CC 07-16-2024 Item No. 7 Second reading and zoning map amendments for Ordinance No. 24-2261_Written CommunicationsCC 7-16-2024
#7
Second reading and
zoning map
amendments for
Ordinance No. 24-2261
Written Comments
From:Sandhana Siva
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Cupertino Housing Element
Date:Monday, July 15, 2024 3:58:42 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.
Hi Mayor Mohan and Cupertino City Council Members,
My name is Sandhana Siva. I am a resident of the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood and
rising freshman at San Jose State University hoping to study ecology/ environmental
science and city planning.
I just wanted to thank you for your consideration of the community input regarding
amendments to the municipal code to be in compliance with the HCD's 6th RNHA cycle.
The rezonings you passed on July 2, will enable full agreement with HCD and remove any
situation of builder's remedy.
I fully endorse the Housing Element to further the supply of housing needs and to
affirmatively further fair housing in the city of Cupertino. This will allow our city to become a
more economically and socially diverse community which is currently lacking in its present
state and promises housing opportunities for future generations who want to live here like
myself.
Additionally, I would like to encourage the city council to do more than what is outlined in
the amendments and continue to further policies and strategies in the upcoming months
and years.
Thank you once again for enacting improved zoning policies, which ensure the Housing
Element’s full compliance, and lay the foundation for a more vibrant Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Sandhana Siva
From:Sean Hughes
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Public Comment (7/16): Consent Calendar Item #7
Date:Monday, July 15, 2024 2:57:37 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.
Hello,
I would like to submit the text below as public comment regarding item 7 on this Tuesday
meeting's Consent Calendar.
Thank you,
Sean
---
July 15, 2024
Dear Mayor Mohan and Cupertino City Council,
I am writing today to thank you for your response to community input regarding
amendments to Cupertino’s Municipal Code to implement the 6th RHNA Cycle
Housing Element. The City’s rezonings passed on July 2 will enable our Housing
Element to be eligible for full certification by HCD.
I look forward to watching for an ambitious implementation of our Housing
Element, and hope that this is only the first step in a journey to make the city of
Cupertino a more inclusive, sustainable, and desirable place to call home. The
implementation process is crucial to ensuring the Housing Element meets its
full potential as a planning document for Cupertino.
As Cupertino continues to implement policies and strategies in the coming
months and years, I encourage the city to do more than the amendments
passed last meeting. Over the coming years, the public and HCD will watch for
signs of success of our Housing Element’s implementation: more housing
opportunities at all income levels, more walkable environments, and more
environmentally friendly dense, multi-family developments, which might host
the prospect of retail or community amenities as well. The accomplishments of
such success will likely require further action, and I hope this Council - as well as
future Councils - can find a way to continually improve our municipal codes and
policies to meet the current and future housing needs of our community.
Thank you once again for enacting improved zoning policies that will ensure the
Housing Element’s full compliance, as well as laying the foundation for a more
welcoming and livable Cupertino.
Regards,
Jun-Xiong Sean Hughes
From:Gauri Chawla
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:For Public Comment (7/17): Consent Calendar Item #7
Date:Monday, July 15, 2024 1:47:00 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 Councilmembers,
Two weeks ago, I wrote to you regarding rezoning recommendations to bolster our recently
adopted Housing Element. I am reaching out today to thank you for taking my suggestions
into consideration when modifying Staff's report.
Thank you for your prioritization of community input regarding amendments to Cupertino’s
Municipal Code to implement the 6th RHNA Cycle Housing Element. The rezonings you
passed on July 2 will enable our Housing Element to be eligible for full certification by HCD.
I fully endorse Cupertino’s Housing Element for certification. Because of Council’s
modifications, which thoughtfully took into account both public sentiment and our actual
housing needs, our Housing Element fully meets all of HCD’s requirements for compliance.
I look forward to an ambitious implementation of our Housing Element. Our public
implementation process is crucial to ensuring the Housing Element meets its full potential as a
planning document so that Cupertino can keep its promises to future generations.
In fact, because the Housing Element is only a baseline, I encourage the city to do more than
what is outlined as it continues to implement policies and strategies in the coming months and
years. This approach enjoys the support of both the general public, and HCD, who will
continually monitor our Housing Element’s success via its implementation.
Thank you once again for enacting improved zoning policies, which ensure the Housing
Element’s full compliance, and lay the foundation for a more vibrant Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Gauri Chawla
From:Kitty Moore
To:City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Kirsten Squarcia; Lauren Sapudar
Cc:Christopher Jensen; Luke Connolly
Subject:Agenda Item 7 Written Communications and Questions
Date:Monday, July 15, 2024 7:45:15 AM
Dear City Clerk and City Manager,
Please pull agenda item 7 for discussion.
After the close of public comments for the hearing on the Zoning Ordinance there was an
email with proposed changes to the ordinance sent to the City Clerk by VM Fruen to be added
to and included in the ordinance. The public was not allowed to have a discussion on what
these extensive changes mean and the changes were not explained clearly to the Council. The
VM Fruen changes also had future actions to be added to the Objective Standards. Please
provide that email from VM Fruen to the City Clerk for the public records for this agenda item
and as a response to these questions.
Questions:
Please provide a detailed description with a diagram where appropriate, of what each of the
following new zoning changes, added after public comment closed, means:
1. Removing the five-story limit in the R-4 zoning district;2. Eliminating the proposed objective standard for comparable size in the definition of
duplex;
3. Amending development standards related to duplexes in the R-1 zoning district proposed
under Housing Element Policy HE-1.3.6 as follows:
a. Amend allowable Floor Area Ratio to 65%;
b. Adopt a lot coverage of 50%;
c. Conform parking standards to R-1 zone standards (4 total – 2 open/2 enclosed); and
d. Allow interior side yard setbacks to align with minimum R-1 standards; and
4. Amending the lot coverage to 50% in the R-3 zoning district for developments with
up to 4 units.
Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Councilmember
City Council
KMoore@cupertino.gov
(408) 777-1389
From:Kirsten Squarcia
To:Lauren Sapudar
Subject:FW: motion
Date:Monday, July 15, 2024 11:20:54 AM
Attachments:image017.png
image018.png
image019.png
image020.png
image021.png
image022.png
image023.png
image024.png
image025.png
image026.png
image027.png
image028.png
image029.png
image030.png
image031.png
image032.png
Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
KirstenS@cupertino.gov
(408) 777-3225
From: J.R. Fruen <JRFruen@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 8:55 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.gov>
Subject: motion
I move the staff-recommended action with the following modest modifications reflected the
public comment to the proposed Municipal Code amendments in Attachment A:
1. That with respect to the new R-4 zone, that the story restriction be removed;
2. That the change in definition of a "duplex" under Municipal Code Section 19.08.030
be removed;
3. That with respect to the duplex overlay implementing Strategy HE 1.3.6:
1. That the 55% floor area ratio be changed to 65%;
2. That the existing constraint of 1.5 enclosed and 1.5 exposed parking spaces
per dwelling unit be reduced to 1 enclosed and 1 exposed to align with
neighboring single-family R-1 standards;
3. That interior side yard se backs be set at a flat 5 feet to align with minimum
single-family R-1 standards; and
4. That the lot coverage standard be increased to 50%; and
4. That with respect to R-3 zones for developments up to 4 units, that the permissible lot
coverage be expanded to 50%.
I further move that we direct the City Manager to align and harmonize these standards in
the upcoming Objective Design Standards for our other zoning districts with a focus on
feasibility and architectural flexibility.
J.R. Fruen
Vice Mayor
City Council
JRFruen@cupertino.gov
(408)777-1316
From:Cupertino ForAll
To:Jauregui, Jose @HCD; Melinda.Coy@hcd.ca.gov
Cc:City Clerk; benf@cupertino.gov; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject:Certification of Cupertino"s Housing Element
Date:Saturday, July 13, 2024 12:01:59 AM
Attachments:CFA Letter Supporting Certification of Cupertino"s Housing Element (July 12, 2024).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 evening,
Cupertino For All is glad to endorse Cupertino's Housing Element for full certification after
the city's July 2 rezonings, which we believe are a faithful implementation of Cupertino's
commitments.
Please see our official letter detailing our reasons for endorsement as well as our role (and
other local organizations' role) in the rezoning process.
Further Attachments (Included in Letter)
Attachment 1: CFA Letter to Cupertino City Council Urging Modifications to Zoning Code
Attachment 2: SV@Home Letter to Cupertino City Council Urging Modifications to Zoning
Code
Attachment 3: Housing Action Coalition Letter to Cupertino City Council Urging
Modifications to Zoning Code
Thank you,
Steering Committee
Cupertino for All
July 12,2024
Department of Housing and Community Development
2020 W.El Camino Avenue,Suite 500 Sacramento,CA 95833
Attn:Jose Jauregui &Melinda Coy
Re:Certification of Cupertino’s Housing Element
Mr.Juaregui and Ms.Coy:
Cupertino for All (CFA)is a local nonprofit housing advocacy organization focused on
helping Cupertino become a more affordable,inclusive,and vibrant place.To that
end,we –as an organization and individually as members –have actively
participated in the development of Cupertino’s 6th RHNA Cycle Housing Element.
Following the City Council’s first reading of amended rezonings undertaken at
its July 2,2024,meeting,we are very happy to fully endorse Cupertino’s recently
adopted Housing Element and strongly believe it merits the Department’s
certification.
After the Department’s April 10,2024,letter which certified Cupertino’s draft Housing
Element (adopted May 14,2024)conditioned on the City completing legally required
rezonings,CFA took to interacting with our community and City Council1 to
implement amendments to our Municipal Code that reflect more inclusive zoning
policies,rather than restrictive ones.City Council incorporated key CFA-proposed
modifications to these proposed rezonings –especially to the implementation of the
City’s Missing Middle housing policy (Strategy HE 1.3.6)–at its July 22 session.We are
2 See Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of the Cupertino City Council of July 2,2024,at pp.5-6
(describing the substitute motion that carried on a 3-2 vote),available at
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=13127505&GUID=5FB32F25-96A1-47EE-B467
-4FD85C56DE31&G=74359C04-A5F0-4CB2-A97A-0032996BB90E.
1 See Attachment 1,Letter of Cupertino for All to the Cupertino City Council,dated July 1,2024
(urging specific modifications to Cupertino’s proposed rezonings).Other local and regional
housing advocacy organizations submitted modification proposals in alignment with CFA.
See e.g.,Attachment 2,Letter of Silicon Valley at Home to the Cupertino City Council,dated
July 1,2024;Attachment 3,Letter of the Housing Action Coalition to the Cupertino City
Council,dated July 2,2024.
now confident that Cupertino’s Housing Element more than meets the
Department’s requirements for certification and that the rezonings of July 2 are
a faithful implementation of the City’s commitments.We are happy to see the City
Council taking positive steps to implement an ambitious Housing Element.
We urge you to find the rezonings legally sufficient and to certify Cupertino’s
Housing Element,so that the city can begin working on implementing it to its full
potential.
Regards,
Steering Committee
Cupertino For All
ATTACHMENT 1
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
ATTACHMENT 2
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.
ATTACHMENT 3
-XO\
5( $JHQGD ,WHP +RXVLQJ (OHPHQW ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ $PHQGPHQWV
'HDU &XSHUWLQR &LW\&RXQFLO
,DP ZULWLQJ RQ EHKDOI RI WKH +RXVLQJ $FWLRQ &RDOLWLRQ +$& +$&LV D
PHPEHUVXSSRUWHG QRQSURILW WKDW DGYRFDWHV IRU EXLOGLQJ KRXVLQJ DW DOO LQFRPH OHYHOV LQ
RUGHU WR DOOHYLDWH &DOLIRUQLD DQG WKH %D\$UHD¶V KRXVLQJ VKRUWDJHDIIRUGDELOLW\DQG
GLVSODFHPHQW FULVLV:H KDYH EHHQ VSHFLILFDOO\GHGLFDWHG WR VXSSRUWLQJ FLWLHV LQ PHHWLQJ
WKHLU KRXVLQJ JRDOV WKURXJK WKH +RXVLQJ (OHPHQW
:H DUH ZULWLQJ WR H[SUHVV RXU FRQFHUQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH SURSRVHG DPHQGPHQWV UHODWHG WR WKH WK
&\FOH +RXVLQJ (OHPHQW&HUWDLQ DVSHFWV RI WKHVH DPHQGPHQWV UHWDLQ VLJQLILFDQW EDUULHUV WR
KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ DQG IDLO WR PHHW VWDWH $IILUPDWLYHO\)XUWKHULQJ )DLU +RXVLQJ $))+
UHTXLUHPHQWVSRWHQWLDOO\MHRSDUGL]LQJ &DOLIRUQLD¶V 'HSDUWPHQW RI +RXVLQJ DQG &RPPXQLW\
'HYHORSPHQW +&' FHUWLILFDWLRQ RI &XSHUWLQR¶V +RXVLQJ (OHPHQW
7KH WK &\FOH +RXVLQJ (OHPHQW 8SGDWH RIIHUV D XQLTXH FKDQFH WR DGGUHVV KRXVLQJ QHHGV DQG
UHPRYH GHYHORSPHQW FRQVWUDLQWV2Q $SULO +&'LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH UHYLVHG GUDIW
KRXVLQJ HOHPHQW PHHWV VWDWXWRU\UHTXLUHPHQWV RQFH DGRSWHG DQG DSSURYHGSHU *RYHUQPHQW
&RGH VHFWLRQ
6WUDWHJ\+(LV FUXFLDO IRU HQDEOLQJ PLVVLQJ PLGGOH KRXVLQJ DQG LPSURYLQJ DFFHVV WR
KLJKUHVRXUFH DUHDV+RZHYHUWKH SURSRVHG DPHQGPHQWV PDLQWDLQ H[LVWLQJ EDUULHUV DQG
LQWURGXFH QHZ RQHVFRQWUDGLFWLQJ WKH VWUDWHJ\¶V LQWHQW
:H UHFRPPHQG WKH IROORZLQJ FKDQJHV WR WKH SURSRVHG ]RQLQJ DPHQGPHQWV IRU 6WUDWHJ\+(
Ɣ (OLPLQDWH WKH )$5 OLPLW WR SHUPLW WZRVWRU\GXSOH[HV RQ VWDQGDUG ORWV
Ɣ 5HPRYH WKH ³FRPSDUDEOH VL]H´UHTXLUHPHQW IRU GXSOH[HV WR DOORZ PRUH IOH[LEOH KRXVLQJ
FRQILJXUDWLRQV
Ɣ 5HGXFH 5SDUNLQJ UHTXLUHPHQWV WR VSDFHV SHU XQLW
Ɣ $OLJQ LQWHULRU VLGH \DUG VHWEDFNV ZLWK WKH 5VWDQGDUG RI IHHW
Ɣ 3HUPLW PLQLPXP ORW FRYHUDJH RI DW OHDVW DQG UHPRYH PLQLPXP ORW VL]H
UHTXLUHPHQWV
Ɣ $OLJQ H[LVWLQJ 5VWDQGDUGV ZLWK WKH GXSOH[RYHUOD\LQ 6WUDWHJ\+(
)RU 5DQG 5]RQHVZH UHFRPPHQG
Ɣ 5HPRYH WKH VWRU\OLPLW LQ 5]RQHV WR PDLQWDLQ WKH IRRW KHLJKW SRWHQWLDO
Ɣ ,QFUHDVH ORW FRYHUDJH PD[LPXP IRU 5SURSHUWLHV SURSRVLQJ XS WR XQLWV WR DW OHDVW
Ɣ (OLPLQDWH WKH 5PLQLPXP ORW VL]H VWDQGDUG
:H DSSUHFLDWH &XSHUWLQR¶V HIIRUWV DQG FRPPHQG WKH SURJUHVV PDGHLQFOXGLQJ 7KH 5LVH
GHYHORSPHQW+RZHYHUWKH SURSRVHG DPHQGPHQWV LPSRVH QHZ FRQVWUDLQWV WKDW KLQGHU
FRPSOLDQFH ZLWK VWDWH $))+UHTXLUHPHQWV:H ZHOFRPH WKH RSSRUWXQLW\IRU IXUWKHU GLDORJXH WR
DGGUHVV WKHVH LVVXHV
6LQFHUHO\
&RUH\6PLWK([HFXWLYH 'LUHFWRU
+RXVLQJ $FWLRQ &RDOLWLRQ +$&
$OL 6DSLUPDQ6RXWK %D\ 3HQLQVXOD 2UJDQL]HU
+RXVLQJ $FWLRQ &RDOLWLRQ +$&