Systemetic Overestimation of Very Low and Low income and Underestimate of Above Moderate income housing, by Randy

Randy points out that
"there has been a systematic overestimation of Very Low and Low income housing unit production and a systematic underestimation of Above Moderate income housing unit production."

"I believe the use of Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B) is inconsistent with Government Code 65588(a) because it can be demonstrated that the use of 65583.2(c)(3)(B) produces consistently erroneous results within the City of Cupertino."

"You have an obligation to follow Government Code 65588(a), because if it can be demonstrated that you were aware of a problem, and that you did nothing to correct it, it might have legal implications. For instance, some housing advocacy group might decide to sue the City for not meeting its RHNA goals for lower income housing. They might argue that the City selected an estimation method that allowed the City to shirk its responsibility to provide lower cost housing."

"Why is this important? Because if the City knows that there will be a shortfall in the number of lower cost housing, it can start to plan mitigation measures sooner rather than latter. The other reason is that the systematic underestimation of the number of Above Moderate income units produced result in more overall housing units being produced."

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Randy Shingai
Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:48 AM
Subject: Government Code 65588(a) should trump use of Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B)
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, "dapaul@darcypaul.org" <dapaul@darcypaul.org>, Savita Vaidhyanathan <savita4council@gmail.com>

Dear Sirs:

This is regarding the draft Housing Element for 2014-2022 that was made available for the December 2, 2014 Regular Council Meeting, and follows up an earlier email.

Here is Government Code 65588(a):

65588.  (a) Each local government shall review its housing element
as frequently as appropriate to evaluate all of the following:
   (1) The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and
policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal.
   (2) The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the
community's housing goals and objectives.
   (3) The progress of the city, county, or city and county in
implementation of the housing element.

I believe the use of Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B) is inconsistent with Government Code 65588(a) because it can be demonstrated that the use of 65583.2(c)(3)(B) produces consistently erroneous results within the City of Cupertino.  The City of Cupertino uses Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B) to project that high-density housing will produce only lower income housing within the City of Cupertino.  Recent and past history has shown that high density housing rarely produces lower income housing units within the City of Cupertino.

While the City is allowed to use Government Code 65583.2(c)(3)(B) to calculate the number of units that can be used to fulfill its share of the regional housing need for lower income housing, the City is not required to use 65583.2(c)(3)(B). Cupertino can instead use a more conventional approach.  That is the approach described in 65583.2(c)(3)(A).

Here is Government Code 65583.2(c)(3):

   

(3) For the number of units calculated to accommodate its share of
the regional housing need for lower income households pursuant to
paragraph (2), a city or county shall do either of the following:
   (A) Provide an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities
accommodate this need. The analysis shall include, but is not limited
to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, or
information based on development project experience within a zone or
zones that provide housing for lower income households.
   (B) The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to
accommodate housing for lower income households:
   (i) For incorporated cities within nonmetropolitan counties and
for nonmetropolitan counties that have micropolitan areas: sites
allowing at least 15 units per acre.
   (ii) For unincorporated areas in all nonmetropolitan counties not
included in clause (i): sites allowing at least 10 units per acre.
   (iii) For suburban jurisdictions: sites allowing at least 20 units
per acre.
   (iv) For jurisdictions in metropolitan counties: sites allowing at
least 30 units per acre.

The City of Cupertino used 65583.2(c)(3)(B) to estimate the number of lower income housing units that would be produced by its inventory of suitable sites for housing in its 2007-20014 Housing Element.  According to Table 7.2 in the draft Housing Element Technical Report for 2014-2022, the City achieved 7.3% of its Very Low and 10% of its Low income RHNA goals for the preceding 2007-2014 RHNA period, while at the same time achieving 164% of its Above Moderate income RHNA goals up through 2013.  So it's fair to say that there has been a systematic overestimation of Very Low and Low income housing unit production and a systematic underestimation of Above Moderate income housing unit production.  I believe the use of  65583.2(c)(3)(B) is responsible for this.

In the draft Housing Element Technical Report for 2014-2022, Tables 5.1 and 5-2 inventory a total of 1,389 possible housing units that can be constructed on 6 sites.  Every one of these units are projected to have an Affordability Level of Very Low or Low. If these projections are even half correct and these sites are all developed in the 2014-2022 time frame, then the City of Cupertino should easily meet its Very Low and Low income RHNA goals for 2014-2022.  However, any reasonable person would doubt that this is going to happen. 

 

You have an obligation to follow Government Code 65588(a), because if it can be demonstrated that you were aware of a problem, and that you did nothing to correct it, it might have legal implications.  For instance, some housing advocacy group might decide to sue the City for not meeting its RHNA goals for lower income housing.  They might argue that the City selected an estimation method that allowed the City to shirk its responsibility to provide lower cost housing.

 

Why is this important?  Because if the City knows that there will be a shortfall in the number of lower cost housing, it can start to plan mitigation measures sooner rather than latter.  The other reason is that the systematic underestimation of the number of Above Moderate income units produced result in more overall housing units being produced.

 

Please make this part of the public record for the December 2, 2014 Regular Council Meeting.

 

Thank You,

 

Randy Shingai