Cupertino confronts SB166 ‘no net loss’ shortfall; council directs staff to retain consultant
Loading...
Summary
City staff told the Cupertino City Council on March 3 that recent project approvals and a Valco modification left the housing element short in low and moderate categories under SB166; council directed staff to engage a consultant, coordinate with HCD and pursue higher-density corridor sites and other strategies to correct the deficit.
City staff told the Cupertino City Council on March 3 that the city is in a 'no net loss' shortfall for its housing element under state law (SB166) and recommended immediate steps including hiring a consultant, contacting the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and identifying higher-density sites along major corridors to recover capacity.
Luke Connelly (assistant director of community development) outlined the background: Cupertino’s RHNA for the current cycle is 4,588 units and the certified housing element identified 58 properties (roughly 35–36 development sites) with a buffer of about 28%. But because of subsequent applications, pipeline changes and a major modification to the Valco/Bridal project, staff reported deficits of about 327 units in the very low/low category and 22 units in the moderate category. SB166 (and related guidance) treats housing-element sites as a "living document" and requires cities to address shortfalls, generally expecting corrective action within roughly 180 days of finding a deficit.
Staff warned that the 180-day statutory expectation is difficult to meet in practice: rezoning and the required environmental review (CEQA) and outreach are likely to take many months and the CEQA path (addendum vs. standalone EIR) will drive schedule and cost. Staff estimated the budget to amend the housing element and comply with CEQA could run roughly $350,000 to $500,000, with the CEQA work generating the majority of the expense. Staff recommended the city retain an experienced consultant and begin conversations with HCD to demonstrate active steps to address the shortfall.
Council members pressed staff on strategy and feasibility. One council member emphasized the importance of a larger buffer and stronger protections to avoid repeating the current situation; another asked whether an intent letter or a documented plan would be sufficient to HCD in the near term—staff said initial engagement and documentation of corrective intent would be the first step while hiring a consultant to expedite the process. Members also raised retail-protection concerns and asked staff to explore options that focus increased density along major corridors while preserving key commercial corridors where possible.
Public commenters and owners weighed in: Greg Endom, representing the Marina Plaza shopping center, asked the city to upzone his property to 60–80 units per acre to make development feasible. Multiple residents urged protecting retail corridors and said the city should not rush community engagement.
Next steps: council directed staff to return with a proposed scope and budget for a consultant, to continue outreach and to coordinate with HCD; staff said it will present a work program item and budget proposal in the coming weeks. The special meeting adjourned and the council proceeded to its regular session.
