Loading...
CC 07-02-2024 Item No. 7 Housing Element Zoning_Written CommunicaitonsWritten Communications CC 7-02-2024 Item No. 7 Housing Element Zoning From:Nicole Phan To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Agenda Item #7: Amendments for 6th Cycle Housing Element Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 3:08:50 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. Dear Honorable Mayor Sheila Mohan, Vice-Mayor JR Fruen, Councilmembers and staff, I am Nicole – a lifelong resident of Cupertino – writing to you about the Housing Element, an issue extremely important to me. I believe a strong and robust Housing Element in compliance with state law is principal to bolstering Cupertino school enrollment, the city's economy, our community's resilience. It will also mitigate the worsening effects of climate change fueled primarily by single occupancy vehicle emissions due to commuting great lengths in California. The heat waves and severe drought that Cupertino experiences will only get worse and more frequent until we readily allow an increase in housing supply near schools, work, transit and amenities. I strongly urge the council to adopt all of the city staff's recommendations regarding: R3 and R4 Zoning and eliminating the 5-story requirement which will allow for greater flexibility in development Parking standards - which should either be reduced or eliminated completely to allow for even greater flexibility with land use for housing Increasing height limits to 35 feet because General Plan Actions taken by Council (May 2024) already set height limits for various properties The definition of Duplexes as the existing definition of a Duplex is unenforceable under Housing Accountability Act so the council should eliminate the proposed standard. Retain the staff recommendation on retaining the proposed lot coverage standard and increasing FAR standard to 85% (Incorporated into MCA Draft Ordinance) The city has so much potential to create a more vibrant and inclusive city that will strengthen our community and schools AND mitigate the effects of climate change on our environment with these implementations, so please adopt all staff recommendations. Kind regards, Nicole From:Soluna Espinosa Pieb To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 3:04:56 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. To the Cupertino City Council: My name is Soluna Espinosa Pieb. I grew up in Cupertino, and am now living in San Jose due in large part to the cost of housing in Cupertino. The Housing Element is a commendable project that I am enthusiastic to support, especially if it is strengthened by this Council to fully bolster affordable housing projects. I would like to thank Staff for their proposed rezonings, which are necessary for our Housing Element to achieve full compliance with HCD. Our Housing Element will no longer be eligible for state certification if we do not approach our rezonings in a manner that encourages all types of housing. We cannot stand by and watch unnecessary, harmful restrictions characterize Cupertino’s zoning code. Council has received a letter from Cupertino for All describing specific, actionable changes that they, as policymakers, can enact to enhance our rezonings and ensure that HCD will ultimately accept them. I fully support the CFA recommendations and ask that you adopt them as your own. I would like to take a moment to highlight the following recommendations which ensure that our Housing Element is successful in fully answering the requirements of state law to affirmatively further fair housing. First, Council must remove the 5-story limit, relying only on the 70 foot height limit (which is already in place) for R-4 Zoning. This will: Allow for greater flexibility to architects designing housing of different forms for different populations at different income levels; Grant architects more freedom to design housing typologies of varying types and for varying incomes without forcing developers to rely on state-law workarounds like the Density Bonus Law. Our new codes should reflect state law requirements to support a range of housing across different income levels. The 5-story limit is an unnecessary limit that pushes developers toward more expensive housing forms, which is contrary to the general thrust of Housing Element Law, HCD guidance, and affirmatively furthering fair housing principles. Moreover, Council should strengthen the Strategy HE 1.3.6 (The Missing Middle Program). Revisions in the December 2023 submission of the Housing Element changed this strategy from allowing four-unit developments under R-3 standards, which were designed for small apartment buildings, to instead allowing development under the city’s highly restrictive R-2 standards. To fully enable the Strategy to work as it is intended to, the new duplex overlay must be much more flexible than what is currently proposed. In particular, Council should: Remove the change in the definition of a duplex, which requires principal dwelling units to be no more than 200 square feet different from each other; According to the staff report, the change was meant to define comparable sized units, but, in reality, distorts the Missing Middle Program. Council can and should eliminate this proposed standard; Remove the 55% FAR limitation; Expand the 40% lot coverage maximum; Reexamine the interior side setback minimums. Finally, Council should provide additional direction (via requesting staff to partner with stakeholders, community-based organizations, developers, and homeowners) in regards to staff’s recommended Ordinance to adopt objective development Standards. They should do so to ensure that future development standards emphasize increased flexibility and architectural freedom, as opposed to unnecessary restrictions. Thank you for your consideration and effort to foster an inclusive and vibrant Cupertino. Sincerely, Soluna Espinosa Pieb -- All the best, Soluna Espinosa Pieb (Pronouns: they/them/theirs, Mx.) From:Peggy Griffin To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her) Subject:Fwd: 2024-07-02 City Council Meeting Agenda ITEM #7 - HE Re-zoning Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 2:56:37 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. Resending because I forgot to sign my name. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM. Dear Mayor Mohan and Council Members, Please do not make any further changes to the staff’s proposal to complete the Housing Element. The staff knows our city and the various areas and what is required by HCD. These changes are significant as it is and will drastically change our city. Mayor Mohan and Council member Wei, you have repeatedly said you “trust our staff”. This is the time to show you really mean this by passing their proposal without changes. Mayor Mohan and Council member Wei, you ran promising you would preserve “neighborhood integrity”. This is the time to show you meant it by passing the staff’s proposal without changes. Please support the staff and our neighborhoods by passing the staff’s proposal without changes. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:Eric Schaefer To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 2:53:46 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. Dear Cupertino City Staffers and City Council, Do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal. It has already received approval from HCD. Any further changes should consider the following issues: A. Preserve community character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure that new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. B. Support equitable housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex”. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. C. Maintain standards and order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties D. Consider long-term Impact: Align future ordinance updates with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring that changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. Thank you. Sincerely, Eric Schaefer From:Hal and Janet Van Zoeren To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 2:38:00 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. Dear Mayor Mohan and City Council, My name is Janet Van Zoeren, and as you know, I am a resident of Cupertino. I would like to compliment the Staff for their proposed rezonings, which are necessary for our Housing Element to achieve full compliance with HCD. I understand our Housing Element will no longer be eligible for state certification if we do not approach our rezonings in a manner that encourages all types of housing. Council has received a letter from Cupertino for All describing specific, actionable changes that they, as policymakers, can enact to enhance our rezonings and ensure that HCD will ultimately accept them. I fully support the CFA recommendations and ask that you adopt them. Thank you for your consideration and effort to foster an inclusive and vibrant Cupertino. You are close to the finish line on the Housing Element. We will sigh in relief when the HCD approves it for us. Wow, this has been a huge undertaking! Whew! Warm regards, Janet Van Zoeren From:LimTak Cheung To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:Stop adding more aggressive items to the Housing Elements Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 2:08:58 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. Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to ask that you please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Lim Cheung From:hsiaofang chen To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:DO NOT build any building anymore and give me Cupertino residents peaceful lives Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 2:00:35 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. Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I live in Cupertino for over 20 years and I love living here. However, more and more company want to earn money from the city not consider our residents peaceful lives. 20 years ago, I did not need to close the door or garage door and feel safety. However, right now I need to close the door and garage door and use locker for side yard door, I also need to use monitor to avoid strangers or thieves come to my house. We are more threatened than before. More and more people come to the city not want to live here only want to earn money or fraud money or steal things from the city. The construction company only want to build appartments to lease to engineers or people for earning money not for considering give Cupertino better life. I am writing to ask that you please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Hsiaofang Chen From:Philip Nguyen To:City Council Cc:Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject:Agenda Item #7, Municipal Code Text, Specific Plan, Below Market Rate Mitigation Manual and Zoning Map Amendments related to implementing the 6th Cycle Housing Element Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 1:55:34 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. Dear Honorable Mayor Sheila Mohan, Vice-Mayor JR Fruen, Councilmembers and staff, My name is Philip and I am a long-time community member of Cupertino and this issue is very important to me as a person who believes a strong, compliant Housing Element is absolutely paramount to supporting enrollment in Cupertino schools, creating a stronger community overall, as well as mitigate the effects of climate catastrophe fueled especially by single occupancy vehicle emissions in California. The heat wave we are experiencing this week this early in the season will only get worse if we do not take cars off the road through an increase of housing supply near schools, work, transit and amenities. I strongly urge the council to adopt all of the city staff's recommendations especially regarding: Increasing height limit to 35 feet because General Plan Actions taken by Council (May 2024) already set height limits for various properties R4 Zoning and eliminating the 5 story requirement which will allow for greater flexibility in development The definition of Duplexes as the existing definition of a Duplex is unenforceable under Housing Accountability Act so the council should eliminate proposed standard. Parking standards which should either be reduced or eliminated completely to allow for even greater flexibility with land use for housing. The city has an immense amount of potential to create a more resilient and inclusive city that will bolster our community, and schools as well as sustain the environment with these implementations so please adopt all staff recommendations. Sincerely, Philip From:Max K. Agoston To:City Clerk Subject:Housing Plan Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 1:37:50 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. To: Cupertino City Clerk I am writing to ask that you please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Max Agoston 19787 La Mar Drive Cupertino 95014 From:Gauri Chawla To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 1:28:24 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. Good afternoon, Please see the attached letter for Public Comment regarding Agenda Item #7 for Tuesday's (7/2) Council meeting. The letter details suggestions for Cupertino's rezoning to ensure a compliant, state-certified Housing Element. Thanks, Gauri Chawla For Public Comment (7/2) – Item #7 Housing Element … Re:For Public Comment (7/2)–Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings To the Cupertino City Council: My name is Gauri Chawla,and I am a current resident of Cupertino.I grew up here,and went to elementary,middle,and high schools here.As a student and member of my community,I’ve grown up hearing about Cupertino’s continually higher housing prices,and thus declining enrollment.We must see the Housing Element as an opportunity to transform Cupertino into a thriving living environment,and our Rezonings are a crucial part of that. The Housing Element is a commendable project that I am enthusiastic to support,especially if it is strengthened by this Council to fully bolster affordable housing projects.Our Housing Element can be a truly powerful document,if it is approached correctly.Council has a responsibility to fulfill this document's full potential,especially considering HCD's current conditional approval. I would like to thank Staff for their proposed rezonings,which are necessary for our Housing Element to achieve full compliance with HCD.Our Housing Element will no longer be eligible for state certification if we do not approach our rezonings in a manner that encourages all types of housing.We cannot stand by and watch unnecessary,harmful restrictions characterize Cupertino’s zoning code. Council has received a letter from Cupertino for All describing specific,actionable changes that they,as policymakers,can enact to enhance our rezonings and ensure that HCD will ultimately accept them.I fully support the CFA recommendations and ask that you adopt them as your own,but also add in my own suggestions that go further than what is outlined in CFA's letter. Council must remove the 5-story limit,relying only on the 70 foot height limit (which is already in place)for R-4 Zoning.This will: ●Allow for greater flexibility to architects designing housing of different forms for different populations at different income levels; ●Grant architects more freedom to design housing typologies of varying types and for varying incomes without forcing developers to rely on state-law workarounds like the Density Bonus Law. Our new codes should reflect state law requirements to support a range of housing across different income levels.The 5-story limit is an unnecessary limit that pushes developers toward more expensive housing forms,which is contrary to the general thrust of Housing Element Law,HCD guidance,and affirmatively furthering fair housing principles. Moreover,Council should strengthen the Strategy HE 1.3.6 (The Missing Middle Program). Revisions in the December 2023 submission of the Housing Element changed this strategy from allowing four-unit developments under R-3 standards,which were designed for small apartment buildings,to instead allowing development under the city’s highly restrictive R-2 standards. To fully enable the Strategy to work as it is intended to,the new duplex overlay must be much more flexible than what is currently proposed.In particular,Council should: ●Remove the change in the definition of a duplex,which requires principal dwelling units to be no more than 200 square feet different from each other; ○According to the staff report,the change was meant to define comparable sized units,but,in reality,distorts the Missing Middle Program.Council can and should eliminate this proposed standard; ●Remove the 55%FAR limitation.This limitation is not only redundant in its application, but has no bearing on the reality of duplex and other R-2 zoning standards.The Staff Report claims that this limitation is in place to avoid possible 80%FAR ratios,but no duplex in Cupertino has this ratio.There is no reason to limit FAR due to a hypothetical fear of expansion; ●Expand the 40%lot coverage maximum; ●Reexamine the interior side setback minimums and implement a 5 feet minimum as opposed to 12; ●Eliminate parking standards for principal dwelling units.As they are currently,much of the restrictions leave no room for an actual dwelling unit;all this room is made for cars. Council should remember their obligation to housing individuals,not cars,and make it so that lot coverage is dedicated to living space for people. Finally,Council should provide additional direction (via requesting staff to partner with stakeholders,community-based organizations,developers,and homeowners)in regards to staff ’s recommended Ordinance to adopt objective development Standards.They should do so to ensure that future development standards emphasize increased flexibility and architectural freedom, as opposed to unnecessary restrictions. Thank you for your consideration and effort to foster an inclusive and vibrant Cupertino. Sincerely, Gauri Chawla From:Debbie Timmers To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:7/2 Agenda (Rezoning: Item #7) Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 1:14:15 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, my name is Debra Timmers. I have been a resident of Cupertino for the past decade, and I love living here. I purchased a home with my daughter and son-in-law in 2014 and can personally attest to the scarcity of affordable housing in our city. The situation has become so dire that if I were, instead, to purchase today, I would be unable to, even with pooling my resources with my daughter and son-in-law, both of whom are PhD engineers in high-tech firms. I live in an area with multi-family housing, like ours, and our neighbors are wonderful. I can't imagine why anyone would want to limit residents like us. This lack of affordable housing has a profound impact on our community. Each year, several families with children attending my grandsons' Cupertino public school are forced to relocate due to financial constraints. This not only disrupts friendships but also threatens the viability of our local elementary school, which could eventually face closure. I express my gratitude to the staff for their proposed rezonings, which are essential for our Housing Element to achieve full compliance with the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). As stated in the April 10, 2024 letter from the HCD, our Housing Element will not be eligible for state certification if we do not rezone in a manner that encourages all types of housing. 2024-04-10 Letter from HCD. It is imperative that Cupertino's zoning code does not perpetuate unnecessary and harmful restrictions. Failure to obtain certification would result in the loss of local control and impede access to potential grants. I fully support the recommendations of Cupertino For All and urge the Council to adopt them. Removing the 5-story limit while retaining the existing 70-foot height limit for R-4 Zoning is crucial. Additionally, the Council should bolster Strategy HE 1.3.6 (The Missing Middle Program) and eliminate the proposed change in the definition of a duplex. Future development standards must prioritize flexibility and architectural design freedom rather than imposing unwarranted restrictions. Thank you for your commitment and efforts in cultivating an environment that embraces diversity and enhances the vibrancy of our wonderful Cupertino community. Thank you, too, for your service and dedication. . Sincerely, Debra Timmers From:Yvonne Strom To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezoning Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 12:25:58 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. Dear Cupertino City Council, I am a homeowner in Cupertino, and I am very pleased to see rezoning moving forward with improvements for building much needed housing at all levels. Thanks to the staff, the planning commissioners, and everyone who has worked toward this important milestone so far. In the spirit of not having to revisit rezoning again very soon, I hope you will implement the additional recommendations proposed by Cupertino For All. These are thoughtful, common sense zoning rules to allow design flexibility and avoid unintended incentives toward more expensive housing. 1. Remove the 5-story limit in R-4 zones, and rely only on the 70 foot height limit. As shown in the Planning Commission discussion of this item, the city’s consultant described how the 5-story limit would foster development of amenity-rich high-density housing with units that have very high ceilings → That is code for expensive housing 2. Strengthen the Missing Middle Program (HE section 1.3.6) to allow flexibility to build more types of housing at all income levels. Specifically, - Remove the change to the definition of a “duplex” in Section 19.08.030 - Eliminate minimum lot size requirements, and allow lot coverage up to 50% - Align side yard setbacks in R-2 zone to be consistent with R-1 rules - Remove the 55% FAR limitation - Reduce parking requirements to 1 enclosed and 1 exposed per unit 3. To summarize, Council should provide additional direction to the City Staff so that future development standards err on the side of increased flexibility and architectural freedom rather than creating new or unnecessary restrictions. Thank you again for your efforts toward rezoning in Cupertino and embracing the spirit of affirmatively furthering fair housing in our city. Respectfully, Yvonne Thorstenson From:tscannell01@earthlink.net To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:Bring Cupertino Housing Element into full compliance Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 11:21:20 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. To the member of the City Council I have been a resident of Cupertino since 1980. I support efforts to maintain Cupertino as a vibrant city open to resident of all incomes. As such, I am in support of bringing Cupertino’s Housing Element into full compliance with State Law. I appreciate the City Council’s and Planning Commission recent actions in this regard. The City Council has recently received a letter from Cupertino for All describing specific, actionable changes that you, as policymakers, can enact to enhance our rezonings and ensure that state will ultimately accept them. I support the CFA recommendations and ask that you adopt them as your own. Best regards Tom Scannell From:J Shearin To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Make sensible zoning changes to encourage more housing | City Council Agenda item # 7 Housing Element Rezonings (July 2, 2024) Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 11:00:23 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. Dear Honorable Mayor Mohan, City Councilmembers, and City Manager Wu: My family and I have rented our home here in Cupertino for the past 15 years and are looking for long-term housing here. As such, I hope you consider my viewpoint as someone who is deeply invested in Cupertino’s Housing Element plan for building 4500 homes over the next eight years. This cycle’s Housing Element has given a sense of hope for all those who wish for housing here in Cupertino that it will be built soon. First, I want to say thank you as I appreciate all the work done by the City Council and city staff to get us to this point. There still some needed small zoning changes that need to be made to offer greater inclusion and encourage more housing. The minor zoning changes (tweaks, really) are a personal issue for many current residents including myself, not just lines in a zoning document that don’t have real world implications. My daughter, for example, who lives with us right now, could really use a small duplex to move into, which there are no where near enough supply today in Cupertino. My husband and I would really like to retire into a small condo or one side of a duplex ourselves. These are housing options that are just not very available here in Cupertino, and have a lot of demand. Making these changes could make real and discernible change. Overall, I have read the Cupertino for All recommendations to the Council and support them. I urge you to adopt them. I am personally most concerned about the following changes which will encourage more duplexes to be built or converted. These are commonsense changes that should be made to the zoning changes. Specifically: Eliminating the 55% Floor Area Ratio for R-2 homes, as other constraints will work without it for lot coverage. Eliminating the requirement that homes in a duplex are equal size (within 200 sq ft), which reduces flexibility for homeowners considering subdividing or those planning to build for families of all sizes. This requirement will discourage building of duplexes in favor of large single family homes with small ADUs instead. Allowing 5 foot setbacks on the sides of R-2 duplexes, like R-1 zoning. (The Cupertino For All recommendation is to “reexamine the interior side setback minimums “ and I am in favor of this as long as it is no smaller than 5 feet.) This is sensible and keeps neighborhood consistency. Eliminating the minimum lot requirement for R-2 homes. As long as it meets all our other standards, we should not be constraining building new homes in this way. Eliminating the requirement to have more than 1 interior parking space per side of the duplex, and 1 exterior parking space. Land space should be for people to live on, not as concrete parking which may or may not be ever used. This has been a long road but the end is in sight with these zoning changes. We need to make sure that we pass these final ‘hurdles’ that HCD is looking for, so that we can get final approval which sticks for our Housing Element. Thank you for considering my input today. I urge you to encourage more housing by making these changes! Best Wishes, Jennifer Shearin ----------------------------------- This message is from my personal email account. I am only writing as myself, not as a representative or spokesperson for any other organization. From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Council; City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Elimination of Parking in Cupertino in Agenda Item 7 (City Council 4/2/24) Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 1:00:24 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. Dear City Council: I am very concerned about the city trying to reduce or eliminate parking in the city of Cupertino in Item Number 7 of the Cupertino City Council Meeting Agenda in 7/2/24. Number 7 cites AB 2097 by Assemblymember Laura Friedman. I have disagreed with AB 2097 since the day it was put forward by Laura Friedman in 2022 and signed by Governor Newsom. The public in California never had any ability to vote on whether they agreed with This preposterous bill. I think this bill is discriminatory toward people who do not walk well. It is an egotistical, judgemental and Snobby bill which ignores anyone in the public who has difficulty moving or does not agree With the premise of the bill which is to eliminate the use of cars. No one gave the public the ability to disagree with this nasty bill in 2022 so people are Having to do it now that HCD is putting Missing Middle in Cupertino's Housing Element. I think AB 2097 is wrong and I think Missing Middle is wrong. This bill and this dogma of Missing Middle have no right to restrict the parking in Cupertino. Why are they doing this? To make builders not have to provide parking since it makes it too expensive for them To build. This is just a free ride that Ms Friedman is giving her developer friends who Paid for her bill. She didn't seem to ask anyone else in the state. She just did pay to Play. You give me the money and I will write you a bill so you don't have to provide parking. Parking should be provided in abundance in Cupertino. If someone thinks New York City Transit Is so great, that person should probably move to New York and use it, rather than whine And complain and accuse California of not being like New York. These people do not seem To understand the history of the Bay Area in California. The Bay Area was a rural agricultural Area with orchards. It was developed as an agricultural area. It is not New York. Anyone who Does not understand this needs to go back and look at the history of the Bay Area in California or indeed the whole state. Some of the statements made about how California should be like New York are truly astounding. They are really illogical and show a lack of understanding or comprehension of California or its history. In fact they Make blanket judgements about the people who live in California that are truly disrespectful and Vicious. Please do not allow the parking in Cupertino to be reduced as Item Number 7 of the City Council Agenda from the 7/2/24 City Council Meeting is trying to do. Please do not Assume this is the will of the people of Cupertino. Please do assume AB 2097 is the Will of the people of Cupertino or even those of the people of California. We never got A chance to vote on AB 2097 and we don't seem to be getting a vote in this Missing Middle Dogma being inserted into the Housing Element, especially when groups pushing Missing Middle Dogma like Yimby Law have interfered in our city's Housing Element already. The reduction of parking in Cupertino also affects who I choose to vote for in City Council In November, 2024 as well as who I vote for elected offices in the state and who I vote For governor in the future and who I will even vote for president in 2028 because I will not Vote for our current governor for president since he signed AB 2097 into law in the First place. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin From:Christine Cheng To:City Clerk; City Council; Pamela Wu; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly Subject:No higher density or overdevelopment please! Date:Wednesday, June 26, 2024 9:17:35 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. Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Christine Cheng and family Cupertino residents and voters From:Deepak Balasubramaniam To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:Please pass the HCD approved Housing Element Proposal draft without delay! Date:Wednesday, June 26, 2024 6:40:11 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. Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Deepak Balasubramaniam Cupertino resident and voter From:Uma Krishnan To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:*Urgent call to action. * Date:Wednesday, June 26, 2024 6:28:06 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. Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Uma Krishnan Cupertino resident and voter From:Bikram Srivastava To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:Re: Cupertino housing element draft and rezoning Date:Wednesday, June 26, 2024 3:35:03 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. Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Bikram Srivastava Cupertino resident and voter From:Xiangchen Xu To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:Please keep the drafted Housing Elements Date:Wednesday, June 26, 2024 3:34:16 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.  Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Councilmembers, I am writing to express my support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Please keep my email in record. Thank you! Sincerely yours, Xiangchen From:Sunil Malkani To:Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Council; City Clerk Subject:Housing Element Proposal Date:Wednesday, June 26, 2024 3:04:21 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. Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Sunil Malkani Cupertino resident and voter -- Sunil Malkani From:Ashwin Krishnan To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:Urgent call to action Cupertino council members Date:Wednesday, June 26, 2024 2:52:18 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. Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Ashwin Krishnan, Cupertino resident and voter From:Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:Cupertino Housing Draft and Rezoning Date:Wednesday, June 26, 2024 2:06:53 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. Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Yuva Athur Cupertino resident and voter From:Jay S To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:Support for Maintaining Current Housing Element Draft and Rezoning Proposal Date:Wednesday, June 26, 2024 1:30:05 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. Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Jayshri Yadwadkar Cupertino resident and voter 408-888-1543(c) == From:S B To:City Council; City Clerk; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu Subject:Full support for the housing element Date:Wednesday, June 26, 2024 1:14:40 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. Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Sashi Begur Cupertino resident and voter Sent from my iPhone From:Deepa Mahendraker To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:Regarding proposed housing element draft and re-zoning Date:Wednesday, June 26, 2024 12:54:04 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. Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Deepa Mahendraker Cupertino resident and voter From:Rhoda Fry To:Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Tina Kapoor; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her) Cc:City Council; City Clerk Subject:Please leave housing element as is Date:Wednesday, June 26, 2024 11:46:08 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. Dear City Manager Wu, The Housing Element has been an arduous overly-long expensive process. Please, we’re near the finish line, let’s get it done. Through multiple roadblocks and delays, Assistant Director of Community Development Luke Connolly has deftly managed to usher the housing element toward compliance. I am grateful for the Planning Department’s hard work. I was dismayed to watch the Planning Commission meeting where commissioners proposed to further loosen our zoning rules. The impacts of the Housing Element are already drastic – let’s please not make it worse and let’s please expedite its completion. The City gave up CEQA to expedite the Housing Element, let’s not delay it any further. We are already experiencing a reduced quality of life through the City’s densification. Please do not add more density, reduce parking or increase building heights to our zoning. - Ever since 9 homes replaced a church at the end of my street, I get a nasty sewer smell in my front yard and cannot open the windows that face the street on a hot day. - I can’t imagine what further densification could do on my street - infrastructure is being overwhelmed and parking is becoming hard to find. - Taller buildings are also making it harder to add solar and reduce what little privacy we have Presently, the State does not allow down-zoning. Please, let’s live with our housing element and new zoning rules for a few years before making any more changes. With Gratitude, Rhoda Fry, 40+ year Cupertino Resident Virus-free.www.avg.com From:Ravi Kiran Singh To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:Support for Maintaining Current Housing Element Draft and Rezoning Proposal Date:Wednesday, June 26, 2024 10:50:23 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. Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I'm writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. I urge you to maintain the current proposal, which has already received HCD approval, and avoid making significant changes that could jeopardize the housing element and Builders Remedy. I believe it's crucial to balance new housing with preserving our community's character and existing standards. I request that you: - Maintain the 5-story limit in R-4 zones - Retain the 55% FAR limitation - Keep the current definition of a duplex - Preserve existing parking requirements - Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements - Retain existing interior side yard setbacks I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Ravi Kiran Singh Cupertino resident and voter From:Santosh Rao To:City Clerk Subject:Fw: Support for Maintaining Current Housing Element Draft and Rezoning Proposal. Please do NOT make further changes. Date:Wednesday, June 26, 2024 10:15:37 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. Dear City Clerk, Please include my letter below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting. Thank you for your excellent contributions on and off Dias and your service to the city. We appreciate your great work. Thanks, Santosh Rao Begin forwarded message: On Wednesday, June 26, 2024, 10:12 AM, Santosh Rao <santo_a_rao@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do NOT make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional last minute changes from unqualified zealots who second guess our very capable and experienced Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh in the last minute. They do not understand the unique needs of our community. Now is NOT the time for late breaking changes risking another round of reviews and increasing our exposure to builders remedy. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address housing needs and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my voting decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Santosh Rao Cupertino resident, US citizen and US voter Working in Cupertino since 1998 Living in Cupertino since 2015 From:Abdullah Enes Kut To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 2:34:44 PM Attachments:Housing Element Rezoning Recommendations - Abdullah Enes Kut.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. Good Afternoon I hope this email finds you well. I am Abdullah Enes Kut, an inhabitant and student of the city of Cupertino, who wishes to pioneer a positive impact for the community at large. Attached below, please find a recommendation letter with proposed policies towards the inclusivity, affordability and accessibility of the housing element of the city of Cupertino, which risks ineligibility from state certification at this time. Mutual effort, and the recommendations proposed by the CFA, map out a detailed plan to overcome this barrier, to which I urge your attention. Thank you for your positive work towards the city we call home, and for considering our request towards a better Cupertino, for all. Sincerely, Abdullah Enes Kut To the Cupertino City Council: I hope this letter finds you well.My name is Abdullah Enes Kut.I am a resident,student and worker at Cupertino.The Housing Element is a commendable project that I am enthusiastic to support,especially if it is strengthened by this Council to fully bolster affordable housing projects.In this letter,I would like to address previous successes,as well as propose and promote better policies,to strengthen the inclusivity,affordability and accessibility of housing in Cupertino as an entity. I would like to thank Staff for their proposed rezonings,which are necessary for our Housing Element to achieve full compliance with HCD.Our Housing Element will no longer be eligible for state certification if we do not approach our rezonings in a manner that encourages all types of housing.We cannot stand by and watch unnecessary,harmful restrictions characterize Cupertino’s zoning code. Council has received a letter from Cupertino for All describing specific,actionable changes that they,as policymakers,can enact to enhance our rezonings and ensure that HCD will ultimately accept them.I fully support the CFA recommendations and ask that you adopt them as your own. I would like to take a moment to highlight the following recommendations which ensure that our Housing Element is successful in fully answering the requirements of state law to affirmatively further fair housing. First,Council must remove the 5-story limit,relying only on the 70 foot height limit (which is already in place)for R-4 Zoning.This will: ●Allow for greater flexibility to architects designing housing of different forms for different populations at different income levels; ●Grant architects more freedom to design housing typologies of varying types and for varying incomes without forcing developers to rely on state-law workarounds like the Density Bonus Law. Our new codes should reflect state law requirements to support a range of housing across different income levels.The 5-story limit is an unnecessary limit that pushes developers toward more expensive housing forms,which is contrary to the general thrust of Housing Element Law, HCD guidance,and affirmatively furthering fair housing principles. Moreover,Council should strengthen the Strategy HE 1.3.6 (The Missing Middle Program). Revisions in the December 2023 submission of the Housing Element changed this strategy from allowing four-unit developments under R-3 standards,which were designed for small apartment buildings,to instead allowing development under the city’s highly restrictive R-2 standards. To fully enable the Strategy to work as it is intended to,the new duplex overlay must be much more flexible than what is currently proposed.In particular,Council should: ●Remove the change in the definition of a duplex,which requires principal dwelling units to be no more than 200 square feet different from each other; ○According to the staff report,the change was meant to define comparable sized units,but,in reality,distorts the Missing Middle Program.Council can and should eliminate this proposed standard; ●Remove the 55%FAR limitation; ●Expand the 40%lot coverage maximum; ●Reexamine the interior side setback minimums. Finally,Council should provide additional direction (via requesting staff to partner with stakeholders,community-based organizations,developers,and homeowners)in regards to staff ’s recommended Ordinance to adopt objective development Standards.They should do so to ensure that future development standards emphasize increased flexibility and architectural freedom,as opposed to unnecessary restrictions. Thank you for your consideration and effort to foster an inclusive and vibrant Cupertino. Sincerely, Abdullah Enes Kut From:susan chen To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:Stop adding more aggressive items to the Housing Elements Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 3:22:11 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. Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to ask that you please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Susan Chen, Cupertino citizen From:Sean Hughes To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 3:27:13 PM Attachments:Council_Comment-Hughes-DraftMCA-07.02.24_.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, I would like to the submit the attached document as comment for Agenda Item 7 in tomorrow's Council Meeting. Thank you, Sean Re: For Public Comment (7/2) on Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings To Cupertino’s City Council: My name is Jun-Xiong (Sean) Hughes, and I am a former resident in Cupertino; I grew up and went to school here, and also lived here from 2019 through the most of the 2020 COVID pandemic. I moved away, in large-part due to a lack of affordable housing, and have followed the Housing Element process with interest given the implications it has for Cupertino’s inclusivity and climate change policies. I appreciate the staff ’s work and changes to the municipal code amendments, in particular the increase to 85% Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) requirement in the Townhome (TH) combining district, the consideration of Cupertino for All’s letter within the staff report and the suggested amendments for Council consideration. I hope the Council can adopt many of these amendments, as the current proposal without amendments appears inadequate to successfully achieve the goals and requirements of our Housing Element (HE). Furthermore, I hope that additional changes could be beneficial for creating a development environment that is more open, more beneficial to the City, and more supportive of the HE goals around affordability and inclusion of current and future residents. In the past, Cupertino- not unlike many other cities across the country- have purposefully or inadvertently made the development of diverse housing opportunities difficult or logistically improbable by a myriad of arbitrary and restrictive zoning codes and housing policies. With these amendments, Cupertino has a rare opportunity to build a better “outline” for this City’s development. I hope to see the following: ● Align code amendments to support, not frustrate, the stated purpose of Strategy HE-1.3.6: Encourage Missing-Middle Housing Developments to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. ○ As outlined in previous drafts, this strategy should open up historically exclusive neighborhoods to a diverse range of residents, enhancing our community’s strength through diversity and building a more stable and sustainable community. Amendments should be considered in this context, and efforts should be made to avoid diluting the effectiveness of programs like this one. ○ For example, to my understanding the 55% floor-area ratio requirement in the R-2 “overlay” (Part K. in Section 19.28.040, Permits required for development in Single-Family Zones) is a new restriction that goes beyond the underlying R-2 standard. This new restriction seems randomly instituted, limits the effectiveness of this “overlay” policy within the missing-middle strategy 1.3.6, and will likely restrict the type of buildings possible in a zone with already smaller lots. ○ Additionally, the change to the definition of a “duplex” in the “Definitions” (Section 19.08.030), creates a 200-foot distance requirement between primary dwelling units. The staff report for the July 2, 2024 Council meeting acknowledges that this “may create legal non-conforming structures within R2”, and states that this standard was created to have an objective standard for comparable units, and dissuade the development of “very large single-family homes with attached ADU”. While the possibility of very large single-family home with an attached ADU is not preferable to a duplex development from a affordability and unit volume perspective, there are other policy mechanisms and programs that could dissuade or persuade the development of duplexes, rather than legislating through the zoning code in a way that may create net-new problems. ○ Given the importance of AFFH compliance within the HE, staff and the City should consider removing the additional FAR requirement on R-2 (Duplex) “overlay” standards and align the “overlay” standards with the underlying R-2 standards instead of adding new requirements, to ensure the success of Strategy 1.3.6 rather than undercutting its scope and effectiveness. ● Re-evaluate parking standards in all zones with consideration of commitments made in the Climate Action Plan Update 2.0 in 2023, and in consideration of neighboring jurisdictions who have gone further and created parking maximums rather than minimum requirements. ○ I support calls to reduce parking minimums, but given neighboring jurisdiction policies and the desire for Cupertino to be a leader in climate action and improve walkability, there should be consideration of the removal or implementation of maximums rather than parking minimums. ● Review and consider lowering all setback requirements within the R-3 and R-4 zones; especially the additional “upper-floor ” setbacks. ○ These standards do not seem necessary for building integrity or success of a project, as other cities and neighborhood examples demonstrate otherwise. (See example below, or this lot for a townhome example of a project with high lot coverage, making use of a small lot). ○ Some discussion in the staff report regarding the TH district suggests that expanded lot coverage would not be “sustainable” or in-line with “urban heat island” goals - suggesting that it would not be possible for lots to have space for mature trees. However, the trade-off of more desirable or feasible townhomes on smaller plots of land seem much more sustainable or climate action forward than the trade-off of having a mature tree on every single TH lot. Without even mentioning that there are other ways of greening or cooling a space, it is worth considering how higher density developments would likely have a much greater environmental impact than latching onto an idea that a mature tree on every lot is the only way to design a home with less urban heat-island impacts. In short, concepts of “gray” vs. “green” environmentalism should be considered when deliberating trade-offs, especially in districts directly adjacent to medium to very high-density developments. ● For R-4 zones in particular: ○ Remove the five-story restriction ○ Consider a higher, or removal altogether, of a height limit in R-4 zones ○ Re-consider the “stair-stepped” or upper floor setback requirements to a more reasonable number like 8 feet, and remove the additional 10 foot requirement if adjacent to primary residential zones (which could be R-3 or TH zones anyways) ○ Remove or expand the maximum lot coverage restriction to 70 or 80 percent of net lot area In particular, the R-4 zone is rather disappointing. My understanding is that the R-4 zone is supposed to be one of our most ambitious zoning districts meant to support “high to very-high” density development. However the restrictions here don’t seem very ambitious nor helpful, and may actively limit the quality of developments and housing opportunities we could have on our already very limited sites. There was discussion in the last planning commission meeting that the reference to a five-story restriction was for a) layman’s understanding and b) could encourage development of mixed-use buildings. However, code amendments have legal implications so the layman’s understanding is of lesser importance than the highly prescriptive and restrictive nature of the five-story limit, and we did not see any evidence to support the idea why the presence of a five-story limit would be any less supportive of mixed-use development than the absence of a limit in the code. In the staff report, there was discussion that the story / height limit was based on developer surveys and feedback, but it is difficult to comprehend how no limit or a higher limit would be detrimental to developments in the supposedly most ambitious zoning district in the City. Cupertino is home to one of the most profitable companies in the world, and constraining future development to modest heights barely taller than the “Main Street Cupertino” development seems baffling and not very sustainable from a climate action perspective. Furthermore, real-world projects raise questions of the value of many of these restrictions. For example, I currently reside in Ballard, a neighborhood in Seattle: this development in Ballard ( 2318 NW MARKET ST 98107 ) is on ~50,000 sq. ft lot with nearly 80% lot coverage, height at 75 feet (retail 14, apartment levels 10), setbacks (above 45 ft: 10 feet (avg), above 65 ft: 15 feet (avg)) meet zoning requirements of 8 feet from front lot line, and the project has less than 250 units. This project is not the tallest building in the neighborhood and is relatively modest in size, and while I understand the development environment is different between here and Cupertino, the point is that this type of project seems illegal to build when considered against the proposed R-4 standards. This seems significantly counter-intuitive toward the stated purpose of this new zone and meeting our HE goals. Thank you for your consideration and continued work. Regards, Sean Hughes From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Council Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City Clerk Subject:Missing Middle in the Housing Element Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 3:42:12 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. Dear City Council: Why are we putting Missing Middle in our Housing Element? It has no place in the Housing Element. All these yimby groups are demanding we put Missing Middle in our Housing Element. Yimby Law is demanding we put Missing Middle in our Housing Element. These Pay to Play groups are all getting money from unknown sources and trying to take over Our Housing Element. They are demanding we do this and that and rezone this and That. Who are these people? Where did they get the money from to do this? Is this like Forever California where groups or PACs with money from who knows where are Going to take over all the land and cities in California? This money may be coming From outside of the country. Are they just going to take over every city and elected position in the state? Why doesn't the governor confront Missing Middle for what it is: Money from anarchists And Communist sources. It has no place in our Housing Element or cities. Please Protect our city from these things bad money is trying to buy. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Fwd: Missing Middle in the Housing Element Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 3:43:52 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. FYI. Please add these comments as public comments for Agenda Item Number 7 in The 7/2/24 City Council meeting. Thank you. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Missing Middle in the Housing Element From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024, 3:41 PM To: citycouncil@cupertino.org CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com,cityclerk@cupertino.org Dear City Council: Why are we putting Missing Middle in our Housing Element? It has no place in the Housing Element. All these yimby groups are demanding we put Missing Middle in our Housing Element. Yimby Law is demanding we put Missing Middle in our Housing Element. These Pay to Play groups are all getting money from unknown sources and trying to take over Our Housing Element. They are demanding we do this and that and rezone this and That. Who are these people? Where did they get the money from to do this? Is this like Forever California where groups or PACs with money from who knows where are Going to take over all the land and cities in California? This money may be coming From outside of the country. Are they just going to take over every city and elected position in the state? Why doesn't the governor confront Missing Middle for what it is: Money from anarchists And Communist sources. It has no place in our Housing Element or cities. Please Protect our city from these things bad money is trying to buy. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin From:John Zhao To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 3:47:33 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. Dear City Council: I am writing to you in my capacity as an individual, not as a member of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission. I am a renter living with my family in Cupertino. I am happy to see the progress that the City has made on the Housing Element, though this Council has an important opportunity to strengthen the plan to more effectively pursue affordable housing and sound planning for the future of our community. I would like to thank Staff for their proposed rezonings, which are necessary for our Housing Element to achieve full compliance with HCD. Our Housing Element will no longer be eligible for state certification if we do not rezone to allow for a diversity of types of homes, including duplexes, fourplexes, and multi- story multi-family housing units. Unnecessary zoning restrictions in the city's zoning code will only hamper our ability to plan for an inclusive, vibrant community. Council has received a letter from Cupertino for All describing specific, actionable changes that they, as policymakers, can enact to enhance our rezonings and ensure that HCD will ultimately accept them. I fully support the CFA recommendations and ask that you adopt them as your own. I would like to take a moment to highlight the following recommendations which ensure that our Housing Element is successful in fully answering the requirements of state law to affirmatively further fair housing. First, Council must remove the 5-story limit, relying only on the 70 foot height limit (which is already in place) for R-4 Zoning. This will: Allow for greater flexibility to architects designing housing of different forms for different populations at different income levels; Grant architects more freedom to design housing typologies of varying types and for varying incomes without forcing developers to rely on state-law workarounds like the Density Bonus Law. Our new codes should reflect state law requirements to support a range of housing across different income levels. The 5-story limit is an unnecessary limit that pushes developers toward more expensive housing forms, which is contrary to the general thrust of Housing Element Law, HCD guidance, and affirmatively furthering fair housing principles. Moreover, Council should strengthen the Strategy HE 1.3.6 (The Missing Middle Program). Revisions in the December 2023 submission of the Housing Element changed this strategy from allowing four-unit developments under R-3 standards, which were designed for small apartment buildings, to instead allowing development under the city’s highly restrictive R-2 standards. To fully enable the Strategy to work as it is intended to, the new duplex overlay must be much more flexible than what is currently proposed. In particular, Council should: Remove the change in the definition of a duplex, which requires principal dwelling units to be no more than 200 square feet different from each other; According to the staff report, the change was meant to define comparable sized units, but, in reality, distorts the Missing Middle Program. Council can and should eliminate this proposed standard; Remove the 55% FAR limitation; Expand the 40% lot coverage maximum; Reexamine the interior side setback minimums. Third, Council should provide additional direction (via requesting staff to partner with stakeholders, community-based organizations, developers, and homeowners) in regards to staff’s recommended Ordinance to adopt objective development Standards. They should do so to ensure that future development standards emphasize increased flexibility and architectural freedom, as opposed to unnecessary restrictions. In general, across different zoning types, the City should reconsider the purpose of FAR, setbacks, and parking standards. These zoning tools currently lead to sprawled suburban design, with seas of parking lots and architecture that is hostile to non- automobile users. This leads to an unpleasant experience for all involved, especially for pedestrians and active transportation users. Reconsidering these restrictive requirements - especially for R2, R3, and R4 zoning - would enable us to plan for a city that actually centers people's experiences over automobiles. There is a reason why some people are so drawn to indoor malls -- it's because (to some degree) they are a snippet of what an actually walkable and human-centered (sub)urban experience can feel like. Rather than keeping that design isolated in a moat of parking lots, why not actually integrate it into our cityscape? Thank you for your consideration and effort to foster an inclusive and vibrant Cupertino. Sincerely, John Zhao representing myself only Commissioner, Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Commission From:Swim5am (Connie Cunningham) To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:2024-7-2 City Council Agenda Item 7 Rezoning for Housing Element Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 3:49:17 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 Chair Mohan, Vice Chair Fruen and Councilmembers, My name is Connie Cunningham, Chair, Housing Commission, self only, homeowner I have lived here 37 years. Both my step-children attended local elementary, middle schools and high schools. After college, they each chose to move away from Cupertino because the cost of homes was too high. That was in the early 1990’s. The situation is worse now for our children who live in Cupertino through high school, but are forced to live elsewhere afterwards. Thank you for adopting the Housing Element in May! The Housing Element is a commendable project that I am enthusiastic to support, especially if it is strengthened by this Council to fully bolster affordable housing projects. I would like to thank Staff for their proposed rezonings, which are necessary for our Housing Element to achieve full compliance with HCD. Our Housing Element will no longer be eligible for state certification if we do not approach our rezonings in a manner that encourages all types of housing. We cannot stand by and watch unnecessary, harmful restrictions characterize Cupertino’s zoning code. I like many of the rezoning topics, especially: New Chapter 19.38 that includes universal design standards for people of all ages and abilities, as well as standards for the maintenance of common open spaces and landscaping. New Chapter 19.50 Emergency Shelters: State Law AB 2339 One point I would like to emphasize and agree with is the Staff Comment on Page 7 of their Staff Report, dealing with the TH Combining District. Eliminating the lot coverage standard could allow developments to occur with limited areas for landscaping. This would be contrary to many of the City’s policies related to urban heat island effect, sustainability, and maintaining an urban tree canopy. Staff recommends retaining the lot coverage standard to ensure that there continue to be opportunities to plant trees that can attain a substantial stature at maturity and will be in a more appropriate scale for projects that are more urban in nature. It is important to provide not only homes, but other protections like these, that are designed for all residents. Council has received a letter from Cupertino for All describing specific, actionable changes that they, as policymakers, can enact to enhance our rezonings and ensure that HCD will ultimately accept them. I fully support the CFA recommendations and ask that you adopt them as your own. I would, also, like to take a moment to highlight the following recommendations which ensure that our Housing Element is successful in fully answering the requirements of state law to affirmatively further fair housing. First, Council must remove the 5-story limit, relying only on the 70 foot height limit (which is already in place) for R-4 Zoning. This will: Allow for greater flexibility to architects designing housing of different forms for different populations at different income levels; Grant architects more freedom to design housing typologies of varying types and for varying incomes without forcing developers to rely on state-law workarounds like the Density Bonus Law. Our new codes should reflect state law requirements to support a range of housing across different income levels. The 5-story limit is an unnecessary limit that pushes developers toward more expensive housing forms, which is contrary to the general thrust of Housing Element Law, HCD guidance, and affirmatively furthering fair housing principles. Moreover, Council should strengthen the Strategy HE 1.3.6 (The Missing Middle Program). Revisions in the December 2023 submission of the Housing Element changed this strategy from allowing four-unit developments under R-3 standards, which were designed for small apartment buildings, to instead allowing development under the city’s highly restrictive R-2 standards. To fully enable the Strategy to work as it is intended to, the new duplex overlay must be much more flexible than what is currently proposed. In particular, Council should: Remove the change in the definition of a duplex, which requires principal dwelling units to be no more than 200 square feet different from each other; According to the staff report, the change was meant to define comparable sized units, but, in reality, distorts the Missing Middle Program. Council can and should eliminate this proposed standard; Remove the 55% FAR limitation; Expand the 40% lot coverage maximum; Reexamine the interior side setback minimums. Finally, Council should provide additional direction (via requesting staff to partner with stakeholders, community-based organizations, developers, and homeowners) in regards to staff’s recommended Ordinance to adopt objective development Standards. They should do so to ensure that future development standards emphasize increased flexibility and architectural freedom, as opposed to unnecessary restrictions. Thank you for your consideration and effort to foster an inclusive and vibrant Cupertino. Sincerely, Connie L. Cunningham ………………………………. Connie Cunningham From:Kamyab Mashian To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:Proposed Rezonings Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 3:50:46 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. To the Cupertino City Council: My name is Kamyab Mashian. I am a former resident of Cupertino, and I hope to be able to return, so I have remained actively involved in the community. I am writing to address the proposed rezonings. In the Housing Element, Cupertino finally committed to a realistic path towards getting enough homes for everyone in the community. I appreciate the work that staff put into implementing the Housing Element through the rezoning, but (like many members of the community) I had some concerns about the initial proposal. I therefore urge the City Council to implement the changes proposed by Cupertino For All in their letter to staff. One of these proposed changes would be to drop the 5-floor limit on R-4 zoning. The "five- over-one" construction style is at its most cost-effective for 6- or 7-floor buildings, so builders should be given flexibility to build those kinds of homes. The existing 70' limit already does more than enough to limit overly tall structures. By limiting apartments to both 70' but also 5 floors, we would only be encouraging more high-ceiling luxury development, rather than the more attainable homes that Cupertino so desperately needs. I also strongly support Cupertino For All's recommendations for strategy HE 1.3.6. These changes will prevent builders from being needlessly hamstrung, and allow the "missing middle" housing our community needs to actually get built. I hope you will take these recommendations into account at tomorrow's meeting, which I will be following closely. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kamyab Mashian (he/him) Email: kamyab.mashian@gmail.com Phone: (831) 295-4360 From:Sandhana Siva To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:Rezoning and Housing Element Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 3:52:00 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. Dear Cupertino City Council, My name is Sandhana Siva. I am a resident of the Rancho RInconada neighborhood of Cupertino. I am a rising freshman at San Jose State University hoping to study Geography, Urban planning, and ecology/Environmental Science. I am happy to support the Housing Element, and I will be even more excited if the city council has support to fully bolster the supply of affordable housing projects. Furtherly, being an urbanist and environmentalist I strongly believe that the housing element will push Cupertino further away from sprawling into open space areas such as the vast grasslands and oak savannas and woodlands found in the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, Rancho San Antonio, and Mclellan Ranch Preserve which is important for groundwater percolation and storage, wildlife linkage and migration and gene transfer, flood protection, carbon sequestration, and wildfire and heat hazard buffer. I am also a young person who would love to live in a multifamily home in Cupertino in the future, so including more affordable housing would be perfect. I would like to thank the staff for their rezonings, which are necessary for the Housing Element to be in compliance with the department of Housing and Community Development’s new policies on affirmatively furthering fair housing. Our Housing Element will no longer be eligible for state certification if we do not approach our rezonings in a manner that encourages all types of housing. We cannot stand by and watch unnecessary, harmful restrictions characterize Cupertino’s zoning code. The Council has received letters from Cupertino For All describing specific, actionable changes that you as policymakers, to enhance rezonings to be in compliance with HCD. I fully support Cupertino For All’s proposed changes and recommendations and ask that you also accept it. I would like to take a moment to go over the recommendations put forth by Cupertino For All to ensure that our Housing Element successfully furthers fair housing. 1. Council must remove the 5 story limit, and rely only on the 70 ft height limit for the R4 zoning district which will allow for greater flexibility for architects in designing housing for people of different backgrounds without forcing developers to work around state laws such as the density bonus law. 2. Council should strengthen HE 1.3.6 (The Missing Middle Program). To fully enable this strategy, council must remove the change in definition of a duplex which require principle dwelling units to be no more than 200 square feet different from eachother. They should also remove the 55% floor area ratio restriction, expand the 40% lot coverage maximum, and reexamine interior side setback minimums. There should also only be 1 parking space per dwelling unit to reserve more area for living space rather than cars. Finally, Council should provide additional direction (via requesting staff to partner with stakeholders, community-based organizations, developers, and homeowners) in regards to staff’s recommended Ordinance to adopt objective development Standards. They should do so to ensure that future development standards emphasize increased flexibility and architectural freedom, as opposed to unnecessary restrictions. Thank you for your consideration and effort to foster an inclusive and vibrant Cupertino. Sincerely, Sandhana Siva From:Jean Bedord To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:Agenda Item #7: Rezoning for Housing Element Rezoning - Public Comment Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 3:56:33 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 Sheila Mohan, Vice-Mayor J.R. Fruen, Councilmembers Hug Wei, Liang Chao and Kitty Moore, and staff Thank you for all the hard work to thoughtfully develop a set of zoning modifications to ensure compliance with the Housing Element that was approved by HCD, It's critical for council to approve these tonight so the city will belatedly have final approval, and forstall builders remedy projects, thus gaining more control over local land use development, rather than ceding to state control. I support the following: * Allowing duplexes on corner lots and lots abutting commercial corridors in r-1 zones. is a sensible recommendation. Given the abysmal turnover of properties in Cupertino and having to teardown an existing structure, this policy will have relatively low impact on neighborhoods. Every bit counts in reaching RHNA numbers. * Reducing the parking requirements to 4 spaces total for duplexes in the R-1 zoning district. It makes no sense to require 6 parking spaces for the same lot that would have 4 spaces for a single family house. * Increasing the FAR coverage to 85% encourages varied unit sizes and taller structures, allowing vegetation on the lower level. * Remove the 200 sq. ft. requirement for duplexes because it would create legal non- conforming structures within the R-2 district. It's OK to be more flexible and see whether the hypothetical staff concerns regarding size of units actually occur. Usually they don't and should they occur, can be addressed in the future. In general, I support the recommendations of the Cupertino For All housing advocacy group. Warm regards, Jean Bedord Long time resident and City Council Observer From:louise saadati (via Google Docs) To:City Clerk Cc:City Council Subject:Letter City Council 7/1/24 Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 3:56:48 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. louise saadati attached a document louise saadati (lwsaadati@gmail.com) has attached the following document: Public Comment for 7/2/24 Item 7 Housing Element Letter City Council 7/1/24 Snapshot of the item below: To the Cupertino City Council: My name is Louise Saadati. I have been a homeowner and resident inCupertino for over 38 years. I would like to see Cupertino to have smart development that will enable our community to grow to include fuller rangeof residents adult including our children, workers including wider range ofincome a chance of living in Cupertino. Thank you to the Council for adopting the new Housing Element in May,which puts Cupertino on the path to greater inclusion and affordability. Thank you to the staff for the proposed rezonings to achieve full compliance. Rezonings are to keep the Housing Element in compliance with statelaw; without these rezonings, our Housing Element will no longerbe eligible for state certification There’s a lot to be commended in this document, especially thecreation of the townhome combining district.However, there’s a handful of key points that should be addressed to ensurethat this Housing Element is successful and fully answers the requirementsof state law to affirmatively further fair housing in particular. I am 1000% in favor of our Housing Element to be successfully achieved. Iwould like the council to support rezoning that would enable the HousingElement to be achieved smoothly and efficiently. Please do not allow rezonings which would inhibit and hinder the Housing Element’s successfulcompletion. Council has received a letter from Cupertino for All describing specific,actionable changes that they, as policymakers, can enact to enhance ourrezonings and ensure that HCD will ultimately accept them. I fully supportthe CFA recommendations and ask that you adopt them as your own. The following are a few highlights of the CFA recommendations that arecritical to the success of our Housing Element. First, Council must remove the 5-story limit, relying only on the 70 footheight limit (which is already in place) for R-4 Zoning. Our new codes should reflect state law requirements to support a range ofhousing across different income levels. The 5-story limit is an unnecessarylimit that pushes developers toward more expensive housing forms, which iscontrary to the Housing Element Law, HCD guidance, and affirmativelyfurthering fair housing principles. The Council should strengthen the Strategy HE 1.3.6 (The Missing MiddleProgram). Revisions in the December 2023 submission of the HousingElement changed this strategy from allowing four-unit developments underR-3 standards, which were designed for small apartment buildings, to insteadallowing development under the city’s highly restrictive R-2 standards. To fully enable the Strategy to work as it is intended to, the new duplexoverlay must be much more flexible than what is currently proposed. Inparticular, Council should: Remove the change in the definition of a duplex, which requiresprincipal dwelling units to be no more than 200 square feet differentfrom each other; According to the staff report, the change was meant to definecomparable sized units, but, in reality, distorts the Missing Middle Program. Council can and should eliminate thisproposed standard; Remove the 55% FAR limitation; Expand the 40% lot coverage maximum; Reexamine the interior side setback minimums. Finally, Council should provide additional direction to staff to increasepartnership, involvement and collaboration in regards to staff’s recommended Ordinance to adopt objective development Standards. The staff should ensure that future development standards emphasizeincreased flexibility and architectural freedom, as opposed to unnecessary restrictions. Thank you for all your work to help Cupertino become a more vibrant and inclusive community. Sincerely, Louise Saadati Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA You have received this email because lwsaadati@gmail.com shared a document with you from Google Docs. From:infoforme@comcast.net To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:DO NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER CHANGES TO PREVIOUSLY DRAFTED HOUSING Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 3:55:38 PM Attachments:2024CupCityCouncil.docx 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. July 1, 2024 Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to ask that you please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to ask that you please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy. It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community. It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character. Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: Preserving Community Character: Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. Maintaining Standards and Order: Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. Consideration of Long-term Impact: Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life. While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Sincerely, Jame and Constance Guidotti 22640 Ricardo Road Cupertino, CA 95014 infoforme@comcast.net