understates the true cost of replacing the units, as it would be quite difficult to assemble an appropriate combination of subsidies to develop a similar project with the same mix of unit sizes and affordability levels. Financial Resources Available to the City to Assist in Preservation Clearly, the costs are substantial to preserve or replace housing units that currently rent below market rates. In light of the challenge, the City must consider what resources are available to help preserve or replace those units so that lower-income tenants are not displaced in the event that the projects are converted to market rates. The City has access to a range of different funds that could potentially assist in a preservation effort including: • City Affordable Housing Fund • CDBG Entitlement Funds • Mortgage Revenue Bonds • State Grant Programs ~ Federal Grant Programs • Low Income Housing Tax Credits • HUD Section 8 "Mark to Market" Program • Housing Trust of Santa Clara County Once the City becomes aware of an impending conversion, it will be necessary for to begin exploring the availability of funding from various sources at that particular time. In many cases, the City will fmd it advantageous to collaborate with private affordable housing developers or managers to develop and implement a viable plan to preserve affordable housing units. Private developers can often bring additional expertise and access to funding, such as tax credits. The State Department of Housing and Community Development maintains a listing of affordable housing developers and property managers who have expressed an interest in working with local communities on preservation of affordable housing projects. This database lists organizations that are interested in working in any county within the State of Califoiuia, including such well-known affordable housing providers as Mercy Housing, Inc., and EAH, Inc. The database also lists 35 17a - 42 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/2612009 numerous organizations that have expressed inter~:st in working on preservation projects in Santa Clara County in particular. This list includes such organizations as BRIDGE Housing Corporation, the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, and Eden )-{ousing. The organizations listed above are but a few of those listed in the HCD database that the City of Cupertino might consider as potential partners in the event that it becomes necessary to assemble a team to preserve an affordable housing project whose conversion to market rate housing is imminent. 3.7. Special Housing Needs This section of the needs assessment profiles populations with special housing needs, including large families, single parent families, extremely low income households, persons with disabilities, elderly households, farm workers, and homeless persons and families. Large Households Cupertino has a smaller proportion of large households (defined as five or more persons) than Santa Clara County. As shown in Table 3.18, 10 percent of all households in Cupertino has five or more persons in 2000 versus 16 percent in Santa (:lava County overall. Large households were more common among homeowners than renters; 11 percent of homeowner households had five or more persons compared to eight percent of renter households. Although Cupertino has a smaller proportion of large households than Santa Clara County, the city has a larger proportion of homes with three or more bedrooms. As shown in Table 3.19, 61 percent of units in Cupertino had three or more bedrooms compared to only 53 percent of Santa Clara County homes. In Cupertino, the most common home configuration for renters was two bedrooms, while households that owned their own home were more likely to live in tluee-bedroom units than any other housing type. 3(i 7 7a - 43 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 3.18: Household Size by Tenure, 2000 Owner Renter Total Cupertino Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1-4 persons 10,309 89.3% 6,152 92.1% 16,461 90.4% 5+ persons 1,231 10.7% 525 7.9% 1,756 9.6% Total 11,540 100.0% 6,677 100.0%' 18,277 100.0% Santa Clara County 1-4 persons 286,006 84.5% 192,273 84.6% 478,279 84,5% 5+ persons 52,630 15.5% 34,954 15.4% 87,584 15.5% Total 338,636 100.0% 227,227 100.0% 565,863 100.0% Sources: U.S. Census, SF3-H17, 2000; BAE, 2008 Table 3.19: Existing Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms, 2000 Owner Households Renter Households Total Cupertinio Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent No bedroom 33 0.3% 315 4.7% 348 1.9% 1 bedroom 540 4.7% 1,930 28.9% 2,470 13.6% 2 bedrooms 1,826 15.8% 2,524 37.8% 4,350 23.9% 3 bedrooms 4,218 36.6% 1,446 21.7% 5,664 31.1% 4 bedrooms 3,787 32.8% 397 5.9% 4,184 23.0% 5 or more bedrooms 1,136 9.8% 65 1.0% 1,201 6.6% Total 11,540 100.0% 6,677 100.0% 18,217 100.0% Santa Clara County No bedroom 5,487 1.6% 29,370 12.9% 34,857 6.2% 1 bedroom 16,168 4.8% 76,008 33.5% 92,176 16.3% 2 bedrooms 62,956 18.6% 75,466 33.2% 136,422 24.5% 3 bedrooms 132,230 39.0% 33,922 14.9% 166,152 29.4% 4 bedrooms 98,071 29.0% 10,633 4.7% 108,704 19.2% 5 or more bedrooms 23,724 7.0% 1,828 0.8% 25,552 4.5% Total 338,636 100.0% 227,227 100.0% 565,863 100.0% Sources: US Census, 5F3-H42, 2000; BAE, 2008 Female Headed Households Single female-headed households with children tend to have a higher need for affordable housing than family households in general. In addition, such households are more likely to need childcare since the mother is often the sole source of income and the sole caregiver for children within the household. 37 17a - 44 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 3.20 shows that in 2000, there were 600 single female householders with children in Cupertino. As a proportion of all families, such households represented three percent of all households in Cupertino and five percent of family households in the city. However, single female headed households with children living in poverty represented 31 percent of all families living below poverty in Cupertino in 2000. As Table 3.21 shows, there were approximately 160 single female headed households with children living be:!ow poverty in the City. The U.S. Census Bureau sets poverty level thresholds each year and they are often used to establish eligibility for federal services. Table 3.20: Family Characteristics, Cupertino, 2000 Percent Household Type Number of Total 1-person household: 3,532 19.4% Male householder 1,680 9.2% Female householder 1,852 10.2% 2 or more person household: 14,674 80.6% Family households: 13,642 79.9% Married-couple family: 11,771 64.7% With own children under 18 years 6,853 37.6% Other family: 1,871 10.3% Male householder, no wife present: 651 3.6% With own children under 18 years 222 1.2% Female householder, no husband present: 1,220 6.7% With own children under 18 years 617 3.4% Nonfamily households: 1,032 5.7% Male householder 693 3.8% Female householder 339 1.9% Total Households 18,206 100.0% Sources: U.S. Census, SF3-P10, 2000; Bay Area Economics, 2008. 33 17a - 45 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 3.21: Poverty Status, Cupertino, 2000 Families Below Poverty Line Number Percent Maned-couple Family 285 56.5% Other Family Male Householder 61 12.1% Female Householder 158 31.3% Total Families Below Poverty Line 504 100.0% Sources: U.S. Census, SF3-P90, 2000; BAE, 2008. According to Claritas estimates, the number of single female householders with children rose to 700 or four percent of all households in 2008. Cupertino's proportion of single female headed households with children is lower than Santa Clara County's proportion of five percent. In addition, Cupertino has an estimated 200 single male headed households with children in 2008. Exfremely Low-Income Households Extremely low-income households are defined as households earning less than 30 percent of area median income. These households may require specific housing solutions such as deeper income targeting for subsidies, housing with supportive services, single-room occupancy units, or rent subsidies or vouchers. In 2000, 1,300 Cupertino households earned less than 30 percent of AMI. Exhemely low-income households represented 10 percent of all renter households and five percent of all owner households in the city. A majority of extremely low-income households were severely overpaying for housing; 61 percent of renters and 55 percent of homeowners paid more than 50 percent of then gross income on housing. Table 3.22: Housing Needs, Extremely Low-Income Households , Cupertino Renters Owners Total Total Number of ELI Households 687 620 1307 Percent with Any Housing Problems 66.5% 65.5% 66.0% Percent with Cost Burden (30% of income) 63.6% 63.2% 63.4% Percent with Severe Cost Burden (50% of income) 61.0% 54.7% 58.0% Total Number of Households 6,683 11,534 18,217 Percent ELI Households 10.3% 5.4% 7.2% Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) special tabulations from Census 2000; BAE, 2008. 39 17a - 46 CITY COUNCI! DRAFT5/26/2009 Seniors Many elderly residents face a unique set of housutg needs, largely due to physical limitations, fixed incomes, and health care costs. Unit sizes and acressibility to transit, health care, and other services are important housing concerns for the elderly. Housing affordability also represents a key issue for seniors, many of whom are living on fixed incomes. As Table 3.23 shows, in 2000, 18 percent of Cupe:rtino householders were 65 years old or older, slightly higher than the 16 percent of Santa Clara County's population. A large majority of elderly households owned their homes; 86 percent of elderly households were homeowners, compared to 59 percent of householders aged 15 to 64 years. Table 3.23: Elderly Households by Tenure and Age, 2000 15-64 years Owner Renter Total Cupertino Number Percent 8,805 58.6% 6,222 41.4% Santa Clara county Number Percent 268,358 56.6% 205,742 43.4% 65 plus years Owner Renter Total Total Householders Percent Householders 65 plus years 15,027 ':00.0% 474,100 100.0% 2,735 85.7% 70,278 76.6% 455 14.3% 21,485 23.4% 3,190 100.0% 91,763 100.0% 18,217 565,863 17.5% 16.2% Sources: US Census, SF3-H14; BAE, 2008. Cupertino's elderly renter households were more likely to be lo~~~er-income than elderly owner households. Table 3.24 indicates that 65 percent of elderly renter households earned less than 80 percent of median family income compared to 36 percent of elderly owner households. 40 17a - 47 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 3.24: Household Income of Elderly Households by Tenure, Cupertino, 2000 (a) Elderly Renter Households Number Percent <=30% MFI 190 39.2% >30% to <=50% MFI 65 13.4% >50% to <=80% MFI 60 12.4% >=80%MFI 170 35.1% Total 485 100.0% Elderly Owner Households Number Percent <=30% MFI 294 10.7% >30% to <=50% MFI 395 14.4% >50% to <=80% MFI 297 10.8% >=80% MFI 1,765 64.2% Total 2,751 100% Notes: (a) Figures reported above are based on the HUD-published CHAS 2000 data series, which uses reported 1999 incomes. CHAS data reflect HUD-defined household income limits, for various household sizes, which are calculated for Cupertino. Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) special tabulations from Census 2000; BAE, 2008 41 17a - 48 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Generally, elderly households across the counhy tend to pay a larger portion of then income to housing costs than other households. While 31 pe;rcent of all renter households in Cupertino were overpaying for housing in 2000, 62 percent of elderly renter households were paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing. On the other hand, the proportion of elderly owner households overpaying for housing was smaller tl-ian the proportion of all Cupertino owner households; 22 percent of elderly owner households overpaid for housing versus 28 percent of all Cupertino owner households. Table 3.25: Housing Cost Burden by Elderly H~~useholds, Cupertino, 2000 (a) Eztr. Low Elderly Renter Households 190 with any housing problems 71.1% Cost Burden >30% 71.1 Cost Burden >50% 71.1 Elderly Owner Households 294 with any housing problems 54.1 Cost Burden >30% 50.7% Cost Burden >50% 44.2% Very Low_ Low f.5 60 69.2'% 58.3% 69.2'% 58.3% 69.2'% 58.3% 3f~5 297 32.9'% 12.8% 32.9'% 12.8% 20.3'% 6.1 All Elderly Median + Households 170 485 50.0% 61.9% 50.0% 61.9% 11.8% 48.5% 1,765 2,751 16.1% 22.2% 16.1% 21.9% 3.7% 10.7% Notes: (a) Figures reported above are based on the HUD-published ChiAS 2000 data series, which uses reported 1999 incomes. CHAS data reflect HUD-defined household income limits, for various household sizes, which are calculated for Cupertino. Definitions: Any housing problems: cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. Renter: Data do not include renters living on boats, RVs or vans. This excludes approximately 25,000 households nationwide. Cost Burden: Cost burden is the fraction of a household's total gross income spent on housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities. Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) special tabulations from Gensus 2000; BAE, 2008 Cupertino offers a number of resources for seniors. As shown in Table X, there are six Residential care facilities for the elderly and three skilled nursing facilities in Cupertino. Residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFEs), also known as ";assisted living" or "board and care" facilities, provide assistance with some activities of daily living while still allowing residents to be more independent than in most nursing homes. Skilled:sursing facilities, also known as nursing homes, offer a higher level of care, with registered nurses on staff 24 hours a day. In addition to assisted living facilities, there are t<vo subsidized independent senior housing developments in the City. As shown in Table 3.2E~, there are a total of 115 unit of affordable senior housing in Cupertino. Demand for these subsidized units is high. Staff at Sunnyview West estimate that there is over 500 people on the waitutg list and it currently takes approximately 5 years for individuals to get a unit. 4?_ 17a - 49 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 3.26: Housing Resources for the Elderly Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Paradise Manor 4 Pleasant Manor of Cupertino Purglen of Cupertino Sunnyview Manor (a) Zen's Care Home Total Location Capacity 23500 Cristo Rey Drive 741 19161 Muriel Lane 6 10718 Nathanson Avenue 6 10366 Miller Avenue 12 22445 Cupertino Road 115 20351 Bollinger Road 6 886 Skilled Nursing Facilities Health Care Center at Forum at Rancho San Antonio 23500 Cristo Rey Drive 48 Pleasant View Convalescent Hospital 22590 Voss Avenue 170 Sunnyview Manor 22445 Cupertino Road 47 Total 265 Subsidized Indepndent Senior Rental Housing Chateau Cupertino 10150 Torre Avenua 10 Park Circle 20651-20653 Park Circle East 8 Sunnyview West 22449 Cupertino Road 99 Total 107 Source: California Department of Social Services, 2008; California Healthcare Foundation, 2008; Avenidas, 2008; City of Cupertino, 2008; BAE, 2008 Persons with Disability A disability is a physical or mental unpainnent that limits one or more major life activities. Persons with a disability generally have lower incomes and often face ban-iers to finding employment or adequate housing due to physical or structural obstacles. This segment of the population often needs affordable housing that is located near public transportation, services, and shopping. Persons with disabilities may require units equipped with wheelchair accessibility or other special features that accommodate physical or sensory limitations. Depending on the severity of the disability, people may live independently with some assistance in their own homes, or may require assisted living and supportive services in special care facilities. Within the population of civilian, non-institutionalized residents over the age of five, 11 percent and 16 percent had a disability in Cupertino and Santa Clara County, respectively. 43 17a - 50 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26/2009 Table 3.27: Persons with Disabilities by Employment Status, 2000 Cupertino Age 5-64, Employed Persons with a Disability Age 5-64, Not Employed Persons with a Disability Persons Age 65 Pius with a Disability Total Persons with a Disability Total Population (Civilian Non-institutionalized 5 years +) 5,082 10.8% 47,102 100.0% Santa Clara County Percent of Total Number Population 114,389 7.4% 79,730 5.1% 60,610 3.9% 254,729 16.4% 1,552,217 100.0% Sources: U.S. Census, SF3-P42, 2000; BAE 2008. According to the 2000 Census, physical disabilities represented the most pervasive disability type for seniors. Among people under the age of 65, 2~~ percent of disabilities prevented individuals from working while 17 percent of disabilities prevented people from leaving their home to shop, visit the doctor, or access other services (a "go-outside-home disability"). Physical disabilities affected approximately 650 Cupertino residents. Table 3.28: Persons with Disabilities by Disabiliity Type, 2000 Cupertino Total Disabilities for Ages 5-64 Sensory Disability Physical disability Mental disability Self-care disability Go-outside-home disability Employment disability Percent of Total Number Disabilities 5,647 66.7% 376 4.4% 647 7.6% 617 7.3% 201 2.4% 1,453 17.2% 2,353 27.8% Santa Clara County Percent of Total Number Disabilities 319, 867 72.4% 18,284 4.1 41,897 9.5% 34,919 7.9% 14,885 3.4% 79,636 18.0% 130,246 29.5% Total Disabilities for Ages 65 and Over 2,823 33.3% 121,693 27.6% Sensory Disability 556 6.6% 20,564 4.7% Physical disability 962 11.4% 39,508 8.9% Menial disability 303 3.6% 18,128 4.1% Self-care disability 280 3.3% 12,897 2.9% Go-outside-home disability 722 8.5% 30,596 6.9% Total Disabilities Tailfed 8,470 100.0% 441,560 100.0% Sources: U.S. Census, SF3-P41, 2000; t3AE 2008 Table 3.29 below summatizes the licensed commuftity care facilities in Cupertino that serve some of the city's special needs groups. Adult residential facilities offer 24 hour non-medical care for 44 Percent of Total Number Population 2,149 4.6% 1,429 3.0% 1,504 3.2% 17a - 51 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 adults, ages 18 to 59 years old, who are unable to provide for their daily needs due to physical or mental disabilities. Group homes, small residential facilities that serve children or adults with chronic disabilities, provide 24 hour care by trained professionals. Table 3.29: Community Care Facilities in Cupertino Adult Residential Facilities Location Capacity Paradise Manor 2 19133 Muriel Lane 6 Paradise Manor 3 19147 Muriel Lane 6 Total 12 Group Homes Pace-Morehouse 7576 Kirwin Lane 6 Pacific Autism Center for Education Miracle House 19681 Drake Drive 6 Total 12 Notes: (a) Sunnyview Manor has 115 units for independent and assisted (RCFE) living. Ail 115 units are licensed as RCFE units, but residents may choose between indpendent and assisted living options. The distribution of indpendent and assisted living units varies over time. Source: Califomia Department of Social Services, 2008; Califomia Healthcare Foundation, 2008; BAE, 2008 Farmworkers As shown in Table 3.30, the USDA Census of Agriculture reported that there were approximately 5,500 fatmworkers in Santa Clara County in 2002. A majority of fatmworkers (69 percent) vas seasonally employed, working less than 150 days a year on a farm. Table 3.30: Farmworker Trends, Santa Clara County, 1992-2002 (a) Percent Santa Clara County 1992 1997 2002 Change Hired farm labor (farms) 438 494 484 10.5% Hired farm labor (workers) 6,821 5,779 5,456 -20.0% California Hired farm labor (farms) 38,347 36,450 34,342 -10.4% Hired farm labor (workers) 583,794 549,265 535,526 -8.3% Notes: Includes hired farm labor (workers and payroll). Source: USDA Census of Agriculture, Table 5, 1997,Table 7, 2002; BAE, 2008. Families and Individuals in Need of Emergency or Transitional Shelter. Demand for emergency and transitional shelter in Cupertino is difficult to determine, given the episodic nature of homelessness. Generally, episodes of homelessness among families or 45 17a - 52 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 individuals can occur as a single event or periodically. The 2007 Sa~tta Clm•a County Homeless Survey reported apoint-in-tune count of 7,202 homeless people on the streets and in emergency shelters, transitional housing, and domestic violer~ce shelters. This included 53 homeless individuals in the City of Cupertino. This count, however, should be considered conservative because many homeless individuals cannot be found, even with the most thorough methodology. Table 3.31: Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey, 2007 (a) Individuals Total Setting Individuals Within Families Population % Total Cupertino Unsheltered (b) 15 0 15 28.3% Emergency Shelters 26 12 38 71.7% Total 41 12 53 100.0% Total 77% 23% 100% Santa Clara County Unsheltered 4,840 261 5,101 70.8% Emergency Shelters (c) 759 240 999 13.9% Transitional Housing Facilities (c) 346 756 1,102 15.3% Total 5,945 •1,257 7,202 100.0% Total 82.5% 17.5% 100.0% Notes: (a) This Homeless Census and Survey was conducted over a two dray period, from Jan. 29 to Jan. 30th, 2007. Mountain View unsheltered homeless data was crollected on Jan 30, 2007. This survey, per HUD's new requirements, does not include people in rehabilitation facilities, hospitals or jails due to more narrow HUD definition of point-in-time homelessness. (b) Individuals found sleeping in cars, RV's, vans, or encampments ,are considered part of the "unsheltered" homeless. In this survey, 57 individuals were counted sleeping in motor vehicles in Mountain View on Jan 30, 2007. (c) Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing data was collected from individual facilities on Jan.28, 2007. Sources: Homeless Census and Survey, Santa Clara County and Applied Survey Research (ASR), Jan 29-30, 2007; BAE, 2009 Table 3.32 below provides a listing of facilities within Cupertino that serve the needs of homeless. Emergency shelters provide temporary shelter for ::ndividuals and families while transitional shelters serve families making a transition fi-om homelessness to permanent housing. West Valley Community Services operates a rotating shelter program and a transitional housing facility for homeless individuals. 46 17a - 53 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 3.32: Homeless Facilities in Cupertino Organization/Agency Facility Address Total Beds Emergency Shelters West Valley Community Services Rotating Shelter 11 churches and one synagogue 15 in Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and Saratoga Transitional Housing West Valley Community Services Transitional 10311-10321 Greenwood Ct. 4 Total 19 Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE 2009 The rotating shelter program provides shelter, food, transportation, job search apparel, and case management services to homeless men. The shelter operates at 11 churches and one synagogue in Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and Saratoga. The program provides assistance for 15 homeless men for 90 days, including an average of about five men from Cupertino. The program typically has a waiting list of 20 people. West Valley Community Services staff believes that there is a need for more emergency shelter services in Cupertino. In addition, West Valley Community Services owns and operates a transitional housing project which accommodates up to four working homeless men and homeless women with children. The program serves successful graduates of the rotating shelter program and other eligible individuals. 3.8. Summary • Cupertino grew faster than Santa Clara County and the Bay Area between 2000 and 2008. The City's population increased by 10 percent from 50,600 people to 55,600. However, some of this grov~~th is due to the annexation of 168 acres of unincorporated land in Santa Clara County between 2000 and 2008. • ABAG projects Cupertino will grow to 60,600 residents by 2035. Santa Clara County and the Bay Area are anticipated to experience larger population increases of 29 and 23 percent between 2005 and 2035; Cupertino's population is expected to increase by 11 percent during the same time. Cupertino has an aging population. The median age in Cupertino rose from 37.9 years old in 2000 to 40.8 years old in 2008. The percent of elderly residents, aged 65 years old and older, increased from 11 percent to 13 percent. 47 17a-54 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 The City has a high percentage of family households; in 2008 family households comprise 75 percent of all households in Cupertino, compared with 70 percent of Santa Clara County households. Cupertino is becoming an increasingly jol:~s-rich city. The number of jobs in Cupertino increased by 14 percent between 2003 and 2007 while the number of employed residents increased by just five percent. The City's housing stock is dominated by single-family detached homes; 61 percent of homes were single-family detached dwellings in 2008. Although the number of large multi-family housing units experienced th~~ most rapid growth between 2000 and 2008, Cupertino still has a smaller proportion ofmulti-family housing units than Santa Clara County. • Virtually all housing units in Cupertino have complete plumbing and kitchen facilities; less than one percent of homes lack these facilities. A certain small number ofsingle-family homes in certain areas show need of rehab ilitation and improved maintenance. • Housing costs have increased since 2000. Single-family home prices rose by 40 percent behveen 2000 and 2008 while condominium prices increased by 42 percent. • All but above moderate income households would have difficulty purchasing asingle- family home or condominium in Cupertino. • Current market rents of $2,762 for a three bedroom unit exceed the maximum affordable monthly rent for extremely low income, very low income, and low income households. • In 2000, 31 percent of renters and 28 percc;nt of homeowners were overpaying for housing in Cupertino. • In 2000, 62 percent of elderly renter households were overpaying for housing. • The 2007 Santa Clara County Homeless Survey reported apoint-in-time count of 7,202 homeless people on the streets and in emergency shelters, transitional housing, and domestic violence shelters, including 53 individuals in the City of Cupertino. 4fZ 17a - 55 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 4. Reg~arla~ F~c~us~rtg feeds ~etermina~ial~s ~Q07~~Q'~4 This section of the Housing Element discusses Cupertino's projected housing needs for the current planning period, which runs from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2014. 4.1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584, the State, regional councils of government (in this case, ABAG) and local governments must collectively determine each locality's share of regional housing need. In conjunction with the State-mandated Housing Element update cycle that requires Bay Area jurisdictions to update their Housing Elements by June 30, 2009,.ABAG has allocated housing unit production needs for each jurisdiction within the Bay Area. These allocations set housing production goals for the planning period that runs from January 1, 2007 tlu-ough June 30, 2014. The following is a suinmaty of ABAG's housing need allocation for Cupertino, along with housing production data for the 2007-2014 time period. Table 4.1 presents a summary of ABAG's housing needs allocation for Cupertino for 2007 to 2014. Table 4.1: RHNA, Cupertino, 2007-2014 Projected Percent Income Category Need of Total Very Low (0-50% of AMI) 341 29.1% Low (51-80%AMI) 229 19.6% Moderate (81-120% of AMI) 243 20.8% Above Moderate (over 120% of AMI) 357 30.5% Total Units 1,170 100.0% Sources: ABAG, 2007; BAE, 2008. The City of Cupertino may count housing units constructed, approved, or proposed since January 1, 2007 toward satisfying its RHI~TA goals for this planning period. As shown in Table 4.2, 533 units have been constructed, approved,'or proposed within this planning period. The City has ah-eady met its RHNA for above moderate-income units, but has a remaining allocation of 717 very low-, low-, and moderate-income units. 49 17a - 56 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 4.2: Units Constructed, Approved, and Planned, 1/1107 -present Affordability Address Project Name APN Very Low Low Moderate Above Total 10056 Orange Ave. 357-17-058 0 D 0 2 2 10217 Pasadena Ave. 357-18-025 0 0 0 1 1 21871 Delores Ave. 357-14-026 0 D D 1 1 10121 Pasadena Ave. 357-17-045 0 0 0 1 1 Sandhill Main Street Senior Housing 316-20-078, 79, 85 0 0 24 136 160 10123!10150 N. Wolfe Rd. Rose Bowl 316-20-037 0 0 31 173 204 2800 Homestead Road Vilia Serra 326-09-(156 9 8 0 99 116 10630 Linnet Lane 3167-(t17 0 0 D 3 3 10855 N. Stelling Rd, Las Palmas 326-07di37 0 0 3 19 22 22823 San Juan Road 342-22-Ci78 0 0 0 1 1 21947 Lindy Lane 356-25-t~29 0 0 0 1 1 19935 Price St. Senior Housing Solutions 369-05-C35 5 0 0 0 5 19489 Rosemarie Place Maitri Transitional Housing 375-01-C~08 8 8 0 0 16 Total Credits 22 16 58 437 533 2007-2014 RHNA 341 229 243 357 1,170 Balance of RHNA (a) 319 213 185 n/a 717 Notes: (a) Balance of RHNA is equal to sum of very low, low, and moderate-income units. City has satisfied its above moderate income RHNA Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009 4.2. Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households State law requires Housing Elements to quantify altd analyze the existing and projected housing needs of extremely low-income households. HUD defines an extremely low-income household as one earning less than 30 percent of AMI. These households encounter a unique set of housing situations and needs, and may often include spe+rial. needs populations or represent families and individuals receiving public assistance, such as social security insurance (SSl) or disability insurance. As discussed in the Needs Assessment section of the Housing Element, approximately 1,300 Cupertino households earned less than 30 percent of AMI in 2000. Extremely low-income households represented 10 percent of all renter households and five percent of all owner households in the city. To estimate the projected housing need for extremely low-income households, 50 percent of Cupertino's 341 very low-income RHNA units are assumed to serve extremely low-income households. Based on this methodology, the City 1;.as a projected need of 171 units for extremely 50 17a - 57 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 low-income households. Extremely low-income households often rely on supportive housing as a means of hansitioning into stable, more productive lives. Supportive housing combines housing with supportive services such as job training, life skills training, substance abuse programs, and case management services. Efficiency studios can also provide affordable housing opportunities for extremely low-income households. 51 17a-58 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 5. FEQUSing CQns~raEnts Section 65583(a)(4) of the California Govemmen~: Code states that the Housing Element must analyze "potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures." Where constraints are identified, the City is required to take action to mitigate or remove them. In addition to government constraints, this section assesses other factors that may constrain the production of affordable housing in Cupertino. These include infrastructure availability, environmental features, economic and financing c~~nstraints, and public opinion. 5.1. Government Constraints Government regulations affect housing costs by limiting the supply of buildable land, setting standards and allowable densities for development, and exacting fees for the use of land or the conshuction of homes. The increased costs associated with such requirements are often passed on to consumers in the form of higher home prices and rents. Potential regulatory constraints include local land use policies (as defined in a community"s general plan), zoning regulations and their accompanying development standards, subdivision regulations, growth control ordinances or urban limit lines, and development impact and building I~ernut fees. Lengthy approval and processing times also inay be regulatory constraints. Genera/ P/an The Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020 was completed in I~TOVember 2005. The comprehensive update provides the policy and program direction necessary to guide the City's land use decisions iu the fu-st hvo decades of the 21st century. The e~asting General Plan is current and legally adequate and is not considered an impediment to housing production. As required by State law, the General Plan includes a land use map indicating the allowable uses and densities at various locations in the city. The band Use/Conununity Design section of the Plan identifies five categories of residential uses based on dwelling unit density, expressed as the number of dwelling units permitted per gross acre. The "Very Low Density" classification, intended to protect environmentally sensitive areas from extensive development and to protect human life from hazards associated with floods, fires, and unstable terrain, applies one of four slope-density formulae to determine allowable residential density. The "Low Density" and "Low/Medium Density" categories promote traditional single-family development, allowing densities of 1 to 5 units per gross acre and 5 to 10 Lnits per gross acre, respectively. Finally, the 52 17a - 59 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/2612009 "Medium/High Density" and the "High Density" categories provide for a wide range of multi- family housing opportunities at densities of 10 to 20 units per gross acre and 20 to 35 units per gross acre, respectively. In addition to the five residential categories, the General Plan allows for residential uses in the "ConunerciaUResidential" and "Neighborhood CommerciaUResidential" land use categories. None of the City's General Plan policies have been identified as housing constraints. The General Plan does not define whether residential units are to be rented or owned or whether they are to be attached or detached. The General Plan's land use policies incorporate housing goals, including the following: Policy 2-1: Concentrated Development in Urban Centers -Concentrate development in urban nodes and selectively include housing with office and commercial uses in appropriate designated centers. Policy 2-15: Multi-Family Residential Design - Maintain a superior living environment for multi-family dwellings Policy 2-16: Single-Family Residential Design -Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by requiring new development to be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Policy 2-19: Jobs/Housing Balance -Strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs and housing units. Policy 2-23: Compatibility of Lot Sizes -Ensure that zoning, subdivision, and lot line adjustment requests related to lot size or lot design consider the need to preserve neighborhood lot patterns. The General plan contains very few policies addressing the siting of housing, other than those pertaining to hillside areas. The City's land use policies limit development in hillside areas to protect hillside resources but allows for low-intensity residential development in the foothills. Thus, even in hillside areas, the General Plan creates limited opportunities for housing production. Zoning Ordinance The Cupertino Zoning Ordinance establishes development standards and densities for new housing in the City. These regulations include minimum lot sizes, maximum number of dwelling units per acre, lot width, setbacks, lot coverage, maximum building height, and minimum parking requirements. These standards are summarized in Appendix E. As required by state law, the Cupertino's Zoning Map is consistent with the General Plan. The 53 17a - 60 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 City's residential zoning districts and their respective permitted densities and development standards are summarized below. R-1 Single Family Residential. The R-1 District is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas suitable for detached single-family dwelling:>. The District includes five sub-districts that vary by minimum lot size from 5,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. Residential structures in the R-1 District are limited in size by a maximum (ot coverage of 45 percent and a maximum floor area ratio of 45 percent. Setbacks are 20 feet in th e front and rear yards and a combined 15 feet of side yards, with no one side yard setback less than 5 feet. The maxunum building height of 28 feet allows for a wide range of single family housing t}~pes on flat terrain. Structures in R-1 Districts with an "i" designation at the end are limited to one story (18 feet). Two-story structures in the R-1 District require aTwo-Story Residential Permit. The Director of Community Development may approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for atwo-story residential permit. Projects must be harmonious ire scale and design with the general neighborhood R-2 Residential Duplex. The R-2 Disri-ict is intended to allow a second dwelling unit under the same ownership as the initial dwelling unit on a site. Minimum lot area ranges from 8,500 square feet to 15,000 square feet, depending on which one; of four sub-districts the parcel is located in. Building heights in this district cannot exceed 30 feet. The R-2 District limits lot coverage by all buildings to 40 percent of net lot area. Setbacks are 20 feet in the front yard and the greater of 20 feet and 20 percent of lot depth in the rear yard; thy: minimum side yard setback is 20 percent of the lot width. Structures in R-2 Districts with an "i" designation at the end are limited to one story (18 feet). R-3 Multi-Family Residential. The R-3 District pemuts multi-family residential development in Cupertino. This Dishict requires a minimum lot area of 9,300 square feet for a development with 3 dwelling units and an additional 2,000 square feet :'or every additional dwelling unit. The minimum lot width in the R-3 District is 70 feet and lot coverage may not exceed 40 percent. For single-story structures, required setbacks are 20 feet in the front yard, six feet in the side yard, and the greater of 20 feet or 20 percent of lot depth in fae rear yard; the minimum side yard setback for two-story sriuctures is nine feet. The maximum height any building is rivo stories and may not exceed 30 feet. RHS Residential Hillside. The RHS District regulates development in the City's hillsides to balance residential uses with the need to preserve the natural setting and protect life and propeiTy from natural hazards. The District allows for single-family dwellings with no more than one unit per lot. Seven sub-districts determine the minimum lot size, which range from 20,000 square feet 54 17a - 61 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 to 400,000 square feet. The minimum lot width in the RHS District is 70 feet with an exception for lots served by a private driveway and which do not adjoin a public street. R-1C Residential Single Family Cluster. The purpose of the R-1C District is to provide a means for reducing the amount of street improvements and public utilities required in residential development, to conserve natural resources, and encourage more create development and efficient use of space. The owner of a property within Cupertino may submit an application for single- family residential cluster zoning or rezoning to the Planning Commission. Alternatively, the Planning Commission and/or the City Council may initiate a public hearing to rezone specific properties to the R-1C District. The allowable density on a parcel is determined by the existing land use designations in place prior to the rezoning. While the maximum height in the district is 30 feet, a height increase may be permitted if the City Council or Planning Commission determines that it would not have an adverse impact on the immediately adjacent neighborhood. The R-1C District also regulates site design and private streets within the cluster. A Agricultural. Agricultural zones are intended to preserve agriculture and forestry and to provide corridors of agriculture and foresriy between cities or neighborhoods. Single-family dwellings are permitted in the Agricultural District. The minimum lot size for this District is 215,000 square feet and the maximum lot coverage is 40 percent of the net lot area. The District requires setbacks of 30 feet in the fiont yard, 20 feet in the side yards, and 25 feet in the rear yard. The maximum building height of 28 feet allows for a wide range of single family housing types on flat terrain. Structures in the A District with an "i" designation at the end are limited to one story (18 feet). A-lAgricultural-Residential. The A-1 District provides for semi-rural residential development while preserving agriculture and foresriy activities. Single-family dwellings as well as residences for farmworkers and their families are permitted in the A-1 District. The minimum size of lots with incidental residential uses in the A-1 District is 43,000 square feet. Building coverage cannot exceed 40 percent of the lot area and the maximum floor area ratio is 45 percent. The District requires setbacks of 30 feet in the front yard, 20 feet in the side yards, and 25 feet in the rear yard. The maximum building height of 28 feet allows for a wide range of single faznily housing types on flat terrain. Structures in the A-1 District with an "i" designation at the end are limited to one story (18 feet). In addition to the districts discussed above, limited residential uses are allowed in other zoning districts. Often housing in these non-residential districts is limited to housing for farmworkers, employees, or caretakers. The permitted residential uses in non-residential districts are summarized below. 55 17a - 62 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 D'IL Light Industrial. Residential dwellings for caretakers or ~a~atchmen are permitted for those employed for the protection of the principal light industrial perntted use. The residential dwellings must be provided on the same lot as the principal 1ermitted use. PR Park and Recreation. The PR District regulates publicly owned parks within the City. Single-family residences for the purpose of housing a caretaker for the park are perntted in this District. A caretaker is defined as a person ~vho maintains surveillance of the park areas during and after the hours ofpark operation. The residence may take the form of a mobile home or a permanent residential structure. Parking Excessive parking requirements may serve as a constraint of housing development by increasing development costs and reducing the amount of land available for project amenities or additional units. Off-street residential parking requirements vary by zone. As shown in Table S.l, the parking ratio ranges from two packing spaces per c:welling unit to 4 spaces per dwelling unit. Table 5.1:Off-Street Parking Requirements Housing Type Zone Parking Ratio Single-Family R-1, RHS, A-1, P 4 / DU (2 garage, 2 open) Small Lot Single-Family, Townhouse P 2.8 / DU (2 garage, 0.8 open) Duplex R-2 3 / DU (1.5 enclosed, 1.5 open) High Density Multi-Family R-3, P 2 / DU (1 covered, 1 open) Sources: Cupertino Zoning Ordinance, 2008; BAE, 2008 Cupertino's parking requirements are higher than many other jm-isdictions, particularly for single- family homes. Given the high cost of land and parking, the City's high parking standards may serve as a constraint to housing provision. In addition to high off-street parking standards, the Zoning Ordinance does not include parking reductions for senior housing, affordable housing, or group homes. Often, vehicle ownership among elderly and lower-income households is lower than other populations, making reductions in parking re~~uirements appropriate. The City may want to consider establishing more lower and more flexible; residential parking standards. Provisions for Homeless Shelters, Group h-omes, and Farmworkers The Zoning Ordinance allows for "rotating homeless shelters" in the Quasi Public Building (BQ) zone. Rotating homeless shelters are permitted within existing church st-uctures in the BQ for up to 25 occupants. The operation period of rotating ~ helters cannot exceed two months in any one year span at a single location. 56 17a - 63 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Cupertino's zoning ordinance does not permit or conditionally permit permanent homeless shelters in any zone. The previous Housing Element indicated that the City would revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow permanent emergency shelter facilities in the BQ Quasi Public Building zone. The City has not yet revised the Ordinance to allow for permanent homeless shelters. In order to comply with state law, this Housing Element outlines a program to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow a permanent homeless shelter by right in the BQ zoning district. Pursuant to State law, licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer residents are permitted by right in all residential districts (including A, A-1, R-1, R-2. R-3, RHS, R-1C). Licensed small group homes are not subject to special development requirements, policies, or procedures which would impede such uses from locating in a residential district. Furthermore, small group homes which are not required to obtain a license and large group homes (with more than six residents) are conditionally permitted uses in all residential districts. Farrnworker housing is a permitted use in Agricultural (A) and Agricultural Residential (A-1) Disticts. Fannworker housing is allowed for workers and their families whose primary employment is incidental and necessary to agricultural operations conducted on the same parcel of land on which the residences are located. This requirement does not pose a significant constraint to locating fannworker housing in Cupertino. There are no special development standards or procedures for fannworker housing. However, the high cost of land, absence of seasonal agriculture, and lack of significant farmworker population in the City makes it unlikely that proposals for farmworker housing will be received in the futwe. Second Dwelling Units A second dwelling unit is an attached or detached, self-contained unit on asingle-family residential lot. These units are often more affordable due to their smaller size. To promote the goal of affordable housing within the City, Cupertino's zoning ordinance permits second dwelling units on lots in Single-Family Residential (R-1), Residential Hillside (RHS), Agricultural (A), and Agricultural Residential (A-1) Districts. Second dwelling units on lots of 10,000 square feet or more may not exceed 800 square feet while units on lots smaller than 10,000 square feet cannot exceed 640 square feet. All second dwelling units must have direct outside access without going through the principal dwelling. If the residential lot is less than 10,000 square feet, the second dwelling unit must be attached to the principal dwelling. One additional off-st-eet parking space is must be provided if the principal dwelling unit has less than the minimum off-street parking spaces for the residential district in which it is located. Second dwelling units must also comply with the underlying site development regulations specified by the zoning district. Second dwelling units are subject to an architectural review by the Director of Community Development. The design and building materials of the proposed second unit must be consistent 57 17a - 64 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 with the principal dwelling. In addition, the second dwelling unit may not require excessive grading which is visible from a public street or adj oining private property. Site Improvement Requirements Residential developers are responsible for constvcting road, water, sewer, and storm drainage improvements on new housing sites. Where a project has off-site impacts, such as increased runoff or added congestion at a nearby intersection, additional developer expenses may be necessary to mitigate impacts. These expenses may be passed ~~n to consumers. Chapter 18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (the ,3ubdivision Ordinance) establishes the requirements for new subdivisions, including the provision of on- and off-site improvements. The Ordinance requu-es that subdivisions comply with frontage requirements and stormwater runoff be collected and conveyed by an approved storm draia system. Furthermore, each unit or lot within the subdivision must be seined by an approved sarutary sewer system, domestic water system, and gas, electric, telephone, and cablevision facilities. All utilities within the subdivision and along peripheral streets must be placed underground. The Subdivision Ordinance also includes land dedication and fee standards for parkland. The formula for dedication of park land for residential development is based on a standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. The developea• must dedicate parkland based on this formula or pay an in lieu fee based on the fair market value of the land. In addition to parkland dedication, the City Counc::l may require a subdivider to dedicate lands to the school district as a condition of approval of the fmal subdivision map. If school site dedication is required and the school district accepts the land, the district must repay the subdivider the original cost of the dedicated land plus the cost of,rny improvements, taxes, and maintenance of the dedicated land. The developer may also be required to reserve land for a park, recreational facility, fire station, library, or other public use if such a facility is shovrn on an adopted specific plan or adopted general plan. The public agency benefiting from t}re reserved land shall pay the developer the market value of the land at the time of the filing of the tentative map and any other costs incurred by the developer in the maintenance of the area. The Ordinance states that the amount of land to be reserved shall not make development of the remaining land held by the developer economically unfeasible. ' Building Codes The City of Cupertino has adopted the 2007 Editio:a of the California Building Code, the 2007 California Electrical Code and Uniform Administrative Code Provisions, the International 58 17a - 65 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Association of Plumbing Officials Uniform Plumbing Code (2007 Edition), the California Mechanical Code 2007 Edition, and the 2007 California Fire Code and the 2006 International Fire Code. The City also enforces the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Housing Code, the 1997 Uniform Code for Building Conservation, and the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code. Cupertino has adopted several amendments to the 2007 California Building Code. The City requires that roof coverings on new buildings and replacement roofs comply with the standards established for Class A roofimg, the most fire resistant type of roof covering. This amendment applies more stringent roofing requirements than the California Building Code, which requires a minunum of Class B or Class C roofing, depending on the construction type. The California Building Code and the City's amendments to it have been adopted to prevent unsafe or hazardous building conditions. The City's building codes are reasonable and would not adversely affect the ability to construct housing in Cupertino. Constraints for Persons with Disabilities California Senate Bill 520 (SB 520), passed in October 2001, requires local housing elements to evaluate constraints for persons with disabilities and develop programs which accommodate the housing needs of disabled persons. Procedures for Ensuring Reasonable Accommodation. Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to particular policies that facilitate equal access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access stuctures or reductions to parking requirements. Many jurisdictions do not have a specific process specifically designed for people with disabilities to make a reasonable accommodations request. Rather, cities provide disabled residents relief from the strict terms of their zoning ordinances through existing variance or conditional use permit processes. Cupertino is one of these jurisdictions. Currently the City addresses reasonable accommodations on an ad hoc basis through variance and conditional use procedures. The City does not however have a fornialized policy regarding reasonable accommodation procedures for persons with disabilities. In May 15, 2001 letter, the California Attorney General recommended that cities adopt formal procedures for handling reasonable accommodations requests. While addressing reasonable accommodations requests through variances and conditional use permits does not violate fair 59 17a - 66 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 housing laws, it does increase the risk of wrongfully denying a disabled applicant's request for relief and incurring liability for monetary damages and penalties. Furthermore, reliance on variances and use permits may encourage, in some circumstances, community opposition to projects involving much needed housing for peiscros with disabilities. For these reasons, the Attorney General encouraged jurisdictions to amend their zoning ordinances to include a written procedure for handling reasonable accommodations requests. Zoning and Other Land Use Regulations. In conformance to state law, Cupertiuo's Zoning Ordinance permits small, licensed residential care facilities (six or fewer residents) in all residential zones. Small residential care facilities that are not required to be licensed by the State and large, licensed and unlicensed residential care facilities ;rre conditionally permitted in all residential zones. Licensed and unlicensed residential care facilities with more than six residents in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District are subject to siting restrictions that are not present in other residential zones. The City's Zoning Ordinance contains a broad de `•inition of family. A family means an individual or group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. Families are distinguished from gr~~ups occupying a hotel, lodging club, fraternity or sorority house, or institution of any kind. This de:fmition of family does not limit the number of people living together in a household and does no t require them to be related Cupertino's Zoning Ordinance does not currently offer reductions in parking requirements for group homes. The City may consider parking redactions for residential care facilities. Building Codes and Permitting. The City's Building Code does not include any amendments to the California Building Code that might diminish the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities. However, the City may want to consider adoption of universal design elements as part of the building code. Universal design refers to the development of products and environments that are usable by all people, to the greatest extent pos;>ible, .without the need for specialization or adaptation. Housing Mitigation Plan The City's Housing Mitigation plan requires all ne:w residential developers to either provide below market rate (BMR) units or pay an in-lieu fee. Under this program, developers must designate at least 15 percent of units as affordable. For-sale B:YIR units must be affordable to median- and moderate-income households while affordable rental units must serve very low- and low-income households. Projects of seven or more units must provide on-site BMR units. Projects of six units or less can either build a unit or provide pay an in-lieu fee. Cm-rently, the in-lieu fee is $2.58 per square foot. 61) 17a - 67 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Although concerns exist that inclusionary housing programs like Cupertino's Housing Mitigation Program may constrain production of market rate homes, studies have shown evidence to the contrary. The cost of an inclusionary housing requirement must ultimately be borne by either (1) developers through a lower return, (2) landowners through decreased land values, or (3) other homeowners through higher market rate sale prices. In fact, the cost of inclusionary housing and any other development fee "will always be split between all players in the development process." 3 However, academics have pointed out that, over the long teen, it is probable that landowners will bear most of the costs of inclusionary housing, not other homeo~~~ners or the developer (Mallach 1984, Hagman 1982, Ellickson 1985). In addition, a 2004 study on housug starts between 1981 and 2001 in communities throughout California with and without inclusionaty housing programs evidences that inclusionary housing programs do not lead to a decline in housing production. In fact, the study found that housing production actually increased after passage of local inclusionary housing ordinances in cities as diverse as San Diego, Carlsbad, and Sacramento. Recognizing the need for a fmancially feasible program that does not constrain production, some jurisdictions allow developers to pay an in-lieu fee for all units, regardless of project size. As discussed previously, Cupertino's Housing Mitigation program requires large developments (with seven or more units) to provide units. One local developer noted that although the 15 percent requirement is comparable to other jurisdictions, the option to provide an in-lieu fee for large projects would provide more flexibility. Park Impact Fees The City of Cupertino assesses park impact fees for new residential development. The fee ranges from $8,100 per unit of high density residential development (at 20 dwelling units per acre or snore) to $15,750 per single-family unit. Cupertino's park fees are comparable to or lower than similar requirements established in other Santa Clara County jurisdictions. Mountain View and San Jose require park land dedication or the payment of a park in-lieu fee. The in-lieu fee in both cities are based on fair market value of the land. San Jose's park fees for single-family detached units ranged from $15,850 to $38,550, depending on the area of the City. Park fees for multifamily units in San Jose ranged fiom $10,450 to $35,600, depending on location and the size of the development. In Mountain View, park in-lieu 3 W.A. Watkins. "Impact of Land Development Charges." Land Economics 75(3). 1499. e David Rosen. "Inclusionary Housing and Its Impact on Housing and Land Markets: ' NHC Affordable Housing Policy Review 1(3).2004 61 17a - 68 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 fees range from approximately $15,000 to $25,000. The City of Palo Alto's patk dedication requirements vary depending on whether the project involves a subdivision or parcel map. Palo Alto a~llects $9,354 per single-fanuly unit and $6,123 per multifamily unit. However, the requirement is substantially higher for projects involving a subdivision or parcel map. The City requires deveaopers to dedicate 531 square feet per single- family unit or pay an in-lieu fee of $47,700. The requirement for multifamily units is land dedication of 366 square feet per unit or an in-lieu fee of $32,670 per unit. Fees and Exactions Like cities throughout California, Cupertino collects development fees to recover the capital costs of providing community services and the administrative costs associated with processing applications. New housing typically requires payrsent of school impact fees, sever and ~~s~ater connection fees, building permit fees, wastewater Treatment plant fees, and a variety of handling and service charges. Typical fees collected in the City are outlined below in Table 5.2. One local developer indicated that impact fees collected in tt:e City of Cupertino are similar to those assessed in other jurisdictions. 62 17a - 69 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table 5.2: Fees and Exactions Single- Multl- Fee Amount Family (a) Townhouse (b) Famll c Sanitary Connection Permit (d) $77.50 578 576 578 Water Main Existing Facilities Fee (e) $4,704 (1 inch service) + permit fee of $6,894 $6,894 $2,280 $2,190 Off-Site Storm Drainage Fee $1,290 per acre (SF) $160 $160 $90 $926 /acre + $70 /unit (MF) Parcel Map (1~ lots) $3,638 NIA N!A N/A Tract I~ap (> 4 lots) $7,553 $755 $755 N/A Park Impact Fee $15,750 $9,000 $8,100 Single Family $15,750 Small Lot Single Family (5-20 dua) $9,000 High Density (20+dua) $8,100 Housing Mitigation In-Lieu Fee $2.58 / Sq. Ft. $5,160 $4,130 $4,050 Cupertino Union School District Fee $1.782 / Sq. Ft. $3,564 52,851 $2,495 Fremont Union High School District Fee $1.19 / Sq. Ft. $2,380 $1,904 $1,666 Plan Check and Inspection 5560 5560 $560 $560 Building Permit Fee $4,055 $3,735 $662 Apartment Bldgs. (Base Size 40,000 Sq. Ft.) 525,048 + 521.00 for every 1 DO Sq. Ft. Dwellings -Production Phase (Base Size 1,000 Sq. Ft.) $3,254 + $80.13 for every 100 Sq. Ft. Mechanical $160 $128 598 Single-Family and Duplexes 50.08 / Sq. Ft. Multifamily 50.071 Sq. Ft. Electric $160 $128 $96 Single-Family and Duplexes $0.08 / Sq. Ft Multifamily $0.07 / Sq. Ft. Plumbing $160 $128 598 Single-Family and Duplexes $0.08 / Sq, Ft. Multifamily 50.07 / Sq. Ft. TOTAL 539,836 530,451 $20,275 Notes: (a) Fees estimated fora 2,000 square foot, 3 bedroom home in a 10 unit subdivision. (b) Fees estimated fora 1,600 square foot, 2 bedroom townhouse in a 10 unit subdivision. (c) Fees estimated fora 1,400 square foot, 2 bedroom apartment unit in a 50 unit building. (d) Average of fees charged in the four Cupertino Sanitary District zones. (e) Connection fee for San Jose Water, which serves the largest area of Cupertino. Cal Water and Cupertino Municipal also serve parts of the City Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; San Jose Water, 20D9; Cupertino Sanitary District, 2009; BAE, 2009 Permit Processing Time The entitlement process can unpact housing production costs, with lengthy processing of development applications adding to financing costs, in particular. Planning Commission and City Council Approvals. The Planning Conunission and City Council review applications for zoning amendments and subdivision approvals. The Planning Cormmssion holds a public hearing about proposed zoning changes or subdivisions and makes a recommendation to the City Council to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. Upon receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council holds a public hearing before making a final decision on the proposed zoning change or subdivision. Local developers have noted that the entitlelent process in Cupertino can be a tune consuming and 63 17a - 70 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26/2009 protracted process. One developer had to go to the Planning Commission several times, which provided more opportunity for more opponents of'the project to voice concerns. Another local developer said that while the Planning Commission and City Council have a clear vision of what they want to accomplish, their ideas are often not in-sync with the community, resulting in long, entitlement processes. Design Review. Cupertino has not adopted citywide residential design guidelines. However, the RHS District, the Heart of the City Specific Plan ~~rea, and the North De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan~Area are subject to design guidelines. These design guidelines pertain to features such as landscaping, building and roof foams, building entrances, colors, outdoor lighting, and building materials. The design guidelines are intended to ensure development is consistent with the existing neighborhood character and do are generally not considered significant constraints to housing production. The Heart of the City Specific Plan design guidelines for multi-unit residential development requires that building materials be high quality, long lasting, and durable, with a minimum life span of 50 years for siding and 40 years for roofing. Ea:atnples of such materials include stucco or clapboard for siding and tale or asphalt shingles for roofs. The City of Cupertino requires design review for certain residential developments. These include: • Variances in the R-1 District, • T~vo-story residential developments with << floor area ratio over 35 percent in a single- family zoning district, • Single-fanuly homes in a planned development residential zoning district, and • Signs, landscaping, parking plans, and minor modifications to buildings in the R-3 District The Design Review Conunittee considers factors such as building scale in relation to existing buildings and design harmony beriveen new and existing buildings. During an interview with BAE, one developer indicated that the design review process could be lengthy, with multiple meetings required. The developer was required to make many adjustments and changes to the project over the course of the design review proce~.s. Building Permit. Standard plan check and building permit issuance for single-family dwellings in Cupertino takes approximately 10 business days. flan checks for large additions, remodels, and major structural upgrades for single-family homes are also processed within 10 days. If a second review is necessary, the City will take approximately 5 business days to complete the review. Prior to the final building permit inspection for two-stor!~ additions and new hvo-story homes, applicants must submit a privacy protection plan, which illustrates how views into neighboring yards second 64 17a - 71 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 story windows will be screened by new trees and/or shrubs. The plan check process may take longer for projects which entail off-site street improvements. Over-the-counter plan checks are available for small residential projects (250 square feet or less). Building Department staff typically review these projects in less than 30 minutes during normal business hours. In addition, an express plan check is offered for medium-sized residential projects (500 square feet or less) and takes approximately 5 days. The plan review can take from fow- weeks to several months for larger projects, depending on the size. Examples of this type of plan check include apartments and single-family residential subdivisions over 10 units. Cupertino's building permit procedures are reasonable and comparable to those in other California communities. Tree Preservafion The City of Cupertino has a Protected Tree Ordinance that is intended to preserve trees for their environmental and aesthetic importance. The Ordinance protects heritage trees, which are identified as significant for their historic value or unique characteristics, and certain trees that have a m~mum single-trunk diameter of 10 inches or a minimum multi-truck diameter of 20 inches when measured at 4.5 feet from natural grade. These trees include native oak hee species, California Buckeye, Big Leaf Maple, Deodar Cedar, Blue Atlas Cedar, Bay Laurel or California Bay, and Western Sycamore trees. Trees protected by this Ordinance may not be removed from private or public properly without first obtaining a tree removal permit. Applications for tree removal permits are revie~e~ed by the Community Development Director. The Director may approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications. In some cases, the City may require tree replacement as a condition of permit approval. Because a large share of residential development in Cupertino involves infill development involving demolition and replacement, building footprints are often already in place and tree preservation issues do not aizse as a major concern to developers. Nevertheless, one developer did report that they incurred financial costs associated with relocating trees on their property. 5.2. Economic and Market Constraints In addition to governmental constraints, there may benon-governmental factors which may constrain the production of new housing. These could include economic and market related conditions such as land and conshuction costs. 65 17a-72 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5126/2009 Decline in Housing Market and Availabi-itli of Financing . Local residential developers reported that the decaine in the housing market and cun-ent economic downturn represent a constraint to new housing production. Although home values in Cupertino have remained high tluough 2008, annual sales volume has decreased since 2004. In 2004, 719 single-family homes were sold in Cupertino, compared to 337 in 2008. As a result of local, state, and national housing and economic tends, local developers predicted that far fewer housing units will be produced over the next several years. In many cases, the highest and best use of land is no longer for-sale housing, as it was over the past five years. A major short-term constraint to housing development is the lack of available fmancing due to tightening credit markets. Local developers reported that there is very little private fmancing available for both construction and permanent loans. Credit is available in rare cases because of the capacity of a development group or the unusu;~l success of a project. However, developers suggest lenders are currently offering loans up to 50 percent of the building value, compared to 70 to 90 percent historically. This tightening credit market will significantly slow the pace of housing development in Cupertino. An affordable housing developer interviewed by I3AE reported that affordable housing may be more challenging in Cupertino due to more limited affordable housing funding sources. While the City has access to CDBG and HOME funds, as will as in-lieu fees generated by the Housing Mitigation Program, it does not have redevelopment agency (RDA) money currently available for affordable housing. Land Costs Land costs in Cupertino are generally high due to the high demand and limited supply of available land. Local developers indicated that land prices :rre adjusting during this economic downtuun. However, the seller market, particularly in cities like Cupertino, is slow to react to the declining market because many are not compelled to sell their property. Rather, many will wait for the market to recover. Nonetheless, one developer did report that at the height of the housing boom, land prices in Cupertino were in the range of $3 million per acre. Construction Costs According to 2009 R.S. Means, Square Foot Cost~~, hard construction costs for a rivo-story, wood- fiame, single-family home range from $110 to $1~L5 per square foot. Costs for tluee-story, wood frame multifamily projects range from $145 to $2l0 per square foot. Construction costs, however, vary significantly depending on building materials and quality of finishes. Parking st-uctures for 61i 17a - 73 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 multifamily developments represent another major variable in the development cost. In general, below-grade parking raises costs significantly. Soft costs (architectural and other professional fees, land carrying costs, transaction costs, construction period interest, etc.) comprise an additional 10 to 15 percent of the construction and land costs. Owner-occupied multifamily units have higher soft costs than renter-occupied units due to the increased need for conshuction defect liability insurance. Permanent debt financing, site preparation, off=site infrastructure, impact fees, and developer profit add to the total development cost of a project. In recent months, key construction costs have fallen nationally in conjunction with the residential real estate market. Figure 5.1 illustrates construction cost trends for key materials based on the Producer Price Index, a series of indices published by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics that measures the sales price for specific conunodities and products. Lwnber prices have declined by 19 percent between 2004 and. 2008. As shown in Table 5.1, steel prices have fallen sharply since August 2008. Local developers have confirmed that construction costs, including labor, have fallen by approximately 10 percent iu tandem with the ~~~eak housing market. However, it is important to note that although land cost and construction costs have waned, developers report that they have not fallen enough to offset the decrease in sales prices. 67 17a-74 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Figure 5.1: Producer Price Index for Key Construction Costs 300 - I 250 x I d c 200 - u .` o.. 150 - L d U 7 0 100 ~ L a 50 i O C7i O C `~° CJ U7 C ~ G7 G7 > Z O O Q O O i2 ~ r O ~ ti O ~' O U D N O T ~ N O OU C`"J O ~ (*') O G: Q C1' O C ~ '1.' O C -_, V O > z Lr) O Q t.C) O d ~ O O ~ ti O O ~ CD O U r] t` O >~ ~ ~ O OU CO O ~ 47 O Q O O ~ Month -Materials and components for construction --- Lumber Steel Afiill Products Ease year: i982=100 Sources: U.S. Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009; E.4E, 2UU9 5.3. Environmental, Infrastructure & Public Service Constraints Roads "rhe amount of traffic or congestion on a roadway is measured in terms of Level of Sen ice (LOS) ranging from A to F, with A representilg intersections ~><~hich experience little or no congestion and F representing intersections ~~,~ith long and unacceptable delays. Cupei7ino's 200 General Plan established a policy of maintaining a minimum of LOS D for major intersections during the moiming and afternoon peak traffic hours. The LOS standard for the Stevens Creek and De ~~za Boulevard intersection, the Stevens Creek and Stelling Road intersection. and the De .~.nza Boulevard and Bollinger Road intersection shall be at least LOS E=. The environmental assessment of individual residential projects considers any associated traffic impacts. If the study fu;ds that the project could cause an intersection to deteriorate; mitigation may be required. This usually consists of improvements to adjacent roads and intersections. but may also include changes to the ntunber of units in the project, or to site design and layout. 68 17a - 75 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Water Two water suppliers provide sez~7ice to the City of Cupertino: the California Water Company and the San Jose Water Company. Both of these providers purchase their ~a-ater supply from the Santa Clara Valley Water Districx. According to the City's General Plan ETR, which was completed in 2005, the Santa Clara Valley Water Dist7cx indicated it has the ability to meet the long-teen needs of Cupertino water providers. The District's Water Supply master Plan planned for gro«nh based on the maximum gro~~~th potential of all municipalities in the District, which does not exceed ABAG projections. Wastewater Cupertino Sanitaryy District serves as the main provider of waste~~-ater collection and treatment services for Cupertino t~~hile the City of Sunnyvale serves a small portion of the Cupertino Lrban Service area on the east side of the City. Cupertino Sanitary District has purchased a processing capacity of 8.6 million gallons per day (mgd) from the San Jose/Santa Clara ~~~ater Pollution Control Plant in north San Jose. According to the City's 200 Genera] Plan ETR, the District was only using ~.1 mgd of its total capacity, indicating that there is additional capacity to accemznodate future gro«rth. Tn 2005, the City of Sunnyvale ~'~~astewater Treatment Plant used approximately 15 mgd of its 29 mgd capacity. Cupertino Sanitaryy Dis±rict has indicated that some lines in the system may not have sufficient carrying capacity to acconunodate new development in the 'To~~~n Center, south of «~olfe Road, south of I-280, Wolfe Road, Stelling Road, and Foothill Boulevaz-d areas. In order to accommodate wastewater from major new developments, the lines running at or new capacity in these areas ~~,~ill have to be upgraded. Developers «~ill be responsible for the financial costs associated with upgrading the infi-astucture. Sform Drainage Cupcrtino's storm drain system consists of underground pipelines that cant' surface runoff from streets to prevent flooding. Runoff enters the system at catch basins found along curbs near street intersections and is discharged into City creeks. The storm drainage system has been designed to accommodate a 10-}year storm, and the City requires that all new developments confoz7n to this standard. Open Space Cupertino's General Plan outlines a policy of having parkland equal to three acres for every 1;000 residents. Cun-ently, the City has approximately 162 acres of parkland. Cupertino's current RI~zA of 1,170 new housing units for 2007 to 2014 ~~Jould produce an estimated need of 9.8 acres of new park land. The General Plan identified an additiona149 acres of potential neighborhood and G9 17a - 76 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 community parks, which would be more than enough to maintain the standard of tlu-ee acres for every 1,000 residents. In addition, Cupertino's park impact fees of $8,100 to X15,750 perunit would generate beriveen $13.2 and $15.4 million for the City to purchase new parkland and maintain existing recreational resources. Schools Community concerns about impacts on school districts can be a constraint to housing production. Cupertino Union School Dish•ict (CUSD) and Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) are among the best in the state and residents are particularly concerned about the impacts of new housing on schools. During the 2008-?009 school year, CUSD served 17,300 students from Cupertino and parts of San Jose; Sunnyvale, Saratoga, Santa Clara, and Los Altos at 20 elementary schools and 5 middle schools. Approximately 55 percent of CUSD's students reside in Cupertino. FUHSD served 10;300 students fi-om Cupertino, most of Sumryvale and parts of Sau Jose, Los Altos, Saratoga, and Santa Clara. Approximately 62 percent of FUHSD's students reside in Cupertino. Operating Finances. '\7ost of CUSD revenues are tied to the size of its em-ollment. The State Department of Education guarantees CUSD a certain level of operations funding kno~~-n as the "Revenue Linut." The Revenue Limit is established annually by the State based on the District's average daily attendance (ADA). The Revenue Limit is composed of State funding and local property tax revenues. If the District's property tax revenue falls belo«~ the Revenue Limit in any given year, the State will increase its contribution to make up the difference (see Figure 5.2). CUSD therefore relies on gradual, steady increases in eru-olhnent to maintain its financial health over time. Because the Revenue Limit makes up about 75% of CUSD revenues, and this Lunit is tied du•ectly to em•ollment, the District needs predictable, ongoing student growth to keep up with costs. Declines in eTu-ollment «~ould requn-e the District to cut costs. 7Q 17a-77 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/2612009 Figure 5.2: CUSD Historic Revenue Limit per Average Daily Attendance (ADA) $6.000 Q 55, o00 ' a ~ ~ 54,000 -- Q ~ 53,000 - J 'U 7 52,000 ~ Si,ooo - ~o Local Property Taxes and Fees Sources: Education Da?a Parnership, 2008; 6AE, 2018 2005-2006 `State Aid 2006-2007 In contrast, FLHSD relies exclusively on properTy taxes for most of its revenue. FUHSD receives property taxes in excess its Revenue Linut. The District keeps these additional revenues for operations, As a result, the State does not provide annual per-ADA funding to the District. Therefore, FLtI-ISD counts on a growing property tax base to keep up ~~~ith costs and maintain per- student fundinU. I~'e~~~ development helps promote a healthy tax base over time. ;~s sho`e~n in Table 5.2, multifanuly development can be particularly beneficial to the tai; base. generating higher revenues per acre than single-fanvly homes. This translates into more revenue fer FiJHSD. 71 -_ ~__ ~ 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 17a - 78 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/2612009 Table 5.2: Comparison of FUHSD Property Tai; Revenue per Acre Multifamily Single-family housing housing Value per Unit (a) $665,250 $1,143,500 Density (Units/Acre) 20 5 Total Value/Acre $13,305,000 $5,717,500 Property Taxes to FUHSD per Acre (b) $22,619 $9,720 Notes: (a) Median sales prices from June 2007 to June 2008 (b) FUHSD receives approximately 17% of 1 % of assessed value. Sources: DataQuick, 2008; Santa Clara County Controller, 2C~08;BAE, 2008 Moreover, property taxes from new multifanuly housing can exceed the cost to FUHSD to serve students. Table 5.3 illustt-ates this point, using recently-built projects as examples. Nonetheless, FUHSD stresses that the impacts of new residential development should be evaluated on a case-by- casebasis to mitigate any undue effects on the Di:;trict. Table 5.3: Financial Impacts of Cupertino Developments on Fremont Union HS District Montebello City Canter Travlgne Metropolitan Civlc Park FUHSD REVENUE Assessed Value of Dev't $117,855,778 $38,068,014 $23,638,365 $63,024,913 $90,538,152 Property Tax Revenue (a) $196,952 $63,617 $39,503 5105,323 $151,301 FUHSD COSTS Number of Students in Dev't 11 5 3 11 10 Cost to Serve Students (b) $101,545 $46,157 $27,694 $101,545 $92,314 NET SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) $95,407 $17,460 $11,BD9 $3,777 $58,987 Notes: (a) Percentage of base 1.0 percent property tax FUHSD receives (~~fter ERAF shift) in TRA 13-003: 16.71% (b) FUHSD General Fund Expenditure per Student, FY 08-09: $9,231 Sources: Santa Clara County Assessor, 2008; Santa Clara County Controller, 2008; FUHSD, 2008; BAE, 2008. Enrollment and Facilities. Both Districts expect to continue growing over the next ten years. CUSD projects enrollment to grow by 4% to a peak of 18,000 students by 2013, then decline to 17,400 students by 2017. FUHSD anticipates enrollment to flatten over the next five years, then rise to 11,600 students by 2017, a 13% gain (see Figure 5.3). It is important to note that this growth comes from the other cities that the Districts serve, in addition to Cupertino. Cupettino- based students comprise about 60% of enrollment in each District. 7;? 17a-79 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26/2009 Figure 5.3: Enrollment Projections, 2008-2013, CUSD and FUHSD 20,000 18,000 c 16,000 ~ 14,000 N 12,000 0 10,000 m 8,000 ~ 6,000 Z 4,000 2,000 -~-CUSD -FUHSD The Districts will continue to use their facilities efficiently to accommodate projected growth. CUSD and FUHSD report that then ability to absorb new students is not unlunited, and rapid growth does pose a challenge. However, they will strive to make space and maintain student- teacherratios through creative solutions such as relocating special programs, adjusting schedules, selectively using modular classrooms, and other approaches. In addition, FUHSD is developing a plan to dedicate the $198 million raised from Measure B for facility improvements. These include athletic facilities, solar power, IT systems, infiastructure, classrooms, labs, and lecture halls. The Districts also augment their facilities using impact fees from new development. CUSD receives $1.78/square foot in fees from residential development, and earned $693,000 in 2007- 2008. FUHSD receives $0.95 to $1.19/square foot of residential development, earning $1.3 million in 2007-2008. The Districts can also address impacts on a case-by-case basis, establishing partnerships with home builders to constvct new facilities or expand existing schools. Higher-density housing generally generates fewer students per unit. Table 5.4 illustrates this trend among recently-built projects in Cupertino. On average, the Districts report that new single-family homes and townhouses generate 0.8 K-12 students per unit, while new multifamily homes generate 0.3 K-12 students per unit. In addition, most em-olhnent growth comes from existing homes that are either sold or rented to families with children, not new development. Nonetheless, the Districts indicate that new housing will contribute to future demand for classroom space, which the Districts must address through the strategies outlined above. 73 17a - 80 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2017 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26/2009 Table 5.4: Student Generation in Cupertino Developments Higher Density Lower Density Montebello City Center _ Trrvi ne Metropolitan Civic Park Density (Units/Acre) 96 63 24 30 31 Students/Unit CUSD (a) 0.13 0.07 0.17 0.09 0.37 FUHSD (a) 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.08 Total 0.18 0.10 0.24 0.20 0.44 Notes: (a) Student enrollment data for 2008-2009 school year, provided by CUSD and FUHSD Sources: City of Cupertino; CUSD; FUHSD; BAE, 2008. Public Opinion Other constraints to housing production in the City include public opinion, specifically community concerns about impacts on the school districts, traffic, and parks. Over the past several years, a number of housing revelopments and related planning efforts have been subject to citizen initiatives and referenda. Citizen concern about the impacts of housing development on community quality of life remain a significant potential constraint to housing development. Local developers indicated that public opposition to new development can be a obstacle to the production of both market rate and affordable housing in Cupertino. In any jurisdiction, the entitlement process can be a costly one. As disco ,sed above, several developers successfully obtained the necessary entitlements from the City but had their projects halted by citizen referenda, resulting in financial losses. This threat of a referendum and associated financial losses makes development in the City more risky. The potential for community opposition means th~it good design and planning are essential, particularly for higher density projects. 5.4. Opportunities for Energy Conservation Planning to maximize energy efficiency and the ir_corporation of energy conservation and green building features can contribute to reduced housing costs for homeowners and renters. In addition, these efforts promote sustainable community desil;n, reduced dependence on vehicles, and can significantly contribute to reducing green house g~~ses. All new buildings in California must meet the standards contained in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Energy Efficiency/ Standards for Residential and nonresidential 74 17a - 81 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Buildings). These regulations were established in 1978 and most recently updated in 2005 with amended standards going into effect in 2009. Energy efficiency requirements are enforced by local governments through the building permit process. All new conshuction must comply with the standards in effect on the date a building permit application is made. In addition to compliance with state regulations, the Enviromnental Resources/Sustainability, Land Use, and Circulation Elements of Cupertino's General Plan includes policies related to energy conservation and efficiency. In particular, the Land Use Element provides for energy efficient higher density housing in proximity to employment centers and transportation corridors and includes mixed use development where appropriate. The development industry is also becoming increasingly aware of opportunities for energy conservation at the site planning level and even at the community planning level. New developments are increasingly being planned so that building orientations will take advantage of passive solar energy benefits. Larger scale land use planning is increasingly considering benefits of compact urban form (i.e., higher densities) as a means to reduce auto dependency for transportation, and the benefits of mixed-use land use patterns to make neighborhoods more self- contained so that residents can walk or bicycle to places of work, shopping, or other services. Compact urban development patterns also are necessary to improve the effectiveness of buses and other foiins of public transit. If effective public transit is available and convenient, energy will be conserved through reduced auto use. In the future, the City will consider incorporating these and/or other sustainable development principles into new developments that are planned within Cupertino. 5.5. Summary Cupertino's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are not development constraints to new housing production. The Land Use/Community Design element of the General Plan identifies five categories of residential use while the Zoning Ordinance permits residential development in seven districts. • The Zoning Ordinance does not permit or conditionally permit permanent homeless shelters in any zone. In order to comply with state law, this Housing Element outlines a program to anlend the Zoning Ordinance to allow a pei~nanent homeless shelter by-right in the BQ zoning district. • Site improvement, building code requirements, and permit processing tune in Cupertino are comparable to surrounding communities and are not a development constraint. 75 17a - 82 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 • Development fees in Cupertino are comp:cable to those in neighboring jurisdictions. • The decline in the housing market and av,iilability of financing will constrain housing development in the near term. • A potential constraint to housing development is road capacity. Residential projects may be required to undertake mitigation measures if developments result in traffic impacts. • Capacity and fiscal impacts to the Cupertino Union School District and Fremont Union High School District must be evaluated o~i a case by case basis. • Public opinion may serve as a constraint to housing development. Over the past several years, projects have been subject to citize~i initiatives and referenda opposition the developments. 7fi 17a - 83 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 6. Housing resources 6.1. Overview of Available Sites for Housing The purpose of the adequate sites analysis is to demonstrate that the City of Cupertino has a sufficient supply of land to accommodate its fair share of the region's housing needs during the planning period (January 1, 2007 -June 30, 2014). The State Govenunent Code requu-es that the Housing Element include an "inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment" (Section 65583(a)(3)). It further requires that the Element analyze zoning and infiastructure on these sites to ensure housing development is feasible during the planning period. Demonstrating an adequate land supply, however, is only part of the task. The City must also show that this supply is capable of supporting housing demand from all economic segments of the community. High land costs in the Bay Area make it difficult to meet the demand for affordable housing on sites that are zoned at relatively low densities. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), local governments may utilize "default" density standards (e.g. the "Mullen Densities") to provide evidence that "appropriate zoning" is in place to support the development of housing for very-low and low-income households .The purpose of this law is to provide a numerical density standard for local governments, resulting in greater certainty in the housing element review process. Specifically, if a local government has adopted density standards that comply with the population based criteria provided in the law and promulgated by HCD, no fiurther analysis is required to establish the adequacy of the density standard. The default density standard for Cupertino and other suburban jurisdictions in Santa Clara County to demonstrate adequate capacity for low and very low income units is 20 dwelling units per acre (DUA) or more. 6.2. General Plan Residential Allocations In order to balance the long-teen housing, economic and civic needs of the Cupertino conununity, the City's General Plan adopted in 2005 provided an overall "allocation" of commercial and residential uses by planning district and for the City overall. Taking into account the residential projects already developed or permitted since 2007 (see Table 4.2), an analysis of sites with residential potential in Cupertino indicates the potential to develop approximately 1,500 units of new housing within the context of the cun-ent General Plan land use allocations. This includes 1,484 units that can realistically be accommodated on sites with allowable densities of 20 DUA or more. The following sites inventory and residential capacity analysis focuses on sites with densities of 10 DUA or more. 77 17a - 84 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 6.3. Residential Capacity Analysis For the purposes of this analysis, housing sites in Cupertino have been grouped into five geographic areas. Each of these areas is described below, with accompanying maps and tables used to quantify residential development potential. Because more than a quarter of the 7.5-year planning period has ah-eady passed, the analysis also accounts for housing that has been constructed since January 1, 2007. In preparing for this Housing Element document, City staff conducted a thorough study evaluating the amount of vacant and underutilized land in Cupertino. Aparcel-by-parcel review of the City's data base was conducted and all vacant, underutilized and infill parcels were identified. These parcels included residentially-zoned land as well as other designations such as conunercial, quasi- public use, mixed use and industrial. Based on current General Plan Land Use designations and zoning, an analysis of the City's land inventory indicates sufficient laud zoned at residential densities to accommodate 296 total units, all of which are zoned at a minunum density of 20/DUA. In order to meet the remaining need of 717 units during the remaining five }ears of the current planning period, the City proposes to adopt policies and programs to allow for residential development at appropriate densities on sites with no infrastructure constraints (see Policies 1 and 2 in the Housing Plan Section of this Housing Element). The full sites inventory with cun-ent zoning and proposed land use and zoning changes is provided as Appendix F. Figure 6.1 below displays the total potential residential capacity in Cupertino on sites that can acconunodate residential development of 20 dwelling units to the acre or more. These sites can acconunodate up to a total of 1,OS9 residential units. As shown, a large majority of the City's near- terrn residential development potential is in the Heart of the Cite; North De Anna Boulevard, and South Vallco Park areas. The remaining development potential is mainly on smaller sites distributed across the City. For the most part, the sites identified below are underutilized sites in mixed-use areas rather than vacant greenfield sites with exclusively residential zoning. As demonshated by the developments already undei~i-ay or completed during the current planning period as displayed in Table 4.2, Cupertino has a strong hack record of supporting and facilitating the development of residential projects in mixed-use areas and of intensifying residential uses where appropriate within the context off the general plan land use allocations. 78 17a - 85 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/2612009 Figure G.1: Potential Units uy Planning Area 79 .. %~a; ~aC~~p.,~„•.~.20.}'+, pxr.~r>~„.w p~„~„~~,.~ ~~i~„e, mtr?: u'~L 1tX~~>: U~~Sr_ : Dew Tvtal Po[ential Housing Units = 1,054 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26/2009 Heart of the City District The Heart of the City District encompasses one of the most important commercial corridors in Cupertino. The Heart of the City Specific Plan, originally adopted by the City Council in 1995, provides development guidelines for the approximately 250-acre Stevens Creek Boulevard Con•idor. This Specific Plan was recently updated and is cun-ently under review by the City's Planning Conunission. The revised Specific Plan encourages the development of pedestrian- oriented activity centers and mixed use developments with commercial and residential uses. Under the General Plan and existing adopted Specific Plan, the total residential buildout for the Heart of the City neighborhood is 570 dwelling units, with a remaining residential allocation of 216 units as of January 1, 2007. This will be updated to provide more residential capacity as part of the new Specific Plan update to accommodate an increased residential capacity of 441 new units. This would increase the total residential buildout for the Heart of the City neighborhood from 570 units to 795 units. As displayed in Table 6.1 and Figure 6.2 below, this area has a realistic capacity of 428 new units. There are nine sites that can accommodate 296 units in the Heart of the City area that have the appropriate General Plan and zoning designations. In addition, there are rivo sites in the Heart of the City area that need General Plan or zoning changes in order to accormmodate residential uses. After the appropriate rezoning and general plan amendments, these two sites can realistically acconunodate 145 residential units. The sites in the Heart of the City area are underutilized infill sites. In many cases, the year the structures were constructed and the parcels' improvement to land value (I/L) ratio suggests the sites are prime opportunities for redevelopment. • Site 1 consists of two parcels on Stevens Creek Boulevard that contain asingle-story commercial building occupied by a furniture store built in 1964. A second building, constructed in 1969, contains the Yoshinoya restaurant. There is a large amount of surface parking on the site. • Site 2, a 1.35 acre site on Stevens Creek Boulevard, has a restaru-ant and a large surface parking lot. The building was constructed in 1978 and the parcel has an UL ratio of 0.66. • Site 3, located at the corner- of Saich Way and Stevens Creek Boulevard, contains a st7p mall built in 1969 with a 7-11 store that burned down. • Site 4 at the corner of Blaney Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard is comprised of four parcels. These parcels currently have older single-story buildings built in the nud 1950s and 1960s «~ith large surface parking lots. • Site 5 contains h~~o parcels on Stevens Creek Boulevard with a 1955 restaurant building and a second stucture built in 1946 with commercial uses. The parcels both have large 80 17a - 87 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 surface parking lots. • Site 6 cw-rently houses a furniture store in a single-story building built in 1975 with surface parking. • Site 7 contains three parcels at the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Estates Drive. The site has an old sri-ip mall with a mix of occupied and vacant retail spaces. The strip mall was built in 1960 and the I/L ratio of the three parcels ranges from 0.01 to 0.28. • Site 8 is a vacant property on Stevens Creek Boulevard. • Site 9 consists of two parcels at the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Judy Avenue. The site has an old, dilapidated strip mall, built in 1952, with a nux of occupied and vacant retail spaces. • Site 10 would require a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation fr-oin Quasi-Public to Quasi-Public/Residential. The three-acre site, «~hich is owned by Union Chw-ch, includes a large surface parking lot and vacant land that could be developed for housing. The church structure was constructed in 1965. • Site 11 would require a General Plan amendment and zoning change to permit residential uses. The 3.9 acre site is owned by the Abundant Life Church and includes a large surface parking lot and additional vacant spaces that could be developed for housing. 81 17a - 88 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26/2009 Table 6.1: Vacant and Underutilized Land in the Heart of the City District .. Allowed under Current Zoning Max. ax. ea ~suc Size Density Yield Yield ID APN Site Address Existing Use (Acres (DUA) (Units (Units (a) 1 316 21 031 19875 Stevens Creek Blvd Furniture 20D0 1.78 25 44 37 316 21 032 19655 Stevens Creek Blvd Yoshinoya 0.24 25 6 5 359 D3 005 20010 Stevens Creek Blvd Corner of Sfevens Creek & Blaney D.47 25 11 9 369 D3 005 i0D71 5 Blaney Ave Lackey Prop. (Stevens Creek & Blaney) 0.37 25 9 7 369 D3 007 10031 5 Blaney Ave Lackey Prop. (Stevens Creek & Blaney) 1.36 25 34 28 5 3fi9 OS OD9 19430 Stevens Creek Blvd Arva 0.44 25 11 9 369 OS 010 19936 Stevens Creek Blvd Area Parking Lol D.52 25 12 1D 6 369 DS 038 199D0 Stevens Creek Blvd SD Furniture 1.92 25 48 40 7 359 05 D02 10025 E Estates Dr United Fumiture Site 0.92 25 23 19 359 OS 003 10075 E Estates Dr United Fumiture Site 0.53 25 i3 11 369 D5 DD4 i0D75 E Estates Dr United Fumiture Site D.85 25 21 i7 8 375 07 OD1 14160 Stevens Creek Blvd Bany Sorenson Property 0 55 25 13 1 i 9 375 D7 045 10D29 Judy Ave Loree Center D.43 25 i D 8 375 D7 D46 1906D Stevens Creek Blvd Loree Center 0.86 25 2 i i 7 Subtotal Units 357 296 Current Proposed Rezoning Max. -Max. ax. ea is is Size Density Density Yield Yield ID APN Site Address Existing Use (Acres) (DUA) (DUA) (Units (Units a 1D 359 09 024 20900 Stevens Creek Blvd Union Church 3 ~4 25 25 76 64 11 326 31 019 10100 N Stetting Rd Abundant Life Church 3.86 N/A 25 96 81 Subtotal Units 172 145 Total Units 529 441 (a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent. Sources: City of Cupertino, 2DD9; DataQuick Information Systems, 2009; DC&E, 20D9; BAE, 2DD9 ~2 17a - 89 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Figure 6.3: Potential Housing Sites in the Heart of the City and City Center Districts _. .iN]1 JF. ~ IW:4 '~ _ _ tilt .'.vf f'>•iE:7 AiT 4^7... `.' 1 _ 4 _r _ H ( _ ; L i 4 _ _7 ' ~ _ He. of eF• Crr -- i - ' ^ ~ ~ ~ \ S~ ~ ~-c ~~ ~ .iJF"a ~4ad. E:...:.: :Yi.. ..r Sources: Cit)~ of CupertinD. ~UU9; BAE. ?009; DCrS:E. ?009 Hornesfead Road Disfricf The Homestead Road District is located along the nortliez-n boundary of Cupertino betl',•een Stelling Road and De Area Boulevard. This District is intended to be an integrated, mi?;ed-use conunercial and housing village along Homestead Road. The total residential buildout for the Homestead Raad Di=trio is 784 units, ~~'ith a remaining residential allocation of~00 units as of.ianuary 1, 2007. Table h.2 and f=igure 6. ~ below display one residential opporttrcuty site identified in the Home.stea~ area: coznp~rised of four parcels. 1~~a~o parcels require a General flan arnendn~ent and all four parcels require a zi~ning change to alio~v for residential uses. 1~he fi~~e-acre site has comrzrercial uses ~,~ith a large surface parking Iot That covers over half of the site. The tlu-ee parcels were built on iu the late 19 7Us and early 1980s ~~ ith UL ratios ranging from 0.03 to 1.29. Table 6.2: Vacant iand Underutilized Land in the Homestead Road District Currant Proposed Rezonirfg flax. f.,ax. aF7i z. ~t-ea ,~ sic Size Density Density Yield Yield ID APN Site Address Existin Use V g (Acres) (DUA) (DUA) (Units) (Units) (a) 12 326 D9 D51 1D99D IJ Stelling Rd McDonalds Os9 tJlA 326 D3 052 2D916 Hom=stead Rd Baskin Robins%i hai Delight 0.?4 NIA 326 09 061 20956 Hom=stead Rd Korean Restaurant Strip 6Aall 1.12 tJ%A 326 D9 06D 2D990 Homestead Rd Homestead Lanes 2.75 tJ/A Total Units (a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacit?~ by 15 percent. Sources: City of Cupertino, 20D9; Cata~uick Information Systems, 2D09; DC&E, 2D'U9; BAE, 20D9 83 35 17 14 35 25 21 35 39 33 35 95 81 177 _ 17a - 90 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTSl26/2009 Figure 6.3: Potential Housing Sites in the Homestead Road District Q Y - ~ p North De Anza Boulward .. _ ~ _ G ` _._-_DUS~PhBPF _~. ~ Sources: City of Cupertino, '_009; B?.E. 3009: DC~E, 3009 Vallco Park South District Vallco Park South is intended to be a large-scale commercial area ~~-ith regional commercial, office, and entertainment uses and supporting residential development. The main features of this area include a regional shopping mall and office and industrial buildings. The City has formed a redevelopment project area that encompasses the regional mall properties. according to the Genera] Plan, the precise laud use mix shall be determined by a master plan for the area. The District includes several underutilized parcels as ~~•ell as a number of `-avant parcels along Vallco Park~~,•ay. The total residential buildout for the Vallco Park South District is 71 1 units. with a remaining residential allocation of 400 units as of .ianuary 1, 2007. There is one residential site in the Vallco Park South ,,.rea. Site 13 is a former surface parking lot for the 1~~Iacy's Department Store at the Cupertino Square shopping center. The five acre site is no longer actively used as a parking lot because a ne~~ parking sttvctw-e has been constructed for the shopping center. The L"L ratio of the parcel is 0.12. 84 17a - 91 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5l26/2009 Table 6.3: Vacant and Underutilized Sites in the Va{Ico Park South District Current Proposed Rezoning Mez. affix. - az. ea is is Slze Density Density Yield Yield ID APN Site Address Existing Use (Acres) (DUA) (DUA) (Units (Units) (a) 53 "sto' 20 089 Nc Situs Address Former tJiacy's Pad:ing Lot 5.''6 N;A 35 i90 '.5"s Total Units i9D i53 (a) Realistic Capacity reduces the marimum capacity by SS percent. Source=_: Ciy of Cupertino, 2D03; CataOuick Information Systems, 2009; DCSE, 2009; 6AE, 2DD9 Figure 6.4: Potential Housing Sites in the Vallco Park South District __ --_ ~! r; _ ~, _ . ;~ ` _~ ~ Ili , ~.. ~~j ,~ - ~( ~, - - d - .. ~ . ._ - ~ . - - a 1 .~~ . So.lrces: Cit)r of Cupertino, 2009; BAE. 2009: DC~E, 2009 North De Anza Boulevard District The North De Anza Boule;~ard District is intended to he a regional employment center with supporting con-unercial and residential land uses. The area. located south of Interstate 280 around North De Anza Boulevard, includes the Apple Computer campus and other office. industrial, and research and development uses. The total residential buildout for the Norrth De A~iza Boulevard District is 146 u>>;ts, with a remaining residential allocation of 97 units as of January 1, 2007. There is one under-utilized site identified in this area. Site 14, ~~~hich eras built on in 197>, cun-entl~r has light industrial uses «~ith a large amount of surface parking. Althoueh the zoning is cwrently 85 17a - 92 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26/2409 in place under the City's P(CG,'vIL, Res 4-10) zoning categoi}~, the City `rill rezone the propei-t}r to allow for a density of 25 d~~,~elling units per acre. In addition. the remaining residential allocation for the area allov~~ed in the General Plan should be increased fi~om 97 to 169 units. This v~,•ould increase the total residential allocation from 1 ~6 units to 2l ~ units. Table 6.4: Vacant and Underutilized Land in the North De Anza Boulevard District Current Proposed Rezoning N,ax. ~t~ax. el~alistic Size Density Denstty Yield Yield ID APN Slte Address Existing Use (Acres) (DUA) (DUA) (Units) (Units) (a) ~~, 320;0 D=.o 207Q5 Valley Green Drive Light Industrial Z99 '~ 25 ^39 i69 Total Units !99 ;09 IJotes: (a) Realistic Capacity reduces the marimum capacitt by '~ 5 percent Sources: Gity of Cupertino, 2Q09; DataQuick Information Eyslems, 20D9; DCSE, 2D09; EkE, 2JJ9 Figure 6.5: Potential Housing Sites in the North De Anza Boulevard District 1 _ ..- tp. COrJWEn UF. Q Y - _l -- J KvCIF~ ~.~.+.~~.«.c y~ - ~ ~ - -- h. nccTcs~ F... n u, c 'u 1 '_ l~ (C ,i ~~ ~4 ~ 15 1=~ ~/~ 7 • ~~~//. Homestead Road \ t` CEL~~E CiR - -- - ~ > J ' .'1 ' ^ ~ p North De Anza boulevard r C J y a GF~hLSA_CE. - --- - ~ c _ _ - ~ 2 Sources: Cit}~ of Cupertino, 2009; BAL-. 2009; DCd E. 2009 Non-Designated Areas There is one site that is located outside designated neighborhood planning areas. These remaining ~6 17a - 93 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26!2009 areas are not planned as unique neighborhoods in the City's most recent general plan. Development intensity in these non-designated areas is determined by the existing zoning and land use designations. Site 15 consists of five parcels that owned by Valley Church of Santa Clara County. Together, the parcels total over five acres of land, much of «-hich is underutilized with surface parking lots, teruiis courts, and vacant land. Table 6.5: Vacant and Underutilized Land in Non-Designated Areas Current Proposed Rezoning Max. _ a~x -Rax. ea is ~c Size Density Density Yield Yield ID APN Site Address Existing Use Acres) (DUA) (DUA (Units (Units a i 5 326 07 022 Homestead Road Valley Church 1.65 NIA 35 57 48 326 07 D27 10885 Sleliing Rd Valley Church 0.45 N;A 35 15 12 326 07 030 N Stelling Rd Valley Church 0.93 N/A 35 32 27 326 G7 031 N Stelling Rd Valley Church 0.30 N/A 35 10 8 326 07 035 21040 Homestead Road Vafley Church 1.79 NIA 35 62 52 Total Units 176 147 tJotes: (aj Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by i 5 percent. Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DataQuick Infomation Systems, 2D09; DC&'c, 2009; BA" 2009 a7 17a - 94 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5l26l2009 Figure 6.6: Potential Housing Sites in the Non-Designated Areas -- D ~~ __ J _ ~ C '~ 7 ~ J _ ... - f _ -~ J North Dt Anxa Bnulcv:rd . , ~ ~, > - _. __ _.. _. .. ~ i z _ - ~cF'~l~ GF .~ F - _ _ - - - rg ~. - -__. ____. ___~ ,...y-, 4. .. yUCfi A E~_ _ .. _ _. _ - _ _ ~.. - ~ a Sources: City of Cupertiuo, ?009; B.E. _009; DC~E. 3009 6.4. Zoning for Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing State lacy requu-es Cupertino to pen-tut emergency shelters without discretionar}~ approvals in at least one zoning district in the City. Cun-ently, the zoning ordinance a11o~a-s for "rotating homeless shelters" in the Quasi Public BuildutQ (BQ) zone. Rotating homeless shelters are permitted within existing church structures in the BQ for up to 2~ occupants. The operation period of rotating shelters cannot exceed t\vo months in any one year span at a single location. However, Cupertino's zoning ordinanc-e does not petznit or conditionally peniut pei~nanent homeless shelters in an}~ zone. To comply «~ith state law, Program 25 of this Housing Element comtnits the Cit}~ to amend its zoning ordinance to allow emergency shelters by right in the BQ Quasi-Public zone. 6.5. Financial Resources for Housing The City of Cupertino has access to a variety of existing and potential funding sources for affordable housing activities. These include programs from federal, state, local, and private resources. 88 17a - 95 - ;A co~.we~ nF CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Community Development Block Granf Program Funds Through the Conununity Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the federal Department of Housing and Urbau Development (I~i.JD) provides funds to local governments for funding a wide range of housing and cornrnunity development activities for low-income persons. During the 2007-2008 fiscal year, the City of Cupertino received $357,900 in CDBG funds. If the City continues to receive similar allocations, Cupertino will have approximately X2.5 million in CDBG funds during the 2007-2014 period. CDBG funds are used for site acquisition, rehabilitation, first-time homebuyer assistance, development of emergency and transitional shelters and fair housing/housing counseling activities. Additional activities in support of the new consri-uction of affordable housing include site clearance and the financing of related infi-astructure and public facility improvements. Redevelopment Agency Set-Aside Funds The Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (RDA) has one Redevelopment Project Area which encompasses the Vallco Fashion Park Shopping Center and the adjacent "Rose Bowl" site at Vallco Parkway and Wolfe Road. The RDA trust set aside 25 percent of its annual tax increment funds for the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of low- and moderate-income housing within the Project Area and in other Cupertino neighborhoods. 5 Five percent of the 25 percent set- aside must be reserved for extremely low-income housing. Once redevelopment activity begurs within the Vallco Project Area and tax increment funds begin flo«-ing to the RDA; set-aside funds v,-ill be available for affordable housing activities. Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) Created by the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the LIHTC program has been used in combination with City and other resources to encourage the consri~rction and rehabilitation of rental housing for lo~~~er- income households. The program allows investors an annual tax credit over aten-year period, provided that the housing meets the following minimum low-income occupancy requirements: 20% of the units must be affordable to households at SU% of area median income (A1MI) or 40°% of the units must be affordable to those at 60% of A1MI. The total credit over the ten-year period has a present value equal to 70% of the qualified construction and rel.~abilitation expenditure. The tax credit is typically sold to large investors at a syndication value. Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program vas created by the federal eovernment, but the program is locally adnunistered by the County of Santa Clara to assist fu-st-time homebuyers in 5 The California Coimnunity Redevelopment Law (CRL) requires that 20 percent of the tax increment into a housing fund. The Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project Five Year Implementation Plan; 2006-_010, establishes the higher 2~ percent requirement. ag 17a - 96 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 qualifying for a mortgage. The IRS allows eligible homebuyers with an MCC to take 20% of their annual mortgage interest as adollar-for-dollar tax credit against their federal personal income tax. This enables first-time homebuyers to qualify for a larger mortgage than otherwise possible, and thus can bring home ownership within reach. In 1987, the County of Santa Clara established an MCC Program that has assisted over 2001ow and moderate-income fu•st time homebuyers in Cupertino to qualify for a mortgage. During the l,rst Housing Element period, the MCC Program three Cupertino low- and moderate-income residents. Secfion 8 Assisfance The Section 8 program is a federal program that provides rental assistance to very-low income persons in need of affordable housing. This program offers a voucher that pays the difference between the current fair market rent and what a tenant can afford to pay (e.g. 30% of their income). The voucher allows a tenant to choose housing th<<t inay cost above the payment standard but the tenant must pay the exha cost. Affordable Housing Fund The City of Cupertino has an Affordable Housing Fund that provides financial assistance to affordable housing developments. As a second and third priority, the Affordable Housing Fund can also be used to establish a down payment assi;~tance plan or a rental subsidy program to make market rate units more affordable. The Office anc Industrial Mitigation fee, which is assessed on developers of office and industrial space for affordable housing, and the BMR in-lieu fees are deposited into the Affordable Housing Fund. 9f) 17a - 97 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/2612009 ~. ~#aus~ng Ian This section outlines the City of Cupertino's quantified objectives for new unit construction, consetvation, and rehabilitation during the 2007-2014 planning period. It then presents policies and programs to meet these objectives and address local housing needs. The policies and programs are grouped under the following major goals: • Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for all Economic Segments • Goal B: Housing that is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households • Goal C: Enhanced Residential I~Teighborhoods • Goal D: Services for Special Needs Neighborhoods • Goal E: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities • Goal F: Coordination with Local School Districts This section also identifies the responsible party and provides a timeline for each implementation program. 7.1. Quantified Objectives The following table outlines the City's proposed housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation objectives for the cut~ent Housing Element planning period. These objectives correspond with the City's remaining 2007-2014 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) from ABAG. Table 7.1: Quantified Objectives Already Income Category Approved Very Low 22 Low 16 Moderate 58 Above Moderate 437 Total New Construction Rehabilitation (a) Preservation Total 319 213 185 0 533 717 0 0 341 0 0 229 0 0 243 0 0 357 0 0 1,170 Notes: (a) The City has approved CDBG funds for a rehabilitation project that will provide transitional housing for 16 very low- and low-income victims of domestic violence. Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009 91 17a - 98 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/2612009 7.2. Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for All Economic Segments Policy T: Sufficiently Residentially Zoned rand for New Construction Need Designate sufficient residentially-zoned land at appropriate densities to provide adequate sites that will meet ABAG's estimate of Cupertino's Regio~ial Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,170 units for 2007-2014. Program 1: Zoning and Land Use Designations. In order to accommodate the City's remaining RHNA, some parcels of land will need a change ui land use designation and/or zoning. The City will change land use designations and zoning to permit residential development at appropriate densities where needed. Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Tirne Frarrze: 2009-2010 Funding Source: N/A Quarztifted Objective: 1,054 Heart of the Citv Land Use and Zoning Chan es. Adopt changes to the zoning code and General Plan to permit residential use on the sites identified in Appendix F of this Housing Element. Homestead Road Rezoning. Rezone the three identified sites in Appendix F to accommodate residential uses. South Vallco Rezoning. Adopt changes to the zoning code to permit residential use on the sites identified in Appendix F of this Housing Element. . North DeA.nza Boulevard Rezonines. Adopt changes to the zoning code to allow for residential densities of 25 DUA on the sites identified in Appendix F of this Housing Element. Nondesignated Areas Rezonings. Adopt changes to the zoning code to permit residential uses identified in Appendix F of this Housing Element. Program 2: Second Df~~elling Unit Ordinance. The City shall continue to implement the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance and encourage the production of more second units on residential parcels. Responsible Party: City of Cupertino. Community Development Department Tirr:e Frame: Ongoing 91. 17a - 99 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Funding Source: N/A Quantified Objective: 25 second units, 2009-2014 7.3. Goal B: Housing is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households Policy 2: Housing Mitigation Plan Assign priority to households who live or work in Cupertino for BMR units produced through the plan or affordable housing units built with mitigation fees. Program 3: Housing Mitigation Plan -Office and Industrial 11'Iitigation. The City will continue to unplement the "Office and Industrial Mitigation" fee program. This program requires that developers of office, commercial, and industrial space pay a fee, which will then be used to support affordable housing for families who work in Cupertino but live elsewhere. These fees are collected and deposited in the City's Affordable Housing Fund. Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Tinre Franre: Ongoing Fur:ding Source: N/A Qum:tified Objective: N/A Program 4: Housing Mitigation Plan -Residential Mitigation The City will continue to implement the "Housing Mitigation" program. This program applies to all new residential development of one unit or greater. Mitigation includes either the payment of an in-lieu fee or the provision of a Below Market Rate (BMR) unit or units. Projects of seven or more units must provide on-site BMR units. Projects of six units or less can either build a unit or pay an in-lieu fee. Implementation of the program shall include: a) Priority. Priority for occupancy to households who reside, work, attend school or have family in Cupettiuo; b) Public Service. Additional priority for households with wage earners who provide a public service; specifically, employees of the City, local school district and public safety agencies; c) Rent Schedule. Utilize City's Affordable Rent Schedule as a guideline in setting rents for new affordable housing; d) Rent Adjustments. Update the rent schedule each year as new income guidelines are received and determine a unifoi7n method for allowing rent adjustments for affordable housing; 93 17a - 100 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 e) Land for Affordable Housing. Allow developers to meet all or a portion of their BMR requirement by making land available for the City or a nonprofit housing developer to construct affordable housing; f) BA'IR Term. Require BMR units to remain affordable for a minimum of 99 years; g) 15%BMR. Enforce the City's first right of refusal for BMR units, and require 15%BMR units. Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Tirne Frazee: Ongoing Fundiz:g Source: N/A Ozzantifred.Objective: N/A Program 5: Affordable Housing Fund The City's Affordable Housing Fund provides fm~mcial assistance to affordable housing developments. "Requests for Proposals" (RFPs) will be solicited from interested parties to develop affordable units with housing funds. Affordable housing funds will be expended in the following manner (ranked ui order of priority): a) Finance affordable housing projects in I~upertino. b) Establish a down payment assistance plan that may be used in conjunction with the BMR program or to make market rate units more affordable. The assistance should be in the foam of low interest loans and not grants. c) Establish a rental subsidy program to m3kke market rate units more affordable. Responsible Party: City of Cupertino; Community Development Department Tizne Fra»:e: Ongoing Funding Source: Housing Mitigation Plan Fees Quantifred Objective: N/A Policy 3: Range of Housing Types Encourage the development of diverse housing sto~~k that provides a range of housing types (including smaller, moderate cost housing) and affi~rdable levels. Emphasize the provision of housing for lower and moderate income households and, also, households with wage earners who provide services (e.g., school district employees, municipal and public safety employees, etc.) Program 6: Mortgage Credit Certificate Program 94 17a - 101 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26/2009 Participate in the countywide Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program. This program allocates mortgage credit certificates to first-time homebuyers to purchase housing. Due to the high cost of housing units in Cupertino, it is estimated that most of the County's MCC' will be used in the City of San Jose, where there are more low cost housing units available for sale. Resparsible Parry: Santa Clara County Mortgage Credit Certificate Program Tirr:e Frarrre: 2009-2014 Funding Source: Santa Clara County Mortgage Credit Certificate Program Quantified Objective: 1-2 households assisted annually Program 7: A4ove-In for Less Program The Tri-County Apartment Association is managing this program, which recognizes the high cost of securing rental housing. The program is geared to classroom teachers in public or private schools ~vho meet income criteria. Apartment owners/managers who agree to participate in the program require no more than 20% of the monthly rent as a security deposit from qualified teachers. Responsible Parry: Tri-County Apartment Association and City of Cupertino Tine Frame: 2009-2014 Program 8: Surplus Property for Housing In conjunction with local public agencies, school districts and churches, the City will develop a list of surplus property or underutilized property that have the potential for residential development, compatible with surrounding densities. Additionally, long-terra land leases of property from churches, school districts corporations for construction of affordable units shall be encouraged. Further, the feasibility of developing special housing for teachers or other employee groups on the surplus properties will be evaluated. Teacher-assisted housing programs in neighboring districts, such as Santa Clara United School district, will be reviewed for applicability in Cupertino. Responsible Parry: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Tine Frame: 2009-2014 95 17a - 102 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Program 9: Jobs/Housing Balance Program Require major ne~v office/industrial development to build housing as part of new development projects. As part of the development review process, the City will evaluate the impact of any application that will produce additional jobs in thf; community. The purpose of the evaluation is to describe the impacts of the new jobs on the City's housing stock, especially in relation to the jobs/housing ratio in the City. Respo~ZSible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Deparnnent Tinze Frame: 2009-1-24 Policy 4: Housing Rehabilitation Pursue and/or provide funding for the constructio~r or rehabilitation of housing that is affordable to very low, low and moderate-income households. ~~ctively support and assist non-profit and for profit developers in producing affordable ~inits. Program 10: Affordable Housing Information .and Sunaort. The City will provide information, resources and support to developers who can produce affordable housing. Information will be updated on a regular basis in regard to available funding sources and be distributed to all interested developers. In addition, information regarding additional City incentives such as the Density Bonus Program (see program #11) will also be provided and updated on a regular basis. Further, the City will involve the public from the beginning of an affordable housing application so that there are fewer objections to the project as it goes though the City approval process Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Tin:e Franze: 2009-2014 Policy 5: Development ofAffordable Hous,~ng Maintain and/or adopt appropriate land use regulations and other development tools to encourage the development of affordable housing. Make every reasonable effort to disperse units throughout the community but not at the expense of undermining the fundamental goal of providing affordable units. Program 11: Density Bonus Program. The City's Density Bonus Program provides for a density bonus and additional concessions for development of 6 or more units that provide affordable housing for families and seniors. Included in the concessions are reduced parking standards, reduced open space requirements, reduced setback requirements, and approval of mixed use zoning. The City will change the Ordinance definition of affordable unit to housing costs affordable at 30% of household income for very low and low income households. Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department 9Ei 17a - 103 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Ti»:e Frante: Ongoing Program 1Z: Regulatory Incentives for Affordable Housing The City will continue to waive park dedication and construction tax fees for all affordable units. Parking standards will also be discounted for affordable developments. For mixed-use and higher density residential developments, the Planning Commission or City Council may approve deviations from the Parking Regulation Ordinance of the Cupertino Municipal Code, if the applicant can provide a study supporting the deviation. Further, the City will continue to efficiently process all development applications. Responuible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Tithe Frante: 2009-2014 Program 13: Residential and Mixed Use Opportunities in or Near Employment Centers The City will encourage Waxed use development and the use of shared parking facilities in or near employment centers. In addition to the development opportunities available through the "Heart of the City" Specific Plan, the City will evaluate the possibility of allowing residential development above existing parking areas except where mixed use is herein excluded. In specific, these areas would be near or adjacent to employment centers and could provide additional opportunities for housing. Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Commm~ity Development Department Tire Frame: 2009-2014 Policy 6: Tax-Increment Funds Continue to use a minimum of 25% of tax increment funds generated from the Redevelopment Project Area for housing activities that create affordable housing for lower and moderate income households. Set aside 5% of the 25% for extremely low income housing. Program 14: Redevelopment Housing Set Aside Fund The City has established a Redevelopment Project Area, fi-om which tax increment funds are collected. A minimum of 25% of tax increment funds will be directed to low and moderate-income households, 5% of which are directed to extremely-low income households. The Redevelopment Agency will develop policies and objectives for the use of those funds. All policies and objectives shall be developed to reflect the goals and objectives of the Housing Element. Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Tinte Fra~rte: Ongoing Futtdittg Source: Redevelopment tax Increment Funds 97 17a - 104 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Policy 7: Housing Densities Provide a full range of ownership and rental housing unit densities, including apartments and other high-density housing. Prosram 15: Flexible Residential Standards Allow flexible residential development standards in planned residential zoning dishicts, such as smaller lot sizes, lot widths, floor area rat'.os and setbacks, particularly for higher density and attached housing developments. Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Deparhnent Tune Frame: Ongoing Prosram 16: Residential Development Eaceedina Maximums Allow residential developments to exceed planned density maximums if they provide special needs housing and the increase in density will not overburden neighborhood streets or hurt neighborhood character. Respo~zsible Parry: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Tin:e Frame: Ongofizg 7.4. Goal C: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods Policy 8: Maintenance and Repair Assist very low and low-income homeowners and rental property owners in maintaining and repairing their housing units. Program 17: Apartment Acquisition and Rehabilitation This program provides financial assistance to eligible very low and low-income homeowners to rehabilitate their housing units. Respo~zsible Party: City of Cupertino Time Franze: Ongoing Funding Source: Affordable Housing Fund and CDBG funds Quantified Objective: 3-5 Units Annualay Policy 9: Conservation of Housing Stock Conserve the existing stock of owner and rental housing units, which provide affordable housing opportunities for lower and moderate income households. 9f3 17a - 105 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Program 18: Preservation of "At Risk Units" The lone project with affordability restrictions which will expire within the 10 year period following adoption of this element is the Le Beaulieu project with affordability restrictions expiring in September 2015. Cupertino Community Housing originally developed Le Beaulieu ui 1984 and utilized project based Section 8 vouchers. Although not within the current Housing Element planning period, the City will monitor the development and will initiate contact with the owner as needed and to ensure that these units remain affordable. Respo~rsible Parn~: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Tisze Fran:e: 2009-2014 Program 19: Condominium Conversions. The City's existing Condominium Conversion Ordinance regulates the conversion of rental units in multi-family housing development in order to preserve the rental housing stock. Condominium conversions are not allowed if the rental vacancy rate in Cupertino is less than 5% at the time of the application for conversion and has averaged 5% over the past six months. Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Deparhnent Tin:e Frame: Ongoing Program 20: Rental Housing Preservation Program The City's existing multi-family rental units provide housing opportunities for households of varied income levels. The City will develop and adopt a program that includes the following guidelines: When a proposed development or redevelopment of a site would cause a loss of multi-family rental housing, the City will grant approval only if at least two of the following three cu-cumstances exist: • The project will comply with the City's BMR Program based on the actual number of new units constructed, not the net number of units, and/or • The number of rental units to be provided on the site is at least equal to the number of existing rental units, and/or • No less than 20% of the units will comply with the City's BMR Program. Further, the preservation program will include a requirement for a tenant relocation plan with provisions for relocation of tenants on site as much as possible. Respo~zsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Tine Frame: Ongoing 99 17a - 106 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Program 21: Conservation and Maintenance of Affordable Housing. Develop a program to encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of residential structures to preserve the older, more affordable housing stock. Responsible PartJ~: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Tirrze Frarne: 2009-2014 Program 22: Neighborhood and Community Clean Un Campaigns Continue to encourage and sponsor neighborhood and coriununity clean up campaigns for both public and private properties. Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Time Franne: Ongoing Policy 10: Energy Conservation Encourage energy conservation in all existing and new residential development. Program 23: Energy Conservation Ounortunities The City will continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation and will evaluate utilizing some of the other suggestions as identified in the Enviromnental Resources/Sustainability element. Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Tirrze Frarne: 2009-2014 Program 24: Fee Waivers or Reduction for EnE~rgy Conservation The City will evaluate and implement the potential to provide incentives, such as waiving or reducing fees, for energy conservation unprovements to residential units (existing or new). Responsible Part): City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Tirrze Franze: Ongoing 7.5. Goal D: Services for Special! Needs Households Policy 11: Special Needs Households Support organizations that provide services to special need households in the City, such as the homeless, elderly, disabled and single parent households. Program 25: Emergency Shelters. The City will continue to support the rotating emergency shelter operated by West Valley Community Services. In order to comply with SB 2 and to facilitate any future emergency shelter 100 17a - 107 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26!2009 needs, the City will revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow permanent emergency shelter facilities in "BQ" Quasi-Public zoning districts. Responsible Party: Cupertino City Council Ti»ce Frame: 2009-2010. Revise Zoning Ordinance to allow permanent emergency shelters in BQ zoning districts. Funding Sorcrce: N/A Quantified Objective: N/A Program 26: Rotating Homeless Shelter Responsible Part~~: West Valley Community Services Time France: Ongoing Funding Source: CDBG and McKinney Act Funding Quantified Objective: N/A Program 27: Catholic Social Services (Single Parents) Catholic Social Services provides help to place single parents in shared housing situations. The program in funded with Santa Clara County Urban County funds. Responsible Parry: Catholic Social Services Tirne Franne: Ongoing Funding Source: County of Santa Clara Urban County Funds 7.6. Goal E: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities Policy 72: Housing Discrimination The City will work to eliminate on a citywide basis all unlawful discrimination in housing with respect to age, race, sex, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic background, medical condition, or other arbitrary factors, so that all persons can obtain decent housing. Program 28: Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium The Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium includes the Asian Law Alliance, Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, Project Sentinel and the Mental Health Advocates Program. These organizations provide resources for Cupertino residents with tenant/landlord rental mediation, housing discrimination and fair housing concerns. Responsible Party: Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium Tine Franne: Ongoing Funding Source: County of Santa Clara Urban County Funds 101 17a - 108 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 7.7. Goal F: Coordination with Local School Districts Policy 13: Coordination with Local School Disfricts The Cupertino coirununity places a high value on the excellent quality of education provided by the rivo public school districts which serve the city. In order to ensure the long-tern sustainability of the schools in tandem ~s~ith the preservation and development of vibrant residential areas, the City ~~~ill institute a new policy of coordinating closely with the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and Fremont Union High School District (FUG-ISD) Program 29: Coordination ~i-ith Local School Districts Foi7n a new conunittee of key staff from the City and the school districts to meet on a bi-monthly basis or as needed to review City planning uiitiatives, development proposals and School capital facilities and operating plans. Prepare annual reports «~ith key recommendations from this coirunittee to the School District Boards and the City Planning Commission and City Council. Responsible Partti~: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Staff and Staff fi-om CUSD and FUHSD Tirzze Frarr:e: 2009-2014 102 17a - 109 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5126/2009 8. Analysis of Consistency with General Plan The City"s various General Plan components were revie~~,~ed to evaluate their consistency with the policies and programs outlined in the Housing Element Update. The following section sununarizes the Goals of each General Plan element and identifies supporting Housing Element policies and programs. This analysis demonstrates that the policies and programs of this Housing Element prop ide consistency ~~ ith the policies set forth in the General Plan and its associated elements. 8.1. Land Use/Community Design Goals • .a cohesi~ e, rorulected cornrrunity with a distinctive center and an identifiable edge • A compact conunutut}~ boundary that allo~~ s efficient delivery of municipal sets ices • A high sense of identity and connectivity • Thriving, balanced conununity • Thriving and diverse businesses that bring economic vitality to the conununity, ~~-hile balancing housing, traffic and community character impacts • Hillside protection • Protection of historically and archaeologically significant structures, sites and artifacts • A civic envirorunent ~a~here the arts express an itulovatiti~e spirit, celebrate a rich cultural diversity and inspire individual and cornrnunity participation • ~ full range of park and recreational resources, for linking the cornrnunity, outdoor recreation, preservation of natural resources and public health and safety Su portrn Hous;~~a ~=lerr;cnf ~~olicies ~:~,. ; _ '~(°i; s~ lyoiicy numbers) Su ortin Housing Eleri7enr f~rcq;ams ~'ro'gratYt rtumbea-sl 8.2. Circulation Goals • Regional transportation planning decisions that supporrt and complement the needs of Cupertino • Increased use of public transit, carpools, bicycling; ~~-alking acid telecoirunuting • A comprehensive neri~~ork of pedestrian and bicycle routes and facilities • Increased use of existing public transit service and the development of new rapid transit 103 17a - 110 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5126/2009 set~~ice • Roadway design that accounts for the needs of motorists, pedestrians, bicycles and adjacent land use • A transportation svstein that has minimal adverse impact on residential neighborhoods Su ortrn Housing Lien~eni i-'olicies ~~-ist policy numbers) Su ortin Housin Element Programs ~~'i asters) 8.3. Environmental Resources/Sustainability Goals • ;~ sustainable future for the City of Cupertino • Reduced use of non-renewable energy resources • Energy conset-~-ing and efficient buildings • Healthy au- quality levels for the citizens of Cupertino utilizing local platming efforts • Protection of special areas of natural vegetation and wildlife habitation as integral parts of the sustainable enviromnent • '~~ineral resource areas that miiun>ize community impacts and identify future uses • Protection and efficient use of water resources • Improved quality of storm ~~-ater runoff • A solid ~~,-aste st1•eam reduction program that inee.ts or exceeds state requirements • Adequate sewer capacity Su ortin Housin Element Policies ~~; ! rst~rnbt~rs) Su portin Hous~ny Liciircn~ I~rugrams `d (List program numbersl 8.4. Health and Safety Goa/s • Reduced risks associated w°ith geologic and seismic hazards • Eff dent and effective fire and emergency services to protect the communit)~ fi•om hazards associated w ith ~~~ild and urban fires • Fire preventive measw-es that nunin>ize the loss of life and property 104 17a - 111 CITY COUNCfL DRAFT5/2612009 • An al] weather emergency road system to serve the aural areas • Available water service in the hillside and canyon areas • High quality police sei~~ices that maintain the communit}~'s crime rate lo«~ and ensure a high level of public safety • Protection from the risks associated ~m•ith hazardous materials and e?cposure to electromagnetic fields • A high level of emergency preparedness to cope with both natural or human-caused disasters • Protection fi-om risks associated ~~-ith floods • A compatible noise envirorunent for existing and future land uses • Reduced noise impact of major streets and fi-ee«~ays on Cupertino residents • Residential areas protected as much as possible from intrusive non-traffic noise • Buildings designed to minimize noise Su ortin Housrr,g Elemerr~ ~'aficies ash ~ol;icy nur~lbers'- Su orfing Ho~~sin Efc~rtErrt i='r oyran~s ram, numbers) 105 17a - 112 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 9. Appene([~ ~: Reviet~ a~ Prev[aus Haus€n~ E[emenf: 106 17a - 113 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table A.1: Achievements of Previous Housing Element Policy 3-1:"Sufficient residentially zoned land for new construction Program 1: Housing by planning disricL Encourage residential development at a density of 15-35+ units per acre. Monta Vista - 142 units Neighborhood Other Areas -400 units Vallco Park South - 711 units Heart of the City - 332 units Homestead Road - 300 units Commercial Other Areas - 300 units City Center - 437 units North De Anza - 146 units Vallco Park North - 300 units Bubb Rcad - 94 units Employment Other Areas - 100 units Total - 3,262 units Program 2: Land use designations. Change land use designation or zoning to reflect density ranges in Program 1. 57 units 200 units 311 units 116 units 0 units 0 units 337 units 49 units 0 units 0 units 0 units 1,070 units permitted (a) Complete. The Cily Council adopted zoning amendments to reflect zoning designations above. Program 3: Residential potential outside of planning districts. Include existing inventory of residentially zoned The Cily continues to include residential potential outside parcels with residential potential that are outside of the planning districts in addressing RHNA. planning districts to address i[s RHNA. Program 4: Second dwelling unit ordinance. Assure that Second Dwelling Unil Ordinance encourages production of The City issues approximately five building permits per year for more second units on residential parcels. second dwelling units. Policy 3-2: Housing Mitigation Plan Program 5: Office and Industrial Mitigation. Continue to implement "office and industrial mitigation" fee; deposit fees Complete. An updated nexus study was completed and the into Affordable Housing Fund. Conduct updated "nexus study." City Council adopted fees in June 2007. Program 6: Residential Mitigation. Continue to implement "Housing Mitigation" program. Require payment of in-lieu The City continues to implement the Housing MiOgation fee or provision of BMR units. Provide: Program by colleclomg in-lieu fees or requiring developers to provide units. 159 Very Low Income Units 25 very low-income units were built through this program. 159 Low Income Units 2 low-income units were built through this program. 53 Median Income Units No median-income units built. 53 Moderate Income Units No moderate-income units built. Program 7: Affordable Housing Fund. Finance affordable housing projects, establish a down payment assistance program, and establish a rental subsidy program. Provide: 40 Very Low Income Units 40 Low,lncome Units The Affordable Housing Fund contributed funding to the 24-unit Vista Village affordable rental project. The Affordable Housing Fund was used to purchase surplus property from Cal Trans on Cleo Ave. for affordable housing. The City has not established a downpayment assistance program. The City has not established a rental subsidy program. 107 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26/2009 Policy 33: Range of Housing Types Program 8: Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. Participate In countywide Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) The City Issued 3 Mortgage Credit Certificates. Program. Assist 1-2 households annually. Program 9: Move-in for Less Program. Tri-County Apartment Association program. Classroom teachers who meet The City continues to participate in the Move-in for Less income criteria pay no more than 20% of monthly rent as security deposit at participating apartments. Program. Program 10: Surplus Property for Housing. Develop a Ilst of surplus or underutilized property that have the potential None available. for residential development. Evaluate the feasibility of developing special housing for teachers or other employee groups on surplus properties Program 11: Jobs/Housing Balance Program. Evaluate the feasibilfty of policy/program that ties new job production The job-housing nexus study has not been completed. The to housing production. Require major new office/industrial development to build housing as part of new development City has not yet adopted housing production requirements for projects. Reduce jobs/housing ratio from 2.4 jabs to every household. new office/industrial development. Policy 3r1: Housing Rehabilitation Program 12: Affordable Housing Information and Support. City will provide information, resources and support to The City continues to provide information and support to developers who can produce affordable housing affordable housing developers. Policy 3-5: Development of Affordable Housing Program 13: Density Bonus Program. Continue to implement density bonus program. Change the ordinance definition of affordable unit to housing costs affordable at 30% of household income for very low and low Income households. rvyra~Ti 14: nnyuiaiui y ir~cvr~iires. Cuiiiii iub iu waive pain deuicaiiun anu consiruciiun fax lees for ariordabie unii . Parking standards will be discounted for affordable developments. Program 15: Residential and Mixed Use Opportunities In or Near Employment Centers. Encourage mixed use development and use of shared parking facilities in or near employment centers. Evaluate the possibility of allowing residential development above existing parking areas except where mixed use is herein excluded. The City continues to implement the density bonus program The Cily Council amended the density bonus ordinance definition of affordable housing. Tile Giiy coniinues io provide reguiaiory incentives for affordable housing developers. The City has not yet considered permitting residential development above parking in employment centers. Policy 3-8: Tax Increment Funds Program 16: Redevelopment Housing Set Aside Fund. Minimum of 25% of tax increment funds for low and The City sets aside 25% of lax increment funds for affordable moderate income households, 5% of which directed to extremely low Income households. Develop policies and housing. objectives for use of those funds. Policy 3-7: Housing Densities Program 17: Flexible Residential Standards. Allow Oexible standards such as smaller lot sizes, lot widths, FARs and Ongoing. The City continues to allow flexible residential setbacks, particularly for higher density and attached housing. standards. Program 18: Residential Development Exceeding Maximums. Allow residential developments to exceed planned Ongoing. density maximums if they provide special needs housing. 108 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Policy 3-8: Maintenance and Repair Program 19: Housing Rehabilitation. Provide financial assistance to eligiblle very low and low-(ncome homeowners This program has been eliminated. The City now supports to rehab units. Rebuilding Together, a program that provides volunteer based rehabilitation assistance to qualified homeowners. ' Program 20: Home Access Program. Provide assistance with minor home repairs and accessibility improvements for This program has been eliminated. low-income, disabled households. Program 21: Weatherization Program. Assist very low-income homeowners with weatherization improvements. This program has been eliminated. Program 22: Apartment Acquisition and Rehabilitation. HOMEICDBG funds available on competitive basis to The City continues to make HOME/CDBG funds available to developers to acquire and rehab rental units for very low and low income households developers to acquire and rehab rental units for very low- and Policy 3-9: Conservation of Housing Stock Program 23: Preservation of "At Risk Units." Preserve Sunnyview West development (only al-dsk building). The Sunnyview development has been preserved. The owner has no intention of converting the project to market-rate housing. Program 24: Condominium Conversions. No condo conversions if rental vacancy tale is less than 5% at the time of The City continues to enforce restrictions on condominium appiica0on and has been Tess than 5% over the past six months. conversions. Program 25: Rental Housing Preservation Program. Proposed developments that will cause a loss of multi-family Ongoing. Developers are requested to provide 20% 8MR units rental housing will be approved only if at least two of the following exist: (1) Comply with BMR program based on actual plus relocation plan. number of new units constructed, not net number of units (2) Number of rental units provided is at least equal to the number of existing rental units (3) No less than 20% of the units will comply with the BMR program. Include a tenant relocation plan with relocation on site as much as possible. Program 26: Conservation and Maintenance of Affordable Housing. Develop a program to encourage the The City has not yet developed a conservation and maintenance and rehabilitation of residential structures to preserve the older, more affordable stock. maintennace program for affordable housing. Program 27: Neighborhood and Community Cleanup Campaigns. Continue to encourage and sponsor Tha City continues to sponosr neighborhood cleanup neighborttood and community cleanup campaigns for public and pdvate properties. campaigns. Policy 3-10: Energy Conservation Program 28: Energy Conservation Opportunities. Enforce Titie 24 requirements for energy conservation and evaluate utilization of new alternatives. Program 29: Fee Waivers or Reduction for Energy Conservation. Evaluate and implement potential to provide incentives, such as fee waiving or reduGng fees, for energy conservation improvements to new or existing residential units. The City enforces TiOe 24 requirements as part of its Sustainability Program. Under auspices of sustainability program 109 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Goal D: Services for special needs households Policy 3-11: Special Needs Households Program 30: Cupertino Community Services (Homeless Services). Revise the zoning ordinance to allow permanent The Cily Council has not yet amended the zoning ordinance to emergy shelter facilities in the BQ quasi-public zones and promote and encourage the location of permanent shelters in allow permanent emergency shelters in the BQ zone. the BQ zones. Provide transitional housing for 12-24 households annually. Program 31: Project MATCH (Senior Shared Housing). Place seniors in housing arrangements with other persons Project MATCH no longer exists. interested in shared housing. Place 6-10 households annually. Program 32: Catholic Social Services (Single Parents). Catholic Social Services provides help to place single .Catholic Social Services continues to assist single-parents find parents in shared housing situations. shared-housing opportunities. Policy 3.12: Housing Discrimination Program 33: Santa Clare County Fair Housing Constortium. Constortium provides resources for residents with The Fair Housing Consortium continues to provide housing tenanUlandlord mediation, housing discrimination, and fair housing concerns. resources for Cupertino residents. The City contracts with Project Sentinel to provide tenanUlandlord rental mediation. Project Sentinel serves approximately 200 residents annually. Notes: (a) The total units pennmitled between 2001 and 2006 differs from the total housing units produced during the previous RHNA period, which ran from 1999 l0 2006. Sources: City of Cupertino, 2008; BAE, 2008 110 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/26/2009 Table A.2: Residential Zoning to Meet 2001-2006 RHNA Planning Area Monta Vista Neighborhood Other Areas General Plan Number of Units Residential allowed under Allocation (a) Existing Zoning (b) 142 62 400 400 Comments Vallco Park South 711 711 Heart of the City 332 332 Homestead Road 300 300 Commercial Other Areas 300 0 City Center 437 437 North De Anza 146 146 Vallco Park North 300 135 Bubb Road 94 0 Employment Other Areas 100 0 Total 3,262 2,523 Astoria Project built at 12 d.u./acre Las Palmas has been constructed. Sufficient zoning exists at three apartment complexes which are constructed far below the max. density and are older. These property owners have inquired in the past about increasing the density at these complexes. 18 acres for Main Street site plus Metropolitan and Rose Bowl site had sufficient zoning to develop at 35 d.u./acre. Heart of the Cily has sufficient zoning for all the sites. Villa Serra Project developed 160 units. Furthermore, there is more than 8.6 acres with sufficient zoning for 35 d.u./acre. Not Rezoned Sufficient zoning for 12.5 acres at 35/units acre. Oak Park Project built at 35 d.u./acre, the rest at 10 d.u./acre Morley Bros. Site has sufficient zoning. Not Rezoned Not Rezoned Notes: (a) The City of Cupertino General Plan controls development growth under through an "allocation" system that designates the number of new residential units and commercial and office square footage to be built by Planning Area. (b) The number of residential units allowed under existing zoning exceeds the City's RHNA for 2001-2006. Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009. V 41 111 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/2612009 °~ Q. ~4p~ertcl[~ ~~ ~is~ of Qrgan~za~~©~~ GOI~~aGted Housing and Service Providers Project Sentinel Sunnyview West Senior Housing West Valley Community Services Tonya Clarke Case Manager Developers BRIDGE Housing Tom Earley Director of Development Hunter Properties Deke Hunter President 111. 17a - 119 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/2612009 ~'f.A~pend~x G~ Windshield Surve~r Windshield Survey Instrument Address: Vacancy: Yes No Partial (for multi family) Construction Tvoe: Wood Frame Masonry Mobile Modular Other: Mixed Use Bldg? Yes / No For Sale: Structure Tvpe: Yes No Single Family w/ Detached Garage Single Family w/ Attached Garage Duplex Multi Family # Units: Other: Frontage Improvements if Aapiicable: Curbs Sidewalks Paved Street Driveway Gutters Adequate Site Drainage Building Conditions: # 1 -Foundation: # 3 -Siding/Stucco: 0 Existing foundation in good condition 0 Does not need repair 10 Repairs needed 1 Needs re-painting 15 Needs a partial foundation 2 Needs to be patched and re-painted 25 No foundation or needs a complete foundatio 10 Needs replacement and painting # 2 -Roofing: # 4 -Windows: 0 Does not need repair 0 Does not need repair 5 Shingles missing 1 Broken window panes 5 Chimney needs repair 5 In need of repair 10 Needs re-roofing 10 In need of replacement 25 Roof structure needs replacement and re-roofing Points based on criteria above: Structural Scoring Criteria: # 1 -Foundation Sound: 7 or less # 2 -Roofing Minor: 8 - 12 # 3 -Siding/Stucco: Moderate: 13 - 30 # 4 -Windows: Substantial: 31 - 43 TOTAL Dilapidated: 44 and over SOUND - A unit that appears new or well maintained and structurally intact. The foundation should appear structurally undamaged and there should be straight roof lines. Siding, windows, and doors should be in good repair with good exterior paint condition. Minor problems such as small areas of peeling paint, and/or other maintenance items are allowable under this category. MINOR - A unit that shows signs of deferred maintenance, or which needs only one major component such as a roof. MODERATE - A unit in need of replacement of one or more major components and other repairs, such as roof replacement, painting, and window repairs SUBSTANTIAL - A unit that requires replacement of several major systems and possibly other repairs (e.g. complete foundation work, roof structure replacement and re-roofing, as well as painting and window replacement. DILAPIDATED - A unit suffering from excessive neglect, where the building appears structurally unsound and maintenance is non-existent, not fit for human habitation in its current condition, may be considered for demolition or at minimum, major rehabilitation will be required. 113 17a - 120 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 ~ 2. ~p~endix ~. Maximum ~f~ol`daE~fe ~aies ~riee ~aiculafiions 11 ~~ 17a - 121 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 Table D.1: Maximum Affordable Sales Price Calculator Monthly Total Household Sale Down Total Monthly Property Mortgage Homeowner's Monthly Income (a) Price Payment (b) Mortgage (b) Payment Tax c Insurance (d) Insurance (e) PITT (f) Extremely Low Income (30 % AMI) 4 Person HH $31,850 $131,485 $26,297 $105,188 $671.79 $120.53 $0.00 $3.93 $796.25 Very Low Income (50 % AMI) 4 Person HH $53,050 $219,005 $43,801 $175,204 $1,118.95 $200.75 $0.00 $6.54 $1,326.25 Low Income (80 % AMI) 4 Person HH $84,900 $350,490 $70,098 $280,392 $1,790.75 $321.28 $0.00 $10.47 $2,122.50 Median Income (100% AMI) 4 Person HH $97,800 $403,745 $80.749 $322,996 $2,062.84 $370.10 $0.00 $12.06 $2,445.00 Moderate (120% AMI) 4 Person HH $117,400 $484,659 $96,932 $387,727 $2,476.25 $444.27 $0.00 $14.48 $2,935.00 (a) Pubdshed by California Tax Credll Allocation Committee and HUD. Income limits for Santa Clara County (b) Mortgage farms: Annual Interest Rale (Fixed) 6.60 % Freddie Mac historical monthly Primary Mortgage Market Survey data tables. Ten-year average. Tenn of mortgage (Years) 30 Percent of sale price as down payment 20.0 (c) Initial properly lax (annual) 1.10% (d) Mortgage Insurance as percent of loan amount 0.00% Assumes 20% down payment. (e) Annual homeowner's insurance rate as percent of sale price 0.04% CA Dept. of Insurance websile, based on average of all quotes, assuming $150K covergae (i) PITI =Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance Percent of household income available for PITI 30.0% Sources: CA HCD 2008; Freddie Mac 2008; CA Department of Insurance, 2008; 8AE 2008 V d 115 N N CITY COUNCIL DRAFT5/26/2009 13~App~ncEix ~: Sumlr~ary of City Zoning S~~ndards Table E.1: Summary of City Zoning Standards Min. Lot Minimum Bldg. Ht. Width Minimum Yard Setback Min. Lot Site Parking Zone District (ft) (ft•) Front Side Rear Area (sq. ft.) Coverage per DU A 18-28 50-60 30 20 25 215,000 NA 4.0 A-1 20-28 200 30 20 20-25 43,000-215,000 40% 4.0 R-1 28 60 20-25 10-15 20-40 5,000-20,000 45% 4.0 R-2 15-30 60-70 20 6-12 10-20 8500-15,000 40% 2.3 R-3 30 70 20 6-18 20 9,300 40% 2.0 RHS 30 70 20-25 10-15 25 20,000-400,000 45% 2.0 R-1C 30 NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.0 Sources: Cupertino Municipal Code, 2009; BAE, 2009. 11G 17a - 123 CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS/2612009 ~. Appendix ~: Residen~iaf SE~e [nventary 117 17a - 124 Attachment B CUPERTINO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 Sumrnary Application No.: Applicant: Location/APN: GPA-2008-01(EA-2009-0`i) City of Cupertino City-wide Agenda Date: April 14, 2009 Application Summary: A. General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 :Housing Element Update RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached 2007-2014 Draft Housing Element and discuss the Policy and Goals section, the Housing Resources section beginning on page 77 and the Available Site Inventory and make recommendations to the City Council. BACKGROUND: Selections of Consultant: In February 2008, staff distributed a Request for Proposals for the preparation of the Housing Element of the General Plan to nine bay area consultants specializing in Housing Element preparation. Of the nine consultants, two responded with proposals. Staff interviewed the two consultants and selected Bay Area Economics (BAE) to prepare Cupertino's Housing Element for the planning period of 2007-2014. BAE was ;elected as the City's consultant because of their experience and the thorough public participation~~lan submitted with their proposal. Housing Element Process: In accordance with State law, California cities must have an adopted General Plan which must contain a Housing Element. While all element: of a General Plan are reviewed and revised regularly to ensure that the plan remains current„ state law requires that the Housing Element be updated every five years. The current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and certified by the State in 2001 and was most recently amended by the City Council as part of the comprehensive General Plan update on November 15, 2005. State law also dictates the issues that the Housing; Element must address and furthermore requires the element to be reviewed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to ensure that it meets the minimum requirements established by Government Code §65580-65589.8. This process is commonly referred to as "certifying" 17a - 125 General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element Update 14, 2009 Pale 2 of 3 the Housing Element. The adopted Housing Element needs to be submitted to the State no later than June 30, 2009 for review by HCD. Regional Housing; Needs Allocation (RHNA) The major and most controversial requirement of the Housing Element is for cities to adequately plan for their existing and projected housing needs, including their share of the regional housing need. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) completed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) in June 2008. As part of this process, ABAG worked with regional and local governments to develop a methodology for distributing the nine-county Bay Area's housing need (as determined by HCD) to all local governments in the region. Each city and county has received an allocation of housing units, broken down by income categories, for which it must plan by identifying adequate sites zoned at adequate densities. Cupertino's RHNA for the 1999-2006 Housing Element period was 2,720 units. In contrast, Cupertino's RHNA goal for the 2007-2014 period is 1,170 units, a reduction of nearly 57%. It should be noted that HCD does not require that units be built but instead requires municipalities to "identify adequate sites for housing and make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community." Of the 1170 units in the new RHNA, the City has already approved, planned or constructed 516 units (see table 4.2 of the Draft Housing Element) which reduces the RHNA balance to 734 units. The remaining 734 units must serve the extremely low, very low and low income populations. Meeting this requirement means either having property in the City that is zoned at a density of 20+ units to the acre or requiring sites to be rezoned to a minimum density of 20 units/acre to accommodate the balance. State Government Code requires that the Housing Element include an "inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment" (Section 65583(a)(3)). It further requires that the Housing Element analyze zoning and infrastructure on these sites to ensure that housing development is feasible during the planning period (2007-2014). For example, if a project has recently been built on a site that could have accommodated greater density than that of the built project, the City is not allowed to count the balance since the likelihood of the site being redeveloped in the planning period (2007-2014) is unlikely to occur. Appendix F of the attached Draft Housing Element shows potential residential sites and the required density while Section 6, beginning on page 77, analyzes the sites in more detail. Appendix F contains a list of sites totaling well above the remaining 734 units. Taking into account the public and Planning Commission feedback, staff will perform further site analysis and conduct an environmental review prior to bringing forward the Planning Commission's recommendations to the City Council. Process: During this update, particular attention is being paid to the public participation process. The consultant has held four focus group meetings with key stakeholders and a community workshop. Stakeholders groups included a representatives from City commissions and the City Council, the Council of Churches, PTA groups, teacher unions, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Silicon 17a - 126 g:\planning\pdreport\pc gpa reports\2008\gpa-2008-Olpc.doc General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element Update April 14, 2009 Page 3 of 3 Valley Association of Realtors, League of Women Voters, Cupertino Union School District, Fremont Union High School District, DeAnza College, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, West Valley Community Services (WVCS), and public interest groups such as Cupertino Against Rezoning (CARe), Concerned Citizens of Cupertino (CCC) and Advocates for a Better Cupertino (ABC). Each stakeholder group self-selected its own representative. All stakeholder and community meetings were webcast and archived for viewing on the city website. Furthermore, PowerPoint presentations have also been archived on the City website for review. The stakeholder and community meetings were advertised on the city website and a city- wide postcard with key dates was mailed out in advance of the first public hearing. To review materials and video archives of the stakeholder and community meetings, please go to www.cupertino.or /housingelement. On April 9, 2009, the Cupertino Housing Commission reviewed the Draft Housing Element and a PowerPoint presentation prepared by BAE. After discussion, the Commission has recommended the Planning Commission review the Draft Housing Element and forward it to the City Council for submission to HCD for reviev~. After the Planning Commission reviews and comments on the Draft Housing Element, its recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. As mentioned earlier, after the Council adopts the element, it will be submitted to HCD for certification, a process which could take several months. PREPARED BY: Vera Gil, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director Enclosures: Draft Housing Element 17a - 127 g:\planning\pdreport\pc gpa reports\2008\gpa-2008-Olpc.d~~c Cupertino Planning Commission Attachment C April 14, 2009 Com. Lee: • Said she noted in the DRC meeting that she felt it would not be practical to rotate the house as proposed by appellant because it would likely make the entrance into the garage~4awkward. Said she would uphold the DRC decision and deny the appeal. ~~ Com. Br`bghy• • Said one ~'Ssue to address is the notification process on site a royals. In this case one of the concerns the~ap~el~lant made to the DRC and tonight, was~hat they were not cognizant of what was being proposed'~rttil quite late, even though froJe applicant's perspective, the project had been in the hopper foF . ver a year at the tirr~~ "Regardless of the outcome of this case, he suggested that when applicatio come ink notification go out at an earlier stage before the story pole stage. • Said he supported denial of the ap~ 1' Chair Giefer: ~, • Said she felt the projeert`'met the requirements, the code~az~d all regulations regarding the planned developme t a Oak Valley. • Said she suppo d the denial of the appeal. ~,_ Motion: otion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Brophy, to deny the appeal`"'and to uphold the DRC decision of approval on Application ASA-2009-03. (Vote: 3-(i=1; Com. Kaneda absent) The agenda was moved back to Item 2. Chair Giefer declared a short recess. '-~ 2. GPA-2008-O1(EA-2009-05~, (A) General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing GPA-2009-01 (EA-2009-03) Element update and; (B) General Plan Amendment City of Cupertino, Citywide to increase the office allocation. Tentative City Council Location. Date: May S, 2009. Paul Penninger, Bay Area Economics (BAE), Consultant on General Plan housing Element: • Explained the housing element is part of the General Plan that deals with residential land uses; it is one of the 7 required elements of the General Plan and as it is adopted, it needs to be made consistent with the other parts of the General Plan, such as land use element, circulation element, etc. It provides a look at where housing is in Cupertino, where it could be in the future and to set down programs and policies to guide your residential development over time. • Said they were also guided by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, which is the process whereby the Regional Council of Governments ascertains how much housing each jurisdiction in the Bay Area needs to build, over the particular planning period being considered. When looking at the housing element update, they are also looking at the goal for planning and looking at the available sites both designated in the General Plan as residential land use sites and have the appropriate zoning. Along with that, they will recommend some key land use and policy changes to make sure that they do have all of the programs, policies, land use designations and zoning in place to accommodate their RHNA planning goals and other city planning goals for housing over the planning period. • Provided an update on the process, which included a very lengthy public outreach process and update process, somewhat more extensive than might be the case in other communities. Meetings were conducted with various Commissions and stakeholders and four focus group meetings, which are on the Cupertino website. Recently the Housing Commission was presented with an administrative draft containing all the fundamental elements of the Housing Element update that need to be provided to the State Department of Housing and Community 17a - 128 Cupertino Planning Commission S' April 14, 2009 Development for certification. The Housing Commission has reviewed the draft and forwarded it to the Commission tonight for their consideration. After your review, the Planning Commission will decide whether or not to forward it to the City Council; the City Council will have the option of forwarding rur approved draft of the Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The HCD will assign a reviewer and it will come back to the Commission again and they will have the option to comment and forward it to City Council for fmal adoption. It is a careful and extensive process, because this becomes part of the land use constitution; it is the framework by which all land use planning decisions are made. It is a good process to go through to make sure you get a document the community can believe in.. • He explained the benefit of having certification from the HCD; it can be viewed as an opportunity to take a fresh look at residential land uses and decide if there is enough housing and the right type of housing to meet the community needs. It is also a way to make the city competitive for different types of state fundnng; there are certain bond programs that are only available to communities that have certified housing elements. Under the law, if you don't have a certified housing element past a certain period, you expose yourself to the risk of lawsuits. By having a certified housing elemE:nt, you make yourselves competitive for funding and you avoid any potential risk of lawsuit going forward. • He reviewed the RHNA as outlined in the stair report. Page 2/3 of staff report, Item 2. • Consultant is looking for direction from the Planning Commission on what direction staff and the consultant should take; should they look at the maximum number of sites as suggested over the course of this update process; to identify :ill of the potential sites in the city that could take residential land uses and provide recommendations for those. That is the maximum envelope; or look at a more scaled back number of sitf;s that are particularly appropriate for residential uses and very likely to develop as housing over a shorter time frame. • Said he would recommend the latter route; working over the course of the next week or tvvo, paring down the list of sites, to focus on just those sites that are most appropriate for residential land uses that are likely to meet thy; minimum density standards of 20 DUA and that are likely to meet community support over the planning period. • Said there was a benefit of having an extensive inventory; it is a full list of potential residential opportunity sites to continue to work on; but iin terms of what is forwarded to City Council and what gets presented to HCD, he recommendf;d forwarding a narrower list of sites, and asking for more indepth work on a specific set of sites; and in particular those areas of the city; the Heart of the City, South Vallco, perhaps some others that have the highest redevelopment and development potential over the next planning period. • Reviewed Table F1, available sites inventory, which includes the 370 already appropriately designated in zone sites at 20 DUA, plu:~ an additional number that have commercial, industrial, other types of zoning in place ghat would need to get changed. The land use changes that would need to happen to accommodate the full 1500 involved some rezoning on 3 or 4 opportunity sites in the Bubb Road and Monta Vista area, increased residential densities in the Heart of the City and City Center districts, and zoning changes to permit residential development on designated parcels in the Flomestead Road, North and South Vallco Park, South DeAnza Boulevard and other non-designated areas. • Consideration may be given to shifting arou~id some of the residential allocations; there is an overall residential allocation that the city has in mind and presently that is about 2,800 total residential units across the city divided by district. The City Council has at its discretion the ability to move around those allocations from district to district. You may want to decide to memorialize that shifting around of residential units between districts as part of this housing element; it is not something you necessarily need to show to HCD; what matters to HCD is that you have parcels of land that have the right land use designation, the right zoning and the right infrastructure in place to accommodate .a housing proposal. We wanted to put this policy 17a - 129 Cupertino Planning Commission 10 April 14, 2009 change in front of you in case you wanted to consider that as part of memorializing that as part of this housing element update. Two other key policy changes, one of the benefits of having the housing element updates occur on a regular basis is that your last housing element with the exception of the sites inventory is up-to-date and has a comprehensive set of policies regarding most of the issues that housing practitioners and HCD in particular look at. There are two other ar"eas beyond the residential development sites that require attention; one is that under State law there needs to be at least one zone in the city that can accommodate an emergency shelter for homeless persons or families by right. Presently there is a rotating shelter allowed in the BQ zone and that responsibility is shared for the rotating emergency shelter with neighboring jurisdictions. The State law requires that the city identify at least one zone in the city that can accommodate an emergency shelter for homeless individuals and families by right. That is one significant change and is something that would need to be incorporated into the city's update in order to secure certification. A proposed optional change is to propose closer coordination with the local school districts, specifically that a new committee is formed of key staff from the city and the two school districts that serve the community of Cupertino; that the committee meet on a regular basis to review city planning initiatives, specific development proposals and also school capital facilities and operating plans. One of the goals is to ensure that as the city considers new residential development, and also as the school is planning for its future needs, that they work together and carefully consider where the housing goes in relation to where the new school facilities are being built; which schools are already very impacted, which schools may be able to accommodate future development; so the policy makers both at the school district level and the city level have that in mind when they are considering planning initiatives and proposals. It is a good best practice idea going forward to help the city consider what is arguably one of its most important resources, its schools and high quality of public education offered. This is not required by HCD, it is optional, and something they feel is a good idea for the city, and which came out of the community process to date. The direction they are seeking from the Commission is whether to focus on the least number of sites needed to meet HCDs requirements or on a more expanded inventory of sites. What are the city's key areas and sites for new housing development; looking at all the different areas in the city, we think that probably given current development trends and land use characteristics, that the Heart of the City and North and South Vallco are probably the areas that have the most capacity in terms of land to accommodate new growth. He said he would not necessarily concentrate efforts on rezoning industrial parcels of land in other parts of the city, particularly those that are unlikely to redevelop in the short term. He asked if the Planning Commission wanted to coordinate with the local school districts. Going forward, this process will likely change; they are in the midst of some legal changes statewide where SB375 was recently passed that will change how housing element updates take place, hopefully for the better. It is an opportunity to look at jobs housing balance, to look at the community's stability and quality of life and how through this document you can bring together the joint needs of keeping your economy healthy and making sure you have enough and the right type of housing to meet the community needs. The item is partially informational and partially action item; the Planning Commission can elect to forward to the City Council on May 5th and show them an edited draft, or have the consultant return on April 28 ,taking into account the feedback received tonight and see another iteration of the draft. Com. Miller: • Said they were also being asked tonight to consider an increase in the number of square feet of office space in the General Plan, approximately .5 million square feet. Asked that in all the 17a - 130 Cupertino Planning Commission 11 April 14, 2009 • calculations done, did they consider the increase in square footage of office space, or how it would change the equation. Paul Penninger: • Said that HCD requires ajobs/housing ba ance analysis. Currently Cupertino would be considered a very jobs-rich community which is a positive thing given the overall state of the economy. It has strong high tech businesses in the city that are doing relatively well; however, are out of balance given the number oi' residential units, vis a vis its employment characteristics. An additiona1500,000 sq. ft. of office if it were to be approved, would impact the jobs housing balance in the way of providing more jobs and growing that disparity. Com. Miller: • If we don't address it now, the next time we come around to the housing element, we are going to be forced to address it. If we don't pla;1 for it, we are going to be in a more difficult situation the next time around. Paul Penninger: • Asked the Planning Commission to at least identify sites or ask the consultant and staff to identify sites to accommodate 364 units under new zoning; it could be increased depending on what their policy goals were. Com. Miller: • When redoing the General Plan in 2005, much time was spent on the numbers and office space allocations available were lowered in order t~~ make sure that they were in balance. They are now being told that because the method o:F calculation has changed, there is more office development than housing development. Paul Penninger: Said that Cupertino had more jobs than before;. The framework in the General Plan is useful in the sense that it looks at where over the long term from a general goal perspective, new housing should occur, where new office and retail should occur. What is different this time around in the housing element, is they have t~~ look parcel by parcel, and when you get to that level, the analysis changes a little; it doesn't necessarily add up to the same number of units. Com. Miller: • Said that many of the comments made were very good and to the point. He said that in looking at the inventory of sites proposed, the-re were some that did not seem practical, such as the site behind Macy's in the South Vallco area, which was voted down by referendum and the likelihood of it being developed was very lo~,v in the short term. The site identified in South Vallco in the Main Street area where Toll Ftrothers had proposed about 484 units, was also voted down by referendum. Some of those units were supposed to be senior housing. • The remaining 300 looks like it is identified for two sites that have industrial buildings on it that Apple recently purchased and plan to continue to use in an industrial manner. He said he was not sure there were realistic sites there. If considering the 500,000 square feet they are being asked to put back in the General Plan, most of it will go into North Vallco. If serious about building more housing or more afford<<ble housing and we are serious about balance, it is not building more housing in town. • Said if they weren't building more office space, he did not see the need to build more housing, but since they are building more office space, there are two major corporations in town who will be building more office space; that bring: along with it the need for the housing to follow. 17a - 131 Cupertino Planning Commission 12 April 14, 2009 One of the comments made was to focus on sites with the highest development potential which is North Vallco. It may make sense to tie the housing requirement to the business development requirement because that is what is going to drive the need for more housing. North Vallco has a number of desirable characteristics and a number of undesirable characteristics. If we focus on the desirable ones, it is far away from residential development in general, and lends itself to more intensity. Not all of North Vallco is in the Cupertino School District, so the impact on the schools of having some housing development there is considerably less than putting it anywhere else in town. The next point is if we are just talking about housing in general, that is one issue; if we are talking about trying to address some of the affordable housing, 20 DUA is ludicrously low; it makes no sense whatsoever; it is the same requirement that San Benito County has. San Benito County has less population than Cupertino and maybe ten times the land mass and they have the same requirement as here. Here land costs $3 million per acre, there it cost $250,000 per acre. If we are serious about building affordable housing, we either need to get someone to donate some land or we need to increase the density or some combination of the factors. Paul Penninger: • Said the densities are referred to as the Mullen densities and are based on metropolitan areas; Cupertino is part of the San Jose Metropolitan area and the 20 DUA applies to all of Santa Clara County; the standard in San Mateo County is 30 DUA. The comment is well taken, the development economics are such that 20 DUA is actually difficult for sponsors of affordable housing and other types of housing to make it work without a lot of subsidy. Com. Miller: • He said, if serious about it, they should be increasing the densities; they should be at least as high as some of the other higher density; So. Vallco is 35 DUA and the Rose Bowl may be even higher. Paul Penninger: • The maximum allowed under the General Plan was 35 DUA. Com. Miller: • If density is increased, there is a concern that more houses are going to bring more kids to the schools; I would also want to limit the size of any units that are proposed to minimize the impact on the schools. Your comment about working the schools is appropriate. I also think that in the last reiteration that the school was planning of their development plans; Cupertino High School which is the one that might be affected by any housing in that area that does go in is actually slated for an increase in capacity. Paul Penninger: • Expressed caution in the policy document about specifying whether or not particular sites can accommodate certain units of particular bedroom sizes; there is a fair housing consideration regarding large families. In general, on aproject-by-project basis, it makes sense to look at what the distribution of bedrooms and the types of housing being proposed. He said they could consider eliminating the square footage and not mentioning bedrooms. Com. Miller: • Said it was difficult to meet everyone's objective in the city, but balance is important; location makes a lot of sense and tying the development to areas where new development is likely to happen in the next two to four years makes the most sense, and increasing the density is something that if serious about doing any of this housing, needs to go along with it. 17a - 132 Cupertino Planning Commission 13 April 14, 2009 Com. Brophy: • Question regarding the need for zoning by riglrt for permanent emergency shelters; if there is a zone in which emergency shelters are an approved use, does that prevent the city from requiring a special use permit within that zone'? Tessa Munakeo, BAE: • Said the law requires they have one zone that allows by right a permanent emergency shelter without any other additional discretionary permits. Paul Penninger: • Said that there were requirements in terms of insurance, liability, etc. on behalf of the operator of a permanent emergency shelter. They would provide further details. He said there would be a standard of reasonableness; if you have reasonable requirements that a typical project sponsor of an emergency shelter or more likely a transitional housing development for people who are transitioning from homelessness, that they will .used to working with to make their project work. • If there are extraordinary standards built into the housing element particular that are clearly meant to dissuade a viable sponsor from locating in the community, HCD will identify those and likely ask for them to be addressed. Vera Gil, Senior Planner: Said it would be highly unlikely for a project sponsor to try to locate a large capacity emergency shelter in a city like Cupertino, since last homeless census showed there were only 11 unsheltered homeless people within the city limits. Paul Penninger: Said he agreed. Many non-profit developers and service providers are looking at temporary and permanent supportive housing for individuals and families experiencing homelessness, rather than building new shelters, particularly high capacity shelters in suburban jurisdictions, remote from services. Com. Brophy: • Asked if sites zoned for residential but also for other uses, are acceptable from the HCD calculation purposes? Paul Penninger: As long as the General Plan land use desi~mation and the zoning are consistent and the infrastructure is appropriate. You can have zoning that would allow office, retail or housing; it just needs to be a viable site for housing, if that were to be the development proposal in front of you. Said his recommendation given the current round of HCD comments on other housing elements they worked on in other communities, would be for a short list of high quality sites that are suitable for residential development .and could accommodate particularly affordable housing, rather than an extensive inventory of ;sites that may or may not have problems. Com. Brophy: • Said that in Cupertino, it is not that the sites are unsuitable for residential, but that the economics make it difficult to work. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a larger list of possible sites rather than a small list. 17a - 133 Cupertino Planning Commission 14 April 14, 2009 Paul Penninger: • Said the issue is that some of the uses on the 45 sites that are on the list are currently in operation; they are commercial and/or other uses that may or may not redevelop over the next planning period. They are underutilized land on these parts in the form of parking lots or just land not utilized, but there may be a viable economic use there already. In providing the owner of the land with the option of doing residential development in the next period, that is one way to go; but from HCD's perspective it isn't likely that it is going to redevelop. Is it what would be considered an under-utilized site from a strictly economic perspective right now? That is the analysis that has to be done. Paul Brophy: • Said it seems a lot of the sites described are one story tilt-up buildings from the 70s; while they are perfectly useful as an office building in a physical sense, economically a great number of them could potentially be converted to residential use. Paul Penninger: • Said there may be opportunities to do better quality mixed use development with higher design standards and more appropriate retail on some of these sites that are higher quality commercial and flexible types of commercial uses. Are the owners of those properties realistically going to look at turning those over in the next planning period. Are there viable development alternatives; are they in the right places in the city that are -likely to receive support from the community? Com. Brophy: • Said that Bandley Avenue has one-story tilt-ups that would potentially be a source where the owners might wish to convert property from residential development if they could get permission; R&D buildings, looking at tearing down and replacing. Com. Lee: • No questions or comments. Chair Giefer: • Thinking about the longer list which suggests that if there is incompatibility between current zoning and the General Plan, she recalled years ago trying to put in place a more flexible planned development overlay on many commercial properties to make it easier for someone to come forward, and give the property owner greater flexibility in terms of the type of project the property owner may chose to redevelop or build. • Said in reviewing the list, she was looking at the compatibility between zoning and General Plan; if we move forward on that and make a recommendation to rezone, what are the legal implications with regard to suggesting manipulating zoning for a specific purpose so we are in compliance with our housing element; would we need to be conscious and aware throughout that process? Carol Korade, City Attorney: • Said that they had to be aware of spot zoning, which is the legal conclusion where you identify particular parcels that have a particular motivation. A general overlay in order to provide flexibility, would not be presumed to violate the legal standard for spot zoning. Caution has to be exercised in looking at a particular parcel and giving it a particular zoning characteristic that the owners could claim violates the legal standard of inverse condemnation, which means that you are wanting to take a residential parcel, and zoning it for open space because you 17a - 134 Cupertino Planning Commission 1.~ April 14, 2009 • wanted some free recreation area, that would be a typical example of what would be found as spot zoning. She said her initial review does not reveal any type of legal standard or problem. Chair Giefer: • As Com. Brophy suggested, Bandley Avenue: may have some potential; the present buildings have struggled in terms of having tenants. ~~nother area is the Edge property along Stevens Creek; there was a fire on some properties across from target; hopefully they will be redeveloped; not certain of zoning. • Perhaps what we might do is either suggest looking at some additional areas or removing some areas that are on the proposed map. • Com. Miller brought up a good point with re;;ards to looking at adding additional commercial squares to the General Plan which we understand why it is highly desirable to do that and we do want to service our commercial headquarter companies here, but it does have an impact on the amount of housing that we need to approve. We need to reconcile that as part of this and see what implication that will have on this plan. I do agree with that. Does that make sense for us to look at the lengthy plan and either eliminate sites we know that are not going to be coming forth for redevelopment before 2014, or potentially add items to the list and then direct staff to look at the high potential sites. Vera Gil: • Said the Planning Commission can add situ; for the City Council's consideration and make recommendations to remove sites, and staff would take the list to the Council. Chair Giefer: • Asked if there were any other areas that should be considered. Com. Miller: • North Vallco from the west side of Wolfe l;:oad to the east side of Tantau, on the east and west; and highway 280 on the south, and Homestead on the north. Suggest they look at the HP campus; it is highly populated with buildings, most of the HP campus is not in the Cupertino School District, and it has to be considered ~i potential site for housing. HP has come in and asked for an increase in square footage, which is an indication they may seriously be thinking about adding commercial or office space. Com. Brophy: • Said it was an important issue, but he was not sure in the context of having to do a housing element, that it would move them forward. • Important to have continued informal discus:~ions with HP and Apple about their plans; start placing units on property that is controlled by two industrial corporations, • Said since they have no ability to force them to do that; if they are informed there may be some interest in it, to disassociate that issue from the housing element would seem to be the preferred way to go. Com. Miller: • Said he struggled with the intent to build more office space in that area which will trigger a requirement on the city to produce more hou~~ing units somewhere else. If that is the area that is going to cause the need for more housing units, from a logical standpoint it seems like that is the area to designate. Whether the housing units end up there or not is the separate issue, but tying the housing units to the construction of ;additional office square footage is good logic. 17a - 135 Cupertino Planning Commission 16 April 14, 2009 Chair Giefer: • Asked staff if they felt the HP campus or new Apple campus would be built in the next five years before the current plan expires. Aarti Shrivastava: Said both Apple and HP have expressed an interest in coming in within the plan period; staff will follow up with them regarding any sites the Planning Commission would want to send to Council once known. They do know about the Vallco Parkway site, Apple, and they are fine with the recommendation from staff that they have the residential overlay on that. Presently the zoning isn't there; the General Plan allocation is there so it would have to be zoned to allow residential in addition to the office. Com. Miller: • It is a good site for housing; however, the problem is that they have already been through a referendum where the residents have voted against putting further housing there. Said he would like North Vallco from the standpoint there is not nearly as strong an argument from a residential standpoint to oppose housing, and there are also some sites that are not on either the HP campus or the proposed new Apple campus that also could be very desirable for housing there and some of them are not in the Cupertino School District either. • Apple purchased the Morley Bros. housing project with a unit count between 120 and 140 units in the middle of their site which is currently zoned and approved for a housing project. The reason for building new housing is that housing does not drive office space; oflice space drives housing; if someone is going to build more housing, he liked the idea of tying the housing to the office space. Chair Giefer: • Asked Com. Miller if he was suggesting that when they approve an office space project, they insist on building housing or that they come with housing as part of their overall project; or was he talking about in the zoning. Com. Miller: Presently they are talking about zoning and locations in town; and from a smart growth standpoint, all the smart growth principles talk about putting the two together, near infrastructure, near avenues of transportation. What is nice about that area is it is at the edge of the city; it doesn't impact the housing areas in town; it is close to transportation; and has a lot of the attributes that make it a good place for housing, if we are going to build further housing in town. If HP and Apple never decide to do that office space there, that is the only trigger that generates the need for housing in the first place. Com. Brophy: • Said that Com. Miller has discussed very important ~oints; but tonight's agenda is to move forward the housing element to the State by June 30 ,and it is not the appropriate time and place to open up the issue of what to do with North Vallco and how that relates to the intentions of HP and Apple. • He said it was an important issue and hoped they could work with them to let them accomplish what they need to do as important businesses, but to open that up in trying to finish a housing element, would be counter-productive. Com. Miller: • Said the purpose was to identify the sites, not to require the housing be built, and he suggested that it is a viable site and there are also locations in that general area that are not either in the 17a - 136 Cupertino Planning Commission 1'1 April 14, 2009 lands that HP and Apple would develop or.~, that are potential sites as well. There are a significant number of locations here, whether we talk about them on the HP campus or Apple campus, or outside that, where additional hou:;ing could very easily be accommodated. Chair Giefer: • Said she heard that it needs to be probable that the units would be moved on within this plan period. Paul Penninger: • Said "feasible" was more accurate; they could look if there are specific sites in the North Vallco area, particular parcels, addresses that'~~ear further examination, as part of their analysis and he felt it was a viable way to go. Some ~;ites may need to be subtracted, such as the ones that have been on referendums. He said th~;y were willing to add some sites in the North Vallco area to make it a more balanced planni:~g document. Chair Giefer: • Said she was comfortable looking at North Vallco, not HP and the Apple lands because she did not feel they are realistic in terms of develoament. If there are other parcels that might be developed that are not part of the toxic mitigation in the area, that is fine. Com. Miller: • There are other lands, but I would also suggest that it is hard to see, if we zoned an area for 35 units per acre on HP property, we are not forcing HP to do anything with that. It is hard to see how they would object to increasing the value of their property with a residential zoning of 35 units per acre. I cannot imagine them coming down and screaming no, we don't want that; because we are not taking anything away fron- them, we are adding to what they already have. That said, all the lands on the east side of Tantau are the ones that Apple hasn't already purchased, are potential sites that are not on Apple's or HP's asset list. Then there are also some lands on the west side of Wolfe that are similarly so designated; one may be included in this list; that is where the 22 comes from. W~: haven't considered the ones on the east side of Tantau at all at this point. Chair Giefer: • Said she felt it would be futile to anticipate that HP or Apple would move forward on housing within this plan period. Com. Miller: • Said they do not know who is going to move forward with what in what location; all they have is an indication they have asked for more den:~ity, more square feet of office space, which is a reasonable indication they are going to move forward in the near future. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that if the Commission wanted to take action on another list of sites they want us to look at, we are happy to do that; and then we can provide the follow up once we provide the pros and cons, and leave it up to the Council to decide which one of these sites they would like to go with. We are willing to forward the Planning Commission recommendations but we would like a motion on the list of sites so we are cle<<r which ones we need to review. We can, if we are not clear, bring back some of the sites, such as Bandley, just to make sure we have the right sites. 17a - 137 Cupertino Planning Commission 1 S April 14, 2009 Paul Penninger: • Explained the review process at HCD. When they look at the list of sites, they look at sites according to whether they are vacant or under-utilized. For the vacant sites they decide does the vacant site have the right infrastructure in environmental characteristics and planning controls in place to provide feasibility for residential development in the next period. For the proposed under-utilized sites they require some analysis of whether or not the existing commercial or other use actually constitutes anunder-utilization of the sites; so they will look at-improvement to land value ratios; that is whether or not the improvement to build structure on the site is worth less than the appraised value of the underlying land. If looking at sites that currently have a structure and particularly where there is an occupied structure, and we are attempting to show evidence that it is under-utilized, we need to have some objective criteria. • Said his only concern in this discussion would be if they are looking at office uses in particular that are fully occupied that have employees working in them and that are viable, particularly in the current economic climate. It is a hard analytical hoop to show economically that they are under-utilized at least today, based on objective criteria. From a review perspective there will be more raised eyebrow when looking at sites we are showing as evidence of your ability to accommodate the RHNA in the next period if there are under-utilized sites with the existing viable commercial uses, where we are simply proposing changing the zoning. • Asked if the Commission wanted to comment on the sites identified in the Bubb Road and Monta Vista areas and in the North DeAnza areas. Are there concerns and issues that the consultant should be aware of. Com. Miller: • The Monta Vista site; the school system is most seriously impacted in the Monta Vista district, therefore any site designated in the Monta Vista school district is going to be next to impossible to do anything with. Paul Penninger: • Said he inquired in particular about this neighborhood because there ,isn't any parcel that stands out as a vacant parcel and are clearly severely under-utilized that has the right zoning land use designations and infrastructure in place. Some of the parcels may be a stretch to prove that they are acceptable as residential development over the next planning period. Com. Miller: Said the other area of town which has a relatively high number, 396 units along Stevens Creek, might get argument that it conflicts with the Heart of the City Plan. There is a lot of opposition. Paul Penninger: • Said it was consistent with the Heart of the City Plan. Com. Miller: • Reiterated that the site behind Macys could be removed from the list. • Said Valley Green properties currently has existing office buildings on them. Com. Lee: Said she had no questions or additions; and agreed with Com. Miller regarding looking at more sites for the North Vallco area. 17a - 138 Cupertino Planning Commission 19 April 14, 2009 Com. Brophy: • Bandley Drive is similar to Bubb Road, except it also has the advantage that it is adjoining existing multi-family development, and in most parts it is not adjoining single family. The structures are sufficient; they aze the one stogy tilt-up from 30 to 35 years ago which might be logical. Vera Gil: • Clarified that Sites 21, 22 and 23 were the ;hopping center, which because of the age of the center and the property owner has approached the city, have the potential to redevelop as a mixed use project in the future. • Said that Villa Serra Apartments is still on the list at a lower density with a lower unit yield because there are still some open spaces and they are considered under-utilized. They could propose constructing new units in certain are~is. Chair Giefer: • Commented on some of the Bubb Road addresses. A number of the tilt-up older buildings on Bubb Road aze currently leased by Apple. When Apple does move into their new facilities, some of those buildings may become vacant ~md potentially available for redevelopment. • Said they should look at those and try to come up with some perspective in terms of how likely that will happen. There are tremendous sc}iool implications in that area to be considered. Measurex has pulled permits to redevelop th~~ commercial site in the area; when it came to us before as housing, it did require rezoning as vrell. • Relative to the corner of Monta Vista, she recalled that when Measurex proposed housing, one of the adjacent parcels had a toxic well on it; there were some issues relating to the mitigation of the contaminants on that site and the effect of that specific parking lot. There may be some problematic environmental issues. Gary Chao: • Said that Measurex has submitted a request ~~vhich will go to the Planning Commission soon, to extend their use permit to prolong the appr~~val pending current economic situation. Com. Miller: • Said that a proposal on the Measurex site carne up for 100+ housing units and it brought out a tremendous amount of residential opposition. and the City Council ultimately voted it down; these sites are right across the street, or in oi~e case, on the same side. The likelihood that in the near future that somebody is going to con^:e in and try that again is next to zero. Gary Chao: • Sites 29, 30 and 31 are the sites in between offices along DeAnza and apartments in the back adjacent to the Oak Park Village and the storage facility. Given its proximity to multi-family uses sandwiched in between, there should be some potential in those areas. ' Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they aze zoned for 4 to 10 DUA; if ~idjacent housing is zoned too much higher, the proposal was to rezone it about that much to increase it from 4 to 10 to 10 to 20. That is the specific action that would be taken. They currently have office structures on them. Paul Penninger: • They do currently, but the zoning would accommodate residential development at a lower density. 17a - 139 Cupertino Planning Commission 20 April 14, 2009 • Said it would be a city initiated rezoning within a particular period of time after the housing element is adopted, about a year. In some cases it is just a clarification because you already have the General Plan land use designations that provide residential land uses; it is just bringing it together making it consistent. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • She expressed her opposition to more housing, especially at the eastern end of Cupertino. She pointed out that there were no grocery stores, gas stations, car washes or other amenities in the eastern end of the city; and that traffic problems already existed, as well as overcrowding in the schools. Office allocation: Said the city spent a lot of money on the North Vallco Master Plan project and meeting after meeting said no housing in North Vallco. Several corporations wish to increase the office allocation which is fine. North Vallco is traditionally a strong tech park; we need to make sure we protect the tech parks in Cupertino; we don't want housing on them. • She said she did not know what the plan was if they increased the office allocation; but if it means pulling in extra housing units, and piling them up on HP, HP is going to decide that they are going to move their corporate headquarters across the street to Sunnyvale and sell that land for housing. She expressed concern about what was being done with the General Plan amendments and increasing the office allocation. She said that in her opinion, Cupertino was high tech and housing was secondary. Requests for office allocation need to be managed in a sensitive practical manner. If the plan is to carve up the city, there needs to be another year of public input. She said they do not want more housing at their end of the city down Stevens Creek Boulevard. Susie Blackman, CEO, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce: • She thanked the city and consultants for the opportunity for the Chamber to participate in the process. She attended the focus group meetings, and there were also reps from Apple and HP at most of those meetings; and they also spoke privately with the consultant and other groups. Not only did they represent Apple and HP in those discussions, but we had a rep from each of those companies on the Chamber Board of Directors. It gave a broader vision for the Chamber's interaction. • Said she felt the discussions were vague on where the building was going to take place. Tonight reviewing that and hearing some of the comments, once you start putting addresses in places into the process, it changes some of the discussion and it changes the way people begin to look at it. • Staff has done a good job of working with the consultant in identifying the needs that we have and encouraging that broad based input from the community. The Chamber supports that the process must move forward. • Said she was not certain if the board would have any additions or changes, but Apple and I-IP would probably have some concerns about housing being built either on their property or in close proximity. She said they would like to support the list in whatever additions or changes the Commission recommends and that it move forward to the Council so that the next stage can take place. • Regarding the office allocation, that was a very big deal that came up during the housing discussion for our businesses in town and she was pleased to see that there was an opportunity for the 500,000 square feet to be put back into the plan; and it relieves a lot of people that there was that opportunity. 17a - 140 Cupertino Planning Commission 21 April 14, 2009 It is clear that comes with a price which is additional housing. The consultant stated that there is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to identify the minimum number of houses needed to meet the standard report for 07 to 14, as well as going up to as many as 1500 housing units. It might be a way of looking a.t it to say that we look beyond the minimum, but we don't quite go to the maximum 1500 square feet, so we have a broader range of places to choose from. It also sounds like the Commission had some additional ideas on where those places might be. Said the Chamber supports the recommendation to move forward with the additional office square footage. It is an important concept i or the two largest companies in the community who have invested a great deal and plan to stay in the community; it gives them a certain amount of assurance which is an important concept as well. Dennis Whitaker, Cupertino resident: • Said he was not anti-development or anti-housing; the problem is that the State keeps pushing down on the city with their demands, and the}~ have little control of what they can ask for. • He questioned the purpose of a General Plan; three years were spent reviewing it, followed by six months of meetings and another six months of committee meetings; and then faced with a housing requirement; and being informed that the General Plan is supposed to stay for ten years and now twenty years. What good is the General Plan if the State keeps throwing different angles on the city. The city and residents have to get control of themselves. He suggested that the city charter a bus to go and speak to ABAG. • Said that the Cupertino population of 28,000 in 1985 has increased to 55,000; where is more water, more electricity, and more school sites? People move to Cupertino because of the schools. • The high school population has grown; a study was paid by the city 2003/04 and at that time the population of the high school was 8,400 a.nd they said in 2007/08 the population would go down. In 2007, the population exceeded 11,000 and it is well above 10,000 now. More housing, greater impact on schools. Elementary school district, they get paid by adding more students; if they add more students; we have a parcel tax now, they are going to have to come up with another parcel tax to allow to rebury the sites and build on them and then another parcel tax to staff and administrate those schools. • Jobs/housing balances will change over and over again; can we guarantee HP and Apple will stay here. When you are planning for the fixture, can you lock that in concrete; I can't. So when you plan for things, plan for everything, not just that. Plan for retail, we need it desperately. Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident: • Referred to a slide presentation to indicate p~~tential areas for housing, including the HP site; the Currier building is for lease and was not identified in the survey; quasi-public sites such as the hall and the DeOro building; available lo~~ations across from Villa Serra; the former skate park office could be used for housing but is not marked as such. Granny units are also affordable housing possibilities. • The schools are overcrowded; Cupertino is a jobs rich area but the surrounding community of San Jose has a lot of housing, but is jobs poor. • Office allocation; It would be reasonable if r~~e are going to add the office allocation to find a way to also add the housing at the same time. There is also a correction; on Table 4, Point 2, we are missing the Morley Bros. development; it is 130 units and it should be there because it is still on the books as being zoned residential. I don't know what Apple is going to do with it, but it is still zoned residential. 17a - 141 Cupertino Planning Commission 22 April 14, 2009 Keith Murphy, Cupertino resident: • Said he felt the Vallco RDA had some conflicts of interest about goals and although the State of California and ABAG require certain kinds of low income housing and things to be built, the city itself also has issues that if it wants to free up incremental tax dollars in the RDA, at some point they have to provide some low income housing. They must provide that before they get their share of the taxes. I am interested how the city is going to be doing that and if that somehow plays into where the sites are going to be chosen; where the low income housing is going to go. • Relative to the Chamber's CEO statement that businesses have been polled about them wanting to support the current housing element update, he questioned whether they would be willing to take on some of the responsibility of which Apple and HP want to push on smaller businesses and property owners in the community; and are they willing to take that on for what they think will be a fair trade from Apple and HP for the development they will bring to our community; especially if they don't want to have a lot of the housing allocation put in North Vallco. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Vera Gil: • Clarified that there are 2,000 units left in the current General Plan available sites; out of that they are being asked to provide 1175, which is a small reduction from what is currently in the General Plan as far as number of sites. Paul Penninger: • Said he felt they were parallel but separate processes. In the General Plan update, the overall capacity as a community was identified for absorbing new residential development and presently there is a balance of about 2800 sites. • It is a different exercise than what is being done which is looking parcel by parcel; what is being done fits within the overall context of your General Plan in terms of the maximum number of units that your community can absorb over time; and one of the ways that will come out is when you see the environmental analysis that our subconsultant is going to complete where they evaluate what the real impact would be if this proposed residential development on water, sewer, other infrastructure and environmental issues. They are separate but related. • A certain number of sites have to be rezoned to accommodate 364 additional residential units with viable proposals. Most of the approved units have been for above and above-moderate incomes; hence you have already approved a great many housing units for above and above- moderate income households. They need to be sites that are zoned at a minimum of 20 DUA. Chair Giefer: • Asked if they need to look at their housing manual and look at the ratio. in high density housing. If zoned at 20 DUA, will they still get the yields in categories where they are attempting to get that; or do they need to increase the ratio very low, low income and moderate income yields out of the housing manual. Vera Gil: Said she was referring to the inclusionary housing program and she may be talking two different things. In this case all we need to do is get them at 20 units per acre for them to be considered meeting the requirement and providing low and very low income housing; whether it will realistically occur or not. In the case of the housing mitigation program, we require 15% of all new development and rental is targeted for low and very low; and ownership is targeted to medium and moderate. 17a - 142 Cupertino Planning Commission 23 April 14, 2009 Paul Penninger: • The way that HCD considers inclusionary Housing ordinances analytically is as a potential government constraint on development. `lJe are obliged under the review standards to consider all of these government regulati~~ns as a potential constraint on development. Attempting to meet your 1ZIINA goals for low and very low income housing production through the inclusionary ordinance is not. what I would recommend as your consultant. The other thing to say is that we are focusing a lot on sites and on densities; that is because you have a lot of other programs already in place to support affordable housing development. You have a staff person, you have a housing planner who works with project sponsors to make sure that the city is supportive of viable developments which meets the community's needs. You are doing financial and regulatory support ah•eady for viable affordable housing development; so you have those programs in place. • Said there were some developments discussed such as Habitat for Humanity, and some particularly for people with special needs in very low income brackets that have been supported by the city in recent years. The missing part of the equation is land; which is the reason for the focus on programs and policies. Com. Miller: • Said the only way to get a serious effort in terms of truly affordable housing is to work with an affordable housing developer and rezone some of the property to a high enough density and work with some land owner on an arrangement that can make it happen. It is not going to happen through the BMR program at 15%. Paul Penninger: • There has been the suggestion in certain communities across the state that in order to meet the legal requirements, they would increase the dumber of inclusionary units required up to 67% or 70%, which will clearly not be satisfactory. There was another issue. about accessory dwelling units; the city does have an accessory dwelling unit ordinance and does count a certain number of the ADUs toward the IZHIVA goals in every period. We are looking at that; they are somewhat difficult to quantify and it is not always clear that they are accommodating low and very low .income households but we do our best to count those up and include them in your targets. Chair Giefer: • Said they must determine the direction they want to take; does the Commission want to give direction to go out and do some more legwork; or is it comfortable making recommendations to pass onto Council at this point. Com. Lee: • Suggested that staff look at North Vallco area to see if there is more numbers there. Com. Brophy: • Said he preferred to send it to City Council. JHe said he felt it was an imaginary exercise done because the State requires it, and people should not be confused in thinking it relates to affordable housing or fair share of housing. If the issues are important to the city they should be part of the Planning Commission's work plan. They should work to get housing element passed, send it onto City Council and get it a~~proved by the State without having any adverse effect on the city. 17a - 143 Cupertino Planning Commission 24 April 14, 2009 Com. Miller: Said he was opposed to sending it onto the City Council without Planning Commission recommendations. The two issues at hand are the RI~IA requirements and the increase in density in housing. He said as stated earlier, he was not necessarily in favor of more housing, but was in favor of balance, and they were not in control, but forced to go through the exercise. The additional allocation of square footage is going to put more pressure on the Commission; possibly not in this planning period, but in the next; and preparing for it is better than just closing our eyes to it and letting someone else deal with it, because the same Planning Commission and City Council won't be around at that point in time. Said they want to accommodate their corporate citizens and help them to be successful and to grow. He said he supported increasing the square footage in order to allow them to build what they think they need. However, as speakers said, the extra squares come with the responsibility and it is not sufficient to say we want the extra squares but the housing is your problem to put somewhere else on somebody else's shoulders in Cupertino. The correct response is to say they can have the extra squares, but let' work with you to make your projects what they are. In return, the city has the additional requirement because of your request for extra squares; and that is an accountability to share some of the responsibility. Said he supported extra squares, but felt in return it is appropriate to zone some of that area in North Vallco where those extra squares could go for housing to meet their goals and objectives. That is the main reason for pushing North Vallco, and if they choose not to develop because the economic environment is not conducive to that at this point in time, there is no need to go ahead and do the housing either. It is .only when they actually do the development that it triggers the housing; and whether or not they do it, it is still under their control because it is their land. There are also some lands that are peripheral to the HP and Apple lands that there is no reason shouldn't be zoned for more housing; and that includes every property on the east side of Tantau from Highway 280 on up to Homestead. Said he felt they provided further guidance in terms of what other sites to consider and those not to consider; staff can call some of the property owners involved in the discussions and bring something back to the Commission. Chair Giefer: Said the majority wanted some more legwork to be done on the list, either by adding or diminishing addresses from the list and determining which are most likely to come in for redevelopment. She said the 138 units of the Morley Brothers project that have not been rezoned should be included in the calculations. Paul Penninger: • Said they would look into it; they understood the use permit had expired and didn't count it toward the current period accomplishments. They had also heard there was another viable proposal for office space on the same site, and they need to fmd out what is occurring there and whether or not it is a viable residential site. Chair Giefer: • Said that the fact remains that they did rezone it and will not likely reverse the zoning. • Said there are at least two Commissioners who felt there needs to be greater exploration in the North Vallco area, and she was not opposed to evaluating sites that are not HP or Apple owned. • She said that it is good if they can get a greater yield than what is currently on the map. She agreed that if they are adding more squares of commercial, they also need to figure out how to incorporate supporting that in housing. She said she did not want to diminish the success of their corporations that are some of the largest employers in the area. She did not support tying 17a - 144 Cupertino Planning Commission 25 April 14, 2009 it to their redevelopment as they move forward. • Said her concern about North Vallco is they completed the North Vallco study area where the community said they don't want housing there; that has to be part of the evaluation of the site, since it is equal to the referendum done on tl~e Vallco edge property where there was housing as well. It is not a fertile site when it relates t~~ housing. Chair Giefer: • Said additionally in that area she heard that Cupertino Village is holding back on their redevelopment of some of the intensification of that, so perhaps they are also looking for other possibilities, which might merit additional review. • Said she did not object to the properties on the east side of Tantau; one site is being redeveloped. There may be potential properties on Bandley; it merits looking into. They also expressed some concerns with regard to some of the areas that were identified with potential problems. Paul Penninger: • To the extent that the North Vallco plan is z.lready in place, that guides development in that area, and they are proposing something different, it is part of the housing element update. He asked what the procedural issues related to th~it were. Carol Korade, City Attorney: • Said that Cupertino is a general law city and all documents have to be consistent, so staff will have to take a hazd look at all the different master plans, specific plans, general plans, etc. and ultimately down to the zoning. Paul Penninger: • That is what we have done for all the other sil:es on this list; that is what we will have to do for the North Vallco site. • In the current matrix there is the current zoning, current land use designation, and recommendations for making those consistent. If there is an overlay or a specific plan in place, it is referenced. To the extent that there is any other plan in place on site that has not been identified, they will look at those, analyze them and asked the Commission to make appropriate changes. Com. Miller: • Relative to North Vallco, he clarified that tlu•ee public hearings were held as well as three or four committee heazings; and while some members of the committee expressed a concern about housing there, the topic was never fully vetted because time ran out. There was never a full discussion on that and there was never a vote or anything of that nature taken in terms of housing; it was not addressed. Paul Penninger: • Said that as part of their work, they would look at the General Plan land use designations, zoning, and see what needs to be changed, t~o make any sites they aze analyzing suitable for residential development. Aarti Shrivastava: • Staff is recommending that you separate those- two only because HCD has its own timeline and there may be additional discussion the community, the Planning Commission and the Council might want to have in this office allocation. T'o meet the timelines staff felt it was appropriate. 17a - 145 Cupertino Planning Commission 26 April 14, 2009 Chair Giefer: • Is there a desire to move forward on (B) this evening. We got public testimony supporting it, recognizing the adjacent issue with housing; do we want to move forward on the B section which is the General Plan amendment for office allocation. Com. Miller: • Said he was willing to move forward provided that there is language stating that it comes with the responsibility for additional housing. Com. Brophy: • Said he agreed, but wanted to see the specific language as the letters from HP and Apple are asking for the additional space for their own use. He clarified that the additional space is for the use of the corporate campuses and not to be used as third party lease space. • Said he was not opposed to language stating that in the future, the city recognizes an obligation to deal with the housing challenges faced, and there is hope and expectation that when the proposals come for the city utilizing this additional square footage, thought be given by the applicants about the housing challenges the city faces. He said he was not looking to throwing down the gauntlet to them. Com. Lee: • Said she agreed. Chair Giefer: • Page 3 of the staff report states specifically that if the Planning Commission recommends adding back the residual of 483,000 square feet of office, it will not affect the city's 1tI~A requirements for this planning period. ABAG is looking to reverse the projections modeling system, so their system has changed. She said she was not sure they need to include the language suggested by Com. Miller, because it specifically states that it will not have an affect on it; is that because it is already in the General Plan? Aarti Shrivastava: • The office allocation may or may not count at that time. For this planning period, we have the numbers from HCD, but if the Planning Commission feels like a balance is important, they can forward a recommendation to Council. Com. Miller: • Said he felt they were just postponing the problem and he was not in favor of doing that; the issue is present today and to say you can have the office square footage but you are not required to do any housing along with it, is the wrong way to go. It is setting up for future failure; the right thing to do is address it now while it is before them. Chair Giefer: • Said she was not comfortable including any language that says if squares are added and their corporate sites take advantage of it, they must build housing. Com. Miller: • Clarified he was stating that whether they (the companies that make use of the square footage that will go into the General Plan) build it or find some other location where it gets built, they have a responsibility to consider and to be part of the solution. 17a - 146 Cupertino Planning Commission 27 April 14, 2009 Chair Giefer: • Summarized two suggestions of what might tie included in (B) if they choose to move forward on that. One is to specify that it is specifically for corporate headquarters use by companies that have headquarters in Cupertino, although HP is technically not headquartered there. The other is that for those taking advantage of it, they have to help solve the problem by specifically fmding a place for the residents. Gary Chao: • Said the Council will ultimately make the decision if the allocation will be specifically earmarked for HP or Apple or if it is just a general increase in the allocation. The Commission can make recommendations to them in terms of where they think the pot should go. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said there was a pool available and that may be a place where the Council can allocate it later and Planning Commission as projects come firth. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second ley Chair Giefer, to add the additional square footage of 483,053, limiting the additional square footage to major corporate campuses. (Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Hillier No; Com. Kaneda absent) Com. Brophy: • Said that while he was concerned about the }lousing issue, he was not willing to add that as a condition at this time. • Said he would support it if they needed 48C- in addition to the 150; but was not in favor of adding more for the reasons that Com. Miller pointed out, by allowing the additional office space just for the sake of building it if it i:; not part of the specific campuses that provide substantial financial benefits to the city. The agenda was moved back to Item 2A. (A) General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 I[ousing Element update. Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second ley Com. Miller, to continue Item 2A General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element update, to the April 28, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. (V~~te: 4-0-1; Com. Kaneda absent) OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS• None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: No report. Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Com. Lee summarized reports given at the meetir,.g: • Dog park discussion. 17a - 147 Cupertino Planning Commission 28 April 14, 2009 • Fine Arts Commission: building at Tantau across from HP behind Kaiser; lighting in front of sculptures; needs to be LEED • Bike and Pedestrian Committee: Ribbon cutting ceremony for Mary Ave. pedestrian footbridge Apri130; May 16, 17 -Bike to Work Day; Revising Bike transportation plan; • Public Safety: April 22 - Walk, Bike and Carpool Day; working with Teen Commission/contacted all schools to coordinate event • Feeder streets issue: speeding • Library: No. 1 in US for circulation; Art wall display in reading room; late fee for videos is reduced; National Library Week; End of Oct. 5 yr celebration of Library opening • Parks and Rec: Future use of Simms property and Stocklmeir property • TIC: Working with Environmental Coordinator on video about solar panels. Economic Development Committee: No meeting. REPORT OF THE DIItECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Aarti Shrivastava: • Said she was pleased to be working with the City of Cupertino again in her new position as Community Development Director. • She provided updates on Heart of the City, Modification to Use Permit on Town Center Lane; Matrix permit process. MISC: Com. Lee requested that Item ZB be reopened so that she could change her vote on the item. City Attorney Carol Korade explained that the item would have to be reopened, and a motion made for reconsideration, followed by a revote. She advised that the application would have to be reopened in a public hearing, since the public has left the meeting and the matter has been closed. She said that under Roberts Rules and Parliamentary Procedure the request would have to have the support and a motion with an affirmative vote in order to reopen the item before discussion of the item. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Lee, to reopen Item 2B. (Motion died for lack of 3 affirmative votes to reopen Item 2B) The city attorney clarified that because there were not three affirmative votes, the item is not reopened. She explained that there was a fmal action, and no reconsideration opportunity exists; the item is closed and the action is considered final. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Apri128, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary Approved as presented: April 28, 2009 17a - 148 CUPERTINO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C~EPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPEf2TIN0, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 Summary Item No: Application No.: Applicant: Location/APN: GPA-2008-01(EA-2009-OS) City of Cupertino City-wide Attachment D Agenda Date: April 28, 2009 Application Summary: General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element Update RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached 2007-2014 Draft Housing Element and discuss the Policy and Goals section, the Housing Resc-urces section beginning on page 77 and the Available Site Inventory and make recommendations to the City Council. The following three areas should be addressed: 1. The Available Sites Inventory should be clarified for Council review. 2. A final clear recommendation should be made to the City Council on which sites in North Vallco shall be considered for residential potential. 3. A recommendation should be made to the City Council on whether or not to increase the density in the North Vallco Planning Area with an understandir.~g that this change in density will affect other residential properties including Cupertino Village: and the Morley Brothers site now owned by Apple Computers. BACKGROUND: In accordance with State law, California cities must have an adopted General Plan which must contain a Housing Element. While all elements of a General Plan are rE;viewed and revised regularly to ensure that the plan remains current, state law requires that the Housing Element be updated every five years. The current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and certified by the State in 2001 and was most recently amended by the City Council as part of the comprehensive General Plan update on November 15, 2005. The draft document under review shows the City's plan to accommodate ABAG's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 734 units. The actual RHNA allocation is 1170 units; however, 516 units have already been approved or built. The draft document also corresponds to the general plan goal of striving fora " jobs/housing" balance. The Planning Commission began reviewing the Housing; Element at the April 14, 2008 Planning Commission meeting with the discussion focusing on housing site locations. Since more information was necessary, the Planning Commission continued the Housing Element review to the April 28, 2009 meeting, directing staff to continue analyzing the available sites inventory and rr.:ake recommendations to the Commission on sites to delete or add to the available sites inventory. In addition to a more thorough examination by staff, the Commission made suggestions on which areas it would like to see additional sites and which sites should be removed. The Planning Commission made the following inquiries and suggestions: 17a - gas General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element Update (Continued from April 14, 2009 meeting) 28, 2009 2 of 4 • Delete the Measurex site (ID 2) on Results Way since residential development would be unlikely. • Add the Morley Brothers site, which is currently owned by Apple and is zoned for residential back into the table. • Add additional sites, which are not owned by Apple and Hewlett Packard, to the North Vallco area. • Consider adding sites along Bandley Road to the inventory. • Consider Cupertino Village as a site (does not meet Tier 1 definition as discussed below, but the zoning and General Plan allow residential uses). • Consider the Saich Way properties specifically the property which is cordoned off because of a recent fire (note that this site was already included in the sites inventory). These suggestions are discussed in more detail in Attachment A. Also included to aid discussion is an updated Available Sites Inventory (Attachment B), the April 14, 2009 staff report (Attachment D), draft Housing Element (Attachment E) and the April 14, 2009 draft minutes (Attachment F). The revised Available Sites Inventory has been divided into two categories, "Tier 1" and "Tier 2". In order to develop the revised sites inventory, staff toured the city with BAE on April 22, 2009. The tour allowed the consultant to evaluate first- hand whether each site has realistic redevelopment potential per HCD criteria described below. Tier I Sites The State Government Code requires that the Housing Element include an "inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment" (Section 65583(a)(3)). Cities such as Cupertino that have limited vacant land resources can also rely on vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate its RHNA. Examples of such sites include under-developed properties witr mixed use potential, blighted areas with vacant or abandoned buildings, publicly-owned surplus property, and any other suitable underutilized land. The large majority of sites identified to accommodate the City of Cupertino's RHNA are underutilized infill properties. The Housing Element must demonstrate that the non-vacant, underutilized sites in the inventory can be realistically developed with residential uses at appropriate densities within the planning period. The condition and age of existing uses on underutilized properties and the potential for such uses to be discontinued and replaced with housing within the planning period are important factors in determining the sites' "realistic" development potential. In some cases, existing uses may continue on a portion of the site and new housing could be constructed by increasing the intensity of development on the site (i.e. housing above commercial uses or parking lots). The Housing Element should also address the realistic potential of this type of development occurring where appropriate. As Table 4.2 of the Housing Element indicates, the City of Cupertino has already approved a number of housing developments that can be counted towards its RHNA for the 2007-20014 planning period. As a result, the City's outstanding RHNA is 734 units. The City must demonstrate that it has sufficiently zoned residential land to accommodate these 734 units on vacant or underutilized sites that can be realistically developed within the planning period. Table F.l identifies 27 sites that have the potential to accommodate 1,615 units (1,534 which would accommodate low and very low income households). These "Tier 1" sites represents those the sites that have the most realistic potential to be developed within the 2007-2014 planning period. The Planning Commission may recommend all sites or only enough sites to accommodate the 734 units required by the RHNA. The Tier 1 sites will be submitted to HCD to accommodate the City of Cupertino's remaining RHNA of 734 units. The 17a - 150 g:\plartning\pdreport\pc gpa reports\2008\gpa-2008-O1pc2.doc General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element Update (Continued from April 14, 2009 meeting) Apri128, 2009 Page 3 of 4 Housing Element will include an implementation program which states that the City will rezone the identified Tier 1 sites to allow for residential uses at appropriate densities where necessary. HCD requires that necessary rezoning and General Plan Amendments be completed early enough in the planning period to reasonably permit development during the planning period. Specifically, rezoning and land use changes should be completed within the two years. Tier Z Sites In addition to the Tier 1 sites, there are other underutilized sites within the City that may be appropriate for redevelopment for residential purposes (see Table F.2). However, the potential for these "Tier 2" sites to be redeveloped within the planning period is less likely fol• varying reasons. For example, the site may contain a fully occupied office building in good or fair condition or an existing viable commercial use. Because of the low potential for Tier 2 sites to be redeveloped within the planning period, HCD would be less likely to determine that these sites are acceptable to accommodate the City's RHNA units. As such, the Tier 2 sites will be identified separately from the Tier 1 sites in a different implementation program in the Housing Element. The implementation program ~Nill state that the City may consider rezoning identified Tier 2 sites for residential land uses. The program, however, will not require that the City rezone Tier 2 sites to allow for residential units. Tier 2 sites are not necessary to meet the City's RHNA or satisfy other HCD requirements. Rather, the City has identified Tier 2 sites for its own internal planning purposes to have an understanding of where future long term residential development could potentially locate and which can achieve specific goals such as balancing land uses or providing supporting residential development to ~:omplement regional commercial districts. PUBLIC INPUT: Four residents and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce spoke at the April 14, 2009 public hearing. The Chamber of Commerce thanked the City for the opportl;uuty to participate in the process and expressed support for the additional office allocation for Apple and Hewlett Packard. Below is a bulleted list of the comments from the residents: • The City needs to evaluate infrastructure when making decisions on housing allocations. • Too many sites are in the eastern side of the city. • Add Morley Brothers site on Pruneridge Avenue to the inventory since it is zoned for residential. • Schools are overcrowded and this needs to be evaluated when locating residential sites. • The Vallco Redevelopment Area has specific requirements on the construction of low and extremely low income housing units. How are the property owners in the redevelopment project area addressing this issue? In addition to the public hearing, staff also received an e-mail inquiry from Cupertino resident Keith Murphy regarding whether the City could count existing second units and senior units towards meeting the RHNA goal. Any new units and a percentage of preserved units can aunt towards the meeting the RHNA goals. However, if the units were not constructed or preserved between 2007, the beginning of the planning period, and the present, they may not be counted. Since 2007, the City has recorded the production of 11 second units. These second units, along with the units listed in table 4.2 of the draft Housing Element, are subtracted from Cupertino's RHNA goal of 1,170. (See Attachment C for more information on this subject). 17a - 151 g:\plartning\pdreport\pc gpa reports\2008\gpa-2008-O1pc2.doc General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element Update (Continued from April 14, 2009 meeting) 28, 2009 Paee 4 of 4 NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission's recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for discussion at the City Council public hearing in May. After the City Council has finalized the available sites inventory, the consultant will complete the environmental analysis, which will be reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the City Council. After the City Council review, the draft Housing Element will be sent to HCD for preliminary comments. After the comments are received from HCD, City staff will return to the City Council with the final Housing Element document with revisions to address HCD's concerns. Final adoption of the document is not expected until late August or early September at the earliest. Legally, Bay Area cities are required to have an adopted and certified element in place by the June 30, 2009 deadline. However, it appears that a majority of the cities have been delayed in their processes and will not have met this goal, including Cupertino. BAE believes that it is good practice to have the draft Housing Element submitted to HCD by before the deadline so that they can begin the review process. The State has up to 60 days to review and comment on the draft. PREPARED BY: Vera Gil, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director Enclosures: Attachment A: Site Analysis with Aerials of North Vallco, Homestead and Bandley areas Attachment B: Available Site Inventory Attachment C Second Unit and Substantial Rehabilitation Information from BAE Attachment D: April 14, 2009 Staff Report Attachment E: Draft Housing Element Attachment F: April 14, 2009 draft minutes 77a-152 g:\planning\pdreport\pc gpa reports\2008\gpa-2008-O1pc2.doc Attachment E Cupertino Planning Commission 6 Apri128, 2009 Com. Miller: • Clarified that the Chair has stressed that increasing the density is a General Plan amendment, most of what we are talking about is the G~:neral Plan amendment. At the last hearing we voted on increasing the square footage for ~affice space; and what Apple is ,asking for is a eneral Plan amendment. What Apple is requesting is several items that areE°going to lead to a Ge ral Plan amendment as is the housin€; element we are gomg t discuss in the next applic ion. There are going to be many General Plan amendm ~ s that are going to be discusse . ow; it is part of the general proces;~. ,,~'` Aki Honda Snelling `` • Clarified that Apple';~,~ requesting rezoning to add th~^planned industrial; the current General Plan designation is industr,~iaUresidential; so it wou,)d'be consistent. She said that the increase in office space voted for last tir~ie is not consiste:n~vrth the General Plan at this time. Chair Giefer: `~_ ~,~` • Reiterated that this particular zonin ~a plical:ion does not trigger a General Plan amendment. If Apple was coming to us sayin~g`~e want:~~ remove the housing element to this and have it only be planned industrial, then certainly I w'o'R~ d see a nexus and an impact on the housing portion which is our next,,agenda item. I think the a supporting what you are suggesting; they are not eliminati~potential for housin;; on an u ult property, and if for some reason Apple decides that~he'y will not fully develop the site, then ~i~~sing is back on the table for this site. But they a .knot eliminating that potential; I see this app1l' tion as supporting what you are advocatia Motion: otion by .Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, to contiildiscussion of Application Z-2009-O1 until after discussion of the housing element.ote: 3-0-1; Chair Giefer No; Com. Brophy absent) The agenda was moved to Item 2, Old Business. 2. GPA-2008-O1 General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element ~- (EA-2009-0~ Update. Continued from the Apri114, 2009 Planning Commission City of Cupertino rneeti~tg. Tentative City Council Date: May S, 2009 Citywide Location Vera Gil, Senior Planner, stated that Paul Pennin;;er, Bay Area Economics would present the staff report. Paul Penninger BAE: • Explained that it was a follow up to the draft presentation of the housing element at the Apruil 14 Plaiming Commission meeting. He reviewed that the housing element is one of seven required parts of the General Plan which part deals with the residential land uses and needs to be consistent with all of the elements in the General Plan. • Focus this evening will be mostly on the sites inventory aspect of the housing element, in large part because you asked us to come back and :reevaluate some of the sites presented and to add some sites. One of the things we were asked to look at was the impact of secondary dwelling units, aka granny flats or accessory dwelling units. State law and through the Department of Housing and Community Development and rules they have distributed, allows a certain percentage of your housing need to be filled try accessory dwelling units. You can consider the number of units produced in previous plannuig periods, look at your community need for this type of housing, the resources and incentives available for developing second units and other 17a - 153 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 April 28, 2009 relevant factors around this Type of housing. In any given year there are about 5 ADUs or secondary dwelling units that are built or approved in Cupertino. One of the things we would need to show, if we are going to show that these SDUs in particular are helping to satisfy the affordable housing need, is that they have appropriate rents or sale prices that would make them affordable to moderate, low or very low income households. There are a number of other ways that you can go part of the way to meeting your regional housing needs allocation and a few of these are listed on this slide. You can promote the substantial rehabilitation of units, taking existing housing and through funding and other resources, helping to rehabilitate units. These must be units that are of imminent risk of loss to the housing stock and in order to count them toward your arena, they need to be made affordable through deed restrictions and/or other mechanisms for a period of at least 20 years. You can also look at converting currently market rate units to affordable levels through placing deed restrictions on them. One way this might happen is if you had a rehabilitation assistance program or you were providing low interest loans or grants to families or property owners to rehabilitate market rate properties. You might chose to link those loans or grant funding with the deed restriction you would place on it. Some cities around the Bay have done that where particularly apartment owners will come in for a major loan or grant from the city in order to fund a seismic retrofit or other kind of major rehabilitation and then in turn the city has asked to place a deed restriction and affordability covenance on the property. Finally you can look at preserving existing affordable housing in the community that may be at risk of ceasing to be affordable because its deed restrictions or affordabiliTy covenance are expiring. We have done an exhaustive analysis of all such units in the city of Cupertino and we believe that to the extent that it is possible, staff and city have already looked at all of those opportunities for preserving existing affordable housing. Through ABAG and the methodology committee that was convened, including reps from local governments all over the Bay, the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) for the city of Cupertino for the current housing element planning period was calculated at 1,170 total new homes and apartments. There have been 516 new units approved already in the current planning period through May 2009, which leaves a remaining need of 734 new units. You need to identify for planning purposes adequate sites to accommodate 734 new housing units. The majority of these need to be affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. You have already satisfied all and more of your above moderate housing need for the current period. When we are looking at sites throughout the community, we are looking at sites that are appropriate for multi family housing developments at a minimum density of 20 dwelling units to the acre (DUA) which is the standard HCD asks us to use for this type of analysis, and that could accommodate a variety of different housing types. Following last week's discussion, we realized that beyond this requirement showing you had adequate sites for 734 new units for the remainder of the planning period, there was a lot of interest from the Planning Commission looking more long term beyond this housing element, well into the future and thinking about how residential development interacts with/pertains to and affects commercial development; in essence how to balance jobs and housing needs. What we did was to eliminate some of the sites you saw in the last draft; add some new sites that had been suggested to us and rank sites according to whether we though they were thought that they were really short term development opportunities, Tier 1 sites, or perhaps sites that might develop as residential uses over some longer term, Tier 2 sites. This was something we did in conjunction with staff and through the course of a tour of Cupertino. This kind of analysis where we are looking at Tier 1 sites and Tier 2 sites is not something that HCD requires or even encourages; what they and the State are interested in and what the law requires is that you identify adequate sites to meet your regional housing needs application. You can chose to have us go forward with this kind of framework if you think it is something you are interested in pursuing, and that would be consistent with your other General Plan goals, but this is not 17a-154 Cupertino Planning Commission Apri128, 2009 something that is required as part of the housing element process. To summarize, what we found from the Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites, in terms of sites that we thought could have short term development: potential, in the next five to seven years, we identified 26 vacant and/or under-utilized sites with the potential to accommodate up to 1400 units. The implementation program you would need to approve, for us to go forward with this group of sites, is to rezone these Tier 1 sites to allow for residential development at appropriate densities within two years of adoption of thy: housing element. In terms of Tier 2 sites, we identified 35 sites that were under-utilized, some with lower short term development potential within the planning period, but perhaps given the city's long term goals and needs, showing some development potential over time. There is no real implementation program associated with these Tier 2 sites other than to say that tl-e city may consider rezoning some of the sites to allow for residential development in the future;. The first area we looked at, in the area that ]ias the most short term development potential is Heart of the City area. In that district, we identified 14 sites totaling 19 acres that could accommodate 390 potential units at densities of up to 25 DUA; 13 of the 14 sites are identified within the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Some of the sites already have the appropriate zoning in place; all but one or two of the sites have the appropriate General Plan land use designation and zoning in place to accommodate residential development. Many of the sites do have existing uses which are commerci~rl or other uses; by showing these sites in the housing element doesn't magically mean that there is going to be a project sponsor who will come forward and propose a development on each of the sites or that they will convert in the planning period. Some of this is subject to market forces and the decisions of landowners and developers and others. What it does mean is that the option exists by identifying the sites here and identifying them as housing opportunities sites at the required densities, that there is that option in play. Not-for-profit and churches were identified; there is a site currently in the BQ zone, sites 6 and 7; 10100 No. Stelling Rd., its current General Plan land use designation is quasi-public institutional with matching zoning. It is a lar€;e site with a religious institution on it. There is a lot of vacant property, a large parking lot. By identifying them, it by no means indicates that it is going to become housing in the next 5 years; what it does is it provides this congregation with the option of developing housing if it makes sense for them. There are many churches in the Bay Area that are interested in building housing particularly for their aging congregants; senior housing and other types of special needs housing that makes sense and is in keeping with their mission as a congregation. Said he had many questions about that site ;is well and it is clear when you drive by it and examine the site, that there is a lot of under-utilized space there and it may be of benefit to the congregation if they chose to have their own residential. He said he felt HCD would be agreeable. We have to show that the site is under-utilized and the most conventional way of doing that is to show an improvement to land value ratio where you look at the value of the land vs. the value of the built improvements; and where the value of the land is higher than the value of the built improvements, that is one ir-dication that the site is under-utilized. There are a variety of other methods you could use looking more carefully at the site, inspecting the site, touring it, looking at the quality of construction, the age, the vintage of the construction, etc. to analyze the capacity or potential of the site to develop during the planning period. Aarti Shrivastava reviewed some sites: • 19930 Stevens Creek -Staff looked at businesses that seemed to be doing really well and didn't include those as sites. • Loree Shopping Center - it has had some cl•~anges, but could be included as a potential site, possibly mixed use. Residents in the area have expressed an interest in keeping services such as grocery stores there. 17a - 155 Cupertino Planning Commission 9 April 28, 2009 19825 Stevens Creek - on the list. Site No. 4 - 20940 - it seems to be a business that has been there for a long period; we didn't pick that as a site for that reason. Sites 5 and 6 -similar reason; long term businesses without any vacancies or continuous changes, we didn't pick those as sites. Staff is primarily looking at identifying any of these as Tier 1 sites because none of these appear to require rezoning or a General Plan amendment. It is looking at whether any of these are suitable and meet the Tier 1 criteria that are consultant is talking about. Paul Penninger: • Said they looked at the Loree Shopping Center site and it met some of the objective criteria. He said they heard earlier that the neighborhood was interested in retaining a healthy amount of retail services and it was the traditional role of the center in providing neighborhood serving retail to the surrounding community. It is a policy decision for the Planning Commission to make as to whether or not to include the site. He said it was the most viable site proposed. • He said that Site 1 did not stand out in looking at the city objectively in seeing where the main opportunity sites were as a prime residential development site. • There are three sites on Homestead Road identified as Tier 1 opportunities; 20916 to 20990 Homestead Road, 3 parcels of varying sizes that could accommodate up to 135 potential units. Com. Miller: • Identified sites 21030 Homestead Road, vacant lot; one site on Maxine Drive, presently a day care center or school, very low density; Liquor store at Stevens Creek and Foothill, -family operated for several decades, has a large vacant parcel as part of it; retail receipts are decreasing. Paul Penninger: • Vallco Park South - 3 sites, relatively large sites with existing uses, lots of surface parking, rezoning would be needed to make them viable residential development sites in the coming planning period. They may be 3 of the sites that pertain to the earlier item. • APN-31620088 is anunder-utilized site with potential for accommodating a substantial amount of residential development in the next planning period. Vera Gil, Senior Planner: • Said that APN-31620088 was part of the referendum; it was put back on the inventory because there was some interest from developers in developing senior housing which would be a different project than the referendum project, and may even satisfy the public's concerns of impacts to schools for that site. Paul Penninger reviewed the Tier 1 sites: • North South DeAnza Boulevard areas: North DeAnza Boulevard - identified a site 7.98 acres that would require rezoning, but could accommodate a potential of up to 169 new housing units. • South DeAnza -relatively fewer opportunity sites; identified 5 sites that within the current planning period could potentially accommodate up to 79 dwelling units. • Staff clarified that the sites on DeAnza Boulevard had a density of 15 DUA and would not qualify as affordable and low/very low, but would add to the numbers. • Said they were the sites identified that could, with the right General Plan land use designation changes or zoning changes, have the appropriate infrastructure and environmental conditions, and market potential to redevelop or develop as housing in the next five years. There were also a number of other sites throughout the city, some quite large and almost all having existing 17a - 156 Cupertino Planning Commission 1 ~) Apri128, 2009 uses, that they were asked to include as Tier 2 sites for discussion purposes, including along Bubb Road, in the Heart of the City and the City Center, Vallco Park North, including sites owned by HP and Apple; North DeAnza Boulevard and South DeAnza Boulevard. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that most of the DeAnza Boulevard sites are on Bandley Drive that the Planning Commission asked staff to look at. In looking; at those sites, they did not seem to meet the Tier 1 criteria, but they could be a future site. Com. Miller: • Said his concern with the Bandley sites was that they are presently very usable office space, and are not very high density sites. They ar$ attractive for potential startups because of low rents; they look in good shape and are being used today. Should they be rezoned for housing and taken out of office mix? Paul Penninger: • He said consideration should be given to whf;ther or not it is a useful way of categorizing the sites to be included in the formal housing elernent. There are so many questions about each of them today and how they will look 20 years izom now. It is somewhat above and beyond the call of duty in terms of what is required by the: State and law. Aarti Shrivastava: Responding to a question if they .would rezone whatever sites were decided upon, she said that staff's recommendation would be for the purposes of the housing element, to just stick to the Tier 1 sites, because they have to report annually on the housing element and just giving what it needs will keep the flexibility. The Tier 2 sites could be a very loose policy to look for future opportunities to balance or achieve other city goals in additional areas; and it can be listed and can be something the city can take up separately in the future. They don't recommend listing them in the housing eleme~it specifically. Said they could not be listed in the housing element, yet still rezoned. The State mandates that anything on the list created as part of the housing element has to be rezoned within 2 years; the city can chose to rezone the remainder whene~/er it wishes, now or later. Relative to rezoning the Tier 2 sites at this time, staff doesn't have a specific recommendation; if it comes up as part of a discussion, and the Planning Commission wants to forward something if it sees opportunities to achieve city goals, it can forward the information to the City Council and the Council. Staff recommends continuing the dialog with the owners, Planning Commission and Council to make sure it is a complete discussion. Com. Kaneda: • If a parcel is rezoned to residential and indus~:rial, is that then considered to have satisfied the housing requirement for this purpose. Aarti Shrivastava: • The State does not require as part of this planning period anything you choose to do in the future. The State will provide its number; to ABAG and ABAG will use a method of delegating numbers to various cities based on assumptions that it creates. • We do not know how the additional office is going to play into it; we do know however that reducing greenhouse gas emissions and trying to locate density near transit is going to be major. Balancing housing and jobs is always a good goal to have, but it is not mandated by the State at this point. It can be a city goal that 'the city chooses to move forward locally and we don't know how ABAG is going to look at this particular issue of how much office 17a - 157 Cupertino Planning Commission 11 April 28, 2009 development the city has in its next round. Paul Penninger: • In terms of how we analyze the capacity of individual sites to accommodate new residential development in the planning period, we look at land use, zoning, infrastructure and environmental constraints. The specific way we have to go about this analysis is spelled out by state law and the Department of Housing and Community Development. More information is in the housing element and also on the HCD website in their Building Blocks of an Effective Housing Element. That is what we are doing for the Tier 1 sites, we are looking site by site at if you have a vacant site, whether or not it has the right land use, zoning infrastructure, environmental characteristics, and is you have currently occupied sites occupied by some other use, is it under-utilized and likely to redevelop with residential in the next five to seven years. That is the sites analysis part of it. • Going forward into the next planning period after we are done this year updating your current housing element, I think there are a lot of questions about how local jurisdictions are going to be asked to update their housing elements. My hope is that it is in a much more collaborative and cooperative way of cross jurisdictions. We talked a lot in the focus groups was that in many ways it did not make sense for Cupertino to plan for its housing and jobs needs in isolation from what is happening in Sunnyvale or San Jose, the broader regions. One of the hopes that people have is that we will have a more rationale cooperative cross jurisdictional approach to doing this, and also in a way that respects local communities' needs. • One of the things that the State law requires is an analysis of jobs/housing balance which is part of the needs assessment. Also needed is a discussion about the best way to grow in the future in a way that balances your economic needs, and the needs of your major employers and your innovative economy with quality of life. Particularly with reference to the Tier 2 sites, I am not sure you have had a full vetting of all the issues about how to balance jobs, housing, and quality of life, for us to address specific zoning needs on these sites as part of this housing element process. That is my observation after many months working here. This is an ongoing and important discussion; I think the whole question of jobs/housing balance is something that is critical; I don't think with reference to some of the sites you see on this Tier 2 table, that you are at the level of being able to specifically make General Plan land use and zoning decisions as part of the housing element update process, this time around. He said that rezoning has to be done on a site by site basis. • The task tonight is to approve a list of sites which meets the current regional housing allocation goals so that you can identify adequate sites to accommodate new residential development for a full range of economic needs in the next few years. • Said that Site 20 was a Tier 2 site. Com. Miller: Said that two other sites suggested were the IOOF Hall and the DeOro site. Staff said that the DeOro site might not be suitable because it has some historical properties to it and would not likely meet the environmental standards. There is also a site on Tier 2 on 18920 Forge Drive behind a new office building being constructed on the east side of Tantau. The office building site was formerly a superfund site. Site is listed on Tier 2; if it is clean and safe for housing, it should be Tier 1. Another prime site is a strip the HP property that borders on Wolfe Rd; it is under-utilized and next to shopping. Why would it not be a prime site? Aarti Shrivastava: Said they were not separate parcels; they have not created parcels out of sites that weren't separate; have tried to look at parcels that are separate; that is one of the reasons we haven't 17a - 158 Cupertino Planning Commission 12 Apri128, 2009 looked at portions of sites. Paul Penninger: • Relative to the site, he said that it was Dart of a corporate campus, an existing viable commercial office campus that has been we~~l occupied and well utilized. From an analytical perspective, looking through the Tense of this housing element period, he said it could probably not be considered an under-utilized site that i~: likely to be developed into residential land in the next planning period. It could be considered under-utilized from the perspective that the corridor could potentially provide work farce housing for the surrounding employment clusters. • The Planning Commission could recommend that a visioning process take place working in conjunction with the property owners to envision some alternative future, in which case that might be something that would be a result of what would come out of this; but in terms of identifying specific parcels, you could include it in your inventory; whether or not it would be something that the State would think met the test of being an under-utilized site that is likely to be developed with residential land uses in the current period is doubtful. Com. Miller: • Said there- were additional sites on the east: side of Tantau, one at the northeast corner of Pruneridge and Tantau, two buildings; one a two story and a one story at the end of its useful life and vacant. Staff noted the property was in Tier 2; Com. Miller suggested putting it in Tier 1. He said he has been inside the buildings, one site is half filled; the site next to it is empty and the owner has the property for sale. He said he felt it was a prime site; one of the structures is a teardown. • Also south along the east side of Tantau, there are additional buildings, currently occupied, single story. The last one is a two story building; they were built decades ago, next to residential. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the Planning Commission could make a recommendation on the site on Pruneridge. Vera Gil: • Said when they did the tour they felt many of the buildings were occupied on Tantau and backed up to residential, and they felt it could be a good opportunity for the future. Some of the buildings on Valley Green Drive which back up to residential, and are currently leased by Apple, would likely become vacant if they developed their campus. They also have big parking lots and had better potential for rede~relopment. Concern for some of the buildings on the east side of Tantau was to leave some oi'them as they could continue to be used for tech companies. Currently they are occupied. Paul Penninger: • Said they were seeking vacant under-utilized land whether it is associated with some structure or not, preferably on a site that can demonstr~itively show is under-utilized using objective data and other criteria. Going site by site is the general approach taken. Com. Miller: • Said that the reason for mentioning the area is that the prior application which was continued precisely for this discussion, is the applicant for that piece of property asking for the right to consider not building housing, but building office space on that; and my concern is that we are now going to be putting ourselves in a further box for the next go-around of the housing element update if we don't rezone some additional sites in that area that offset what this 17a - 159 Cupertino Planning Commission 13 Apri128, 2009 applicant might do with that site. He suggested, that if they rezone that site to office/residential, that they provide some additional sites that are rezoned to office/residential; to leave flexibility for the future. We are not going to do anything with it now, but we are just trying to be flexible from the city's standpoint in terms of making sure we have enough areas in North Vallco to accommodate the additional square footage that these two companies intend to build. Whether we just make a recommendation for rezoning of that area in general or how we do it, I think it is appropriate and important at this time since we have a serious corporate resident of this city that wants to do something there and has indicated; that we also allow ourselves to plan for that event when it comes, so that we have aUeady thought about it. The idea of doing the master plan for North Vallco was to have the city put some thought into what they would like to see there, so that when an applicant did come in, we had already thought through this and we didn't have to scurry around at the last minute. This is another step in that process of making sure that, from the city's standpoint, we are doing appropriate planning. That is why I would like to see some additional areas of North Vallco zoned not exclusively for housing because I think we want to leave both the applicant and the city the flexibility, but to do the dual zoning, so that both the applicant and the city can have the flexibility to plan appropriately as we move forward. Com. Kaneda: • With Tier 1 you have approximately 1400 potential units identified. For the current allocation requirement we needed 1100 less 500 odd units that have been built or approved; leaving 734, roughly twice what is needed. Paul Penninger: • Taking into account there may be instances where HCD will have comments on the sites we have included in the inventory and may not believe they are actually appropriate as housing element sites in this period. Com. Kaneda: • Having established that, can you give me a best guess if on the next go-around we have another half million square feet of office space. How would that affect the requirements in the next go- around. Paul Penninger: • Said he could not provide a best guess; it is likely that it will mean if you do allow a lot of new office development to take place and a lot of new jobs are added, you would need to plan for additional housing. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she felt the exercise tonight was extremely unnerving, and surreal, as the city has been carved up as a developer's dream. There is more value placed on housing in the city than on commercial, residential, industry, high tech, HP, Apple, and the other tech partners. She said she attended all the meetings last year, and is worried that if they start prezoning sections of the city for housing, people will want to get rid of the retail and grocery stores and high tech companies and replace them with housing to make the most money for their property. She said that San Jose and Santa Clara have so many vacant affordable housing and it is destroying their cities. 17a - 160 Cupertino Planning Commission 14 Apri128, 2009 Jim Fowler, representing Apple: • Said they had not planned to speak on the issue tonight because they just learned in the last few days about the potential residential rezoning of some of their property; and had 'not learned until yesterday that 19333 Vallco was potenti;~lly Tier 1 zoning. He said they did not have time to form a public position on that issue, but asl':ed that the data points presented be considered in determining whether it is appropriate to keep that property on a Tier 1 potential housing list. • He said they paid tens of millions of dollars to acquire that property just last year for office space, and are spending tens of millions of dollars to renovate that property for office space. The property was acquired so that it could serve as swing office space when and if they were able to develop the main campus over the next 5 to 7 years, possibly beyond that. • Commented on Com. Miller's point about the properties on Bandley Way; many of those offices which are 70s and outmoded, are leasf;d by Apple. The intent behind their new campus development is consolidation of many employees who are now spread out over rental units throughout the city, into a new campus. It might be wise to consider particular projects that come before you when those projects are firmed and determine what needs those projects might have in terms of housing and need for city services, rather than make a conceptual change based on what may or may not develop in the future. Bob McKibbbin, Cupertino resident: • Said he was uncomfortable with the direction of the discussion, and he felt they were developing a housing protoplan based on pie-in-the-sky office development. Apple would like to ask the Planning Commission and City Council to approve 3 or 5 million square feet of office space and they haven't submitted anything to the city as to what their plans are; they probably have no conceptual plans of what they are going to do with the property, and in two years from now, depending on the direction of Apple, they could be selling some of the property off for residential. The same thing with HP; they are going to ask forasmuch as they can get regarding development of their prope~~ties in the office area. • He said they were trying to determine how much residential allocation to develop based on the pie-in-the-sky that they haven't seen any plans from the two companies in regards to the ABAG numbers. He suggested they step back and decide what is currently before them, what is realistic, and don't take into consideration what may hypothetically be built in 5 or 10 years by the two companies or any other companies;. Keith Murphy, Cupertino resident: • Apple is possibly looking at a development agreement discussion with our community and I am wondering if maybe they are saving older housing stock around what would be new campus with the hopes of keeping that while they develop their new campus. There is going to be a period when the old office spaces are phased out and they are going to move into the new campus; they may want to keep some of that old ofI"ice available for subsidiary companies and such that will support them. But one wonders if housing could be made available then, and as part of the development agreement that migl-t be discussed, could some of this be brought up and say over a stretch of period of time Here is what is going to happen in the way of development; we want this office space, we .are going to take this old office space and keep it for a certain period of time and as our new campus comes on, it gets converted to housing. That way the community has a better idea of what is going to take place. • Expressed concern that the housing element update didn't give the community a chance to discuss specific sites, site by site, stating it vas like a training process about what the housing needs were, what ABAG was all about, what the city had to do in the way of generating certain kinds of housing, and when it came to the city of Cupertino map, where it was going to be. He said they were not allowed to be part of the F~rocess of seeing who was going to get picked and see what they had to deal with. It is unforhmate that Apple and HP couldn't have been there 17a - 161 Cupertino Planning-Commission 15 April 28, 2009 to be part of those discussions and maybe alleviate fear and anxiety in the community. Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident: • Discussed some available sites he found on the computer drive-by in Cupertino, looking for available sites for housing. A large lot on Homestead Road part of a church parcel, quasi- public, with a lot of gravel on it. The church could put faith-based housing on the lot, it might be something that would be good for the community; 60 or 70 units which should be Tier 1. The Morley Bros. Site; 8.5 acres that would net about 170 units at 20 DUA; the numbers are 130, but put Tier 1 as 170; Site on Maxine Drive, empty lot; something could be allocated as housing there. The priests at St. Joseph's Cupertino have a housing site. Darrel Lum, Cupertino resident: • Illustrated some potential parcels; Church properties, No. 6 and 7; property on Stelling mentioned by Tom Huganin; Church site next to Whole Foods, No. 6 and No. 7. • He referred to the Homestead Shopping Center which was highlighted as a housing proposed development. He said he would favor keeping Homestead retail in that area and developing that vacant land; maybe the church might decide to develop. • Once the city rezones these properties, what options do the property owners have; do they have an options of saying they don't want it rezoned or do they have to accept the rezoning; do they have to pay an increased assessment based on the residential component. Does Apple have to pay increased assessment based on the residential component. These questions have to be answered. Chair Giefer: • If the city moves to rezone a parcel, what recourse does the owner have if they chose not to have the parcel rezoned. Aarti Shrivastava: • Our idea was to rezone it in such a way to keep flexibility; it wouldn't take away the use that they have, but would have a mixed use on it. There has been good feedback from properly owners where they have more flexibility to do what they want. It doesn't require them to build residential, it just allows them to build residential. • Said they looked at St. Joseph's retired priest housing; it didn't seem to meet the Tier 1; the unit yield is low; typically try to look for really under-utilized sites, large open spaces. Vera Gil: • Said they could reconsider the parcel owned by the church on Stelling. They looked at sites they thought had the most potential; the church had already sold some land and staff felt they were not ready to redevelop that in the next 5 years. The properly behind Whole Foods appears to have redevelopment potential in the future. Review of uotential Tier 1 sites: Com. Lee: • Loree Shopping Center and 19930 Stevens Creek Boulevard • Stevens Creek and Foothill (Liquor Store) Com. Kaneda: • Add church site on Homestead and Stelling, APN 3260722 77a-162 Cupertino Planning Commission 16 Apri128, 2009 Com. Miller: • Add Morley Bros. site • Add site at northeast corner of Pruneridge and: Tantau • Add Forge Drive site if safe for housing • Planning Commission consider making recon-emendation that a strip of land on the HP property adjacent to Wolfe Road and touching Homestead be added Chair Giefer: • Extend the property on Saich Way; all retail to Stevens Creek corner, excluding preschool • Remove all Apple property from the list for the 1933 properties on Tier 1; Apple is not in the business of building homes, neither is HP • Add Bandley Drive properties to the list Com. Mitler: • Suggested they only give to HCD what the consultant recommends they give HCD and no more. All the other properties discussed tonight go on the local list, whether Tier 1 or 2, so there are two different lists. Chair Giefer: • Asked what they wanted to send to City Cour.~cil; send one list of properties that we agree upon or do we want to suggest that we try to take action on multiple lists. She said she agreed that they did not want to provide too much information that may be scrutinized in different ways. Paul Penninger: • Clarified that HCD does not enforce development; it makes sure that you have the appropriate zoning and land use in place; they are not ask; ng you. to become a developer. • Responding to a question if there was a downside to giving HCD a larger list than the city needs to, he suggested they pick the sites they feel will be the strongest residential development sites in the next 5 years and not attempt to identify every potential residential site. They may also want to consider adding a p~~licy or program now around collaborating with major properly owners and employers, to deal with issues such asjobs/housing balance and work force housing in their long term needs, that could be in the form of a policy or program rather than in the sites inventory. There is a. program in there now, implementation program No. 15, that is around jobs/housing balance. More details could be added to deal with some of the issues being discussed. City Attorney: • Added that there were few constants in the v~orld, one being HCD will be around and will be asking for another housing element in a few years; and the city will have an opportunity to take any extra sites and include them in the next round. Paul Penninger: • Whatever you say you are going to do, you need to do within the next two years, taking into account what is possible and what staffmg and community is likely to accept. The sites you identify that you forward to HCD as part of this housing element; that filters through the whole rest of your General Plan, your land use element, your circulation element; you really have to do that. You have to change the land use, change the zoning and make it happen within a certain time. That is what you are on the :hook for and the next time you have a housing element update, HCD will look to see that yogi have done what you said you were going to do. 17a - 163 Cupertino Planning Commission 17 Apri128, 2009 Said the better strategy is to focus on having a smaller list of very high quality sites that have the characteristics that a developer would look to in the short term to be a viable residential development, and a willing owner. There are other things beyond the sites inventory; jobs/housing balance is important, sustainable planning is important, you may want to add some other elements into this or recommend we add some elements into this to forward to the City Council. Chair Giefer declared a short recess. Chair Giefer: • Said they agreed to review the Tier 1 site plus the additions discussed with the goal to get as close to the 734 number as possible, plus a small margin for discussion with the State. Saich Way from existin~,~yreschool to Stevens Creek Boulevard • Com. Miller said it was just brought up this evening- and staff has not evaluated it; it can be included on the list; now we are into the situation where we give staff more than we really want them to submit and we ask them to hone it down to the submittal number. We can't make a decision on Saich Way until staff evaluates that site closer. How do we decide how many units to attribute to the site. • Chair Giefer said as this moves forward to Council, and as the list is reviewed, there may be sites that drop off; it would help backfill that. As part of our final resolution, we may want to direct staff to give Council that same direction we have agreed to, that they whittle the list down to the 700 number, and they may have varied opinions on this based on public input. Not opposed to taking some of the existing sites or recommended sites and expanding it some. Relative to the number of units, we stick with what is here now, but tell staff to look at it for additional units before Council. • Aarti Shrivastava said to indicate the sites to be added, deleted; we will make a count and try to prioritize them and Council can take the Planning Commission recommendation that they want to send about 734 sites to HCD. • Coms. Lee, Kaneda, and Miller said they concurred with-the site. • No. 20 removed) 19333 Vallco Parkwa~(remove from list) (based on testimony from Apple and community). • Coms. Kaneda, Lee agreed. • Com. Miller said he was challenged with that; the Morley Bros. site is not on the list, we are removing a site and we are back to same problem as before, last week we did a questionable vote on increasing square footage for Apple and HP and I feel there has to be some sites on the Apple property that compensate for that. If we could go back and reconsider that decision, that takes the problem away. At this point, I would like to see some properly either in No. Vallco or So. Vallco that gets zoned to offset the extra square footage that is going to be developed. • Chair Giefer said you could also use the argument that it is not Apple and HP who have depleted the commercial property space. We gave Mainstreet 100,000 sq. ft. I feel what you are suggesting would be levying a tax on them that may not be their full responsibility. Asked staff if there was any push back from Council with regards to the vote or the additional square footage in commercial. Aarti Shrivastava: • That item has not gone to the Council yet; we are going to move that along with the housing element. 17a - 164 Cupertino Planning Commission 18 Apri128, 2009 Com. Miller: • Responding to your argument, we did allocate 100,000 sq. ft. of office space to Main Street; they also gave us 160 housing units to balance it. That makes perfect sense; and I see that example as following through with the next one with Apple or HP. Chair Giefer: • It is a problem that needs to be addressed, but: I don't think this meets the test that we are trying to measure the properties by. We have an applicant who is saying they have no plans to develop it for housing and I am sure they v~~ould make it known to Council as well as other organizations; that is my take on it. If you v~~ant to talk about enhancing other portions of the housing element and encouraging a stronger policy between jobs/housing, I could understand that, but I am not sure this is where it would make sense. Com. Miller: • Said he respectfully disagreed; because what drives development; the only thing that will drive having additional housing is someone comi~ig in wanting to develop a site and nothing will happen until that point in time. The only pl,3ces in town that are actively talked about being developed now are North Vallco; so if we had any hope of having some balance between additional commercial space, additional industrial space and housing, it has to be tied to North Vallco in some way. It may not get developed in North Vallco, there may be some arrangements that are made where it gets developed elsewhere in town; but unless we tie the two together I think we are limiting our flexibility as a city going forward when these two applicants come in with development project;. Chair Giefer: • Said his opinion was noted, but the vote was 3 to remove it. Com.Kaneda: • With 26 and 27, does this get rezoned to just residential; how does this work. Aarti Shrivastava: • The idea was to put the flexible MP/ResZoning on it; the concern that Apple had was that identifying it as a Tier 1 property was of concern to them, not necessarily having the zoning because they didn't have any intention of developing it for housing within the next 5 years. • Calculation shows that if we remove 26 and 27 and 20 and leave all the other sites in, that is about 520 sites on Vallco Park area; removing the ones on DeAnza Boulevard 81 sites, we end up with 745 which is slightly higher than the: 734 we need. I see the Planning Commission is looking to add some more sites, so we might well make that amount and we will just prioritize the list and let the Council look at the final. We do have enough if we remove the Vallco Parkway and leave the others in. Com. Lee: • Recommended discussing more about adding sites and not removing sites. Chair Giefer: • Said they would go down the list and review the Adds, but she felt if it was not likely to be redeveloped, it doesn't meet the criteria and shouldn't be on the list, because they are being asked to review sites for potential redevelopment to move forward on this, during the life of the housing element. She said they heard from that particular applicant that they would not be moving forward on that within the timeframe. 17a - 165 Cupertino Planning Commission 19 Apri128, 2009 Com. Lee: • Said she was supportive of keeping the minimal number; just add them and then later on staff will make it so that it is about 730+. Chair Giefer: • Said they need to direct staff how to get to that 734; it is not their job just to take 3,085 units and whittle it down to 734. She asked the consultant to comment. Paul Penninger: • Said they were added in at the Commission's direction and working with staff. The Commission could direct the consultant and staff to go forward to City Council with some general criteria and observations about the sites inventory, rather than going site by site. Different communities handle it in different ways; if it is the desire to go site by site and to analyze each site in consultation with staff and your consultants, that is one way to go. The sites 26 and 27 were added in at Commission's direction; they weren't sites that automatically occurred to us as consultants objectively from the outside at first look at the development opportunities. • Said the sites were analyzed at the Commission's request, and not necessarily in every case did we think they were optimal development sites. Aarti Shrivastava: • The Planning Commission can choose to send only 734 sites worth or they can choose to send a few more with the general recommendation to Council that the list be whittled down based on those additions and deletions that they take a look at that list and bring it down to 734. It is recommended that rather than numbers, prioritize the sites and then get to that 734 number. Com. Kaneda: • Said they found some extra potential sites that have higher realistic potential to be developed than 26 and 27. They will ultimately be whittled to slightly over 734, which the list stands now is slightly over 734 when you take those sites out. It makes sense that our final list is going to be without those two sites. • There was a brief discussion about number of lists to forward. Tier 1 would be forwarded to HCD and a second list would be sent to Council as a Local Tier 1 list. Review of sites continued: • 26 and 27 are off the list. Loree Shopping Center 11930 Stevens Creek (restaurant) Leave on list. • Chair Giefer said this has always been a restaurant and they have been able to repopulate that one; not sure it meets the criteria. It doesn't have a monolithic parking lot, so I would not support that one. • Com. Lee said that it has a big parking lot in the back and also existing housing next to it. • Com. Kaneda: Neutral • Com. Miller: good site, it has never been a successful commercial site in 30 years. Parce13260722 .. church parcel on Stetting an Homestead; • Everybody agreed. Stevens Creek and Foothill Liquor Store • Chair Giefer: has always been a liquor store and should continue to be a liquor store 17a - 166 Cupertino Planning Commission 20 Apri128, 2009 • 3 agree that is be on the list Paul Penninger: • Explained that there may be sites suggested by staff or the Planning Commission or others, that they would not suggest on their own; but when asked to analyze them, they will see whether it is in the realm of reason based on planning, infrastructure, zoning and environmental conditions. They analyze whether or not it is reasonable to include the sites in the inventory; test them for basic reasonableness and if it i;~ not reasonable that these sites could develop as residential uses, they will have to recommend their exclusion. Morley Bros. parcel - Must be included on a list • Com. Kaneda agreed • Com. Lee - it has to be on the list because- it was planned for residential before • Com. Miller -part of the dilemma is that Apple purchased it after it was zoned for housing as they did some other sites. • Chair Giefer: I understand that; and I am okay saying we defer it; it is not on the list we send to HCD but I don't see it as a Tier 1 list • Aarti Shrivastava noted it was on the Tier 21ist to be forwarded to Council. • Pruneridge and Tantau/northeast corner - di~i not come up as recommended by staffs or the consultant. • Corner of Tantau and Pruneridge • Com. Miller -prime site ready for redevelopment; is for sale; vacant one story building • The Forge - we don't know about its toxic as:;essment • Chair Giefer: we need to understand more about the toxic levels before we move on that. • 10700 Tantau, 10670 Tantau • Com. Lee -both bldgs vacant; should be on Tier 2 • Com. Kaneda -agree Chair Giefer: • Asked for comment on Com. Miller's suggestion regarding the HP property adjacent to Wolfe Road. Com. Lee: • Although it doesn't have a designated address, I think we should still look at it. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they did not feel it met Tier 1 at this point; the site is being forwarded to Council for future consideration for residential. Com. Kaneda: Said conceptually he agreed with Com. Miller that kind of development in that location makes sense. He questioned if it was realistic just because it is part of a bigger site. Recommended Tier 1 Chair Giefer: • Said she was not comfortable having it on an;~ list because in the past HP and Apple have said they have no intention of opening up their property for security reasons, subdividing it, or developing the edge properties. She said she :Felt it was a waste of time, and don't think it will happen in the next 5 years or 10 years. Philosophically does it make sense? Yes, but we have a 17a - 167 Cupertino Planning Commission 21 Apri128, 2009 property owner who owns the property. Com. Miller: • Said he disagreed, and did not feel it was a waste of time; if it is upzoned, zoned at 35 DUA, it makes it more valuable; the HP property is very under-utilized as it is and that makes perfect sense to have housing there for a number of reasons. HP is a part of a larger redevelopment of that property and may very well come in and say this makes perfect sense. To not allow that flexibility is a missed opportunity. Chair Giefer: • Said that Bandley made sense; they will go over the 734 number considerably. Com. Kaneda: • Said it made sense especially in view of the fact that if Apple does their campus, most of those buildings on Bandley are subleases or leases, those would all end up becoming empty after they used the swing space. Com. Miller: • Pointed out in past times other applications have come in to sublease that space in other than an industrial nature and Apple has argued vehemently not to allow that to happen; to keep that space as office space and to keep that area of industrial park in tact. Com. Kaneda: • The reason for that is because they needed that as office space but if they build a huge campus, is that still the valuable office space it was to them if they needed it. Com. Miller: • It may or may not be to them, but those buildings are usable space and it is low rent space and it makes sense to keep it for startups. Chair Giefer: • You could use that same argument for everything on Tantau; everything we would like to provide flexible zoning on, it's the same exact argument; so why not offer it to Bandley as well. Com. Miller: • Said he did not see it as the same argument; there is plenty of housing near Bandley; on Tantau there is none. We are talking about North Vallco; there is no housing to speak of and we are talking about putting something like 10,000 jobs in that area. I want to match the housing and jobs so we can cut down on the auto traffic. Aarti Shrivastava: • Relative to the Bandley sites, she said that there was flexible zoning; staff s recommendation was to increase the density in that area to 25 units so they are consistent with the General Plan. Staff does not feel they are Tier 1 sites. Chair Giefer: • Suggested that when the Tier 1 list is forwarded to City Council, it be prioritized by staff and Paul Penninger for the highest probability of redevelopment. If presented in priority order, it would make it quicker for the Council. Also make Council aware of secondary sites. 17a - 168 Cupertino Planning Commission ~ 2 April 28, 2009 Com. Miller: • Suggested having a secondary list; I think wis are having a vote just on the Tier 1; then we are going to talk about the secondary list. We ha~~e to come back to the first application and we are back to the same issues again. Last time there was an approval of increased square footage and now they are asking to rezone a site that wa:; supposed to be housing and is now probably not going to be housing. I would like to make a. recommendation to Council that addresses those specific issues. I was hoping the motion would be with respect to the Tier 1 list and then we could have more discussion on what we do with the rest of the sites. Chair Giefer: • It makes sense for us to dispatch the Tier 1 list and recommendation for further study and fmal approval by Council and direct BEA to -move forward on that. I am not sure where you are going on the other issue; I think the best suggestion I heard was Paul's Penninger's suggestion to ask Council to have us perhaps further ~;tudy or come up with a policy that talks about housing/jobs balance, because that was the only criteria ABAG used before. I understand it needs to be done, but I am not sure that it is. appropriate to do that in the context of the next item we have where we continued the Apple application. I don't want to tie that into the Apple application; I think we need to decide what we want to do with that rezoning application, separate from the housing. Com. Miller: • In retrospect last time we had tied together th~~ increase in square footage of office space to this housing element and it got separated out and voted on. I think that was a mistake; I am trying to adjust for that because that is the crux of a very key issue here that needs discussion and the intent of putting them together in the first place was to engender that discussion, and by separating it out we didn't fully vet it. Chair Giefer: • Asked staff for a recommendation on how to address the issue. Aarti Shrivastava: Recommended that a motion be made on the Tier I sites and the recommendation to Council about staff prioritizing, that will help staff in completing the housing element. The Commission can discuss the Tier 2 sites which are items for local consideration, put forward goals that could go into the housing element generically and then separately locally review sites or something else in the future; or discuss putting them in locally now and take votes or otherwise. It seems that is more of a local thing and not entirely related to the housing element, making that motion for the housing element and taking out the future generic policy to look at achieving city goals whether that be balancing housing or greenhouse gas emissions. Chair Giefer: • Clarified that they did not have a goal as a city to balance jobs and housing; the only impetus to do so previously was ABAG. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they had a General Plan goal that generically addresses it, but there are no numbers attached to it and it is generally looking at balancing housing and other land uses; a balance of land uses which could mean a variety of things. For the purposes of the housing element, it would help staff to move the discussion alocig for Tier 1 and then the Commission can talk about the second part of it and what recommendation they would like to forward to the Council as far as the Tier 21ist. 17a - 169 Cupertino Planning Commission 23 Apri128, 2009 Paul Penninger: There is a very clear goal in the General Plan about jobs/housing balance in the draft housing element, Pages 98 and 99, there are two policies you may want to refer to; one is Program 9 which is the Jobs/Housing balance program which says that it will require major new office and industrial development to build housing as part of new development projects. As part of the development review process on a project by project basis, the city will evaluate the impact of any application that will produce additional jobs in the community. The purpose of the evaluation is to describe the impacts of the new jobs in the city's housing stock especially in relation to the jobs/housing ratio." We could make that even more specific by proposing a particular methodology for calculating the number of new homes that would be required as part of each new commercial development or we could leave it at this level. The other policy or program to consider is on Page 99 about residential and mixed use opportunities near employment centers. This program says that the city will encourage mixed use development and the use of shared parking facilities in or near employment centers. The two programs are fairly strong, but could be more specific. They provide clear guidance that on a case-by-case basis you are supposed to evaluate particular applications in terms of their impact on jobs/housing balance. That is a separate question from what sites you point out for review by HCD as part of this housing element process. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve the modified Tier 1 list as a recommendation to City Council. Friendly Amendment by Com. Kaneda: Also make a recommendation that the final Tier 1 list is slightly over 734 or a target number. Com. Miller accepted the amendment. Paul Penninger suggested they recommend specifically that the Council forward to HCD adequate sites to meet the city's regional housing needs allocation for the current planning period of 1,140. Accepted by Com. Miller and Com. Kaneda. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Brophy absent) Aarti Shrivastava: Clarified that the sites were supposed to be sites that did not necessarily have residential zoning on it or needed to be considered for higher density, and it appears that site No. 20 already has the zoning on it. Staff will review those with the zoning and confum 15, 3, 4 and 5 had the land use but not the zoning so those need to stay. Said that some of the sites approved as Tier 1 need to be rezoned; the information contained in the Tier 1 sites did have consideration for rezoning, therefore the motion should cover it. Chair Giefer: • Are there any sites we want to add or remove from this list that will be compiled and forwarded to Council as a way to potentially meet those policies that we reviewed earlier. Com. Lee: • All of the sites we mentioned to add will be reviewed by staff; will staff put those in Tier 2 automatically. Aarti Shrivastava: • Staff will ascertain if they meet Tier 1; those that don't meet Tier 1 will be looked at to see if they need rezoning. If they don't need rezoning, then they don't have to be on any list. The Tier 2 sites were only the ones that needed some action. The Planning Commission can move 17a - 170 Cupertino Planning Commission :?4 April 28,.2009 the ones that need action to Tier 2. Vera Gil: • There was a strip of land that Com. Lee had recommended for Tier 2 which was HP strip along Wolfe near Homestead, that I noted was discussed for Tier 2. Aarti Shrivastava: • My notes say review for Tier 1 and if they d~~n't look to staff and the consultant that they meet Tier 1, they would move to Tier 2. Com. Miller: • That was the same situation for the potential superfund site as well. Chair Giefer: • We have a list of properties that we feel may or may not make the criteria for the first list; some of them may be bumped down to the s~:cond list; are we comfortable in saying we accept this list and any that don't meet the follo~vup of the Tier 1 criteria, add those to Tier 2. There was some discussion about the Apple lands, l: don't feel they belong on the list. Aarti Shrivastava: The last time around, the Planning Commission as a whole had asked us to look at certain sites. We moved the ones on Bandley to Tier 2 because we didn't believe they met Tier 1 and they said to look at sites not owned by Apple and HP, so we have separated those sites on Vallco Park North that were not owned by Apple or HP. We have in the last section sites owned by Apple and HP, which will help with your decision making. Said the recommendation was to remove 19:133 Vallco Parkway in Vallco Park South. Those properties were originally on the Tier 1 list. Noted that all the sites owned by Apple and HP are on Tier 2 and if the idea is to remove certain sites or just include a portion, they can discuss it. She said that the HP property was currently on the list. Chair Giefer: • Asked for input on the list of properties on the Tier 2 site inventory. Com. Miller: • Keep the two in South Vallco, 19333 and thy; Morley Bros. site is already on the list. Add the site on the HP property on Wolfe side of the ;street. • Said he saw no reason not to put 19333 on the list; it is not forcing Apple to do anything; if that site should in Apple's view and the city's view, make sense ultimately for a housing site, it just means that we don't have to do a General Plan amendment in order to make it happen. It doesn't preclude anything; it doesn't limit anything; it expands. Chair Giefer: • Said the objective is to rezone the Tier 1 properties; they would not actively pursue rezoning Tier 2 properties, regardless of who the owner is. Aarti Shrivastava: • As part of the housing element, they would n.ot be on the site and it is up to the Commission to recommend to the Council how they want to review Tier 2. 17a - 171 Cupertino Planning Commission 25 Apri128, 2009 Chair Giefer: • Relative to the Tier 2 list, she said she did not want to see the Apple or HP sites listed. She said she agreed with the policy and felt they should be more flexible with the surrounding properties. If they were not going to build the site and wanted to abandon some property or sell it to a developer, she would not object; requiring them to build housing as part of their campuses doesn't make sense. • The next part of our discussion is once we have come to agreement on this list, what do we want to do with it. Do we want to tell Council that we should move forward on rezoning these properties; or send it to Council and say here are some other properties we have identified, that you may also want to look at. Those are two very different actions. Com. Miller: • He said he hoped the Commission would make a decision on the increase in number of square feet that Apple and HP can build on the No. Vallco site by 487,000 sq. ft. He said he was hoping for a statement that there needs to be some kind of balance achieved in the No. Vallco area between the extra office space that is going to be built up and the housing that has to offset that office space, as a responsible community that is trying to achieve some kind of balance and minimize greenhouse gas effects and meet the next go-around of the housing element update. Chair Giefer: • Said that there didn't appear to be a lot of disagreement in terms of potential properties on this list; the next decision is what their recommendation will be. Do we want to recommend to Council that they actively move forward on rezoning this list; what is our objective. Are we trying to send direction to Council that they should take the Tier 2 list and move forward for rezoning that for future land use consideration, or should we just make them aware that there are other properties that might meet a criteria at a future time. Which way do we want to go. Aarti Shrivastava: • Staff's recommendation is that if the Planning Commission wants to forward a list for future consideration, staff would recommend that this be the beginning of a dialog with staff, property owners, the public and Council; and be a complete discussion so that you have all the information you need and you can say to achieve goals, not necessarily to zone all those properties to have all residential, but to have a balance of uses. You can forward a generic recommendation and say, these are the sites we are thinking of, that could have future potential; we can begin that dialog. Or you could say rezone them. Paul Penninger: • Said he did not feel they were ready to rezone all the Tier 2 sites as they have not gone through some of the leg work that needs to be done to make that feasible, at least in the short term. The Tier 2 category is their way of thinking as a community over the longer term, but having a creative dialogue about how to meet their long term jobs and housing needs. That is the purpose of the list. If they say they are going to rezone them, they have to do it as HCD will hold them to it. He said his recommendation is not to use the Tier 21ist for that purpose. Aarti Shrivastava: • The intention was not to include the Tier 2 list on the housing element and that is why forwarding a generic policy about looking at some of these sites in the future for the Council to consider and the Council can decide how they want to move forward on those sites, but making it clear that they weren't going to be part of the housing element should suffice. If they are not part of the list of sites that you were going to rezone, then HCD hold us responsible to rezone. . 17a-172 Cupertino Planning Commission ~6 Apri128, 2009 Chair Giefer: • It sounds like we should not even actively recommend to Council that they consider rezoning of this list at this time. We have heard from the consultant that we don't have enough information, haven't done enough outreach, ]iaven't got enough information from the public or other stakeholders, and that we may jeopardize our future use of this property information by trying to move forward and rezone or make a rezoning recommendation. Aarti Shrivastava: • That was basically if you were to include them in the housing element, and I don't think you are; if you do want to look at it at some povrt in the future or start a dialog, that is something you could forward to the Council, outside of the housing element. Com. Kaneda: • Suggested that it be separate from the housing element; it would be worthwhile to start a dialog to see where it goes. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Jim Fowler, representing Apple: • Said that at some point they will have to have a discussion about housing/jobs balance but it is an appropriate discussion to be had when they have a project to present. All Apple is asking for now is a rezoning; they support the increase in office allocation but none of that has been allocated to Apple and none of it has been ;ilocated to HP. He said it will be appropriate to have the discussion about the terms and conditions on which that allocation will be made when they make that request and when they have a project. • Said it differed from Main Street Cupertino where there was a specific project you were asked to approve; and the applicant wanted to take 100,000 square feet of office that had been allocated to North Vallco and move it to South Vallco where there had been no office allocation in order to achieve approval of thE; multi-use project it was forwarding. In Apple's case they have about one million square feet of office allocation with the existing buildings there; there is still about 366,000 of office allocation in the current General Plan; 150,000 of which is set aside for corporate campus. They do not know, since they don't have a plan and have not developed the campus, whether that will be enough or not. They may well be able to live within that envelope, but may need more. It would be good for Apple and for Cupertino if they were given the e flexibility of additional office allocation beyond that 366,000. • Putting conditions on the rezoning makes some assumptions about what they will request from that additional office allocation if it ever becomes available, and is inappropriate in connection with their asking for a simple rezoning of their project. He understood that the Morley Bros. site, was zoned for residential because the then owners said there was no possibility that they would be able to use that property for office space. It was zoned residential at their request. • Said he understood that because there was su~~h behemoth protest against that housirig project it was abandoned and eventually Apple purchased that site to integrate into its campus. In order to make that integration possible, it has to be rezoned as industrial. Apple is not asking for the residential to be removed, but needs it rezoned for industrial in order to be able to plan their campus and to have the campus go forward, and if that is not possible, they will have to reconsider. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she was not interested in having a dialog as it is just reopening everything that happened on the Toll Brothers project. There is potential for massive problems for the neighborhoods, 17a - 173 Cupertino Planning Commission 27 April 28, 2009 property owners, and schools. Tonight they are looking at putting housing in North Vallco on Tantau where they fought the battle four years ago; the city spent thousands of dollars to come to the conclusion that no one wanted housing in North Vallco; but yet again we have housing popping upon Tantau right next to Santa Clara. Let the Santa Clara residents come in and say why they don't want multi-story housing next to them. She said that the eastern end of town cannot handle any more traffic; schools are overloaded. The governing bodies in this city can do anything they want to; they can propose housing on every square meter, they can put it in DeAnza, they can put it in Rancho San Antonio Park or at Blackberry Farm; they can even put it in the new bridge over 280, but you are still going to have the same problems. If you are going to have this dialog, please make sure that you alert the public; I would think that if we are going to be rezoning property we need to make sure that the public knows about it because we don't do these things behind closed doors. I am worried about it. We already have a lot of problems going on in this city; we spent many hours trying to come up with the Sandhill project Main Street; I think everyone is very proud of the result; I hope that it gets built; I understand it has slowed down. For the last ten years that is all it is composed of, is trying to stick housing in every square inch of the city. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Chair Giefer: • Said the other alternative was to forward it with a minute order to council. The city attorney did not have a specific recommendation. Summarized that they don't have enough information from the public or stakeholders with regard to what to do with zoning of the properties on the Tier 2 sites; it could cause some problems with the HCD if it were part of the housing element, so we have agreed that we will not include it as part of the housing element; and if we are going to make a recommendation, it is how we proceed with the dialog for the list of properties, plus the ones that don't make the Tier 1 cut list. Com. Lee: • Said she has been on the Housing Commission for 2 years and they always have the affordable housing fund in place. Paul Penninger said that if the city wanted to make the ratio jobs to housing, the Commission should look up program 9 and program 13. Even though we don't make a recommendation to City Council to rezone everything on Tier 2 to housing, can we implement Program 9 or do we move forward. Aarti Shrivastava: • That can be implemented as projects come forward; you can review the impact and look at it on a case-by-case basis; that is what Program 9 was supposed to be. Program 15 we do have large areas of the city that do have mixed use and that is the intent of the Tier 1 as well. I think we have the ability to do both. Com. Lee: • What you are saying is whenever projects come in then we just say that the Commission needs to recommend to implement Program 9 at that time. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they can choose to implement it in various ways. Com. Miller: • Said Com. Lee brought up a good point; read Program 9 ...Apple is here to tell us that they are going to go ahead with an office project and they have asked for additional square feet in order 17a - 174 Cupertino Planning Commission 28 Apri128, 2009 to do that and have asked to rezone some lan~js currently zoned for housing to industrial to add to their industrial base, and they are saying all they want is some flexibility to design their project. He said he supported giving them the flexibility, but stated that the city needs to have the same flexibility to implement program 9. It is not limiting Apple in any way by doing this; but just allowing the city to have established the ability to implement this program moving forward. Chair Giefer: • Pointed out that Apple is not asking for a sv~gle square foot tonight; they are not here with a new project. • They have a million square feet in North Va(lco currently that they can use; and I don't see a project before us to have that dialog. When there is a project before us and they are starting to use or request additional square footage frorr~ whatever pool is available, then at that time it is appropriate for us to have that dialog. It is iri our housing element; we have approved this and forwarded it to City Council. Com. Miller: • Then it wasn't appropriate to add extra square feet into our pool because we had no projects to which to allocate it. Why not wait until the F~roject comes forward and see if it makes sense to do this additional square feet at this time. Chair Giefer: • Said she was not disagreeing. She stated that the business before the Commission was the housing element, which has already been voted on and agreed on what to forward to City Council. There is an unfmished application tonight that you keep bringing back to the housing element and yes, it is completely appropriate: when Apple brings a project before us for us to evaluate it based upon this criteria; that is not what they are here for tonight. In the interest in moving forward we need to decide are we going to do anything to dispatch the additional list to Council, are we going to make a motion ors it, send a minute order, or let it die and move forward and finish the agenda. Com. Miller: • Asked the city attorney for clarification on the last time they voted for reconsideration of an item and it was not approved; can they vote a;;ain on reconsideration of that item. City Attorney: • Clarified that the motion to reconsider may oily be made within a limited time of the action on the original motion, usually at the same meeting; and in the case of a multi day session or convention, in the next day within the session or convention which the business is conducted, ........ She summarized that what happens is the motion for reconsideration may only be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side on the original vote; it has to be at the same meeting. (Response is No in both instances) Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, to make a recommendation to City Council that they rezone sufficient sites in the North Vallco area to be rezoned as both industrial and residential so that it could go either way, to compensate for the potential additional square footage that was voted on in the April 14`~ public hearing; in terms of the number of housing units that will be required as a result of that additional square footage being built. If that additional square footage is never built, this will never be implemented, but if built, then as part of Program 9, they will have a responsibility to as it says 17a - 175 Cupertino Planning Commission 29 Apri128, 2009 provide housing as part of their development project to meet the housing needs that they have created. Com. Kaneda: • What you are saying is that the rezoning would entail keeping the original zoning, but also having the ability to either develop as per original zoning or residential. Com. Miller: • Said that he was not changing what they can do; just adding flexibility, so that at some point in time should it be needed, we can implement Program 9. Chair Giefer: • Reminded the Planning Commission that if the motion passes, it may impact their long term viability for future housing plans and HCD if they do rezone and allow people to built commercial, the intent will not be to follow through with Program 9. Program 9 already exists; when a project comes to us, we have that ability to evaluate every project based on Program 9 already without this motion. It is redundant it also strikes me because it is only for the North Vallco area that we are adding additional restrictions and potentially spot zoning the area. She said she had several concerns about that. Com. Kaneda: • Asked staff if that was correct. Paul Penninger: • Related to the HCD, if it is not on the list of sites, probably not. If you include these sites in the list of sites that you are forwarding to HCD that we have analyzed and recommended a certain set of actions on, then they are going to evaluate your next housing element to make sure you did what you said you were going to do. Com. Kaneda: • Said the intent of the motion is not to do that. Com. Miller: • Said he thought it was agreed that only the Tier 1 list was going on to HCD. The Morley Bros. site is not included in the HCD list and that particular site may or may not be rezoned. Paul Penninger: • Clarified that in terms of the site inventory submitted to HCD, if you say in your housing element that you are going to take a particular action such as rezoning a site that is only rezoned for commercial or industrial or office uses now, and allowing residential development on that site; if you don't actually take'the action to change the zoning within a two year period, there could be consequences. • My recommendation in considering the Tier 2 sites is that over the long term this might be a set of sites in areas of the city particularly North Vallco that require more engaged planning and discussion, rather than thinking about rezoning each particular parcel. Obviously there is some interest on the Commission in doing that. Com. Miller: • Expressed concern that they were being asked to do some very specific actions now and suggestion that they will be doing something at some vague time in the future. He said he felt it was appropriate to take specific actions now in terms of increasing office space and rezoning 17a - 176 Cupertino Planning Commission 30 April 28, 2009 properly that is residential to probably go to more office space, and that it is appropriate to have an offset there as a policy to show the~~ are doing their best to implement the program. Otherwise it is an exercise in futility, becau:~e if it is not done now, it won't be remembered and won't happen. In three to five years other people sitting on the Commission and City Council will not remember it. If it is voted on and put in writing, they can move forward. It doesn't force Apple to do anything different at this point. Chair Giefer: Recalled that the city spent $100,000 on the North Vallco Master Plan; the Council and community expressed their opinion that they did not want housing in that area at the time. No housing was approved as part of the Master Plan. She said if they wanted it there, it would have been the time to act upon it, but the community at large did not want it. Com. Miller: • Said that Chair Giefer's statements were not ~~orrect; he was intimately involved with all those hearings and meetings; no approval was givE;n, the Council only accepted the report, but did not vote on it. At the community hearings, thE;re were people asking for more housing in North Vallco and there were others such as Jennifer Griffm who said no, they did not want more housing. He said he could produce a list of the people who said they thought that more housing in North Vallco was appropriate. Com. Lee: Said she would like the Tier 2 sites to be z~s long as possible, whatever Tier 1 sites aren't approved in the 700+ that don't go to HCD, g~~ to Tier 2. Whenever sites are redeveloped, even if they have a lesser tendency or chance, they should be flagged so that when the sites come up fir redevelopment, Programs 9, 13 and 15 are referenced and it is evaluated whether or not it is appropriate to implement those programs. Com. Miller said to make it just for North Vallco, but we don't want to spot zone; it is important on all those sites, that is why the; are on Tier 2. She suggested keeping it even broader, and asked staff if it can be done. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the Commission can forward whatever recommendation they want to Council on that issue. Com. Kaneda: • Said that Com. Miller expressed concern that when it comes time to do something to develop these properties, this discussion and that program may be forgotten. His suggested solution is to rezone a group of properties in a way that you could put residential in but you could also say that nothing will change. The issue is are we going to forget in the future when it comes time to develop these properties. Is there some other options, such as specifically note Program 9 or whatever program it is and handle it that way so it is in the record. What are our options that will remind us that we are supposed to be balancing housing and business. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they could either forward the Tier 2 site:; with the intent that this be looked at in the light of program 9, 13 and 15 as future applications came forward, or designate areas such as North DeAnza Boulevard or North Vallco or other areas where this be looked at. A list of sites could be sent up stating that they want to look at them as they develop. There are various ways; the city attorney didn't think there was a benefit to a minute order vs. a motion. 17a - 177 Cupertino Planning Commission 31 Apri128, 2009 City Attorney: • Said it was the same legal significance, if you wanted to flag the items as you said, you could send the recommendation up that these particular matters, these Tier 2 sites be placed on a list and they be cross-checked every time an application comes in for development and there be a sentence placed in the staff report to identify this as a Tier 2 list. You could send it up with a particular recommendation on areas vs. properties; if you want those particular sites identified. Since this is not part of any formal State process and not going to HCD, it is a local jurisdictional issue, so you can decided how to deal with this particular list in what fashion and direct staff accordingly. At this point what you are talking about is a position and a recommendation to go to City Council as opposed to a final action. Aarti Shrivastava: • The overall intent of the Commissioners was to look at overall areas, and not necessarily tiny slivers of sites; therefore if a tiny sliver of a site came in for an office development, it was to look at large areas and to plan more realistically rather than just flagging individual sites. You could look at areas and say these are areas we want to look at or you could flag individual sites. (Vote: Motion failed 2/2) Motion: Motion 6y Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Lee, to forward on Tier 2 sites inventory to City Council with the recommendation that they keep this as a list that they can refer to as projects come up and they are trying to implement or evaluate against Program 9,13 and 15. Friendly Amendment by Com. Lee: Whatever discussed on Tier 1 that is not used for the 734 units, all those sites will be put on Tier 2 and everything we approved, everything on Tier 2 and everything that is not used on Tier 1 will be on a long list called Tier 2, and then all of these sites on Tier 2 whenever they are up for redevelopment, whenever an application is brought forward to Commission or Council, then the Programs 9, 13, and 15 should be looked at carefully and reviewed to see that development so that we can apply 9,13, and 15 to that development. Chair Giefer: • Point of clarification, the first part of the motion was part of what we passed and direction we gave staff already. Aarti Shrivastava: • Yes, all the staff clarified that Tier 2 list only included those that needed some action in the form of rezoning or a General Plan. Those that don't need action and already have the zoning would not be on Tier 2. Com. Kaneda accepted the amendment. (Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Brophy absent) The agenda was returned to Item 1. Application No. Z-2009-O1 (EA-2009-O1) Com. Miller: • Stated his opinion, that they should treat the rezoning identical to the Tier 2 one, that is when an application comes forward that involves this particular parcel, they consider it in light of Program 9. There is no need to rezone it at this point. 17a - 178 Table F.1: Tier 1 Sites Inventory ~~ Allowed under Current Zoning a a . ears is Size Density Yield Yield ID APN Site Address Existing Use Acres DUA Units Units a Current General Plan Land Use Oveday Curcent Zoning Recommend GP and Zoning Action Heart of the City 1 316 21031 19875 Stevens Creek BNd Furniture 20D0 1,78 25 44 37 Commercial I Office! Residential HeaR of City SP Planned Development (P) Ensure wnsistency vAth Heart of the City Specfic Plan. 316 21032 19855 Stevens Creek BNd Yoshinoya D.24 25 6 5 CommerciaVOfficelResidential Heart of Ci SP Planned Development (P) Ensure consistencv vnth Heart of the City Specific Plan. 369 03005 20D10 Stevens Creek BNd Corner of Stevens Creek & Blaney 0.47 25 11 9 _ _.. _ __. _._ . _ _.__ ...__.__...._. Commercial! Office 1 Residential ..__.. _. _..~ _. Heart of City SP .._..,..,_ ..... ,.,_r..._... ~, , Planned Development (P) ~~,,,c, c w, vw~cuuy am, i mm, ui me uny opcw,o ncu. Ensure consistency with Heart pf the City Specific Plan. 369 03 OD6 10071 S Blaney Ave Lackey Prop. (Stevens Creek & Blaney) 0.37 25 9 7 CommeraaUOff~celResidential Heart of City SP Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan. 369 03 D07 10031 S Blaney Ave Lackey Prop. (Stevens Creek & Blaneyl 136 25 34 28 Commeraall0ffice l Residential Heart of City SP Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan 5 369 D5 D09 19930 Stevens Creek Blvd Arya 0.44 25 11 9 CommerciaVOff~celResident~al Heart of City SP Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specfic Plan. 369 D5 O10 19936 Stevens Creek Bivd Arya Parkin Lot 0 52 25 12 10 CommerciaVOfficelResidential HeaR of City SP Planned Development (Pl Ensure consistencv with Heart of the City Specific Plan. 369 O6 003 10075 E Estates Dr United Furniture Site 0.53 25 13 71 CommerciaUOffice/Residential Heart of City SP Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Head of the City Specific Plan. 36906004 1 D075 E Eslaies Dr United Furniture Site 0.86 25 21 17 Commercia110ffice/Residential Heart of City SP Planned Development (P) Ensure consistencv vAth Head of the City Specific Plan. _ _. _._. _ . _. __.__...._. ..__.. _. _..~ _. .._....__ __......r..,...., ~~ ~ .~ w,.,c wno~aim,uy mm nccu m u is ~.ny oNcuu~ nau. 375 07046 19060 Stevens Creek Blvd Loree Center 0.86 25 21 17 CommerciaUOffice/Residential Heart pi City SP Planned Development (Pj Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan Subtotal Units 357 296 Subtotal Units @ 20+DUA 357 296 Curcent Proposed Rezoning Max. ax. ax. ea rT ID APN Site Address Size Density Density Yield Yield Existing Use Acres DUA DUA Units Units a Current General Plan Land Use Overlay Current Zoning Recommend GP and Zoning Action uses. Homestead Road 12 326 09 051 1099D N Steiling Rd McDonalds 0.49 NIA 35 17 14 Convnercial Residential Oveday P (Rec, Enter) Amend General Plan io permit residential; amend zoning to P(CG Res) 32609052 20916 Homestead Rd Baskin Robins(Thai Delight 0.74 NIA 35 25 21 CommerciaVResidential Residential Overlay General Commercial (CG) , Amend zoning to P(CG, Res}. 326 09061 20956 Homestead Rd Korean Restaurant Strip Mall 1.12 NIA 35 39 33 CommerciaUResidential Residential Overlay General Commercial (CG) Amend zoning to P(CG Res). 326 09 060 20990 Homestead Rd Homestead Lanes 2.75 N1A 35 96 81 Commercial Residential Overlay P (Rec, Enter) , Amend General Plan to permfl residential; amend zoning to P(CG, Res} Valico Park South 13 316 20 088 No Sous Address former Macy's Parking Lot 5.16 N1A 35 18D 153 Commercial I Residential Residential Overlay P(Regional Shopping) Amend zoning to P(Regional Shopping, Res). North De Anza Boulevard 14 32610046 2D705 Valley Green Drive Light Industdal 7.98 10 25 199 169 OfficellndustriaUCommerciaVResidential P(CG, IJIL, Res 4.10) Amend zoning to P(CG, ML, Res). Non•Designated Areas 15 326 07 022 Homestead Road Valley Church 1.65 NIA 35 57 48 Commercial P(CG) Amend General Plan to permit residential; amend zoning to P(CG Res} 326 O7 027 10885 Steiling Rd Valley Church 0.45 WA 35 15 12 Quasf•Pubiic Quasi-Public Bulking (BQ) , . Amend General Plan fo permit residential; amend zoning to P(BQ Res). 326 07 030 N Steiling Rd Valley Church 0.93 NIA 35 32 27 Commercial Quasi-Public Building (BQ) , Amend General Plan to permit residential; amend zoning to P(BQ Res). 326 D7 D31 N Steiling Rd Valley Church 0.30 N!A 35 10 8 Quasi-Public Quasi-Public Building (BQ) , Amend General Plan to permtl residential; amend zoning to P(BQ Res). 326 07 036 21040 Homestead Road Valley Church 1.79 N!A 35 62 52 Commercial P(CG) , Amend General Pian to permk residential; amend zoning to P(CG, Res). Subtotal Unks 904 763 Subtotal Units (a? 20+DUA 904 763 TOTAL UNITS 1,261 1,059 TOTAL UNITS 20+DUA 1,261 1,059 (a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent. Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DataQuick Information Systems, 2009; DC6E, 2009; BAE, 2DD9 17a -179 From Julia Kinst (juliak@cupertino.org) Julia Kinst From: Keithddl527 @ aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 12:25 PM To: City Council Cc: City Clerk Subject: RE: 17. Consider General Plan Arriendments, City Council Meeting June 2, 2009 Regarding Agenda Item: 17. Consider General Plan Amendments, Application Nos. C PA-2008-01, EA-2009-05, GPA-2009-01, EA-2009-03, City of Cupertino, Citywide (continued from May 5): a) Adopt a draft 2007-2014 Housing Element and forward t~~ the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) b) Consider increasing the office allocation in the General Plan Dear City Council members Tonight the city council will review and vote on tvvo important General Plan amendments, Agenda Items 17a & 17b. As a member of the community, I fully support our elected representative government, but I am sadly dismayed by the wasteful expense of our public Bands, some $60,000+ spent on a contrived housing allocation update process which was not allowed to achieve all of our city's hired consultants (BAE) stated goals; 1.) Educate the public on our city's current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). 2.) Describe the California Department of Housing; and Community Development (HCD) certification process; explain to stake holders all of the city's IE~gislative hurdles that are placed on our city to address the certification process, have our city st~3ff and consultants (BAE) show where RHNA requirements could be anticipated for developmE~nt in the future, on a site by sit4e bases, by the use of the legislative process, clearly showing all types of housing allocations actual placement with in our city, with all community development ramifications clearly defined. 3.) Allow for the active participation by all community stakeholders in the final review and placement of all Regional Housing Need Allocations with incur own city, on properly designated maps, where future housing allocations would/could be legislatively designated. This task should have be assisted by the supplying of RHNA lists, by city staff, showing alt types of housing which our city is currently required to make available, and where, and then foot note what zoning and other General Plan considerations would be required on a site by sitE~ bases, with staff allowing adequate time for our stakeholders interaction with both the maps and the lists, with stakeholders attempting to place all types of housing types upon that map, then alloying adequate time for all stake holders to discover the real housing allocation issues that our city faces, provoking a real discussion of these issues, allowing for a real community consensus to take ~~lace, allowing for our public's support for our city's From Julia Kinst (juliak@cupertino.org) future housing needs and for the legislation required to reach those needs, with our residents fully understanding all of the consequences to our community - as they will be required to bear the burden themselves -along with our big and small property and business owners, a consensus required to support our community's future RHNA goals and lusiness development success -this last and most important step was not achieved. I endured a bad children's bed time story at most of the Housing Element Update group meetings - I was fatted into sleep by wonderful refreshments provided at our public expense, our city's equally well compensated consultants, BAE, academically lectured our community's stake holders into mindless complaisance, as sleepy attendees were then pat1:ed on the head after doing a bare minimum of participation and invited to return home to there beds having tired of their civic duties; city staff and BAE will do the meaningful work of the housing element update with out the dullard intervention of the public, so it appears? As a participating stakeholder in the Housing Element Update review process, being an appointed representative from CARe, I attended all of the Focus Group meetings, all community workshops, and attended all city commission meetings regarding this issue. I do not feel my participation served any constructive purpose, as Cupertino's city staff appears to do exactly as they wish; ignoring the repeatedly voiced suggestions and concerns of the participating community, your fellow concerned citizens of CuK~ertino, and of equal concern, even going against BAE's own professional advice, as BAE repeatedly admonished our city commissions and city staffers publicly to avoid expanding the current housing update process out of it's current scope, placing the current certification process at odds with HCD's 2007/2014 requirements, and far more dangerously, placing the city in jeopardy for meeting future RHNA updates, when much higher RHNA allocations which will surely be forthcoming, as our city staff- foolishly places all available housing expansion sites in our city into the current housing element update, including many sites which appear extreme, unwarranted and even unneeded for inclusion during this current update process, while risking the wrath of greatly increased RHNA mandates by ABAG and HCD during the next housing element update process in 2014, just 5 years in the future. Our city will have exhausted all it's available housing expansion parcel reserves during the current update process; what parcels will be left then, where will future RHNA allocations be placed in our community, and by what reasonable development standards will they be built out? Can we honestly avoid all future jeopardy caused by the imprudent acts taken today, will we avoid our city staffer's forcing our city into using eminent d~~main to meet its future RHNA requirements - is this the veiled threat? Our elected representative government is again I~~oking down the working end of loaded gun barrel, as our disenfranchised residents, your constituents, are perhaps forced once again to return to direct democracy; referenda by community stakeholders. Please review Table F.1: Tier 1 Sites Inventory, page 17a-179, and remove from consideration Item No. 13, Vallco Park (the former Macy's parking lot) a prior referenda over turned an approved housing project at this location, as a majority of your voting residents demanded this, the majority of the Housing Element Update Focus group stakeholders have also requested this, even the Planning Commission unanimously agreed too at there public hearing. From Julia Kinst (juliak@cupertino.org) Why is our city staff continuously putting this sitE~ back up for reconsideration? Please admonish our new Director of Community Development that a majority of our community does not support housing at this location, and to please cease and desist from attempting to go around our public mandate and attempt to fix this one parcel's development issues by using deceptive legislation practices, like denying our community the chance to vet an actual project which might be proposed in the future for this site by resorting to legislative entitlement -please allow the property owner to come forward with an actual project before unilaterally entitling this specific parcel unfairly and against the wishes of the community. The Vallco RDA has a special housing allocation forced on it by legal actions taken against it by low income housing groups in our county. The Vallco RDA has to provide low income housing in the specific planned redevelopment area, if the RDA desires to release any future incremental taxes it will assess in this area, so this is the issue that is driving city staffers for the re inclusion of the Macy's parking lot site for housing in the current Housing Element Update process, but done so under the guise to meet RHNA mandates alone -city staffers are ignoring the repeated objections of the public, as this is an Vallco RDA issue, not a HCD/RHNA issue. Please separate the Vallco RDA low-income housing/incremental taxes issue from the current State RHNA requirements, as many residents have said these are separate issues and is just a convenient misunderstanding that is being sustained by city ~;taffers alone, why has it been allowed to continue with out any questioning by the City Council, you who are also the board members of the RDA - do you understand this separate issue? Tonight you will also consider Agenda Item 17b.) Consider increasing the office allocation in the General Plan. Many residents have voiced concerns about the City Council unilaterally increasing the office space allocations by act of legislation alone to amend our city's General Plan, with out having seen any development plans from any of the major developers and property owners who will benefit from such an increase, while doing so with no prearrangemF~nt with these same stakeholders as to who will pay for the General Plan amendment process either. $100,000 was spent on a North Vallco developmE~nt study -all major property and businesses owners in the designated area said they would not participate in such a speculative planning exercise or be bound by any of its findings - why is our City Council speculating in such an equal way by talking such a huge gamble with no assurances from any of the major stakeholders who are requesting the increased office allocation? The amendment proposal is ill advised then, as it will impose a future RHNA mandate on our community in an unfair way; it will not be imposE~d on the major property & business owners who will have mostly caused the commercial office & housing imbalance, as the new allocation of additional office space for these large property and busines:~ owners, with out a development agreement, will divorce them from the consequences of supplyin;; the RHNA, while our city's small property and business owners, with little means to resolve the imbalance fincially or fight against it, these same small disenfranchised business and property owners will have to supply all of the future RHNA allocations -this draconian burden was not discussed at the Housing Element Update group meetings, From Julia Kinst (juliak@cupertino.org) nor at any of the public hearings, but it was raised by stake holders, but only to the deaf ears of BAE, City Staff, and the Planning Commission. Our major property and business owners along with our lesser property and business owners need to discuss and agree as to who and how the burden of all office/housing development in our community will be fairly divided, this did not take place at thE~ Housing Element Update, not all of the required small business and property owners were notified nor available, and the larger vocal property owners and business owners who did attend did, they did not want to participate in the consequences of future RHNA allocations in trade for any office allocation they might request and have handed out to them today. Our resident's will respectfully submit additional ~~uggestions and goals as to how our city can meet it's current and future RHNA at tonight's public hearing. I hope you and your fellow City Council members will kindly listen and consider our ideas, even if oi~fered to you at this late moment, as we stakeholders have faithfully participated in the public process rind we only wish to have our concerns and suggestions included in your final deliberations ar~d decision. I must apologize, but the City Council has receiver our stakeholders concerns and ideas only through the strictest filtering of our city staff &BAE, who perhaps have a different agenda then our community of stake holders, as I have discussed in this email. Thank you. Keith Murphy CARe representative We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereltsAt.com. ~'' From Julia Kinst (juliak@cupertino.org) ~ VC ~~w~ ~I ~~ _~ Julia Kinst From: Keithddl527@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 12:25 P~~1 To: City Council Cc: City Clerk Subject: RE: 17. Consider General Plan Amendments, City Council Meeting June 2, 2009 Regarding Agenda Item: 17 Consider General Plan :amendments, ,',pplica'ion I~os SPA-2008-01. EA-200-OS GP;;-2009-01, EA-2009-03 Cray cf Cupertino, Citywide (con~inueC from ~>/lay S) a ~ adopt a dra"`~ X007-2014 Noosing Elemen, and fon~~ard :a the State Depar`ment of Ho.:sing ana Community Development IHCDi dl Consider ~nc.reasing the o`rice allocation in the General >lan Dear City Council members Tonight the city council will review and vote on two important General Plan amendments, Agenda Items 17a & 17b. As a member of the community, I fully support our elected representative government, but I am sadly dismayed by the wasteful expense of our public 1=unds, some $60,000+ spent on a contrived housing allocation update process which was not allowecl to achieve all of our city's hired consultants (BAE) stated goals; 1.) Educate the public on our city's current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). 2.) Describe the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certification process; explain to stake holders all of the city's legislative hurdles that are placed on our city to address the certification process, have our city staff and consultants (BAE) show where RHNA requirements could be anticipated for development in the future, on a site by sit4e bases, by the use of the legislative process, clearly showing all typE~s of housing allocations actual placement with in our city, with all community development ramifications clearly defined. 3.) Allow for the active participation by all community stakeholders in the final review and placement of all Regional Housing Need Allocations with in our own city, on properly designated maps, where future housing allocations would/could be legisl~~tively designated. This task should have be assisted by the supplying of RHNA lists, by city staff, showing; all types of housing which our city is currently required to make available, and where, and then foot note what zoning and other General Plan considerations would be required on a site by site bases, with staff allowing adequate time for our stakeholders interaction with both the maps and the lists, with stakeholders attempting to place all types of housing types upon that map, then allo~Ning adequate time for all stake holders to discover the real housing allocation issues that our city faces, provoking a real discussion of these issues, allowing for a real community consensus to take place, allowing for our public's support for our city's From Julia Kinst (juliak@cupertino.org) future housing needs and for the legislation required to reach those needs, with our residents fully understanding all of the consequences to our community - as they will be required to bear the burden themselves -along with our big and small property and business owners, a consensus required to support our community's future RHNA goals and business development success -this iast and ~~ost important step was not achieved. I endured a bad children's bed time story at most: of the Housing Element Update group meetings - I was fatted into sleep by wonderful refreshments provided at our public expense, our city's equally well compensated consultants, BAE, academically lectured our community's stake holders into mindless complaisance, as sleepy attendees were then patted on the head after doing a bare minimum of participation and invited to return home to therE~ beds having tired of their civic duties; city staff and BAE will do the meaningful work of the housing Element update with out the dullard intervention of the public, so it appears? As a participating stakeholder in the Housing Element Update review process, being an appointed representative from CARe, attended all of the Focus Group meetings, all community workshops, and attended all city commission meetings regarding this issue. I do not feel my participation served any constructive purpose, as Cupertino's city staff appears to do exactly as they wish; ignoring the repeatedly voiced suggestions and concerns of the participating community, your fellow concerned citizens of Cupertino, and of equal concern, even going against BAE's own professional advice, as BAE repeatedl~i admonished our city commissions and city staffers publicly to avoid expanding the current housing update process out of it's current scope, placing the current certification process at odds with HCD's :?007/2014 requirements, and far more dangerously, placing the city in jeopardy for meeting future RHNA updates, when much higher RHNA allocations which will surely be forthcoming, as our city staff foolishly places all available housing expansion sites in our city into the current housing element upd~cte, including many sites which appear extreme, unwarranted and even unneeded for inclusion during this current update process, while risking the wrath of greatly increased RHNA mandates by AE3AG and HCD during the next housing element update process in 2014, just 5 years in the future. Our city will have exhausted all it's available housing expansion parcel reserves during the current update process; what parcels will be left then, where will future RHNA allocations be placed in our community, and by what reasonable development standards will they be built out? Can we honestly avoid all future jeopardy causec by the imprudent acts taken today, will we avoid our city staffer's forcing our city into using eminent comain to meet its future RHNA requirements - is this the veiled threat? Our elected representative government is again looking down the working end of loaded gun barrel, as our disenfranchised residents, your constituents, are perhaps forced once again to return to direct democracy; referenda by community stakeholders. Please review Table F.l: Tier 1 Sites Inventory, p~~ge 17a-179, and remove from consideration Item No. 13, Vallco Park (the former Macy's parking lot) a prior referenda over turned an approved housing project at this location, as a majority of your voting residents demanded this, the majority of the Housing Element Update Focus group stakeholdE~rs have also requested this, even the Planning Commission unanimously agreed too at there public hearing. From Julia Kinst (juliak@cupertino.org) Why is our city staff continuously putting this sitE~ back up for reconsideration? Please admonish our new Director of Community Development that a majority of our community does not support housing at this location, and to please cease and desist from attempting to go around our public maridate and attempt to fix this one parcel's development issues by using deceptive legislation practices, like denying our community the chancE~ to vet an actual project which might be proposed in the future for this site by resorting to legislative entitlement -please allow the property owner to come forward with an actual project before unilaterally entitling this specific parcel unfairly and against the wishes of the community. The Vallco RDA has a special housing allocation forced on it by legal actions taken against it by low income housing groups in our county. The Vallco RDA has to provide low income housing in the specific planned redevelopment area, if the RDA desires to release any future incremental taxes it will assess in this area, so this is the issue that is driving city st~~ffers for the re inclusion of the Macy's parking lot site for housing in the current Housing Element Update process, but done so under the guise to meet RHNA mandates alone -city staffers are ignoring the repeated objections of the public, as this is an Vallco RDA issue, not a HCD/RHNA issue. Please separate the Vallco RDA low-income housing/incremental taxes issue from the current State RHNA requirements, as many residents have said these are separate issues and is just a convenient misunderstanding that is being sustained by city staffers alone, why has it been allowed to continue with out any questioning by the City Council, you who are also the board members of the RDA - do you understand this separate issue? Tonight you will aCso consider Agenda item 17b.) Consider increasing the office ailocatEOn in the General Plan. Many residents have voiced concerns about the (:ity Council unilaterally increasing the office space allocations by act of legislation alone to amend our city's General Plan, with out having seen any development plans from any of the major developers and property owners who will benefit from such an increase, while doing so with no prearrangement with these same stakeholders as to who will pay for the General Plan amendment process either. $100,000 was spent on a North Vallco developmE~nt study -all major property and businesses owners in the designated area said they would not participate in such a speculative planning exercise or be bound by any of its findings -why is our City Council speculating in such an equal way by talking such a huge gamble with no assurances from any of the major stakeholders who are requesting the increased office allocation? The amendment proposal is ill advised then, as it will impose a future RHNA mandate on our community in an unfair way; it will not be imposE~d on the major property & business owners who will have mostly caused the commercial office & housing imbalance, as the new allocation of additional office space for these large property and business owners, with out a development agreement, will divorce them from the consequences of supplying the RHNA, while our city's small property and business owners, with little means to resolve the imbalance fincially or fight against it, these same small disenfranchised business and property owrers will have to supply all of the future RHNA allocations -this draconian burden was not discussed at the Housing Element Update group meetings, From Julia Kinst (juliak@cupertino.org) nor at any of the public hearings, but it was raisE~d by stake holders, but only to the deaf ears of BAE, City Staff, and the Planning Commission. Our major property and business owners along tivith our lesser property and business owners need to discuss and agree as to who and how the burden of all office/housing development in our community will be fairly divided, this did not take place at the Housing Element Update, not all of the required small business and property owners were notifiE~d nor available, and the larger vocal property owners and business owners who did attend did, they did not want to participate in the consequences of future RHNA allocations in trade for any office allocation they might request and have handed out to them today. Our resident's will respectfully submit additional suggestions and goals as to how our city can meet it's current and future RHNA at tonight's public hearing. I hope you and your fellow City Council members will kindly listen and consider our ideas, even if offered to you at this late moment, as we stakeholders have faithfully participated in the public process and we only wish to have our concerns and suggestions included in your final deliberations end decision. I must apologize, but the City Council has receivE~d our stakeholders concerns and ideas only through the strictest filtering of our city staff &BAE, who perhaps have a different agenda then our community of stake holders, as I have discussed in this email. Thank you. Keith Murphy CARe representative We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. W hat will you find? Explore WFrerettsAt.com. ~~CHl~tr~ ~ / 7 a-. ~ob~ffi M~~t bb~~ c~ % ~-a-off able F.L• Ticr 1 CCC/CARe Eros itsvento rParcrllV~. ddr~sslbcatke ~> =D~ nc Yro~loSed Yield DUA idd Yieb rt o[ toe C' 1 16 21 031 19875 Stevens Creek 1.78 5 7 i8 kd Fttaaiture 2000 Ib 21 032 19855 Stevens Creels .24 5 Q lvd Yoshitm a 1623 093 0007 Stevens tic 1.35 Wd i-Restaurant 26 32 041 10073 SairJi SS/ay 7- .7 i 5 19 15 16 11 site behind Banbay 69 03 r>oa ~D sty c:~x rraaa l.if~ ~ S ~ uSevBoas 69 03 003 0010 Stevens Creek .47 5 i i 0 d Comer of Stevens reds B 69 03 006 10071 S Blaney Ave .37 5 '' key prop. (Stevens reek B Blaney b4 D DD 1 W 15 Bhmey Ave .36 5 4 8 2g prc>p• ($tevons 8 Bl by 03 009 19930 Stevens Creek .44 $ 11 ~ a rest. b9 OS 010 19936 Stevau Ctedc .32. 5 12 10 Id lvd lot 59 DS 038 199D0 Stevens Credo 1.92' S ~(: tvd SD Furniture '~ 69 OS 002 i063S EEatatesDr .9i. S 3 19 ;~ sited Furniture Site 69 06 OD3 10075 & Eistates Dr .s3 5 13 11 Furniture Site 69 06 004 10075 E Estates Dr .86 5 1 17 g Fumihue site 75 O7 OO i 19160 Stevens Crock .55 s 13 1 l 1 ~ ivd Barty Swenson 73 07 043 10029 Judy Ave .4:~ S 10 Q Csntsr 75 07 04b 19050 5tecena Creek .8f• 5 1 17 Q Lwec Center Subtotal 133 snits of dx 10 s9 os o2a nano Stevena creek :o<: s 76 64 hrd u>rion Church 1 26 31019 10t00N Stollerg Rd .8f. 1 gi btmdant Life C~urcfi Rid I2 2b 09 DS I 1099D N Stelliag Rd .49 5 l7 14 ~ cDonalds 26 09 052 0916 Homestead Rd .7~4 5 5 1 0 ' Robiast'ILai 2609 061 0955 Homestead Rd 1.1;! 5 9 3 orean Itestauraet . hiaH 26 09050 D990 Homestead ltd ameatead Laaea .7'• s 1 0 atko park 5onth ~ 3 1520 088 o Sittts Address ,1(i 5 180 53 {~ armor Maws parking OfUI BC ADEa 14 6 10046 __ 0705 Valley Clreen .. h~skial __ .98. 5 199 169 ~ __ on-Desi Ads 15 26 07 022 umestead Road CMttch L6< s 7 8 48 25 07 027 10885 StelSing Rd C.hiQSh .45 5 t5 12 1Z 2b O7 030 sum Rd Valey 'hurc6 .93 S 2 7 ~*~ 25 fl? fl3 i Staling Rd VaNey h .3{~ 3 i 0 26 07 036 1040 Homestead v canuch 1.75 i 2 2 ~ubtotal Units 292 oriey site 170 190 ranny Units 50 ~ arcel splits 50 50 g of xisting apartment ompiexes(Viiia Biltmore 200 'ubtotal 470 total roposed units 895 ^ ^ M INCA CI.OVESTEh Cl --- KAThINE Cl Q _1 ~ ~~ LANARK CT C ~_ _____ ~i J I.OCKNESS -- ---- CT _.._ _._. __ -._. __..., l __ _ , ._____ i I ~H-~A -0.0005 _.-__ -- __ __ _ ~ 0.0412._. w Y U O U Q u] w 1 3A ~ ~ NM _~ ~ -`- T ., _. VJ'iSA~ NM __ _. ~ 7.8 ~_ --~ BI_UG 45 ~ f) a 1-1R`J~~H~~~L- G~ C_-! ~" _J KILDARE AVE _J UJ I-- ier_nicininrnni I I I I I I I I I I -,____ I - ~. ____ L q VF \ I iI - -- _ \~ 1 l -~ ~ ~_ _ _..._ ~ i -0.0005 O , .p ~~r I I ~S .._.0.18......_ _ .. ~lA~ I-IUtUIES il:JaCi t2C/~,I) _ ~ A,,~41~ ) h _ . I I ~ ~~ - - i . . I- (~ =\ I ; I ~ ~ I t\ I _ .__ _ _..LI13A.~ .. L ,OAS F. I . i ~ i 6A I I __® ~ E ZgP. I I I , ~.- .~ i ~.~ I _ I I i I I PAI~KItJ(; j ~ I I I I ~~ao ono I goo ; I _ r~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I I __ .__ I - -- -_ _ _ ~ L-gA~ I I _ __ ~ I __. I E~ZA ANTI ~ , ie I I SITE I ~ I i 014~16A _ .__ _ _ I ~ ~ ~iAlvIf~l_I\~ i l ! x ~~ '~' --- ,~~~ CUPERTIMG ,_ ~.~ -- ~-c_ c.o ~ Z% e ~ ~.~- ~ ~ ~ Presentation Overview ~~11.'.' Presentation of Draft Cupertino Housing Element Update 2007-2014 Cupertino City Council June 2, 2009 Housing Element Update Process • Involved a broad range of stakeholders and diverse segments of community • Meetings with Planning, Housing, and Senior Commissions • Stakeholder interviews • Four Focus Group Meelirgs • Online education materials • Community Meelirp Submit Draft Housing Element to • Housing Commission • Plannirq Commission • City Counal • HCD • Prepare Environmental Analysis (DC3E) • Respond to HCD Comments • Final Housing Element submitted to City Council for Formal Adoption and Submitted to HCD for Certification Housing Element Update Process Components of Housing Element Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Available Sites to meet RHNA Key Land Use and Policy Changes ~ ~ ,: ~ .. 3~ -. . Certification Process • CA Department of Housing and Community Development must certify that Housing Element is in compliance with State law • Wkhout certification, jurisdiction risks • Loss of stale funds for housing and transportation • Litigation 1 Components of Housing Element ..................................................................................................... • Review of previous Housing Element • Needs assessment • Demographic overview, market analysis, antl speaal needs housirp • Constrainffi analysis • Govemmemal end non-govemmenlal constrairns to new housirp (.e. zoning code, impact fees, market conditions) e Inventory of sites for new housing development • Shes to accommotlale City's Regional Housirrg Need Allocation (RHNA) • Goals and Policies RHNA Planning Goals, 2007-2014 ..................................................................................................... RHNA. 2007-201! Vary Lars tar MoONab AOwe Moeede Tod Abr~YO Un4 3r1 22B 2~3 35] 1,1~ %Wabcalrtl 2D.1% 1D.8% 20.8% 30-5% 100.tlK Sowas: RBACa, 200]; a11E 2008 Population, 2006 RHNA, 2007-2014 aayArea: 7,301,Oa0 BryArn: z11,50D hamn s.a,a.. -ao.rww ~~ u r..as a3x w.r. asx 1yAp7s •031• ••"•• ssx ax Bay Area Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), 2007-2014 .................................................................... ................................. MeyN•tN Fr.-:ar Regional allocation of housing N NMnANatMa determined by formula which ~' - weighed the following factors: £ / Projected Household Growth / Projacffid Employment Growth / Existing Employmerd / Transk Irtftaatructure ~ RHNA Planning Goals, 2007-2014 City of Cupertino 2007-207! RHNA Arr.wy rrw Yw:amaCalaeDry WIN11 Alwraaa OaMVdb~ Vary LOw 3H 22 31D Low 279 18 213 M•6rale 2tl 58 1a5 llbove MoJerab 357 ~3/ - Tod 1,170 533 71] sovrya: ar m anamao, 20DD: aAl:, mae • Housing Element must demonstrate that there are adequate sites to meet RHNA goals • Atiordability requiromenffi met by zoning density • One simple way to demonstrete that shes can aooommotlate me developmem of housirg for very-low antl k%v-income householtls H to show mat may are zonetl at a minimum density. • Fot all jurisdictions in Soma Clara Coumy, this density standard is 20 dwelling units to the aae. 2 Site Inventory Process ' Cily Sfa17, BAE, in consultation with Planning Commission and members of the public, reviewed potential housing opportunity sites in City ' Tier 1 Sites • 15 sites comprisetl of 3U parcels • PnteMial to develop 1.059 units • Saes wkh the most realistic potential to be developed within the 2007- 2014 planning period • Housing Elantem Nnpbmemaaon Program: Rezone Tier 1 sites to allow far rssidential development nt appmpdale densities wilfrin 2 years of adop0on of the Element ' Tier 2 Sites • Undendilized silos wkh lower potential for redevelopment within the planning perod • HCD woukt be less likely to determine Tier 2 sites are accep[ade to accommotlale Cky's RHNA • Used for City's own iMemal, long-range planning purposes Sites to Accommodate RHNA • 15 sites (30 parcels) yielding 1,059 units ' Sites that do not require City action: • 9 sites in the Heart oT the City Area • Density of 25 DUA • Yews 296 units ' Sites that require zoning or general plan amendment: • 6 vies in Heart of the cty, Homestead Raad, Vallco Park South, North Ue Mn Boulenrd, and other nan-designated areas • Welds 763 units 4 ;, .. ?x ~ Sites to Accommodate RHNA ..................................................................................................... ~~ "~. ,,~ "' 1 ~, -~ o ..._, ~.. ti. ~~_,...-..., Potential Sites for Discussion ' Most sites are underutilized sites in mixed-use areas, rather than vacant, greenfield sites DlsMbutlon W Ap Unlb kY WYrnkra DbtrM a aad .w,Ed.rtia w<r •i..r. pane n~z.,n• im••.s awws arar rw.name ctr ms us net ra,.ae.e ame o vrm vswn o rst rsv u4x wmorwa o ree w„arr.re n,s. o ur ,n isex r~ x rea i ore rm.ox sorts: aYG PpnEm,10N; BCE, ]OW 3 Key Zoning and Land Use Changes ..................................................................................................... ` Adopt changes to the zoning code to permit residential uses on designated parcels in the following districffi: • Heart of the City • Homesteatl Roatl • South Valk:o Park • NoM DeAnza Boulevard • Non-Designated Areas • Zoning and land use changes would add residential uses to existing uses. Would not preclude existing uses from continuing operation. • City-initiated re-zoning would not trigger reassessment of property or result in any fees for the owner. Questions? Please email: housing@cupertino.org Other Key Policy Changes ......................................................................... ` Increase Residential Allocations in the following areas: • Heart of the Cily (from 218 remaining units l0 441 units) • NoM De Anza Boulevard (hom 97 remaining units to 189 units) • Vallco Park South (from 100 remainirq units to 711 units) ` Emergency Shelters • In order to comply with stale law, Cily will revise Zoning Ordinance to permit pemranem emergency shelter fatalities in -BO' Ouesi-Pudic zones. ` CooMination with Local School Districffi • Form new commMee of key sten from City and school districts. • Meet to review Coy plannirp inttiatives, develapmem proposals, arM school Capital fatlities end opera0rrg pans. • Prepare annual reports with key recommerMations to School District Boards, City Planning Commission, antl City Counal 4 Bubb Road 357 20 037 10460 Bubb Rd Commercal Miscellaneous 3.59 Industrial /Residential /Commercial Light Industrial (ML-ro) 357 20 038 10420 Bubb Rd Recreational 3.53 Industrial /Residential /Commercial Light Industrial (ML-ro) 357 20 036 10440 Bubb Rd Orohards, Groves 1.13 Industrial /Residential / Commercal Light Industrial (ML-ro) City Center 369-9a-9F~ Ale-Situs-Address ~se_gdilding a-~4 . Heart of the Cit y 369 05 008 19960 Stevens Creek Blv Office Building 0.40 Commercal /Office /Residential Heart of City SP P (Commercial and Office) Vallw Park North 316 05 047 19624 Homestead Rd Religious 1.35 Quasi-Publidlnstitutional Quasi-Public Building (BO) 34G-99-848 49679-Pt-Tantau-Ave 9#Ce-@uilding 0:93 lrulr~laa~esidential 345-89-02 Ne-Sitas-Address 8tfise-@uilding 0~0 #xk~XaaF~Residential 316 09 026 10710 N Tantau Ave Commercal Miscellaneous 1.85 Industrial /Residential 316 09 036 19000 Homestead Rd Vacant Miscellaneous 6.60 Industrial /Residential 31609 037 18880 Homestead Rd Vacant Miscellaneous 5.50 Industrial /Residential 316 18 035 19020 Pruneridge Ave Office Building 4.46 Industrial !Residential North De Anna Boulevard RfMp3 ) PIMP) PIMP) PIMP) PIMP) aeu-~u+rea 2-22 326 10047 10627 Bandley Dr Office Building 4.00 Office/IndustriaVCommerciaVResidential P(CG, M 326 33 079 10381 Bandley Dr Office Building 3.78 OfficeJlndustriaUCommerciaUResidential Residential Overlay P(CG, ML, Res 410) 326 33 102 10455 Bandley Dr Office Building 2.95 Office/IndusbiaUCommerciaVResidentiaUQuasi Public Residential Overlay P(CG, ML, BO, Res 410) 326 33 108 10495 Bandley Dr Office Building 0.69 Office/IndustriaVCommeraaVResidential Residential Overlay P(CG, ML, Res 410) 326 33 111 10475 Bandley Dr Office Building 2.19 Office/IndustriaVCommerciaVResiden6al Residential Overlay P(CG, ML, Res 4-10) South De Anna Boulevard 566-1&a2~ 4515-S-Be ~za-Blvd 6oramercial-MisseNaneeus 0:86 Semmersial-J~ffiee,~~esiden#ial P{6o~Res-5-45) 566-x&138 x327-S-BeAr+za-Blvd Af#'ice-@uilding 4:18 6en~mersiaN~if7cel~tesidential R{GemrRe6~5-15) Vallco Park North Sites Owned by Apple or HP 316 2D 076 79333 Vallco Pkwy Industrial Miscallaneous 8.29 Commercal /Office /Residential PIMP) 316 20 075 19333 Vallco Pkwv Industrial Miscallaneous 9.24 Commercal /Office /Residential PIMP) Vallco Park North Sites Owned by Apple or HP zta na mz ._ __ _,... ~onsn o..,..e~a..., n.... r ..............:.... ..,...... ~ .........,.y....... w,,,~~.~,..w, ,.,,o..~„m,wua nluu5iridl / riPaiu'tti iiiai Y(fVIY) 316 O6 039 10435 N Tantau Ave Recreational 7.00 Industrial /Residential PIMP) 316 O6 045 10600 Ridgeview Ct Office Building 5.80 Industrial /Residential PIMP) 316 O6 046 10400 Ridgeview Ct Office Building 5.84 Industrial /Residential PIMP) 316 O6 048 10555 Ridgeview Ct Industrial Miscellaneous 6.70 Industrial /Residential P(MP) 316 O6 052 10501 N Tantau Ave Office Building 6.28 Industrial /Residential p(Mp) 316 O6 053 10520 Ridgeview Ct Office Building 12.48 Industrial /Residential PIMP) 316 07 044 19490 Homestead Rd HP Main Campus 92.43 Industrial /Residential PIMP) 316 07 045 19055 Pruneridge Ave HP Main Campus 1.70 Industrial /Residential p(Mp) 316 07 046 19111 Pruneridge Ave HP Main Campus 4.11 Industrial /Residential PIMP) 316 1 B 025 10300 N Tantau Ave Vacant Miscellaneous 4.70 Industrial /Residential p(Mp) 316 18 027 10400 N Tantau Ave Commercal Miscellaneous 4.43 Industrial /Residential P(MP) icnr:~ (a) All Tier 2 sites would require some action (e.g. rezoning and/or general plan amendment) by the City'rF it decides to consider it for housing. Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DataQuick Information Systems, 2009; DCBE, 2009; BAE, 2009 Allowed Under Rezoning Action Needed? Max. Max. Realistic General Size Density Yield Yield Plan APN Site Address F~cisting Use (b) (Acres) (DUA) (Units) (Units) (a) Rezoning Amendment General Plan Land Use Over Heart of the City 326 32 042 20803 Stevens Creek Blv~ Commercial Miscellaneous (Bombay Oven) 0.51 25 12 10 SP amend No Commercial /Office /Residential Hears Homestead 323-36-019 20589 Homestead Road Clubs, Fraternal Organizations 0.80 20 15 12 Yes Yes Quasi-Public Vallco Park North 316 09 019 10670 N Tantau Ave Industrial Miscellaneous 0.93 25 23 19 Yes No Industrial /Residential 316 09 027 No Situs Address Vacant Miscellaneous 0.80 25 20 17 Yes No Industrial /Residential South De Anza Boulevard 359 17 001 10251 S De Anza Blvd Allario 1.29 15 19 16 Yes No Commercial /Residential Resic 359 17 005 10381 S De Anza Blvd Downey Savings 1.48 15 22 18 Yes No Commercial /Residential Resic Non Designated Areas 342 14 066 Stevens Creek Blvd Bateh Bros. 0.28 20 5 4 Yes No Commercial /Residential Resid 342 14 104 22690 Stevens Creek Blvi Bateh Bros. 0.21 20 4 3 Yes No Commercial !Residential Resid 342 14 105 S Foothill Blvd Bateh Bros. 0.18 20 3 2 Yes No Commercial /Residential Resid Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DataQuick Information Systems, 2009; DC&E, 2009; BAE, 2009 ,:, Size APN Site Address Existing Use (b) (Acres) Allowed Under Rezoning Action Needed? Max. Max. Realistic General Density Yield Yield Plan (DUA) (Units) (Units) (a) Rezoning Amendment General Plan Land Use Overlay Heart of the City 326 32 042 20803 Stevens Creek Blw Commercial Miscellaneous (Bombay Oven) 0.51 25 12 10 SP amend No Commercial /Office /Residential Heart of Homestead 323-36-019 20589 Homestead Road Clubs, Fraternal Organizations 0.80 20 15 12 Yes Yes Quasi-Public Vallco Park North 316 09 019 10670 N Tantau Ave Industrial Miscellaneous 0.93 25 23 19 Yes No Industrial /Residential 316 09 027 No Situs Address Vacant Miscellaneous 0.80 25 20 17 Yes No Industrial /Residential South De Anza Boulevard 359 17 001 10251 S De Anza Blvd Allario 1.29 15 19 16 Yes No Commercial /Residential Residen' 359 17 005 10381 S De Anza Blvd Downey Savings 1.48 15 22 18 Yes No Commercial /Residential Residen' Non Designated Areas 342 14 066 Stevens Creek Blvd Bateh Bros. 0.28 20 5 4 Yes No Commercial /Residential Resident 342 14 104 22690 Stevens Creek Blw Bateh Bros. 0.21 20 4 3 Yes No Commercial !Residential Resident 342 14 105 S Foothill Blvd Bateh Bros. 0.18_ 20 3 2 Yes No Commercial !Residential Resident Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DataQuick Information Systems, 2009; DC8~E, 2009; BAE, 2009 Overlay Zoning Light Industrial (ML-n;) Light Industrial (ML-rc) Light Industrial (ML-rc) Heart of City SP P (Commercial and Office) Quasi-Public Building (801 ) RfMP~ PIMP) PIMP) PIMP) PIMP) Residential Overlay Quasi Public Residential Overlay Residential Overlay Residential Overlay nirrDirr_ nay e ~~ P(CG, ML, Res 410) P(CG, ML, Res 410) P(CG, ML, B0, Res 410) P(CG, ML, Res 410) P(CG, ML, Res 410) P{Gorsr;-Rest -1~ - P fe~,rn~es~-15j PIMP) PIMP) PIMP) PIMP) PIMP) PIMP) PIMP) PIMP) PIMP) PIMP) PIMP) PIMP) PIMP) PIMP) ~J ___ L.UPERTfl~l~. '.,.__ ~ _ __.. ~._ lousing.