CC 11-01-2022_Late CommunicationsCC 11-01-2022
Written Communications
Oral
Communications
From:Peter Rovegno
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fix the Housing Element Process!
Date:Wednesday, November 2, 2022 8:13:39 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.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
As a lifelong Cupertino resident (aside from when I was off at college (Reed, ‘04) and graduate
school (UCSC, ‘13)), I am one of the many non-homeowners living in the city. I work as a full-
time academic tutor with AJ Tutoring, helping to provide what many parents feel is an essential
service for their students, and the only reason I’m still able to live in the area is because I’m
able to rent an extra room in my parents’ house. Those of us not making software-engineer,
lawyer, or doctor levels of income are the ones most impacted by our affordable-housing
shortage, and I have watched for years as the city council has done everything in its power to
make sure that the day never comes where I’ll be able to get a place of my own in the area.
I am extremely concerned with the City of Cupertino's Housing Element process. Cupertino is
extremely behind in the process and is the slowest jurisdiction in our county. Based on the
required timeline, our city is projected to finish the housing element process after the January
31st, 2023 deadline. I recently learned that Cupertino is projected to lose local land use control
due to the builder’s remedy.
I am concerned that this City Council is not taking the Housing Element process seriously to
proactively address the housing crisis. The new housing element should be focused on actually
creating housing, rather than avoiding it.
1. Community outreach: This City Council correctly assembled a diverse stakeholder group and
then disbanded it for seemingly political reasons. In its place, the City has done a poor job of
meaningfully engaging and empowering diverse stakeholders (students, renters, immigrants,
unhoused people, service workers, etc.) in the housing element process. While there has been
outreach programming, it has not been well coordinated with the housing element process, and
it is unclear how Cupertino will ground its programs and policies in the outreach feedback, as
required by the State. This Council has also been extremely selective in terms of which
feedback they act upon–having a strong preference for their own political base.
2. Site Inventory: The current site inventory relies too heavily on pipeline projects which are not
guaranteed to be built. The pipeline projects account for 77% of our RHNA, most of which are
from The Rise and The Hamptons, projects that have been approved for years, but have no
indication they will be built out within the next 8 years. The Hamptons would displace hundreds
of renters and was even recently renovated! The Council also decided to concentrate planned
housing on Bubb Road, despite a strong lack of owner interest to build housing. Meanwhile,
several Heart of the City locations had expressed owner interest but were not included. We
should plan for housing that will actually get built within the next 8 years.
I urge the City Council to make dramatic changes to bring our Housing Element back on track.
1. Revive the stakeholder group. Incorporate diverse perspectives beyond homeowners:
renters, youth, seniors, etc. This stakeholder group should have actual meaningful involvement
and input over programs and policies as required by law.
2. Reduce reliance on pipeline projects. Add a larger buffer and include more housing sites,
especially within the Heart of the City, an already designated special area that has major
corridors, bike-ped infrastructure, community amenities, and transit lines.
3. Make a good faith effort to comply with state regulations. Ensure that our housing element
will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and include projects that will realistically be built.
We cannot afford to stall this process longer. We must act with urgency.
Peter Rovegno
peter.rovegno@gmail.com
10497 Chace Dr
Cupertino, California 95014
From:Connie Cunningham
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:City Council Meeting, November 1, 2022, Oral Communications
Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 8:23:50 PM
Attachments:2022-11-1 CC Housing Element Oral Communications.docx
Housing Commission Chair Memo 090822.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.
From: Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Date: November 1, 2022 at 4:06:59 PM PDT
To: Cunningham Connie <CunninghamConnieL@gmail.com>
Subject: City Council Meeting, November 1, 2022, Oral Communications
From:Joshua Citajaya
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fix the Housing Element Process!
Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 8:07:30 PM
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.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am extremely concerned with the City of Cupertino's Housing Element process. Cupertino is
extremely behind in the process and is the slowest jurisdiction in our county. Based on the
required timeline, our city is projected to finish the housing element process after the January
31st, 2023 deadline. I recently learned that Cupertino is projected to lose local land use control
due to the builder’s remedy.
I am concerned that this City Council is not taking the Housing Element process seriously to
proactively address the housing crisis. The new housing element should be focused on actually
creating housing, rather than avoiding it.
1. Community outreach: This City Council correctly assembled a diverse stakeholder group and
then disbanded it for seemingly political reasons. In its place, the City has done a poor job of
meaningfully engaging and empowering diverse stakeholders (students, renters, immigrants,
unhoused people, service workers, etc.) in the housing element process. While there has been
outreach programming, it has not been well coordinated with the housing element process, and
it is unclear how Cupertino will ground its programs and policies in the outreach feedback, as
required by the State. This Council has also been extremely selective in terms of which
feedback they act upon–having a strong preference for their own political base.
2. Site Inventory: The current site inventory relies too heavily on pipeline projects which are not
guaranteed to be built. The pipeline projects account for 77% of our RHNA, most of which are
from The Rise and The Hamptons, projects that have been approved for years, but have no
indication they will be built out within the next 8 years. The Hamptons would displace hundreds
of renters and was even recently renovated! The Council also decided to concentrate planned
housing on Bubb Road, despite a strong lack of owner interest to build housing. Meanwhile,
several Heart of the City locations had expressed owner interest but were not included. We
should plan for housing that will actually get built within the next 8 years.
I urge the City Council to make dramatic changes to bring our Housing Element back on track.
1. Revive the stakeholder group. Incorporate diverse perspectives beyond homeowners:
renters, youth, seniors, etc. This stakeholder group should have actual meaningful involvement
and input over programs and policies as required by law.
2. Reduce reliance on pipeline projects. Add a larger buffer and include more housing sites,
especially within the Heart of the City, an already designated special area that has major
corridors, bike-ped infrastructure, community amenities, and transit lines.
3. Make a good faith effort to comply with state regulations. Ensure that our housing element
will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and include projects that will realistically be built.
We cannot afford to stall this process longer. We must act with urgency.
Joshua Citajaya
josh.citajaya@gmail.com
20917 Fargo Drive
Cupertino, California 95014
From:Stanley Young
To:Kirsten Squarcia; Kathy Tran
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:RE: IFPTE Local 21 Letter - 11/1 Cupertino Council Meeting
Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 7:34:38 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
FW IFPTE Local 21 Letter - 111 Cupertino Council Meeting.msg
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.
Good evening Kirsten,
I have resubmitted the letter to you on a separate email now that it is the oral communication
period.
Kind regards,
Stanley Young
Representative/Organizer
IFPTE Local 21,South Bay Office
4 North Second St, #595
San Jose,CA 95113
Phone 408.291.2200
Fax 408.291.2203
syoung@ifpte21.org
https://ifpte21.org/endorsements/ = contact me directly to help us win elections for these
endorsed candidates
Homepage - IFPTE Local 21 (ifpte21.org)
From: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 6:06 PM
To: Kathy Tran <ktran@ifpte21.org>
Cc: Stanley Young <syoung@ifpte21.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City
Manager's Office <citymanager@cupertino.org>
Subject: RE: IFPTE Local 21 Letter - 11/1 Cupertino Council Meeting
Good evening Kathy (Council moved to Bcc), your comments have been received by the City Clerk's
Office and will be posted with the written comments for Oral Communications, which is reserved for
matters not on the agenda. To be read aloud during the meeting, please submit your comments
when the Mayor announces and opens the public comment period for Oral Communications.
Comments must be received before the first public commenter is done speaking.
Regards, Kirsten
Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
KirstenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3225
From: Kathy Tran <ktran@ifpte21.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 5:18 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Kirsten
Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <citymanager@cupertino.org>
Cc: S Young <syoung@ifpte21.org>
Subject: IFPTE Local 21 Letter - 11/1 Cupertino Council Meeting
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 Cupertino City Council,
I am writing on behalf of IFPTE Local 21/CEA. Please see attached a letter that we request to be
submitted as public comment at today’s city council meeting. We also request for this letter to be
read as part of the written record. Thank you.
Best,
Kathy
Kathy Tran (She/her/hers)
Communications and Political Specialist
ktran@ifpte21.org
IFPTE Local 21, South Bay Office
4 North 2nd St Ste 595, San Jose CA 95113
www.ifpte21.org
From:Caitlin Huang
To:City Clerk
Subject:Oral Communications to Read
Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 7:24:24 PM
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, Vice-Mayor and City
Council Members:
This election has caused me to get many very
bad and untrue mailers delivered to my house.
I was very upset to see a big collection of lies
being said by several former Cupertino
Mayors, including Richard Lowenthal and
Rod Sinks.
In talking to people that came to my house to
talk to me and my husband, I learned that
Rod Sinks was one former mayor that caused
the City to waste about half million dollars by
firing the City Attorney Hom who sued the
City.
I also received a letter from the County Voter
Registrar explaining that three candidates,
Claudio Bono, Sheila Mohan, and Joseph
Fruen refused to sign the campaign spending
limit agreement and then I saw on Nextdoor
that they have collected huge contributions
from many special interest groups that want to
elect City Council members that will do them
special favors so they can make more money
and hurt our City more.
I also learned that Joseph Fruen was one of
the people responsible for closing Regnart
Elementary. Even though my children went to
Sedgwick Elementary, I feel bad for the
parents who now have to drive their children
to Lincoln Elementary or send them to private
schools. Joseph Fruen was also the cause of
former City Manager Deb Feng leaving after
only two years and he also contributed to the
City Attorney Hom being fired.
I wish that the City Council could issue a
statement that explains the lies that the former
mayors are telling people so voters understand
that they are lying just to try to get back
control for the companies that are hurting
Cupertino.
Thank You
Caitlin Huang
From:Kylie Clark
To:City Clerk
Subject:WVCS Public Comment: Cupertino Housing Element
Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 7:23:48 PM
Attachments:Cupertino Housing Element.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!
Attached is a public comment letter from West Valley Community Services regarding the
Cupertino Housing Element. Please don't hesitate to reach out with any questions.
Thank you so much,
Kylie
(Pronouns: she, her, hers)
Yes, We Live on Ohlone Land. But What Does That Mean?
-
Kylie Clark
Assistant Manager of Advocacy & Public Policy
West Valley Community Services, Inc.
10104 Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
Email: kyliec@wvcommunityservices.org, Direct: 408.471.6122 | Main: 408.255.8033 | Fax: 408.366.6090
Please support us in uniting the community to fight hunger and homelessness
by donating now!
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube | LinkedIn | WVCS Blog
Chefs of Compassion | WVCS in The News
From:j w
To:City Clerk; City Clerk
Subject:Fw: how can we be heard? residential place
Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 7:23:23 PM
Attachments:Petta Declaration re Fees and Costs for Special Motion to Strike.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.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: j w <jzw97@yahoo.com>
To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org>; "citycouncil@cupertino.org"
<citycouncil@cupertino.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022, 07:18:39 PM PDT
Subject: Fw: how can we be heard? residential place
Dear Council,
Here is the summary of our effort to reach the City,
We'd like to have neutral person we can talk to or if not, the person, we know or retired one, we both
agree to. We have tried to reach you and left msgs while back and more last few weeks to legal dept.,
city mgr office, etc. several times. Sadly, as long term residents, who often involve in community
service lot more before, now barely could sleep due to the tragedy under the hands of pulic servant--
city's mission is to serve the city residents, who we 'feed'. Few self serving ones again try to 'shoot' us
more maliciously after we told them the whole sequence of events as they say they didn't know. Please
feel free to reply or call us back. Thx. H resident
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: j w <jzw97@yahoo.com>
To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022, 02:38:45 AM PDT
Subject: how can we be heard? residential place
Dear Council,
We asked to have ombudsman for the residents a while back (some city called it public /community
relation personnel) as the legal firm and few city legal dept personals Araceli Alejandre, Chris Jensen ,
etc. have behaved egregiously, at no time listening to us/acting as residents/citizen servant, doing
whatever they want. Now, they drafted their own judgment everywhere, having received the the green
light,to include frivolous sanctions with no restraint; having got notice they filed with the Court again
after default (total lack of communication) to 'sanction punitive fines' on us after the property twice
gone; taken away, including belongings with no notice. After endless pleas, notice not heard, but with
more retaliation. Still have leaking roof, hundreds thousands dollars lost, unable to support very young,
elder. Please help us to stop this malicious persecution, retaliation, etc. Thx. long term Resident
In Him.
----- Forwarded Message -----
Dear mgr,
We had unbearable tragedy, trauma, etc. in the hand of few self serving city personal, legal dept,
and/or outside law firms, etc., who uses their 'skills' to do so much harm. Took newer property twice
and belonging, we don't even get notice, which didn't have any addition, adu or development, etc. ever
They are still doing more, or harm, We'd like to have talk with you, Thx. Huang resident
>>
background We wanted to present the case where we were informed that a permit would not be
necessary. Told not needed, we did as told, had no neighbor issue first torn down as well (even then
was ok not ok back forth) and wall well removed away from anyone, far away from anyone and only
might affected one got no issue. For the approximately 90sf 12ft height play structure shed with non-
commercial use, we got a 'symbolic' permit, but the City took all the buildup plus personal belongings
too under them now they want to do even more harm
There is no addition or adu to the place, no other accessory building on it, We need all your help.
From:Cupertino ForAll
To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk
Subject:Oral Communications - 11.01.22
Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 7:09:27 PM
Attachments:Oral Communications 2022-11-01.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 review the attached file, representing oral communications from our organization, for
the November 1st, 2022 City Council meeting.
Thank you,
Steering Committee, Cupertino for All
From:Howard Ji
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fix the Housing Element Process!
Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 7:06:23 PM
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.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am extremely concerned with the City of Cupertino's Housing Element process. Cupertino is
extremely behind in the process and is the slowest jurisdiction in our county. Based on the
required timeline, our city is projected to finish the housing element process after the January
31st, 2023 deadline. I recently learned that Cupertino is projected to lose local land use control
due to the builder’s remedy.
I am concerned that this City Council is not taking the Housing Element process seriously to
proactively address the housing crisis. The new housing element should be focused on actually
creating housing, rather than avoiding it.
1. Community outreach: This City Council correctly assembled a diverse stakeholder group and
then disbanded it for seemingly political reasons. In its place, the City has done a poor job of
meaningfully engaging and empowering diverse stakeholders (students, renters, immigrants,
unhoused people, service workers, etc.) in the housing element process. While there has been
outreach programming, it has not been well coordinated with the housing element process, and
it is unclear how Cupertino will ground its programs and policies in the outreach feedback, as
required by the State. This Council has also been extremely selective in terms of which
feedback they act upon–having a strong preference for their own political base.
2. Site Inventory: The current site inventory relies too heavily on pipeline projects which are not
guaranteed to be built. The pipeline projects account for 77% of our RHNA, most of which are
from The Rise and The Hamptons, projects that have been approved for years, but have no
indication they will be built out within the next 8 years. The Hamptons would displace hundreds
of renters and was even recently renovated! The Council also decided to concentrate planned
housing on Bubb Road, despite a strong lack of owner interest to build housing. Meanwhile,
several Heart of the City locations had expressed owner interest but were not included. We
should plan for housing that will actually get built within the next 8 years.
I urge the City Council to make dramatic changes to bring our Housing Element back on track.
1. Revive the stakeholder group. Incorporate diverse perspectives beyond homeowners:
renters, youth, seniors, etc. This stakeholder group should have actual meaningful involvement
and input over programs and policies as required by law.
2. Reduce reliance on pipeline projects. Add a larger buffer and include more housing sites,
especially within the Heart of the City, an already designated special area that has major
corridors, bike-ped infrastructure, community amenities, and transit lines.
3. Make a good faith effort to comply with state regulations. Ensure that our housing element
will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and include projects that will realistically be built.
We cannot afford to stall this process longer. We must act with urgency.
Howard Ji
hji168@gmail.com
930 Gomes Ln
Milpitas, California 95035
From:Yane An
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fix the Housing Element Process!
Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 5:59:11 PM
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.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am extremely concerned with the City of Cupertino's Housing Element process. Cupertino is
extremely behind in the process and is the slowest jurisdiction in our county. Based on the
required timeline, our city is projected to finish the housing element process after the January
31st, 2023 deadline. I recently learned that Cupertino is projected to lose local land use control
due to the builder’s remedy.
I am concerned that this City Council is not taking the Housing Element process seriously to
proactively address the housing crisis. The new housing element should be focused on actually
creating housing, rather than avoiding it.
1. Community outreach: This City Council correctly assembled a diverse stakeholder group and
then disbanded it for seemingly political reasons. In its place, the City has done a poor job of
meaningfully engaging and empowering diverse stakeholders (students, renters, immigrants,
unhoused people, service workers, etc.) in the housing element process. While there has been
outreach programming, it has not been well coordinated with the housing element process, and
it is unclear how Cupertino will ground its programs and policies in the outreach feedback, as
required by the State. This Council has also been extremely selective in terms of which
feedback they act upon–having a strong preference for their own political base.
2. Site Inventory: The current site inventory relies too heavily on pipeline projects which are not
guaranteed to be built. The pipeline projects account for 77% of our RHNA, most of which are
from The Rise and The Hamptons, projects that have been approved for years, but have no
indication they will be built out within the next 8 years. The Hamptons would displace hundreds
of renters and was even recently renovated! The Council also decided to concentrate planned
housing on Bubb Road, despite a strong lack of owner interest to build housing. Meanwhile,
several Heart of the City locations had expressed owner interest but were not included. We
should plan for housing that will actually get built within the next 8 years.
I urge the City Council to make dramatic changes to bring our Housing Element back on track.
1. Revive the stakeholder group. Incorporate diverse perspectives beyond homeowners:
renters, youth, seniors, etc. This stakeholder group should have actual meaningful involvement
and input over programs and policies as required by law.
2. Reduce reliance on pipeline projects. Add a larger buffer and include more housing sites,
especially within the Heart of the City, an already designated special area that has major
corridors, bike-ped infrastructure, community amenities, and transit lines.
3. Make a good faith effort to comply with state regulations. Ensure that our housing element
will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and include projects that will realistically be built.
We cannot afford to stall this process longer. We must act with urgency.
Yane An
ahnyane@gmail.com
1313 Niagara Drive
San Jose, California 95130
From:Lee Moncton
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fix the Housing Element Process!
Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 5:43:09 PM
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.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I moved to Cupertino 43 years ago and have lived or worked here since then. There have been
many changes in Cupertino in that time. We love our cities' growth, even through managed,
controlled changes. One of the things that wasn't successfully managed was the evolution of
Valco. The playbook that was used cost the city millions and led to the loss of control. Now we
are no longer managing change, but being controlled by others. It appears that the same
playbook is being used all over again with the Housing Plan requirements. Please do not again
act like you can lawyer up and win against the state requirements. This smells like a play from
the MAGA playbook. If you were the quarterback for the 49ers you would be benched and
traded because you didn't learn from your past mistakes. Please focus on the work required to
complete the plan. This is Cupertino, a proud, capable, changing city. Don't fail us again. Don't
lose control.
Lee Moncton
lsmoncton@comcast.net
10376 Avenida Ln
Cupertino, California 95014
From:Jennifer Shearin
To:City Clerk
Subject:Our Housing Element Process has gone off the rails...and I"m asking for the Council to fix it.
Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 5:41:18 PM
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.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
Now is the time to act to fix our Housing Element. I ask today that you add a larger buffer to
offset the pipeline projects, add more housing sites within the Heart of the CIty, and allow
greater density in the chosen locations. Further, the Housing Element needs more attention to
get it on track and on time. Doing this will help us to comply with state regulations and avoid a
potential "free for all" by developers on February 1.
From the time that the City Council rejected the recommendations from their consultant for a
stakeholders group and replaced it with a "Strategy Team" comprised of hand-picked
Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners--appointed by those same Councilmembers--
I've been concerned about our Housing Element being inclusive of all stakeholder voices.
My initial concerns were regarding input from key stakeholders, especially those that need the
housing that we will build (renters, students, service workers, teachers, unhoused people, and
many more). The community outreach special informational sessions gave them a voice to
speak to the community, but there were no signs that those voices were included in the
process itself. The housing sites, density and heights were chosen during meetings where the
Strategy Team and general community members--both overwhelmingly comprised of single-
family homeowners--had the greatest amount and most decisive input.
The input into the process, therefore, was largely one local political point of view, and did not
represent the full community. Renters in particular are 30-40% of Cupertino residents, and did
not have even close to a proportional voice. Sites in the Heart of the City--close to shops and
transportation and showing interest from property owners--were rejected, while sites in the last
remaining light industrial area in Cupertino with no property owner interest were included.
Further concerns were that meeting our goals uses "pipeline" projects, which may never be
built. One of these, The Hamptons, has been able to build for six years but there has been no
progress. It would require them to displace hundreds of their current residents, a major
disincentive. The State takes a dim view of using these types of projects to fulfill the required
number of new homes, and has rejected other California cities' plans when they tried to include
them.
Lastly, the process output is now incredibly late. We are extremely likely to not make the
mandated January 31 deadline, allowing for what is called a "Builder's Remedy", or the ability
for developers to build whatever they want with few restrictions. I can't imagine that anyone
would prefer a loss of local control over development in our city. We need to have more
attention placed on this incredibly important issue that affects everyone in our city.
It is unlikely that we have time to include input from residents and community members that
should have been in the process, but there is still time to fix the issues with the project list.
Adding a larger buffer to offset the pipeline projects, and adding more housing sites within the
Heart of the CIty zone would be a step in the right direction. Allowing greater density in areas
would also help, such as the Furniture Store location at E. Estates and Stevens Creek
Boulevard. These two items would help all of us as a City to make a good faith effort to comply
with state regulations.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these issues. I hope that our city can meet its
obligations on time and in full.
Jennifer Shearin
shearin.jen@gmail.com
19511 Howard Ct
Cupertino, California 95014
From:Derek Chen
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fix the Housing Element Process!
Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 5:22:48 PM
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.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am extremely concerned with the City of Cupertino's Housing Element process. Cupertino is
extremely behind in the process and is the slowest jurisdiction in our county. Based on the
required timeline, our city is projected to finish the housing element process after the January
31st, 2023 deadline. I recently learned that Cupertino is projected to lose local land use control
due to the builder’s remedy.
I am concerned that this City Council is not taking the Housing Element process seriously to
proactively address the housing crisis. The new housing element should be focused on actually
creating housing, rather than avoiding it.
1. Community outreach: This City Council correctly assembled a diverse stakeholder group and
then disbanded it for seemingly political reasons. In its place, the City has done a poor job of
meaningfully engaging and empowering diverse stakeholders (students, renters, immigrants,
unhoused people, service workers, etc.) in the housing element process. While there has been
outreach programming, it has not been well coordinated with the housing element process, and
it is unclear how Cupertino will ground its programs and policies in the outreach feedback, as
required by the State. This Council has also been extremely selective in terms of which
feedback they act upon–having a strong preference for their own political base.
2. Site Inventory: The current site inventory relies too heavily on pipeline projects which are not
guaranteed to be built. The pipeline projects account for 77% of our RHNA, most of which are
from The Rise and The Hamptons, projects that have been approved for years, but have no
indication they will be built out within the next 8 years. The Hamptons would displace hundreds
of renters and was even recently renovated! The Council also decided to concentrate planned
housing on Bubb Road, despite a strong lack of owner interest to build housing. Meanwhile,
several Heart of the City locations had expressed owner interest but were not included. We
should plan for housing that will actually get built within the next 8 years.
I urge the City Council to make dramatic changes to bring our Housing Element back on track.
1. Revive the stakeholder group. Incorporate diverse perspectives beyond homeowners:
renters, youth, seniors, etc. This stakeholder group should have actual meaningful involvement
and input over programs and policies as required by law.
2. Reduce reliance on pipeline projects. Add a larger buffer and include more housing sites,
especially within the Heart of the City, an already designated special area that has major
corridors, bike-ped infrastructure, community amenities, and transit lines.
3. Make a good faith effort to comply with state regulations. Ensure that our housing element
will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and include projects that will realistically be built.
We cannot afford to stall this process longer. We must act with urgency.
Derek Chen
derekpkchen@gmail.com
20071 Pacifica Dr
Cupertino, California 95014
From:Kathy Tran
To:City Council; City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Cc:S Young
Subject:IFPTE Local 21 Letter - 11/1 Cupertino Council Meeting
Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 5:17:59 PM
Attachments:IFPTE Local 21 Letter Re Kitty Moore Comments to Members.pdf
Twitter Kitty Moore.png
Twitter Kitty Moore 2.png
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 Cupertino City Council,
I am writing on behalf of IFPTE Local 21/CEA. Please see attached a letter that we request to be
submitted as public comment at today’s city council meeting. We also request for this letter to be
read as part of the written record. Thank you.
Best,
Kathy
Kathy Tran (She/her/hers)
Communications and Political Specialist
ktran@ifpte21.org
IFPTE Local 21, South Bay Office
4 North 2nd St Ste 595, San Jose CA 95113
www.ifpte21.org
From:Noel Eberhardt
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fix the Housing Element Process!
Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 5:17:47 PM
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.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
I am extremely concerned with the City of Cupertino's Housing Element process. Cupertino is
extremely behind in the process and is the slowest jurisdiction in our county. Based on the
required timeline, our city is projected to finish the housing element process after the January
31st, 2023 deadline. I recently learned that Cupertino is projected to lose local land use control
due to the builder’s remedy.
I am concerned that this City Council is not taking the Housing Element process seriously to
proactively address the housing crisis. The new housing element should be focused on actually
creating housing, rather than avoiding it.
1. Community outreach: This City Council correctly assembled a diverse stakeholder group and
then disbanded it for seemingly political reasons. In its place, the City has done a poor job of
meaningfully engaging and empowering diverse stakeholders (students, renters, immigrants,
unhoused people, service workers, etc.) in the housing element process. While there has been
outreach programming, it has not been well coordinated with the housing element process, and
it is unclear how Cupertino will ground its programs and policies in the outreach feedback, as
required by the State. This Council has also been extremely selective in terms of which
feedback they act upon–having a strong preference for their own political base.
2. Site Inventory: The current site inventory relies too heavily on pipeline projects which are not
guaranteed to be built. The pipeline projects account for 77% of our RHNA, most of which are
from The Rise and The Hamptons, projects that have been approved for years, but have no
indication they will be built out within the next 8 years. The Hamptons would displace hundreds
of renters and was even recently renovated! The Council also decided to concentrate planned
housing on Bubb Road, despite a strong lack of owner interest to build housing. Meanwhile,
several Heart of the City locations had expressed owner interest but were not included. We
should plan for housing that will actually get built within the next 8 years.
I urge the City Council to make dramatic changes to bring our Housing Element back on track.
1. Revive the stakeholder group. Incorporate diverse perspectives beyond homeowners:
renters, youth, seniors, etc. This stakeholder group should have actual meaningful involvement
and input over programs and policies as required by law.
2. Reduce reliance on pipeline projects. Add a larger buffer and include more housing sites,
especially within the Heart of the City, an already designated special area that has major
corridors, bike-ped infrastructure, community amenities, and transit lines.
3. Make a good faith effort to comply with state regulations. Ensure that our housing element
will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and include projects that will realistically be built.
We cannot afford to stall this process longer. We must act with urgency.
Noel Eberhardt
neberhardt@sbcglobal.net
21407 Krzich Place
Cupertino, California 95014
CC 11-01-2022
Item # 3
Consider veterans
appreciation
proclamation
honoring veterans
and military
families
Written Communications
CC 11-01-2022
Item #11
Consider
approval of the
Electric Vehicle
Parking
Expansion
Written Communications
From:Clint Uyeh
To:City Clerk
Subject:Item 11
Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 10:32:06 PM
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 Council members.
Question on the charging station. From my understanding the purpose of the charging station
is for promoting EV. I do not see how these few charging stations would motivate adoption
of EV and I do not believe city govt should not be in the business of promoting EV.
Also, it seems like RFP is front loading the savings by offloading the initial design. This may
create
a blind spot in terms of transparency, overall cost and liability. Is there a minimum number of
vendors required for an RFP proposal? Seems there should be a minimum number otherwise
it should be shelved.
--
Clinton Uyehara
CC 11-01-2022
Item #15
Councilmember Wei's
Written Comments
Written
Communication
The State defines objective standards as:
Standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment
by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by
reference to an external and uniform benchmark or
criterion available and knowable by both the development
applicant or proponent and the public official prior to
submittal.
Is there an external and uniform benchmark or criterion
available to justify the following four limitations of the
proposed the SB9 Ordinance?
What purposes do these limitations serve?
1) Disallowance of second story decks and balconies
2)The larger unit in a duplex development may be no more
than 200 square feet larger than the smaller unit
3)No units developed under the provisions of SB 9 shall
exceed 2,000 square feet of living space
4) Disallowance of basements
On September 28, 2022, Planning Staff hosted a
community meeting to offer general information related to
SB 9 to the public and to receive feedback related to the
proposed regular ordinance. Of the 101 attendees, 86
attended via Zoom while 15 attended in person. Polls were
conducted on the attendees’ thoughts on proposed
standards. #1, #3, and #4 received majority votes against
the recommended restrictive standards, while there was no
poll for #2.
1) Disallowance of Second‐story decks and balconies
(Page#324-325)
At the September 28th community meeting, approximately
64% of respondents indicated that they thought the City
should allow balconies on development proposed pursuant
to SB 9 with the majority of indicating that these features
should be allowed without further restriction.
What are the reasons to disallow balconies, in perpetuity,
on any units developed pursuant to the provisions of SB9 in
both R1 and RHS zones as recommended by the Planning
Commission? What purpose does this limitation serve?
Why did the Planning Commission not listen to resident
input from the Community Meeting?
For example: A very large lot designing a duplex under
SB9 should be allowed the flexibility of second story decks
or balconies if the decks/balconies overlook into its own
backyard and there are no privacy issues. This one-size-
fits-all disallowance is not a reasonable standard. The City
already has privacy objective standards in place for second
story decks and balconies that will be applied to SB9
projects.
2)The larger unit in a duplex development may be no more
than 200 square feet larger than the smaller unit (Page#329)
This 200 square feet limitation does not allow residents
to build a duplex to fit a family of 4 and a smaller unit
to accommodate a parent/in-law. For example:
A 5000 square feet lot (which is a common lot size) with
45% Floor Area Ration can accommodate 2,250 square
feet building space including garage. Taking 400
square feet off for a 2-car garage, this leaves 1,850
square feet of living space.
The resident needs a 3-bedroom/2-bath home for a
family of 4 and a smaller unit for a parent/in-law. With
this 200 square feet limitation, the resident is limited to
one 1,025 square feet unit and one 825 square feet unit,
with neither unit large enough to accommodate a 3-
bedroom/2-bath home for the family of 4.
Without this 200 square feet limit, the resident can
design a 1,250 square feet unit with 3 bedrooms/2 baths
for the family of 4 and a 600 square feet one-bedroom
unit for a parent/in-law.
This provision that limits “the larger unit in a duplex
development may be no more than 200 square feet
larger than the smaller unit” is not a reasonable
standard based on the expected development under
SB9. What purpose does this limitation serve? Why
isn’t it enough that there simply two units?
3)No units developed under the provisions of SB 9 shall
exceed 2,000 square feet of living space (Page#329)
****At the September 28th community meeting,
approximately 61% of respondents indicated that they
thought the city should either increase the maximum
allowable square footage or remove the limit entirely.
****Research indicates that this limitation impacts
approximately 100 of the close to 17,000 R1‐zoned
lots in Cupertino, which is about 0.5% of the total lots
Why did the Planning Commission and City Council not
listen to resident input from the Community Meeting?
Since this limitation only impacts less than 0.5% of the
total lots, why add this arbitrary limitation of 2000
square feet of living space to such a small % of lots?
For example: A 17,000 square feet lot with 45% Floor Area
Ratio can accommodate 7,650 square feet building space
including garage. Taking 800 square feet off for two 2-car
garages, this leaves 6,850 square feet of living space. The
resident wants to build two units or a duplex on this lot via
SB9.
With the 2,000 square feet limitation on each unit, the
resident can only build two 2,000 square feet units, which
adds up to 4,000 square feet, which is 2,850 square feet
short of the standard 45% Floor Area Ratio allowed per
standard City code.
Therefore, in order to build up to the standard 45% Floor
Area Ratio allowance, the resident will be forced to split
the lot into 2 lots and build two duplexes (4 units).
However, the resident does not want to do a lot split for
two duplexes (4 units). S/he would like to build two units
with ample living space to accommodate two families
(perhaps siblings living side by side), each with ample
space for family entertainment.
Why not allow this resident to build two units or a duplex
up to 3,425 square feet per unit on a lot of 17,000 square
feet? Why force the resident to go for a lot split in order to
have the standard 45% Floor Area Ratio allowance?
The argument that the 2,000 square feet limitation will
“ensure homes remain affordable” does not apply to homes
in Cupertino with large lots such as the above example.
Also, since this limitation impacts less than 0.5% of the
total lots, the rest 95.50% lots are more likely to ensure
homes remain affordable.
The argument that properties impacted by the 2,000 square
feet unit size limitation may continue to develop homes
under the City’s other development pathways may be
considered as a chilling effect to deter residents from SB9?
This provision that limits “2,000 square feet of living
space per unit” is not a reasonable standard based on
the expected development under SB9
4) Disallows basements in SB 9 development in both R1
and RHS zones per Planning Commission’s
recommendation (Page #331)
****At the September 28th community meeting,
approximately 73% of respondents indicated that they
thought the City should allow basements in development
proposed pursuant to SB 9, with the majority of indicating
that the basement should be allowed without further
restriction.
Why did the Planning Commission not listen to resident
input from the Community Meeting?
The argument that construction of basement will
significantly increase cost thus affect home affordability
does not really apply because the basement construction
cost constitutes a very small percentage of home values in
Cupertino. If a resident wants to design a basement for
esthetic or neighborhood style conforming consideration
and can afford to do so, why not allow such design to
happen?
This provision that disallows basements in all SB9 projects
is not a reasonable standard based on the expected
development under SB9.
Restricting basements just limits the configuration of
new homes and encourages taller, wider buildings.
How does this further any goal the City has ? Why limit
this flexibility?
CC 11-01-2022
Item #15
SB 9 Municipal Code
Amendments
Written
Communication