|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
My family escaped oppression in the Soviet Union and came to California looking for opportunity and a better life. Sadly, this is increasingly difficult for new generations of migrants. For instance, the State Department cautioned Afghan refugees against trying to come here.
California has a housing shortage. Part of the problem is tortuous local processes for approving construction of new homes – which drive up rents and mortgages, and often block homes altogether.
The median home price in the Bay Area exceeds $1.1 million. The ratio of home price to annual income is higher in the Bay Area than almost anywhere else in the nation; more than 9-to-1 in San Francisco and San Jose, compared to 5.5-to-1 in New York and Seattle, and 2.5-to-one in Cleveland and Pittsburgh. Californians pay the third-highest rents in the nation. More than 30,000 people in the Bay Area are homeless.
A cause of this housing crisis is that new infill homes must run a byzantine, lengthy and unpredictable gauntlet of local approval processes. There are many choke points where a reviewer can reject the proposal or impose costly changes that make it financially infeasible.
Part of the solution is a common-sense state law that streamlines local approval of infill homes: Senate Bill 35 of 2016. Now we must extend and strengthen that law, by passing Senate Bill 423. Both bills were championed by a broad coalition of housing, environmental and labor advocates. This bill faces its toughest vote next Tuesday, at the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.
Under SB 35, some local governments, when approving certain residential developments, must fast-track this process.
Which local governments? Those that have not made sufficient progress towards building their fair share of new housing under the state’s planning rules. This status is determined every two years, based on progress reports from local to state governments. About 95% of the state’s population lives in covered localities.
What kind of new homes? They must be multi-unit developments with affordable homes. Specifically, 50% of the homes in a development must be affordable if a city missed its target for affordable homes (like Mountain View has in recent years), and 10% must be affordable if a city missed its target for market-rate homes. Also, a covered development must be located on an urban infill site and comply with a city’s objective zoning and design standards.
What kind of streamlining? Permits must be issued within three or six months, depending on the project’s size. A locality cannot apply discretionary rules or CEQA – cumbersome and unpredictable processes that often block developments that satisfy all relevant standards.
SB 35’s streamlining has been a powerful tool for developing affordable housing. In its first four years, nearly 18,000 units were proposed under the law, according to the Terner Center’s recent analysis of government data. About three-quarters of these homes were affordable, and nearly two-thirds were for the Bay Area. Cities approved about two-thirds of the proposed homes; most of the remainder were still in the pipeline as of the analysis.
SB 35 success stories abound across the region
San Francisco has approved thousands of SB 35 homes – mostly deed-restricted affordable homes, as reported by San Francisco Planning. SB 35 helped build 833 Bryant Street 25% cheaper and 30% faster than similar projects, according to a case study.
Berkeley approved Jordan Court. It houses 34 low-income seniors on a church property. When opposition from some neighbors threatened to delay the project and jeopardize its funding, the church successfully used SB 35 to advance the project.
Cupertino approved The Rise at the former Vallco Mall site, near Apple Park. This 50-acre mixed-use development will include more than 2,400 homes, half of which will be affordable. A court upheld the city’s streamlined approval of this SB 35 project.
Santa Cruz approved 831 Water Street. It will have 140 homes, including scores of affordable homes. The mayor and a councilmember acknowledged that SB 35 was a factor in their “yes” votes.
Unfortunately, SB 35 will sunset at the end of 2025 – unless the legislature extends it. Housing advocates are proud to support this year’s SB 423, which will maintain this powerful housing tool for another decade.
We must act now. Our region’s worst-in-the-nation housing costs are displacing our friends, relatives and neighbors. They also are locking out newcomers from our region’s job opportunities, tolerant culture and mild weather. We need abundant housing for all. To get there, we need lots of new infill homes in multi-unit developments, right here. The state must continue to streamline the local home approval process.
Ilya Gurin is a volunteer lead with the group Mountain View YIMBY
Thank you for this article. I totally agree about California’s onerous regulations stifling developers. CEQA should only apply to government projects over $100M. It’s being used as a blunt instrument where it shouldn’t be.
I’ve got real problems with the way SB35 is being used. The Vallco replacement project is a prime example. The 2400 new homes are awful. First of all, it’s a mix with 1200 luxury high rise flats of over 2000 sf each. Those are going to be highly pricey and cost more each than the majority of the existing free standing houses in Cupertino. It’s a real question if that is ever going to be built. It’s intended as for sale housing and a $3.5 Million condo is a tough sale when you get a piece of such a bizarre project in exchange for your mortgage. No backyard and a flashy design that’s not going to appeal to very many people, let alone 1200 of them.
There is the weird design of the project, which is financed by Sovereign Wealth funds from the middle easy. The whole thing relies on a supersstructure fake roof type creating looming across a wide swath of the airspace above the land. It has slopwed and it is landscaped with turf and such trees as can grow without deep soil. As I describe this it seems more and more preposterous. It’s design to be innovative for the sake of flashiness, and this is in earthquake country. A 30 acre roof with nothing below it is hard to design in a safe fashion.
So as for the issue of the BMR units, they are all on the lower floors of the skyscrapers that poke up through the fake hill created by the superstructure. The rich people get to buy the flats in the buildings up above the fake hill and get natural light free flowing. The BMR units are in the lower levels of the buildings where their window access to sunlight is constrained by being below a hill.
And because of SB35 no public comment.
In some real ways, if this project ever does result in housing getting built, it’s going to prove the ill advised nature of SB35 having blocked public comment. The whole oroject stinks. SB35 allows the developer to force a ton of office space onto Cupertino. Built space is 50%+ commercial, 10% BMR and 30% luxury high rise units.
I’d go so far as to say that if CEQA is being overridden, there should be a prohibition on more than 10% of the developed space in a project being office space or anything else not housing. We don’t need to make building office space easier, and certainly not exempted from environmental review.
Cupertino was forced to allow over 2 Million square feet of new office and commercial space into the city, in the name of adding housing. But it’s not even enough housing for the people working in the project itself!
The arguments against the Vallco project are not credible when viewed in context. The number of homes could be larger, but it’s a huge improvement over the site’s zoned residential capacity (~300 homes) or Apple Park (no homes at all). Apple Park, proposed just three years earlier, never had the same degree of opposition.
SB35 is valuable precisely because it prevents people from stopping housing projects by wielding arguments like these.
In return for creating that kind of amusement park monstrosity, Cupertino could have required some actual public benefits. They lost one of their biggest shopping sales tax revenue properties. The same developer had received development okay for 500 new homes right next to Vallco but never built them, instead building added offices.
The Vallco project has numerous flaws but none of them were analyzed, under the theory in SB35 that any housing justifies any development project. That’s crazy on the face of it. And Vallco will take years more to build any housing. This is the real estate industry wielding too much power on Sacramento. Best not to renew such abuse potential.
While it’s understandable that losing a significant shopping property can have an impact on tax revenue, it’s important to consider the broader context and potential benefits that can arise from repurposing the space for affordable housing. The creation of over 1200 affordable homes is indeed a substantial public benefit.
Affordable housing is a pressing issue in many communities, and providing a substantial number of affordable homes can help address the housing needs of lower-income individuals and families. It can contribute to creating a more inclusive and diverse community, allowing individuals who may have otherwise struggled to find affordable housing in the area to have a place to live.
Furthermore, the conversion of a long-dead mall into a housing development can revitalize the surrounding area. It can breathe new life into an underutilized space, potentially attracting other businesses, services, and amenities that can benefit the community as a whole.
While the loss of shopping sales tax revenue is a valid concern, it’s important to weigh it against the positive impact of creating affordable housing and revitalizing the area. Public benefits can take various forms, and in this case, providing much-needed housing options and rejuvenating a dormant space are significant contributions to the community’s welfare.
There are serious issues about the viability of the project. It depends on nearly 2,000,000 sf of new office space finding tenants. They are now talking about how the space could be used for life science laboratories as opposed to only office space. Other cities have various restrictions as to what biohazards such labs can utilize, so one would assume Cupertino could adopt those too even with SB35. We are entering a period with a glut of office space and tenants may not opt for such an awful new project for their use. SB35 forced the approval of all this office (turned part lab) space.
The idea of building a concrete hill and calling it a “green roof’ is questionable, because the roof is not needed for any normal roof-like purpose. It is just a way to get fake land to block window views of the ground level from the high rises. And the developers expect the city to pay for maintaining this 29 acre “park” which the city basically can’t afford to operate.
Concerned residents: Developers keep building offices that everyone knows they can’t lease.
Also concerned residents: Developers make too much money and need to spend more on public benefits.
Still concerned residents: Developers need to listen to us more.
The thing with the office space glut reborn as a lab space glut is that the planning is all prospective on the part of the developers and investors. But we are also on a train that is slowing down. The Vallco project may indeed realize that it was building too much office space and hence we have the conversion to describing it as potential lab space. But life science companies are not the same as tech companies have been. It’s not like some careful market research has been done as to where the life science companies prefer to locate. Historically, they have preferred South San Francisco, Burlingame and other parts of San Mateo County.
The developers are just BETTING that they can lure life science companies down into Santa Clara versus San Mateo county, becuase hey, we need more business here. Housing plans might start to address the housing shortage in San Clara County but the developers are working to create more demand, by drawing industries from other areas to the Silicon Valley core.
These plans are subject to evolution and that’s why I question the viability, financially, of the Vallco gimmick project.
I don’t think developers gain control of hundreds of millions of dollars in investment capital by being stupid and reckless. If you have access to high-quality, relevant data, please speak up. Otherwise, I’m going to trust the professionals.
I understand your concerns about the financial viability of the Vallco project, but it’s important to avoid making unfounded assumptions and labeling it as a “gimmick” without proper evidence. Development plans often undergo iterations and adjustments to ensure their feasibility and alignment with the needs of the community.
It’s worth noting that development projects of this scale typically involve extensive research, feasibility studies, and financial analyses to assess their viability. These assessments take into account factors such as market demand, potential revenue streams, and cost projections. Without access to these detailed analyses, it is premature to dismiss the project as financially unviable.
Public-private partnerships and other funding mechanisms are often employed to support large-scale projects like the Vallco development. These partnerships can help mitigate financial risks and ensure the long-term sustainability of the project.
Rather than dismissing the project outright, it would be more productive to engage in constructive dialogue and seek more information about the financial planning, funding sources, and long-term sustainability strategies associated with the Vallco development. This way, a more informed discussion can take place, allowing for a comprehensive evaluation of its viability.
The Vallco project is a gimmick by design. I mean, name one other project that builds a canopy over the whole thing and then doesn’t use any of the canopy space for solar. A solar canopy would be a gimmick of a sort too, if done as a superstructure above the required roof of a building I guess, nut it’s purposeful. The Vallco project was an idea in search of an excuse to implement. Just mild consideration of the side effects of that giant 29 acre canopy shows some serious concerns, but the least you can say about it is that it’s a gimmick.
Then too, it’s a gimmick to expect the municipality to maintain the landscaping on a 29 acre aerial structure like that without interacting with them and taking their input. Consider an aerial park on a superstructure that makes more sense for comparison, the High Line Park in New York CIty. There the superstructure was leftover from an abandoned rail line. It’s 1.45 mikles lon by 30-50 ft wide. It has reasomable uses as a walk or exercise trail in return for the city o perating it. But it’s only about 8 acres and the city involved has a lot more resources than tiny little Cupertino. Having an elevated park with concrete underpinnings is just a gimmick. But tying it into being allegedly required so as to create housing is just absurd.
I understand that you hold strong reservations about the design and implementation of the Vallco project, particularly regarding the proposed canopy and its purported lack of practicality. However, it’s important to approach these concerns with an open mind and consider potential justifications or benefits that may not be immediately apparent.
While the concept of a canopy over the entire development may seem unconventional, innovative design choices can sometimes offer unexpected advantages. For instance, the canopy could provide shelter from inclement weather, creating a more comfortable and inviting space for residents and visitors. Additionally, the canopy might serve aesthetic purposes, enhancing the overall ambiance of the development.
Regarding the absence of solar panels on the canopy, it’s worth noting that implementing solar technology on such a large structure may present practical challenges. Factors such as structural integrity, shading, and the efficiency of solar panels might have been considered during the planning process. It’s important to have access to the detailed architectural and engineering analyses to fully understand the decision-making behind the canopy design.
While the comparison to the High Line Park in New York City is valid in terms of the concept of an elevated park, it’s essential to remember that each project is unique and should be evaluated based on its own merits and context. The Vallco project’s design and purpose may differ significantly, and it is important to consider the specific objectives and benefits it aims to deliver for the Cupertino community.
To form a well-rounded opinion on the Vallco project, it is necessary to gather more information about the design choices, engage in a comprehensive analysis of the proposed benefits, and evaluate any potential drawbacks. Open dialogue and a balanced assessment can help provide a more nuanced understanding of the project’s intentions and potential impact on the community.
A big reason SB35 should not be renewed is that there was no thoughtful of analysis of a project the size of the Vallco replacment. Only a tiny portion of what’s being built is affordable housing, and from any rational perspective the majority of the project is the commercial space. Yet it qualifies for exemption from CEQA? Billions of dollars of development risking all sorts of negative impacts, and not even any analysis was done.
It’s just going to be karmic if the developer runs into major financial losses. But SB35 should not have applied to such a colossal gamble.
While it’s understandable to have concerns about the application of SB35 and the analysis of the Vallco replacement project, it’s important to recognize the significant benefit that over 1200 affordable homes can bring to Cupertino. Affordable housing is a pressing issue in many communities, and the provision of such a substantial number of affordable homes can make a meaningful difference in addressing the housing needs of lower-income individuals and families.
Even though a portion of the project is dedicated to commercial space, it’s worth considering that mixed-use developments often aim to create a balanced and vibrant community with both residential and commercial elements. These developments can contribute to a diverse local economy, provide job opportunities, and foster a sense of community.
The presence of affordable housing as a significant component should not be overlooked. The social impact of providing affordable housing can have far-reaching positive effects on the community, promoting inclusivity and enhancing the quality of life for many residents.
SB35 went too far in allowing uses unrelated to housing to piggy back on alleged efforts to provide housing. It’s not just affordable housing. It’s simply time to stop and let the dust settle without anything like SB35. After all so many other penalties were created after that for cities failing to meet arbitrary housing quotas assigned by the state. Why should tbe cities also get other penalties like the terrible ideas in the Vallco project? Everyone loses with that project, especially the troglodyte housing created under the giant unneeded, dangerous and unneeded 29 acre shade structure.
I understand your concerns about the scope of SB35 and the potential negative impacts associated with the Vallco project. However, it’s important to consider the complex nature of housing development and the need for a balanced approach to address housing shortages.
Regarding the specific concerns about the Vallco project, it’s important to separate the critique of the design choices from the overarching goal of providing affordable housing. While the design elements, such as the shade structure, may be subject to individual opinions, it’s crucial to recognize the significant benefit that over 1200 affordable homes can bring to the community.
Balancing the interests of development, affordable housing, and community well-being is a complex task. It’s essential for stakeholders to engage in open dialogue, consider different perspectives, and work towards finding common ground that maximizes the benefits while minimizing any potential negative impacts.
Ultimately, the goal should be to foster sustainable and inclusive communities where affordable housing is prioritized, and potential negative consequences are thoroughly evaluated and mitigated. This requires ongoing discussions, collaboration, and a focus on the long-term well-being of the community as a whole.
What’s true is that Sandhill’s Saudi financed plans make a mockery of adding inclusive fair affordable housing. Instead they add a pre made slum beneath a fake hill. Ugh.
While it’s important to critically analyze and discuss development projects, it’s essential to base our statements on accurate information. The Vallco project, as proposed by Sandhill, includes the construction of over 1200 affordable homes in Cupertino. These homes aim to address the pressing need for affordable housing in the community.
Individual opinions may differ on design choices, but it’s important to recognize the significance of providing affordable housing options to address housing shortages. Affordable housing plays a vital role in promoting inclusivity and ensuring that individuals and families of diverse income levels can find suitable housing in the area.
It’s important to engage in constructive dialogue and consider the potential positive impact of the affordable housing component of the Vallco project. This can help foster a more nuanced and informed discussion about the overall benefits and challenges associated with the development.
Clarence, I love you, but please quit arguing with the “Long Resident” and join Mountain View YIMBY. We can give you more productive ways to use your time.
Mention of Mountain View YIMBY (which I know counts the article author among its members) reminds me of a counter example of a BETTER housing development project than the Vallco nightmare in Cupertino. It’s right here in Mountain View. The Syufy group owns the land under the Cinemark Movie Theater which alas is only 15 acres compared to Vallco’s 50. But Sywest development actually wants to develop a similar amount of housing there in North Bayshore as what Sandhill wishes to do in Cupertino. Sywest has a plan to crate 2019 units of housing with 20% (400) affordable. The market rate housing is not 2500 square feet units to be sold to the ultra rich, but instead it consists of units which would actually potentially be useful for the local Google employees and the like. So they want a little more on the 15 acres too, beside 2 tall residential towers (like Vallco will see). There’s no monster dome over the project though. Its BMR units will not be relegated to overcast light below a shade structure.
So I give Mountain View YIMBY a concrete proposal. Instead of pushing for more SB35 nonsense, they should push Mountain VIew to OK the SyWest project up there near their workplaces. Sure there are other plans to build 7000 units up there too, but SyWest is probably going to develop it faster. First they tried to get the city to approve it and then when Mountain View became subject to mandated approval under Builder’s Remedy, Sywest put the exact same project into the hopper again.
SyWest should be commended for a believable project that also creates 2000+ homes, only less opulent and luxurious than the project in Cupertino. It’s not like YIMBY has any reason to be agaisnt SyWest. But I don’t hear they have been supporting SyWest either….
See how much better are the units in SyWest both BMR and market rate, than what SB35 foisted on Cupertino. Wake up YIMBY.
It’s encouraging to see multiple developments in different areas aiming to address the housing shortage and provide affordable housing options.
While the Vallco project in Cupertino has a larger land area, it’s important to note that the addition of over 1200 affordable homes is a substantial contribution towards addressing the housing shortage. The inclusion of housing units that cater to the needs of local employees, such as those working at Google and Apple, can help foster a sense of community and provide more housing options for those who work in the area.
Design choices and architectural elements can vary between projects, and it’s valid to have preferences regarding the aesthetics or functionality of different approaches. However, it’s essential to recognize that the provision of affordable housing is a critical aspect that benefits the community as a whole. Each development should be evaluated based on its ability to meet the local housing demand and contribute to creating more inclusive and sustainable neighborhoods.
By welcoming and supporting different initiatives that add to the housing supply, communities can work towards addressing housing affordability and ensuring that a wider range of individuals and families have access to suitable housing options.
I see the fact that the Vallco redesign will add nearly 2,000,000 sf of office space which means jobs for 10,000 employees. Of the 10,000 employees maybe 3,000 could qualify for BMR units. So if the new Vallco brings in 3,000 low income or below moderate income workers, it’s created a net shortage of 1800 housing units.
Then consider the commercial space 400,000 sf and the household employees of the rich people in the $4 Million condos 2500 sf each. So in reality, Vallco’s new form CREATES need for more BMR unit than it does add.
Contrast to the SyWest project with 1600 market rate apartments that are much more modest than the fancy stuff the Saudis are funding in Cupertino. They won’t add as many household employees. SyWest is more balanced. I think this is a good example of how 2 projects can be very different, and how there’s a reason to say NO to one of the types, in the current housing climate at least.
You make an interesting point about the potential impact of adding office space on the demand for affordable housing. The increase in job opportunities can indeed contribute to a higher demand for housing, including affordable options.
To address the housing shortage and ensure a more balanced approach, it’s crucial for cities like Cupertino to consider zoning for higher density housing and implementing inclusive housing policies. By promoting higher density developments, cities can maximize land use efficiency and provide more housing options for a diverse range of income levels.
Considering the current housing climate and the need for a diverse range of housing options, it becomes essential for city planning and zoning policies to encourage the development of more affordable and workforce housing, while also ensuring the creation of job opportunities and economic growth.
By addressing the housing needs of different income levels and promoting a more balanced approach to development, cities can work towards creating more sustainable and inclusive communities.