There are no housing related items in the agenda

This was the first time site inventory was discussed with the ability to comment. Even before the meeting, the site inventory documents provided were quite messy and missing details. An organization I volunteer for, Cupertino for All, submitted a detailed letter under written comment here (https://bit.ly/38rFVzA).

​

The meeting itself got off to a rocky start, as the consultant, Ande Flowers from EMC, opened up with a presentation and then began going through each site in three Parcel Areas at a time. Public comment consisted of a range of pro-housing speakers (mostly from Cupertino for All) who were critical of the absence of information, likelihood of development, and displacement of current units at sites choosen; from more anti-housing commentors, who were largely very angry at the whole process / HCD / conflating state housing bills with HCD. 

​

The meeting went very late (started around 6:45, ran past 10 pm) and commentary from anti-housing community members grew increasingly hostile as the night went on. There was an opportunity to comment at every 3 parcel areas (neighborhoods), so commentors had far more time than usual (to both benefit and detriment to the process I believe). The EMC rep and Planning Commission chair's relationship seemed increasingly strained as the night went on, and it is important to note that the commission barely had a quorum, with the Chair giving the majority of commentary.

The City Council pointlessly deliberated for hours about their stakeholder engagement group. The consultant group EMC Planning had already produced a set of recommendations for who should be on the stakeholder group, and the Council was upset because there were too many pro-housing people on it. They declined to take an official action on the stakeholder selection.

​

This is a huge red flag because it seems like they are disrespecting their own outreach process because it did not produce the results that they wanted. 

live tweeted it here: https://twitter.com/howtoadu/status/1460785531567042563

​

Mostly an update from the consultant on process, public outreach, etc. Big meeting in December.

There was a very short presentation on the Site Inventory process, some public comment, and shared a quick screenshot of the HE update timeline with the public.

​

Consultants answered a few resident questions regarding concern around upzoning (is it permanent? Can areas be down-zoned once they are upzoned?) and the next steps in this process (namely the type of engagement they can expect). There was council member commentary and questions around if "theoretical projected unit increases from recent housing bills" can contribute to 6th cycle RHNA numbers.

​

There was also council member push-back against one commenter's reference to past city council's intentions to choose sites that were unlikely to be developed. Mayor Darcy Paul distanced the entire council from the previous one, saying that they were not present on the council that made those comments. Vice-Mayor Liang Chao stated that the fact that 4 out of 5 past RHNA projects were developed serves as evidence that the Cupertino community is committed to proposals "beneficial to the community" (as you likely know, the 1 5th cycle site "rejected" was the Vallco site, which contributed most of the RHNA units from the 5th cycle and was approved as a SB 35 project over resident and city council opposition).

​

In addition, the second study session topic was on the Climate Action Plan update, and there was some negative public commentary regarding the housing bills, and how commenters 1) did not believe density increases accompanying new housing bills would be consistent with stated goals around tree canopy increases, and 2) requested for keeping (or increasing) parking (despite proposed CAP measures including the removal of parking minimums from the city's building standards).

​

Slightly related (in terms of its relevance to AFFH component of the housing element update), 2 residents and 1 councilmember did not understand the terminology "low-income communities of color", and asked for the removal or investigation of the words "of color" from the proposed equity-focused measures within the CAP.

​

The study session began at 5:15 so I missed the opportunity to speak (as you must "raise your hand" by the time the first commenter finishes their comment, per local city council rules).

Main Discussion: 84 participants (Milpitas, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara)

-Led by Paul Peninger, Baird & Driskell

-Basic overview of Housing Element process, timeline, goals, etc.

​

Mountain View Breakout Room:

-21 participants

-Led by Ellen Yau, Senior Planner & Brandi Campbell Wood (Baird & Driskell)

​

MV 2023-2031 Housing Element Goals:

-Accommodate MV’s RHNA of ~11,000 units

-Development capacity from recent Precise Plans, ongoing R3 zoning update

-Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH)

-Provide access to opportunity

-Address fair housing issues and constraints

-Coordinate with other key City housing initiatives

-Displacement strategy, R3 zoning update, federal assessment of fair housing

-Address local goals and needs

-Use data on local conditions

-Requires input from the public

​

Discussion Questions:

*What’s working in our city/town?

     -new row houses and mixed use developments       

     -Mountain View is very supportive of affordable housing 

     -The city has been getting better about funding and approving non-profit affordable housing

*What are some of our key housing needs or challenges?

     -All the recent developments have been too short and had too much parking. 

     -Restrictive Zoning and community opposition to increased density

*What ideas, policies, programs, suggestions do you have to meet our housing needs?

     -1) Follow the Los Angeles model and have data driven calculations for the likelihood of development on inventory sites. 2) Upzone Old MV to AFFH

​

Timeline:

March 2021 – March 2022: Community Outreach

March-Spring 2022: Work on Studies and Draft update

Spring 2022: Draft for Review

Fall 2022: Public Hearings with EPC and City Council

January 2023: Housing Element Adoption

​

NIMBY comments:

“Neighborhoods are being forced to accept developments on the basis of .5 mile distance to transit. But transit is really barely existent or effective. Is the East Whisman precise plan no longer in effect?”

“We are running out of open space in Mtn. View. Seeing more and more exceptions were super high condos are in planning stage. These high rise condos are invading our modest neighborhood. I'm afraid with open spaces being developed, does the city looking at using eminent domain to buy up needed land to development?”

“The city has already taken away the Hetch Hetchy trail for development. I do not see how you can create 8209 new housing units unless you build higher. Mtn View has always been a modest town. Business giants like Google have destroyed our modest town. Google transport their own employees with private buses. Our public transportation is expensive and ineffective. Addtionally, people whom live outside the area are "penalized" havinf to drive into the valley with more and more toll roads. The government tricked the voters into thinking the increased tax for infrastructure was to build and fix roads. Instead, they built more toll roads!”`

This is the "Let's Talk Housing" series that the county is doing. Including staff from Campbell, Los Gatos, and Los Altos Hills, there were 46 participants before the three breakout rooms opened. I noticed that Mike Krey from the Campbell Planning Commission and the Mayor of Campbell, Liz Gibbons, were both there. In the Q&A, someone asked a question about "Critical Race Theory", and the hosts thankfully dodged it.

​

When asked what happens if a city doesn't have enough zoned capacity, the hosts said some very handwavey things about repurposing commercial space, and danced around the idea that a city would have to make more capacity. Disappointing. It's like they don't believe that HCD will actually bring the hammer down.

​

We're also told that the county has built enough market-rate housing, but the lack of affordable housing has driven up rents. (This is not how housing works, aargh.) There is no mention of why market-rate housing isn't affordable to most people. Jobs don't pay enough to "let them compete in the housing market".

​

When asked for one word to describe our vision of the future of our city, most people wrote "affordable", "inclusive", or "diverse", but two people wrote "non-dense" and "ban on parcel splitting", and Liz Gibbons wrote "non-political", which is a pleasant aspiration. We then went into our breakout rooms, by city. (I'm in the Campbell room.)

​

The Campbell room had 11 people, of whom two were city staff (Rob Eastwood and Stephen Rose), three were city officials (myself, Mike Krey, and Liz Gibbons), and one a facilitator (Joshua Abrams), leaving five regular civilians. The City touted its updated ADU standards, the (incomplete) objective standards work, a program to educate homebuyers and getting REAP/LEAP grants. Not impressive. They point out that we should be at 75% of our RHNA 5 numbers, but we're at 4%/3%/11% for VLI/LI/MI. But 391 market-rate units is 118% of our allocation!

​

Staff points out that our allocation is larger, will require larger densities, and will make site reuse harder. Showed us some visualizations of densities from 3.5 du/ac up to 28+, which is currently illegal in Campbell. By the time they finished presenting, it was 7.

​

Things that people appreciate about housing the way it is: walkable, "family-friendly"/"safe", walkable, diverse. Gibbons: "a collection of diverse neighborhoods" with diverse housing types. Things that people don't like: expensive, hard to develop--long, arduous process to work with the city (Scott Cooley), not enough affordable housing, difficulty selling SFH homeowners on affordable housing. I actually heard someone saying that self-driving cars need less parking, so we should plan for less parking.

​

I focused on removing discretionary rules which people have to beg around, like parking. The rules that make missing middle housing illegal. When someone complained about parking shortages, I suggested residential parking permits, since we already have those in at least one neighborhood, and they're popular. People are concerned about parking, and I don't know if they think that can be solved without keeping density low.

The consultants and respective city staff members participating in this "Let's Talk Housing" primarily provided an overview of the RHNA process, housing needs and issues specific to Santa Clara County (with particular focus on the scarcity of moderate to low (and lower) income housing options, as well as the impacts of this on the community).

​

Breakout sessions were then done by city, with a surprisingly large amount of participants for Cupertino (~31 vs. what appeared to be 10 or less for some others).

​

Breakout sessions gave contextual information, had lively and active ongoing chat in the background, and the opportunity for 3-5 spoken comments to raise specific issues or challenges speakers felt that the community faces. The main concerns raised seemed to be: lack of senior housing options, student housing options (esp. DeAnza students, particularly those currently commuting from neighboring areas like San Jose), the need for cars as a part of daily life (made by an older resident with a very specific need to commute to and from Santa Cruz for senior care-giving), and potential traffic concerns associated with more development (ironically this comment was made by someone who did not have a car and was very interested with the Via private shuttle service provided by the City pre-Covid).

​

Word-cloud takeaways from answers to the initial meeting question (what does housing in your community look like today; and then, what word describes your vision for housing in 2030) were interesting: the top word for the former was "unaffordable", which some runner-ups being "scare", and "unavailable". For the latter, the top was "sustainable", accompanied by words like "affordable", "inclusive" and "diverse".  Following this, there were some chat comments suggesting that this meeting did not represent "both sides" of this issue and was "very pro-housing". 

General Meeting led by: Paul Peninger, Consultant of Baird & Driskell; 81 participants; Staff from Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, Los Altos;

Los Altos Breakout Room led by: David Driskell, Baird & Driskell; 13 participants;

Guido Persicone (Planning Manager, Los Altos)