Loading...
CC 07-02-2024 Item No. 7 Housing Element Zoning_Written Communicaitons_2Written Communications CC 7-02-2024 Item No. 7 Housing Element Zoning From: Anne Ezzat <aezzat95014@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 12:35 PM To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org> Subject: Item#7 for Jlyy 2, 2024 Mayor Mohan, Vice Mayor Fren, Council Members Chao, Moore, and Wei, I am writing to urge you to accept the staff recommendations regarding the housing element which has already been approved by the state. Although there is a concerted effort to pile on and add more to the mix, please just get on with it and approve what you have. Several council members have stated they appreciate and trust the staff. Now is the time to prove it by accepting the plan staff drew up and was accepted by the state. Several council members campaigned on neighborhood integrity and local control, now is the time to prove it by accepting the staff’s plan that was approved by the state. Thank you and best regards, Brooke Ezzat From:Piyush Jain To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:Input on housing element proposal Date:Tuesday, July 2, 2024 3:58:24 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. I am resident of Cupertino since 2004. I am writing to express my firm support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh, which has already been approved by HCD. It is crucial to avoid further changes to this proposal, as external influences could disrupt the process and jeopardize Cupertino’s ability to pass the housing element and lead to extending Builders Remedy. Recent suggestions for significant changes to the draft are concerning. I strongly urge you to reject these alterations, as major changes now could drastically alter Cupertino’s character. Luke and Piu’s draft effectively addresses our community’s unique needs, and additional input from those unfamiliar with Cupertino’s context is unnecessary. Balancing new housing needs with preserving our community’s character and standards is essential. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. We should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino’s current character. This includes preserving the current 3-story limit or 35-foot height restriction in R-4 zones, retaining the 55% FAR limitation, and maintaining current definitions and requirements for duplexes, parking, lot coverage, and interior side yard setbacks. Future ordinance updates should align with our long-term vision, benefiting all residents without compromising quality of life. Addressing housing needs and complying with state regulations is important, but we must also consider the potential negative impacts of drastic changes. A balanced approach that preserves current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run. Thank you for considering my perspective as a long-term resident and voter. This issue is critical to me, and the Council’s decisions will influence my choices in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust the Council will act in the best interest of our community. Regards Piyush Jain From:Neil Park-McClintick To:City Clerk Subject:For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date:Tuesday, July 2, 2024 3:50:28 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. City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia, As a renter, whose family home for nearly 20 years would be rendered illegal under these proposed rezoning, I am writing to express concern for the proposed rezonings, which do not match the ambition of the housing element plan that we previously passed. I appreciate the proposed rezonings by Staff, which are essential for our Housing Element to meet full compliance with HCD. Without proactive rezonings that encourage diverse housing types, our Housing Element will lose eligibility for state certification. We must prevent unnecessary and detrimental restrictions from defining Cupertino’s zoning code. I support the requests by Cupertino for All, which uphold the original vision of our ambitious housing element, without making dramatic changes to the proposed rezonings. My personal experience highlights the importance of flexible zoning. I have spent most of my life in a duplex that would be rendered illegal under the current proposed rezoning due to exceeding the 200-square-foot difference limit. This duplex has been crucial in allowing me and my neighbors to call Cupertino home. I would like to emphasize several key recommendations to ensure our Housing Element successfully meets state law requirements and promotes fair housing. Council should remove the 5-story limit, relying instead on the existing 70-foot height limit for R-4 Zoning. Our new codes should align with state law requirements to support a range of housing across different income levels. The 5-story limit is an unnecessary restriction that encourages more expensive housing forms, which contradicts Housing Element Law, HCD guidance, and fair housing principles. Additionally, Council should strengthen Strategy HE 1.3.6 (The Missing Middle Program). The December 2023 submission of the Housing Element altered this strategy from permitting four- unit developments under R-3 standards to the city’s highly restrictive R-2 standards. To ensure middle middle homes actually get built, we should: *Remove the new definition of a duplex that requires principal dwelling units to be within 200 square feet of each other, as this change distorts the Missing Middle Program. *Eliminate the 55% FAR limitation. *Expand the 40% lot coverage maximum. *Reexamine the interior side setback minimums. Finally, Council should direct staff to collaborate with stakeholders, community-based organizations, developers, and homeowners in accordance with the proposed ordinance— to ensure that future development standards emphasize flexibility and architectural freedom, rather than imposing unnecessary restrictions. Thank you for your consideration and your efforts to create an inclusive and vibrant Cupertino. Neil Park-McClintick neil.parkmcclintick@gmail.com 801 Miller Ave. Cupertino, California 95014 From:Terry Griffin To:City Council; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Clerk Subject:7-2-2024 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 7-Housing Element Re-zoning Date:Tuesday, July 2, 2024 3:04:17 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. Dear Mayor Mohan, City Council and Staff, I support the staff recommendation without any changes. Please vote accordingly. Sincerely,  Terry Griffin 10727 Randy Ln. Sent from my iPhone From:edward auch To:City Council Subject:7-2-2024 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 7 housing element Re-Zoning Date:Tuesday, July 2, 2024 2:49:24 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. Dear Mayor Mohan , City Council and Staff, I support the recommendation without any changes. Sincerely, Ed and Laura Auch Sent from my iPhone From:Ali Sapirman To:City Council; City Clerk Cc:Corey Smith Subject:RE: Agenda Item #7 - Housing Element Implementation Amendments Date:Tuesday, July 2, 2024 2:32:25 PM Attachments:Cupertino Housing Element.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. Dear Cupertino City Council, Please see the attached letter with our comments on Agenda Item 7. In solidarity, -- Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them South Bay & Peninsula Organizer | Housing Action Coalition 555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111 Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: ali@housingactioncoalition.org To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". July 2,2024 RE:Agenda Item #7 -Housing Element Implementation Amendments Dear Cupertino City Council, I am writing on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition (HAC).HAC is a member-supported nonprofit that advocates for building housing at all income levels in order to alleviate California and the Bay Area’s housing shortage,affordability,and displacement crisis.We have been specifically dedicated to supporting cities in meeting their housing goals through the Housing Element. We are writing to express our concerns regarding the proposed amendments related to the 6th Cycle Housing Element.Certain aspects of these amendments retain significant barriers to housing production and fail to meet state Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements,potentially jeopardizing California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)certification of Cupertino’s Housing Element. The 6th Cycle Housing Element Update offers a unique chance to address housing needs and remove development constraints.On April 10,2024,HCD indicated that the revised draft housing element meets statutory requirements once adopted and approved,per Government Code section 65585. Strategy HE 1.3.6 is crucial for enabling missing middle housing and improving access to high-resource areas.However,the proposed amendments maintain existing barriers and introduce new ones,contradicting the strategy’s intent. We recommend the following changes to the proposed zoning amendments for Strategy HE 1.3.6: ●Eliminate the .55 FAR limit to permit two-story duplexes on standard lots. ●Remove the “comparable size”requirement for duplexes to allow more flexible housing configurations. ●Reduce R-2 parking requirements to 2 spaces per unit. ●Align interior side yard setbacks with the R-1 standard of 5 feet. ●Permit minimum lot coverage of at least 50%and remove minimum lot size requirements. ●Align existing R-2 standards with the duplex overlay in Strategy HE 1.3.6. For R-4 and R-3 zones,we recommend: ●Remove the 5-story limit in R-4 zones to maintain the 70-foot height potential. ●Increase lot coverage maximum for R-3 properties proposing up to 4 units to at least 50%. ●Eliminate the R-3 minimum lot size standard. We appreciate Cupertino’s efforts and commend the progress made,including The Rise development.However,the proposed amendments impose new constraints that hinder compliance with state AFFH requirements.We welcome the opportunity for further dialogue to address these issues. Sincerely, Corey Smith,Executive Director Housing Action Coalition (HAC) Ali Sapirman,South Bay &Peninsula Organizer Housing Action Coalition (HAC) From:Liana Crabtree To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:written communication, Support, Agenda Item 7, Council Meeting, 7/2/2024 Date:Tuesday, July 2, 2024 1:39:05 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. Please include this letter as written communication for Agenda Item 7 for the 7/2/2024 council meeting. Honorable Mayor Mohan, Vice Fruen, Council Members Chao, Moore, and Wei: I am writing in support of the Staff recommendation for 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….”, 7/2/2024. Please approve Agenda Item 7 “as is” as presented in the staff report and including the accompanying resolution and ordinances. No additional changes. Further, as a separate and subsequent action, I encourage Council Members to firmly assert their support that Cupertino’s housing supply must be protected as long-term homes for people by entertaining a future agenda item to stiffen regulation for short-stay rental use of homes, as New York City did in 2023. OR, to ban outright short-stay rental use of homes as Barcelona has enacted, effective 2028. In September 2023, New York City activated strict protection of its housing supply by regulating short-stay rentals (AirBnB, VRBO, others). Property owners must be registered with the city and living on site in the home during the rental period. Barcelona also centers preservation of its housing supply with a full ban on short-stay rentals in homes effective in 2028. Enabling more housing construction alone is not sufficient to reduce housing costs and increase housing supply, if long-term housing use must compete with a more lucrative hotel use of Cupertino’s homes. Thank You for your consideration of Agenda Item 7 and the strong need to protect Cupertino’s housing supply for use as long-term housing for residents. Sincerely, Liana Crabtree Cupertino resident References Staff Report, Agenda Item 7: https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx? M=F&ID=13055202&GUID=7429B047-EC18-4371-BEDF-EDF0E57D2761 “What Does a World Without AirBnB Look Like?” by Laura Hall, BBC, 7/2/2024: https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20240701-what-does-a-world-without-airbnb- look-like “New York City’s Crackdown on Airbnb Is Starting. Here’s What to Expect.” by Mihir Zaveri, NYT, 9/5/2023: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/05/nyregion/airbnb-regulations- nyc-housing.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb “Barcelona Ending Apartment Rentals by Foreign Tourists”, Reuters/CNN, 6/24/2024: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/24/travel/barcelona-ending-apartment-rentals-by- foreign-tourists/index.html From:Danessa Techmanski To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:City Rezoning--JULY 2, 2024 Council Meeting Date:Tuesday, July 2, 2024 9:37:41 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. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL FOR THE JULY 2 COUNCIL MEETING AND ADD TO THE PUBLIC RECORD. THANK YOU! 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 our zoning above and beyond what is needed to be compliant with our recently accepted housing element We are lucky that we finally got approval from HCD, so after all of that time and work I do not see any reason to make further changes. Let’s no mess up a job well done already. Considering that California actually seems to be losing population and that currently assigned RHNA numbers for this cycle are being called out for reevaluation it seems premature to play guessing games with additional needed zoning changes until the dust settles and we have a better picture of our future needs. I think that Piu Gosh, Luke Connolly and Staff have done a great job meeting the needs of our current Housing Element zoning and that we should heed to their expertise in these matters. I understand that outside special interest groups are putting pressure on our city to make significant changes as per our last city council meeting, but I I do not feel that they understand the big picture, the unique needs of our community, and the critical balance of carefully planned density and infrastructure. I also do not feel that they represent the will of the majority of our residents. Adding density for densities sake is a Winchester Mystery House approach to planning- everything needs to be in balance. While more housing is a priority, there is a point of diminishing returns where too much density, insufficient parking, traffic, diminished fire safety, lack of green or open space, and overcrowding can make our city an unbearable place to live and any semblance of Cupertino’s current character will be lost forever. In particular I would like to see the following: That the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones maintained to destroy the character of existing neighborhoods. That the current 55% FAR limitation be maintained to prevent overcrowding and stress on local infrastructure and resources. Maintain our current standards and definition for duplexes. Keep our existing parking requirements until effective and efficient transit alternatives for cars become available. Retain current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements, plus existing yard setbacks to reduce overcrowding and stress between neighbors, increase airflow, increase fire safety, increase natural daylight, and allow more plants and trees for cleaner air and reduced temperatures. Let’s not jump the gun and go on a rezoning frenzy. If we are on our way to meet our current RHNA numbers and have an acceptable housing element let’s see how that plays out before we make drastic decisions that completely change the character of Cupertino that we cannot reverse. A livable and successful city takes careful time and planning. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Danessa Techmanski 32-year Cupertino resident From:Xinpei Lu To:City Clerk Subject:For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date:Tuesday, July 2, 2024 6:13:58 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. City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia, As an incoming LQBTQ+ college student who is priced out and unable to stay in Cupertino and had to move back to Texas which you’re most likely aware of the danger the state poses to LGBTQ+ people, especially youth, due to sky high cost of living and rent, I urge you to take this opportunity rectify the rules and regulations that makes this commonplace. 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. Xinpei Lu lux733360@gmail.com 15614 Thirsty Horse Trail Cypress, Texas 77433 From:Dennis Vaughn To:Luke Connolly; Pamela Wu; Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Clerk; City Council Cc:Kelly Cell Subject:!vaughn: HOUSING ELEMENT commentS Date:Tuesday, July 2, 2024 5:47:21 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. Luke, Piug, Pamela, Cupertino City Council Members, and Cupertino City Clerks Office. Good evening. I’ve been a home owner in Cupertino for over 20 years. I moved from Los Angeles to the Bay Area in order to have a better life, such as a slower pace, less density, community members who knew and cared for each other to name a few. I’m also a teacher in a neighboring city. My wife and I were diligent in saving for several years before buying our townhouse. Our children walk out our back gate and there is Cupertino High School where they both attend. My parents are very happy we moved to Cupertino where my family is part of a community. They still live in Los Angeles, not a suburb, but the City of Los Angeles. They complain of ever increasing density, multistory apartments that are now legal to build in their quaint neighborhood, more and more people who move into the now dense neighborhood and don’t get to know their neighbor. Many years ago there were council members who wanted to build high density buildings and mixed use buildings. One is on the southeast corner of De Anza and Stevens Creek. There were condos above and couple retail establishments below; Le Boulanger and some other place; both have gone out of business. The Le Boulanger has been closed for quite some time and looks like it’s used as a storage facility for something. We were highly encouraged to accept this new kind of city planning. Don’t think that’s working. City council: 1. No new changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD 2. Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. 3. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. 4. Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes 5. Preserve existing parking requirements 6. Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements 7. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks Cupertino council stick to the original plan. I enjoy most of Cupertino, yet not a lot of the decisions of council members who have pushed for growth over maintaining Cupertino’s way of life. Maintaining this way of life is important to me and will affect the way I vote in future elections. Thank you for taking time to read and seeing from a long time Cupertino resident’s perspective. Dennis Vaughn From:du vote To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:Please DO NOT make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal Date:Tuesday, July 2, 2024 12:21:49 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 Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to ask that please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job and we do not need additional input from those who actually do not fully understand the needs of our community. We as Cupertino residents know our own needs not the outside people and why let the outside influences/disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino's housing element? Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points: 1. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas. 2. Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics. 3. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure. Supporting Equitable Housing: 1. 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. Maintaining Standards and Order: 1. Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding. 2. 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: 1. 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. Thank you for your time and consideration. I trust the council will make the appropriate decision to reflect the best interests of our community. We will always select the people who can raise our voice and speak for us as Cupertino residents. Sincerely, Vera From:Joan Owyang-Lee To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:Stop aggressive changes to housing elements Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 10:42:56 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. Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I request you not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal. 1.Do not accept changes to reduce parking requirements. The neighborhood needs any new residential units to have adequate parking, preferably 2 spaces per unit. 2. Do not accept any increase in building floor heights from what was previously approved. The lower the building height, the better. 3. Do not increase floor area ratio from 55% to 100%. Cupertino does not need more construction on lot. 4. Stop pushing for higher density, it will ruin Cupertino's character! Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, others who favor aggressive growth do not understand desires of residents in the neighborhood. We need to Preserve Community Character and: 1) Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones 2) Retain the 55% FAR limitation 3) Keep the current definition of a “duplex” 4) Preserve existing parking requirements 5) Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements 6) Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors. I will NOT vote for council members who choose aggressive growth which change the character of Cupertino. I am a 30 year resident of this city. Sincerely, Joan Owyang-Lee From:Isaac Lee To:City Clerk; City Council; Pamela Wu; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly Subject:Please stop high density housing & overdevelopment Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 10:21:29 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, Isaac Lee & Family Long time Cupertino residents and voters From:Kirsten Squarcia To:J.R. Fruen Cc:Pamela Wu; City Clerk Subject:Re: Agenda Item #7- Municipal Code Text, Specific Plan, Below Market Rate Mitigation Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 6:09:52 PM Attachments:image001.png image001.png 7-2-24 Cupertino letter on zoning ordinance changes.pdf Hello Vice Mayor, sorry, that communication had may not have been provided to the Clerks Office yet. We will include. Regards, Kirsten Kirsten Squarcia​​​​ City Clerk City Manager's Office KirstenS@cupertino.gov (408) 777-3225 On Jul 1, 2024, at 5:40 PM, J.R. Fruen <JRFruen@cupertino.gov> wrote:  I was looking through the written communications for today and did not see this one from SV@Home in the packet. It was sent at 1:53, which was plenty early to merit inclusion. J.R. Fruen​​​​ Vice Mayor City Council JRFruen@cupertino.gov (408)777-1316 From: Alison Cingolani <alison@siliconvalleyathome.org> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 1:53 PM To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <lukec@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Agenda Item #7- Municipal Code Text, Specific Plan, Below Market Rate Mitigation 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, Vice Mayor Fruen, Councilmembers Wei, Chao, and Moore, and Mr. Connolly, SV@Home has had the privilege of engaging on the City of Cupertino’s housing element throughout its process, and we have been pleased to see it evolve into a plan to achieve real change in the city and earn conditional approval from HCD. However, we believe parts of the zoning ordinance amendment coming to Council on Tuesday, July 2nd (Agenda Item #7) undermine important programs in the city’s housing element by leaving in place significant known constraints to housing production and failing to meet state requirements to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). We are concerned that these changes jeopardize the certification by HCD of the City of Cupertino’s Adopted Housing Element. Please see the attached letter detailing our concerns and proposed solutions. SV@Home values its partnership with the City of Cupertino, and it is in that spirit that we provide our feedback on the City’s Housing Element. Warm regards, Alison Cingolani Policy Manager|SV@Home 408.785.0531 | alison@siliconvalleyathome.org Join our Houser Movement. Become a member! 350 W Julian St. #5, San José, CA 95110 Website Facebook LinkedIn Twitter From:Ping Ding To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 5:06:32 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, Ping Ding From:Ping Gao To:Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject:NO to Housing Element Draft Change Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 4:43:37 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. Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, This is Ping, a 17-year Cupertino Resident. 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, Ping Gao 17-year Cupertino Resident From:Cupertino ForAll To:City Clerk; City Council Subject:For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 4:33:18 PM Attachments:07.01.24 - Letter to City Council.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, Please see the attached commentary for Public Comment regarding Item 7 for Tuesday's (7/2) Council Meeting. Regards, Steering Committee Cupertino for All July 1,2024 Cupertino City Council 10350 Torre Avenue Cupertino,California 95014 For Public Comment Re:7/2 Council Meeting -Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Dear Cupertino City Council and to whom it may concern, We are pleased to see the Staff ’s Report considers the letter we sent on June 18.Our suggestions are reflective of our hope for the city to strengthen the Housing Element by implementing zoning code amendments that allow for flexible development standards and architectural freedom to create more housing affordable at all income levels.We want to emphasize Council’s role as the policymaking body of the city.You can and should act on certain rezonings items listed by Staff. Please also recall that per Assembly Bill 1398 (2021),though Cupertino has adopted a Housing Element,the city cannot be considered certified until it has conducted required rezonings.As such,Cupertino has no certified Housing Element until the city rezones.1 The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)must also still review such rezonings for adequacy. Acceptance is not guaranteed.Similarly,pursuant to Assembly Bill 72 (2017),HCD maintains ongoing authority to revoke a city’s Housing Element for failure to comply with the obligations to which the city bound itself by adopting the Housing Element 1 We have become aware of public comments (specifically during the Oral Communications section of the June 18,2024 Council Meeting)claiming that any alteration of the proposed Municipal Code amendments would “jeopardize”the Housing Element certification,or that we are asking for the Housing Element to be “reopened.”These comments misstate or misunderstand the position of the Housing Element and the path to certification.The Housing Element is adopted.The rezonings and related actions in Item 7 are part of the required series of actions to implement the Housing Element.As HCD has noted in prior comments,the city may always be more ambitious in its Housing Element implementation than the programs and policies it committed to at adoption.It is emphatically not allowed to do less.In other words,the Housing Element is a floor,not a ceiling.Erring on the side of a more permissive and ambitious Housing Element implementation increases the likelihood that HCD will accept the city’s rezonings.We do not believe that the specified policies we ask you to adjust currently meet HCD’s requirements. 1 –including through its policy implementation.Indeed,in the 6th RHNA Cycle,HCD has already revoked the certification of the Town of Portola Valley.2 Irrespective of the requirements of state law,rezonings that reflect thoughtful and supportive implementation of the Housing Element would ensure that Cupertino not only complies with the letter and spirit of state law,but also creates the legal framework within which we are positioned to build enough of the right types of housing to make a serious dent in our housing crisis.Though the proposed rezonings contain many improvements for which staff and the city’s consultants should be lauded –especially the innovation of the townhome combining district –a number of policies undermine or frustrate the Housing Element’s plain purpose and,we strongly believe,jeopardize the city’s conditional certification.We therefore ask that Council enact the following refinements to the Municipal Code amendments: 1.Remove the 5-story limit for the new R-4 Zoning District:The 5-story restriction is unnecessary,and only further limits developments.The 70 foot height limit is more than sufficient. Removing the 5-story limit promotes flexibility in designing housing of all forms,thus empowering architects to design housing of various types and for varying incomes without forcing developers to rely on workarounds such as the Density Bonus Law,which would allow significant deviations from other development standards. Our new codes should reflect state law requirements to support a range of housing across different income levels.The 5-story limit encourages developers to design more expensive housing,3 which does not uphold the principles of affirmatively furthering fair housing or the fundamental overarching goal of Housing Element law and HCD’s focus of ensuring that the city has enabled and supported the construction of housing for people of all income levels. 3 At the June 11,2024 Planning Commission meeting where these rezonings were previously considered, the city’s consultant from Placeworks described the 5-story limitation as favoring a “really high quality product”with higher ceilings and touted the fact that such developments would be amenity-rich or allow for ground-floor retail.Forcing developers down this path unnecessarily produces a more expensive product since construction costs would have to be distributed over fewer units and would command higher rents for more amenities.Removing the story restriction would allow architects more freedom to design housing typologies of varying forms that could cater to a wider range of housing needs and be more likely to reach or exceed the capacity assumptions in the Housing Element. 2 See Letter of HCD to Town of Portola Valley,dated March 26,2024 (revoking finding of substantial compliance for failure to implement Housing Element programs),available at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/portola-valley-rev-032624. pdf. 2 2.Strengthen Implementation of Strategy HE 1.3.6:The March 2024 revision of the Third Submittal of the Draft Housing Element4 changed the Strategy to allow development under severely limiting R-2 standards,as opposed to the four-unit developments under R-3 standards (which were designed for garden apartment and fourplex-style development,and thus are better fit for Strategy HE 1.3.6).5 If the Strategy is to create real opportunity in Cupertino,the new duplex overlay must be much more flexible than what is currently proposed, especially when considering the antiquated R-2 standards to which it refers. Council should: A .Establish parking standards at 1 enclosed space and 1 exposed space per principal dwelling unit in the duplex overlay. Current R-2 zoning standards require 1.5 enclosed spaces and 1.5 exposed parking spaces per principal dwelling unit.This standard requires the construction of a three-car garage with an interior square footage of 600 square feet,all of which counts towards the lot coverage and floor area ratio of the proposed structure. Council should not require such excessively large garages because they (1)generally go unused for car storage,(2)reduce the allowable usage living space for people,and (3)are visually intrusive on lots with smaller frontages,and therefore out of alignment with the aesthetic goals of the policy. On a 50-foot wide lot,for instance,a three-car garage spanning 30 feet would consume more than 50%of the facade of the building.Allowing for two-car garages instead will permit homeowners and architects developing under these standards to build homes that look more like the single-family homes around them that are only required to have a two-car garage.Moreover,housing built with less space dedicated to 5 Indeed,the aforementioned Housing Element draft and the staff report both admit that this change was made not in response to feedback from the communities historically excluded from housing in Cupertino,but to aesthetic concerns raised by others as well as untoward worries about the potential application of the Density Bonus Law. 4 See https://ehq-production-us-california.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/3003c6a0b619866578abf9d066a0e48 e95ca8ede/original/1714502824/e489f6eef8b1d5e01798357c1bae860a_Third_Draft_Housing_Element_-_S ubmitted_to_HCD_March_28__2024.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=A KIA4KKNQAKICO37GBEP%2F20240701%2Fus-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240701T22 1600Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=676da40a488d9943d71acb1 39c385285c8bdedc1cefbc9fb0685f 730264f 145b (Page 21/H-17). 3 car storage would be cheaper to build and correspondingly cheaper to rent or sell.6 B.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,this change was meant to define comparable sized units,but,in reality,it distorts the Missing Middle Program (Strategy HE 1.3.6).The same restriction exists in the city’s SB 9 implementation ordinance –an ordinance which has failed to produce any SB 9 units.We should not replicate a demonstrably failed policy. The change also generates the unfortunate result of creating legal nonconforming duplexes in existing R-2 zones.In addition,without clarity on how enclosed parking spaces would be counted,the extra parking required for a duplex would consume the entire 200 square foot differential between units,requiring two units to be rigidly and precisely the same size.Council can and should eliminate this new proposed restriction. C.Remove the floor area ratio (FAR)limit in the duplex overlay. The imposition of a 55%FAR in the proposed Municipal Code amendment reflects a reduction from the R-2 standards to which the overlay otherwise refers.R-2 currently has no FAR limitation.If we do not impose a FAR restriction on R-2 zoned sites,which already sit in neighborhoods with predominantly single-family homes,then the sudden choice to add one to the R-1 duplex overlay seems unnecessary. Moreover,when Strategy HE 1.3.6 was originally contemplated in prior iterations of the Housing Element draft,it referred instead to R-3 standards for developments up to 4 units.These standards likewise lack a FAR standard per the staff report. As such,the lack of a FAR standard has always been contemplated for these sites until their first appearance in the Municipal Code 6 We are aware that staff intend to bring back a comprehensive reform of parking standards.However, adopting our proposed change to the duplex overlay parking standards would allow Strategy HE 1.3.6 to be usable now.The housing crisis is now –our response should be now. 4 amendments as originally proposed.7 If the permissible building space for structures built under the duplex overlay is too small,homeowners will have an incentive,instead,to build maximum FAR single-family homes (so called “monster ”homes)with ADUs.That result would render Strategy HE 1.3.6 largely inert and would be less favorable to the city because of the reduced impact fees collected from ADUs relative to principal dwelling units. D.Adjust the lot coverage maximum in the duplex overlay and in R-3 Zoning Districts for developments of up to 4 units to 50%. R-2 and smaller R-3 standards restrict development to 40%of the lot. This is lower than R-1 standards,which sit at 45%.8 By expanding permissible lot coverage to 50%,homeowners will have an incentive to build under the new duplex overlay standards and to build more cheaply at the first story instead of being forced to build upward to obtain additional square footage.Keeping building costs down favors the production of naturally less expensive housing.Allowing shorter buildings also creates less visual impact in neighborhoods,which would increase the presumed aesthetic compatibility of these developments with such neighborhoods. E.Establish an interior side yard setback minimum of 5 feet in the duplex overlay. R-1 zones currently have a minimum interior side yard setback of 5 feet. Duplexes developed under the Strategy HE 1.3.6 overlay should be allowed to utilize this modestly reduced standard from R-2 standards. 3.Provide additional direction to the City Manager to favor increased flexibility and architectural freedom in the upcoming objective 8 See Cupertino Municipal Code,Table 19.28.070,“Building Development Regulations”(describing R-1 lots as enjoying 45%FAR and 45%lot coverage maximums). 7 The staff report describes the FAR standard as being derived from surveying nearby jurisdictions.It also paints a curious picture of an unreasonably unlikely potential for a duplex in excess of 80%FAR.The scenario described fails to account for numerous other standards like second-story setbacks and presumes the use of exceptions for balcony overhangs and the like.We appreciate staff ’s concern for potential impacts,but we believe this scenario to be unrealistic.Our current R-2 standards,again,have no FAR restrictions and no duplex looks the way described in the staff report.Though we favor simplicity and consistency across similarly situated zoning districts and housing typologies,if Council feels a need to create a FAR restriction,then 65%would be reasonable under the overlay –provided that parking restrictions are reduced.Functionally,we do not see any realistic likelihood of a duplex developing at a greater FAR even without the FAR restriction given the other restrictions imposed under R-2 standards. 5 development standards ordinance and to harmonize it with today’s updates: Council should encourage development standards that advocate for increased flexibility and architectural freedom rather than creating new,often unnecessary,restrictions (see:the R-4 5-story restriction,the change in the definition of a duplex). In order to bring life to the Housing Element,Council should facilitate projects that are assuredly feasible and responsive to market demands.Therefore,we call on Council to ask staff to partner with stakeholders,community based organizations,developers,and homeowners with respect to the creation of objective development standards.These standards should also aid Strategy HE 1.3.6 and revisions to the city’s SB9 implementation ordinance in order to successfully align our zoning standards with our Housing Element and ensure consistency in the Cupertino zoning code. Council has an ongoing duty to affirmatively further fair housing.Thoughtful implementation of Strategy 1.3.6 and greater consistency within the zoning code will assist in this goal. Without your thorough consideration of the way rezonings are approached,our Housing Element is in danger of losing its eligibility for state certification.Please uphold your commitment to Cupertino and its ability to govern its own housing plans by incorporating these changes. Regards, Steering Committee Cupertino For All 6 From: Anne Ezzat <aezzat95014@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 12:35 PM To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org> Subject: Item#7 for Jlyy 2, 2024 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 Kirsten, would you be able to include my comments in the record? Thanks! Brooke Mayor Mohan, Vice Mayor Fren, Council Members Chao, Moore, and Wei, I am writing to urge you to accept the staff recommendations regarding the housing element which has already been approved by the state. Although there is a concerted effort to pile on and add more to the mix, please just get on with it and approve what you have. Several council members have stated they appreciate and trust the staff. Now is the time to prove it by accepting the plan staff drew up and was accepted by the state. Several council members campaigned on neighborhood integrity and local control, now is the time to prove it by accepting the staff’s plan that was approved by the state. Thank you and best regards, Brooke Ezzat From: Alison Cingolani <alison@siliconvalleyathome.org> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 1:53 PM To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <lukec@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Agenda Item #7- Municipal Code Text, Specific Plan, Below Market Rate Mitigation 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, Vice Mayor Fruen, Councilmembers Wei, Chao, and Moore, and Mr. Connolly, SV@Home has had the privilege of engaging on the City of Cupertino’s housing element throughout its process, and we have been pleased to see it evolve into a plan to achieve real change in the city and earn conditional approval from HCD. However, we believe parts of the zoning ordinance amendment coming to Council on Tuesday, July 2nd (Agenda Item #7) undermine important programs in the city’s housing element by leaving in place significant known constraints to housing production and failing to meet state requirements to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). We are concerned that these changes jeopardize the certification by HCD of the City of Cupertino’s Adopted Housing Element. Please see the attached letter detailing our concerns and proposed solutions. SV@Home values its partnership with the City of Cupertino, and it is in that spirit that we provide our feedback on the City’s Housing Element. Warm regards, Alison Cingolani Policy Manager|SV@Home 408.785.0531 | alison@siliconvalleyathome.org Join our Houser Movement. Become a member! 350 W Julian St. #5, San José, CA 95110 Website Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RE: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 We write to express our concerns with the agenda item above,portions of which leave in place significant known constraints to housing production and fail to meet state requirements to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH).We are concerned that these changes jeopardize the certification by HCD of the City of Cupertino’s Adopted Housing Element.SV@Home values its partnership with the City of Cupertino,and it is in that spirit that we provide our feedback on the City’s Housing Element. The 6th Cycle Housing Element Update process is a unique opportunity to fully assess and address housing needs in Cupertino and to identify and remove constraints on housing development.On April 10,2024,the City received a letter from HCD stating that the revised draft housing element meets the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once adopted,submitted to,and approved by HCD,in accordance with Government Code section 65585. Strategy HE 1.3.6 is the City’s primary Housing Element program to address AFFH by enabling missing middle housing types across the city and expanding more equitable access to high-resource areas.We are concerned that,rather than identifying and removing barriers to the development of much-needed missing middle housing in Cupertino,the proposed zoning ordinance amendments leave existing barriers in place and add new ones.From our reading, these proposed actions expand on and further codify the unnecessary constraints from the City’s SB-9 implementing ordinance,such that Strategy HE 1.3.6 does not enable new types of development to be feasible.This is not what we understand to be the intent of the missing middle strategy. SV@Home recommends the following changes to the proposed zoning amendments concerning Strategy HE 1.3.6: ●Remove the .55 FAR limit,a new constraint relative to existing R-2 standards,which effectively precludes a two-story duplex on a typical lot. ●Remove the new constraint of the definition of a “duplex”in Section 19.08.030 by striking the line “of comparable size.”Requiring a maximum difference of 200 square feet between units unnecessarily limits the ability to configure housing for a range of needs. ●Address the existing constraint of R-2 parking requirements of 1.5 enclosed and 1.5 exposed parking spaces per unit (6 spaces per duplex)by reducing the requirement to 2 parking spaces per unit. ●Address the existing constraint of interior side yard setbacks by aligning to the minimum R-1 standard of 5 feet. ●Address the existing constraints on lot coverage and minimum lot sizes by allowing minimum lot coverage of at least 50%and imposing no minimum lot size requirement. ●For consistency,in this or a future ordinance update,align existing R-2 standards with the duplex overlay in Strategy HE 1.3.6 We are also concerned about height and lot coverage/size limitations in R-4 and R-3 and recommend the following changes to the proposed zoning amendments: ●Remove the new constraint of a 5-story limit in R-4 zones,which when applied to an existing height limit of 70 feet,undermines the potential for affordability and incentivizes more expensive housing. ●With respect to changes to R-3 zoning ○Address an existing constraint by expanding the lot coverage maximum for R-3-zoned properties proposing up to 4 units to at least 50%. ○Address an existing constraint by eliminating the R-3 minimum lot size standard. We value this opportunity to share our comments on the City of Cupertino’s Housing Element Update,and appreciate the enormous amount of work that Cupertino staff,elected and appointed representatives,and members of the community have done to date.We are pleased with the City’s real progress toward enabling more housing development,including entitlement of The Rise mixed-use development on the site of the former Vallco Mall.However,we remain concerned that the objective standards created by the proposed zoning amendments leave in place significant known constraints to housing production and impose new constraints that prevent compliance with state requirements to affirmatively further fair housing.We welcome the opportunity to engage in an ongoing dialogue with you as you deem helpful. SV@Home is a nonprofit organization that works with a broad coalition of strategic partners to address the urgent housing needs of Santa Clara County's diverse residents across all our communities.We advocate for solutions including increasing production of homes at all income levels,especially affordable housing;preserving existing affordable housing;and protecting our community’s most vulnerable residents from displacement.