HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 06-23-2026 Written CommunicationsPC 06-23-2026
#2
Study Session on
Housing Element
update to add
capacity at all
income levels.
Written
Communications
From:Lauren Sapudar
To:Lindsay Nelson
Subject:FW: Planning Commission Hearing 6-23-26, Agenda Item 2
Date:Monday, June 22, 2026 4:16:05 PM
Attachments:Signed Letter to PC 6-22-26.pdf
Written communication for tomorrows Planning Commission meeting.
Lauren Sapudar
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.gov
(408) 777-1312
From: Greg Endom <gregendom@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 3:03 PM
To: Tracy Kosolcharoen <tkosolcharoen@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Steven Scharf <sscharf@cupertino.gov>; David Fung <dfung@cupertino.gov>; Seema Lindskog
<slindskog@cupertino.gov>; Santosh Rao <srao@cupertino.gov>; Benjamin Fu
<benjaminf@cupertino.gov>; Luke Connolly <lukec@cupertino.gov>; Piu Ghosh (she/her)
<piug@cupertino.gov>; Gian Martire <gianm@cupertino.gov>; Lauren Sapudar
<laurens@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Planning Commission Hearing 6-23-26, Agenda Item 2
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Chair Kosolcharoen:
Please see the attached communication regarding your
upcoming meeting on June 23, 2026.
Thank you.
Greg
Greg Endom
+1 925 550 8082
DRE# 00766333
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Rezoning of Cupertino Parcels: Statistical Error Prone RHNA Problem
Date:Tuesday, June 23, 2026 8:37:50 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Planning Commission:
(The following is public input for Item 2 for the Study Session on Housing for the June 23, 2026
Cupertino Planning Commission meeting).
I appreciate the city having a discussion on Housing issues in Cupertino at the June 23, 2026
Cupertino Planning Commission meeting Study Session, Item Number 2. There are numerous issues
Which have evolved as fallout from the Sixth Cycle Housing Element and the State Housing laws
passed since 2014 and the ramifications on housing in Cupertino.
There has been a marked loss of retail in Cupertino with the advent of SB 330. I am sure this was not
the intention of SB 330, but the loss of retail is an emerging problem.
Lots of land in Cupertino have been rezoned for high density housing since the Sixth Cycle Housing
Element. This continues to this day.
The city is losing valuable BMR stock to housing units aging out of the city's BMR properties.
I think we can all agree that one of the biggest problems contributing to these numerous side effects
Is the statistically error prone RHNA burden placed on Cupertino and other cities in California by
The Sixth Cycle RHNA Housing numbers. The RHNA numbers are wrong and have been shown
Over and over again to be invalid. This has been apparent for over two or three years now. The
RHNA numbers presented to the state for the Sixth Cycle were not adopted under any valid
Statistical modeling method and were basically numbers "pulled out of a magician's hat" and
presented to the state as valid data.
Why the state and HCD and our politicians and even the governor himself have failed to discuss these invalid
Numbers is puzzling and worrisome. This sounds like perhaps our statewide leaders are not paying attention
to this and only our city leaders are trying to discuss it.
HCD has not addressed the problem of bad RHNA and this is very concerning as they interact with the
City on an ongoing basis.
Now, with some of the major housing bill authors moving on to higher elected offices beyond the
State and even a change in our own governor come November 2026, it is hoped that the RHNA
Problem will be paid attention to and dealt with so that Cupertino and the other cities in the
State can have a reasonable set of housing numbers to deal with now and in the Seventh Cycle
Housing Elemebt which will soon be beginning in Southern California. It is hoped that HCD
will be properly supervised by new state leaders and a new governor to make sure the cities are not burdened by
incorrect RHNA numbers. This is irresponsible and should not be allowed to continue.
I think everyone has tried to deal with the RHNA numbers since they were first introduced, though
There were suspicions then there were problems with them. In successive years, as we all know,
RHNA was one of the biggest contributing factors to the whole shipwreck of the Sixth Cycle Housing
Element across the state. When it became apparent that RHNA had massive data problems
and were greatly inflated and just flat out wrong, no one from the state or the governor's office
or HCD or the legislature stepped up to correct the obviously bad data.
Yet, the cities in the state were forced to carry on down the path of propagating the bad data of
RHNA each time they tried to deal with the policy of how to enact bad data usage in their own cities.
Each time we rezone using the bad RHNA data we are propagating more statistical error as we use
bad data to make decisions for our city.
As we carry out this study session for the Planning Commission on Housing in Cupertino, we should
single out the very bad data as the contributing cause, bad RHNA, and maybe say, "Let's don't do
any more upzoning. The data is bad. RHNA is bad. Its time to stop using bad data."
I do expect the results of the upcoming elections will show people are tired of dealing with the
bad RHNA data and want a change. We need statewide leaders that pay attention to population trends
for the state with actual data and are concerned that the bad data of the Sixth Housing Cycle RHNA
had wasted a lot of precious time and resources in our cities across the state. Its time to stop
Using the bad RHNA numbers which have been called "magic numbers".
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin