CC 12-15-20 Item No. 12 Affordable Housing Density Bonus_Written CommunicationsCC 12-15-20
#12
Affordable Housing
Density Bonus
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, December 10, 2020 8:06 PM
To:City Council; City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:AB 2345 Needs to Be Studied In Depth Before Adoption, City Council Item 12 (12/15/20)
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 City Council:
Item Number 12 of the City Council Meeting on December 15, 2020 concerns AB 2345
which the Governor signed this past fall.
AB 2345 was backed by Big Money interests. One should proceed cautiously when
working with bills of this type as the public has little idea of the ramifications and
realities of such a bill. This bill was one of the Big Nine Housing Bills that were being
pushed by certain members of the legislature. Big Money was spent on the writing
of this bill as the other bills promoting high density housing. I do not think that
anyone should do anything with this bill until the public fully understands what
this bill is trying to do. The Big Money backing set up red flags on this bill and
it should be studied and discussed thoroughly before any part of it is adopted.
The public should not be kept in the dark about what this bill is and why Big Money
was spent on it. Past experience has shown that the backers these of bills want the
public to be clueless about what these bills are attempting to do.
Lets study this bill, AB 2345, in depth so that everyone, not just the Big Money Backers,
understand what this bill is about and why Big Money Backers wanted it passed.
We need to shed light on this bill so that the public knows what is going on.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:SCCAOR Advocacy <advocacy@sccaor.com>
Sent:Monday, December 14, 2020 8:57 AM
Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk
Subject:SCCAOR Letter Support Density Bonuses
Attachments:SCCAOR_Letter_Density_Bonus_December152020.pdf
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.
Honorable Mayor Paul, Councilmembers, and City Staff,
Please see the attached letter with the Santa Clara County Association of REALTORS® (SCCAOR) official support of
Item 12 regarding Density Bonuses on the December 15, 2020, Council Agenda.
Please direct any questions or concerns to the following.
Tim Beaubien, Director of Government Affairs
timothy@sccaor.com, 408‐445‐5079
Kind Regards,
SCCAOR Advocacy Team
December 15, 2020
Cupertino City Council
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Item 12 Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing
Honorable Mayor Paul and Councilmembers,
On behalf of the Santa Clara County Association of REALTORS® (SCCAOR) and our 6,000
members, I write in support of Item 12 on the December 15, 2020 Agenda to allow density
bonuses of up to forty percent for the development of affordable housing.
SCCAOR supports this initiative and thanks the City of Cupertino for their proactive
leadership to bring this proposal forward. We need an innovative and collaborative approach
such as this density bonus program to help solve this region’s housing crisis. Silicon Valley
needs the support of all communities to help solve this crisis.
SCCAOR supports these types of long-term solution to facilitate the production of more
affordable housing such as density bonuses, streamlined permitting processes, fee reductions,
and delayed construction taxes. With the current shortage of housing in the region SCCAOR
advocates for public-private collaboration and partnership to facilitate more production.
Affordability is achieved through an increase in supply and not through excessive regulations.
Policies such as rent control and higher impact fees for affordable housing only create a short-
term solution, further worsening the long-term housing crisis.
SCCAOR thanks the City of Cupertino for this density bonus policy as a market-driven
approach to help solve the region’s housing crisis. We urge the adoption of the resolution to
create a housing program to incentivize the development of affordable housing by allowing
for density bonuses up to 40 percent and initiating a zoning code amendment to include the
program in the City’s density bonus ordinance.
Regards,
Sandy Jamison
President, Santa Clara County Association of REALTORS®
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 8:25 AM
To:City Council; City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:AB 2345 Backed by Big Money Backers
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 City Council:
Item Number 12 on the City Council Agenda for 12/15/20 concerns adopting parts
AB 2345 by the city. This bill is one of the most insidious of the Big Nine Housing
Bills that were backed by Senator Scott Wiener and Senator Toni Atkins in 2020.
The bill was backed by Big Money Interests from San Diego and from outside of
California. The intent of the bill is highly questionable and the bill's
authors, Assembymember Lorena Gonzalez from San Diego and Assemblymember
David Chiu from San Francisco, have written other housing bills of questionable
content and origin and questionable money backing.
The Terner Institute is a mouthpiece for the High Density Housing set, and other
groups such as the Embarcadero Institute should be consulted.
This bill is too highly controversial and poorly understood for anyone to anticipate adopting now
or if ever, especially after the governor just signed it two months ago. These housing bills have
been very poorly written in the past with vague wording and potential side effects. AB 2345
is such a vehicle for Big Money Interests and should be studied carefully before taken up
as anything the city would want to deal with.
As a side note, Senator Wiener has already introduced many of the Big Housing Bills he authored, some with
Assemlymember Chiu, from last year back into this new California Legislative Session
for 2021 which only started days ago in December 2020. Some of these bills are word for
word of what the bill was last year. All they did was put a new Bill number on it. This shows
clearly the effect of Big Money Interests on the Big Machinery of Big High Density Housing Bills production. AB 2345 is a
product of this assemblyline of Big Housing Bills from Big Money.
How is this type of bill in any way democratic? Why do the bill's authors think they are
passing democratic bills at all? Since when is democracy supposed to be directed to order
by Big Money Interests and Big Money from outside of the state? Whose democracy is that?
No, lets study AB 2345 and see what issues it has and what baggage it carries before we
adopt it for anything in this city. I think the public is seeing a lot clearer where these bills
are coming from and whose interests they are putting first.
Perhaps it would be better to postpone this hot mess of a bill to next year.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Michael Lane <mlane@spur.org>
Sent:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:48 AM
To:City Clerk; City Council; Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Jon Robert Willey
Subject:Item 12 – City’s proposed local density bonus ordinance - Opposition
Attachments:Coalition letter Cupertino density bonus.pdf
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 Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao and Councilmembers:
We write to express our opposition to the proposed City density bonus ordinance that just popped up at the last minute
and respectfully ask you not to adopt it. State Density Bonus Law has been on the books for decades and yet suddenly
you are now considering a local ordinance in an apparent effort to limit the application of new amendments to state
law. Please find attached to this email our correspondence on this issue.
The state statute adopted by the Legislature finds and declares that the intent behind State Density Bonus Law is to
allow the private sector and market‐rate developments to provide affordable housing for lower‐income households
without the need for public subsidies.
We urge you to reject the proposed ordinance before you and allow the new amendments to State Density Bonus Law
to go into effect and be applied to the City of Cupertino and future projects. This is the best way to address the
housing availability and affordability problems the city faces.
We thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Michael Lane ‐ San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)
David Meyer ‐ Silicon Valley at Home
Matt Regan ‐ Bay Area Council
Vince Rocha ‐ Silicon Valley Leadership Group
SPUR
Join | Get Newsletters | Twitter | LinkedIn
'%'/$'4
72'46+01+6;170%+.
72'46+01+6;#..
144'8'07'
72'46+01
% $& $ !
'#4#;14 #7.!+%'#;14*#1#0&170%+./'/$'45
"'6*'70&'45+)0'L*1451(6*+5%144'5210&'0%'94+6'61':24'55174%10%'404')#4&+0)6*'
241215'&+6;&'05+6;$107514&+0#0%'6*#6,7562122'&72#66*'.#56/+076'#0&4'52'%6(7..;#5-
;1701661#&126+6 6#6''05+6;1075#9*#5$''0106*'$11-5(14&'%#&'5#0&;'657&&'0.;
;17#4'019%105+&'4+0)#.1%#.14&+0#0%'+0#0#22#4'06'((14661.+/+66*'#22.+%#6+101(0'9
#/'0&/'0656156#6'.#9
8'09+6*6*'5.+)*6&+2+0#2#46/'064'065&7'616*'+/2#%61(6*'2#0&'/+%72'46+01
%106+07'561$'6*'/156':2'05+8'4'06#.*175+0)/#4-'6+0 +.+%10!#..';;'66*'241215'&+6;
14&+0#0%'917.&4'&7%'$16*6*'2'4%'06#)'(41/
61 1(4'37+4'&+0%.75+10#4;8'4;
.19+0%1/'*175+0)#0&6*'2'4%'06#)'1(&'05+6;$107570+65(41/
61 $'.196*15'
#76*14+<'&70&'40'956#6'.#96*#6$'%1/'5'(('%6+8'10#07#4;
0.+-';174241215'&14&+0#0%'9*+%*9#50=68'66'&$;'+6*'46*'175+0)1//+55+1014
.#00+0)1//+55+10
9'066*417)*#0':6'05+8'56#6'.')+5.#6+8'%1//+66''241%'55
#0&6*'(+0#.8'45+101(6*'$+..5+)0'&+061.#9$;18'4014'951/4'(.'%65+0276(41/#0&
0')16+#6+1059+6*07/'417556#-'*1.&'4561'0574'$16*241,'%6('#5+$+.+6;#0&0'+)*$14*11&
%1/2#6+$+.+6;
*'56#6'56#676'#&126'&$;6*'')+5.#674'(+0&5#0&&'%.#4'56*#66*'+06'06$'*+0& 6#6'
'05+6;1075#9+561#..196*'24+8#6'5'%614#0&/#4-'64#6'&'8'.12/'065612418+&'
#((14&#$.'*175+0)(14.19'4+0%1/'*175'*1.&59+6*1766*'0''&(1427$.+%57$5+&+'5
! $ ! $ ! # #
$ !
# $ !
! !
#$ ! " $ $
$
"'6*#0-;17+0#&8#0%'(14;174%105+&'4#6+101(6*+54'37'56
+0%'4'.;
+%*#'.#0' #04#0%+5%1#;4'# .#00+0)#0& 4$#0 '5'#4%*551%+#6+10
#8+&';'4 +.+%10!#..';#61/'
#66 ')#0#;4'#170%+.
!+0%' 1%*# +.+%10!#..';'#&'45*+24172
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jon Wizard <jon@yimbylaw.org>
Sent:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 2:04 PM
To:City Clerk
Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office
Subject:Application No. CP-2020-004
Attachments:Cupertino AB 2345.pdf
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.
Hello,
Please find attached a letter related to Application No. CP‐2020‐004 and its agendized hearing this evening at the city
council meeting. We would appreciate your acknowledgement of receipt of this email.
Thank you,
Jon
‐‐
Jon Wizard
Housing Elements Coordinator
YIMBY Law
1260 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
YIMBY Law
1260 Mission St̛
San Francisco, CA 94103
hello@yimbylaw.org̛
12/15/2020̛
City Manager Deborah Feng̛
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue̛
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
cityclerk@cupertino.org;
Via Email̛
Re: Application No. CP-2020-004̛
Dear City Manager Feng:̛
In Application No. CP-2020-004, applicant City of Cupertino proposes to modify its housing̛
program to incentivize development of affordable housing by allowing for density bonuses up
to 40% and initiate a zoning code amendment to include the program in the city’s density̛
bonus ordinance. This action is proposed to be achieved during a public hearing by adoption of
a resolution. YIMBY Law submits this letter to notify the city council that the process by which̛
Agenda Item 12 for the city council meeting scheduled on Tuesday, December 15, 2020 has
been agendized and presented to the council is improper and unlawful. We also wish to convey̛
our concurrence with the spirit and letter of AB 2345 (Gonzalez, 2019) in supporting increased
residential density, as both a sustainable development tool and a responsible public policy̛
response to the city’s current and ongoing RHNA obligations.
We find this action improper and unlawful, failing to comport with a well-defined body of case
law and statutes addressing the differences between resolutions and ordinances; the adoption̛
or amendment to zoning ordinances, which changes zoning on property; this proposed
action’s own basis for approval; and the California Environmental Quality Act.̛
Resolutions and Ordinances̛
In Crowe v. Boyle (1920) 184 Cal. 117, the Supreme Court of California held that a local̛
government agency may bind itself through the adoption of a resolution – as opposed to solely
by adoption of an ordinance – if doing so was permitted by that agency’s charter and the intent̛
of the legislative act was both plainly clear and within its legislative authority. The City of
Cupertino is a general law city and has no foundational ordinances, policies, or general̛
provisions expressly permitting its city council to interchangeably use ordinances and
resolutions in the furtherance of its duties or business. Additionally, neither Chapters 2.12,̛
19.04, 19.08, 19.12, 19.56, nor 19.152 of the Cupertino Municipal Code identify the adoption of a̛
resolution as an acceptable method by which the city council may amend its zoning code.̛
Moreover, under the concept of equal dignity, it is generally accepted that ordinances are the̛
appropriate vehicle for superseding, amending, and deleting other ordinances, as they are the̛
most binding form of action taken by a local government, whereas resolutions do not carry the̛
full force or weight of law and are generally used to express the opinion of a legislative body.̛
Furthermore, ordinances are generally viewed as providing a permanent rule of government,̛
while resolutions often pertain to temporary or special matters, or act as the factual basis for̛
an ordinance. While there are certain statutorily accepted actions wherein the adoption of a̛
resolution is the prescriptive vehicle for legislative approval, changes to the zoning code are̛
not one, as is codified both in state law and city ordinance (see below). Therefore, it is unlawful̛
to amend Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.56 by resolution.̛
Amendments to a Zoning Ordinance̛
Pursuant to California Government Code § 65853, the City of Cupertino shall, for “...an̛
amendment to a zoning ordinance, which amendment...imposes any regulation...or modifies̛
any such regulation theretofore imposed shall be adopted in the manner set forth in Sections̛
65854 to 65857, inclusive.” California Government Code § 65854 instructs that “[t]he̛
planning commission shall hold a public hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance or̛
amendment to a zoning ordinance.” California Government Code § 65855 requires the̛
planning commission to “...render its decision in the form of a written recommendation to the̛
legislative body.” California Government Code § 65856 provides that “[u]pon receipt of the̛
recommendation of the planning commission, the legislative body shall hold a public̛
hearing.” California Government Code § 65857 provides that “[t]he legislative body may̛
approve, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the planning commission; provided̛
that any modification of the proposed ordinance or amendment by the legislative body not̛
previously considered by the planning commission during its hearing, shall first be referred tơ
the planning commission for report and recommendation...”. State law is explicitly clear:̛
amendments to the zoning code must first be heard at a public hearing held by the planning̛
commission, where one exists, before the city council can call its own public hearing for the̛
final ruling of the proposed amendments. To forgo this process is unlawful.̛
Basis for Approval̛
In its draft resolution in support of this agenda item, the city makes the following recital:̛
“...pursuant to Municipal Code Section 19.152.030(A)(1), the City Council may initiate a zoning code̛
amendment by motion on its own initiative and forward said change to the Planning Commission for̛
its consideration...”̛
While the above-mentioned is true, pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code Section̛
19.152.030(B), a line of text immediately following this referenced recital, “[c]hanges initiated̛
by motion of the Council shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission…”. The city council̛
has not forwarded this matter to its planning commission, so this matter in its current form̛
and at this time is unlawfully before the city council. Adopting a desired zoning code change̛
and then sending it to the planning commission is improper; a desired zoning code change̛
YIMBY Law, 1260 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103
should first be referred to the planning commission, avoiding any predecisional ruling(s).̛
Furthermore, pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code Section 19.152.030(C), “[c]hanges in̛
Zoning Regulations shall be adopted by Ordinance by the City Council pursuant to the̛
procedures described in Section 36931 et seq. of the California Government Code.” Pursuant tơ
the city’s own governing body of law, adopting this resolution does not have the effect of̛
making or initiating an amendment to the zoning code, and it is furthermore improper for the̛
city council to hear this matter before the planning commission does, as is described in the̛
staff report. Not only is this matter improperly (read: unlawfully) before the city council, but̛
the process by which this matter is proposed to be adjudicated is in direct contravention of the̛
city’s own municipal code. This new and arbitrary process invented to approve a zoning code̛
amendment to avoid the 50% density bonus prescribed in AB 2345 (Gonzalez, 2019) is both̛
transparent and clumsy, and it is facially illegal.̛
The California Environmental Quality Act̛
In its draft resolution in support of this agenda item, the city makes the following recital:̛
“...the proposed housing incentive program is exempt from environmental review pursuant tơ
Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines since there would̛
be no possibility of a significant effect on the environment,” and “the City Council's initiation of a̛
zoning ordinance amendment is not a project pursuant to Section 21065 of CEQA because the̛
initiation of the amendment does not constitute approval of the amendment.”̛
This is both patently false and revealing for several reasons. According to California Public̛
Resources Code § 21065, a project “...means an activity which may cause either a direct̛
physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in̛
the environment, and which is any of the following:̛
(a) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency...”̛
The City of Cupertino is a public agency, and increasing the maximum density bonus for very̛
low-, low-, and moderate-income dwelling units would almost certainly cause either a direct̛
physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the̛
environment. Additionally, until late 2019, pursuant to Rominger v. County of Colusa (2014) 229̛
Cal.App.4th 690, the court held that every amendment to a city’s zoning ordinances was̛
statutorily defined as a project, requiring CEQA analysis. Following Union of Medical Marijuana̛
Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 1171, the court changed this interpretation,̛
requiring a different analysis to determine what constitutes a project. However, in Muzzy̛
Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, the court found that̛
administrative, discretionary land use decisions d0 constitute a project, even if those specific̛
decisions made in that case were deemed exempt under the commonsense exemption. The̛
facts in this matter are noticeably different, in that Muzzy represents a plan to guide later̛
development that itself will be subject to discretionary review and CEQA analysis while this̛
proposed change in the City of Cupertino represents a right for a developer to intensify̛
development that may, through certain state laws, be statutorily exempt from CEQA analysis.̛
Specifically, an increase in maximum density bonus will allow additional dwelling units to be̛
built in a given building or within a given project, creating impacts to air quality, biological̛
resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, site specific hazards and̛
YIMBY Law, 1260 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103
hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, noise, public services,̛
transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems, to name but a few. Since SB 35̛
(Wiener, 2017) and SB 828 (Wiener, 2018) provide statutory CEQA exemptions for housing̛
construction under certain conditions, the city has a duty to complete an initial study of the̛
impacts, if any, this proposed zoning code amendment may have. Whether impacts related tơ
this zoning ordinance amendment exist, and whether any of those impacts are significant, can̛
only be known following the preparation of the initial study and subsequent findings, and the̛
production of this initial study may be both the first and last analysis an enhanced density̛
bonus will have on a project’s impact. To forgo this CEQA analysis is a wilful misreading of the̛
code and case law, and doing so is unlawful.̛
Additionally, the city’s recital clearly states that “the initiation of the amendment does not̛
constitute approval of the amendment.” This claim is contradictory in that the accompanying̛
resolution attempts to affirmatively modify the city’s housing program by intensifying̛
development through an increased maximum density bonus, and the city’s housing program is̛
an element of the city’s zoning code. The city cannot modify a subordinate part of its zoning̛
code by the adoption of this resolution while simultaneously claiming that it has no duty tơ
complete a CEQA analysis because it is not modifying its zoning code by merely adopting this̛
resolution. More precisely, this resolution catalyzes a definitive change in the city’s zoning̛
code, which is a project, instead of merely being a formal decision to refer the contemplated̛
change to the planning commission – where it would be rightfully considered first.̛
Protest and Demand̛
Pursuant to California Government Code § 54960.1, we hereby challenge the preparation and̛
presentation of this agenda item and demand that its defects be corrected. In so doing, we̛
recommend the city council delete this item from its agenda and re-notice it for a regularly̛
scheduled meeting of the planning commission as a public hearing in which that body would̛
consider an ordinance amending Chapter 19.56 of the city’s municipal code. We alsơ
recommend the city prepare the necessary environmental documents and present clear̛
findings and evidence, pursuant to Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los̛
Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, in a supplementary resolution to substantiate its decision.̛̛
Conclusion̛
In closing, AB 2345 (Gonzalez, 2019) increases the maximum state density bonus law to 50%̛
unless a local agency provides its own density bonus ordinance that exceeds the standards set̛
forth in the state’s density bonus law as adopted as of December 31, 2020. Fortunately for the̛
cause of building housing sufficient to meet Cupertino’s needs, the city’s attempt to modify its̛
density bonus in a way that would allow it to avoid being impacted by AB 2345 must fail. There̛
are two reasons for this:̛̛
First, Cupertino cannot modify its density bonus ordinance via resolution. Modification of̛
ordinances –̛or at least ordinances in Cupertino – must occur via another ordinance.̛̛
Next, Cupertino does not have sufficient time to pass an ordinance amending its density bonus̛
program before the end of 2020. Ordinances must have two readings, not less than 15 days̛
apart. Last, this zoning code amendment is subject to CEQA and no initial study has been̛
YIMBY Law, 1260 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103
completed to analyze its impacts. Also, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21092, the city is̛
required to facilitate a 20-day public review period for notices of intent for negative̛
declarations and mitigated negative declarations. However, pursuant to Public Resources Code̛
§ 21091(b), if the state clearinghouse is used to fulfill public noticing requirements, a 30-day̛
public review period is required.̛
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility̛
and affordability of housing in California.̛
I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a̛
resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state.̛̛
Sincerely,̛
̛
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director̛
YIMBY Law
CC: Mayor Darcy Paul̛
Vice Mayor Liang Chao
Councilmember Jon Willey̛
Councilmember Kitty Moore
Councilmember Hung Wei̛
YIMBY Law, 1260 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Neil McClintick <neil.mcclintick@berkeley.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 3:09 PM
To:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Density Bonus Resolution Tonight
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 Mayor, Council, and City Manager Feng,
I am writing out of concern (representing myself only) for tonight's agendized item to implement
zoning code changes that would allow for density bonuses up to 40%. As of today, I saw a YIMBY
Law letter, which the city should have received; it makes a strong case for why tonight's action
would be illegal. As a resident, I would like to see the council delay this item and go through the
proper channels and procedures, such that we do not leave ourselves open to an easy lawsuit.
Now, I want to say that I am not necessarily opposed to the spirit of this resolution. In doing so, I
want to acknowledge 3 key points of likely agreement.
1. State law for housing is working in that it is allowing city's some flexibility while also forcing
necessary changes, such as in the case of tonight's resolution.
2. Housing policy is immensely complex, and it is important for cities to explore options that
are superior to state law, rather than always seeing it as a minimal standard
3. Affordability is a great struggle, and BMR is immensely expensive. We need to make sure
we are pursuing policies that net higher sums of BMR.
That being said, please do this in the right way, such that we may have public hearings and robust
debate. And such that the city's case for this need is better substantiated. This comes across as
last minute ramming through changes to avoid state law. This is a bad precedent to set, and it is
immensely hypocritical considering how much this leadership has emphasized process, hearings,
local control, and resident input. If this gets rushed through tonight, then it is clear that these
values only matter when they are of benefit to council members' own agendas.
Local control and "listen to the residents" should not be a selectively applicable framework.
Thank you for reading this,
Neil
‐‐
Neil Park-McClintick
2
UC Berkeley '19
Grassroots Organizer, Cupertino for All
Housing Justice Organizer, Working Partnerships USA
"Give people what they need: food, medicine, clean air, pure water, trees and grass, pleasant homes to live
in, some hours of work, more hours of leisure. Don't ask who deserves it. Every human being deserves it."
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:08 PM
To:City Council
Subject:Agenda Item 12, Dec 15 City Council, Adoption of a Housing Program
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.
Municipal Code Chapter 19.56
SUBJECT Agenda Item 12: Adoption of a housing program to incentivize development of affordable
housing by allowing for density bonuses up to 40 percent and initiating a zoning code amendment to
include the program in the City’s density bonus ordinance. (Application No. CP‐2020‐ 004; Applicant:
City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide)
Mayor, Vice‐Mayor, and Councilmembers:
I have two points to discuss. The first is substance; the second is process.
I. Substance: This Resolution does not achieve a better way to "incentivize development of affordable housing" even
though that is the stated objective on page 1 of the Staff Report.
The summary of the Terner analysis is that AB 2345 represents "a step in the right direction" for legislation that balances
affordability with financial feasibility. However, “further reform of the state’ density bonus law is still necessary to
significantly increase its utilization across the state.
The third “Whereas" of the City’s proposed Resolution states that AB2345 increases the density bonus for a “minimal
four percentage increase in affordable units.” However the change offered by the Council increases the density bonus
less than the new law, and for a smaller “minimal two percentage increase in affordable units."
By changing the Cupertino Density Bonus to 40%, downward from 50% allowed under AB2345, the city does not
increase the likelihood of developers using the Density Bonus Units in the future. It does not improve the balance of
affordability with financial feasibility found in AB2345.
With new RHNA goals for additional housing above 6,000 units, it is critical for the City to expand its tools available to
meet those goals.
I urge the Council NOT to adopt this Resolution, and, instead, to work with AB2345 and other tools to build housing for
all incomes and abilities in
Cupertino.
II. Process Issue:
On page 1, the Staff Reports states in Background ʺThe City Council’s FY 2020‐21 City Work Program
includes an agenda item related to Affordable Housing Strategies. The stated project objective of this
item is to explore the development of strategies to provide a variety of projects across affordability
levels, including updates to the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance.
2
On page 4, The Staff Report states that ʺIn addition to this item, staff is currently conducting a survey
of other city density bonus ordinances and will present the to hold a study session with the Planning
Commission and City Council in Spring 2021 to discuss more comprehensive updates to the
City’s Density Bonus Ordinance.ʺ
The Housing Commission normally sees the Housing Strategies work item products before it moves
to the Council. Although this report tonight skipped the Housing Commission (although the HC
would have been able to review it between November and December), I will just point out here, that
for the Study Session, the Housing Commission should be in the review cycle for this spring.
I urge the Council to NOT adopt this Resolution, and, instead, to work with AB2345 and other tools to build housing for
all incomes and abilities in
Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham
Housing Commissioner (self only)
Resident 33 years