Loading...
Written Communications 6-11-2024 Planning Commission Meeting June 11, 2024 Written Communications Cc: grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject: Fwd: Overlapping Meetings on June 11, 2024 with Park and Rec and HCD Rezoning CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. FYI. Please include this correspondence in the public comments about the Park and Recreation meeting on June 11, 2024 and the Housing Element Rezoning meeting At the Planning Commission meeting on June 11, 2024 which appear to be at the Same time in two different locations. Thank you! -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Overlapping Meetings on June 11, 2024 with Park and Rec and HCD Rezoning From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2024, 5:39 PM To: citycouncil@cupertino.org CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com Dear City Council: I am very concerned because there are two important city meetings at the same time on Tuesday, June 11. These are the Planning Commission meeting which is a Housing Element Rezoning meeting and also a Park and Recreation Meeting in a completely different area Which is about Lawrence-Mitty Park. There are both very important meetings. Why are they on the same day in two different Locations? I was in Virginia visiting family (actually flying) when the Planning Commission Meeting was last Tuesday about the Lawrence-Mitty Park. I was hoping to attend the next Meeting about it, but now it is on the same night as the extremely stressful Housing Element Rezoning meeting in the Planning Commission meeting also on Tuesday, June 11. We also have family visiting this week from Portland, Oregon. Why do these two meetings have to be on the same night? The public has already spent Hours and hours of their time dealing with the Housing Element and it's peculiar demands In the last two years so there is no great rush in my eyes to try to do this Housing Element Rezoning in one night. We owe nothing to HCD. They have wasted our time and money In the last two years and now they just want to try to push through this rezoning with All of its bad RHNA numbers and strange Missing Middle Zoning in one night. I say let them wait. Let HCD sit and wait. They never showed any sensitivity to the public With their eccentric demands and name-calling of our city in the last two years. We owe them nothing. At least with Apple and the Park and Rec Commission we get a park. I bet HCD would love to get their hands on that park and build some dense high rise on it. At least we have a new park. I doubt with HCD rezoning the whole city with their mythical Made up RHNA numbers we will ever get another park. Please don't let these two meetings be on the same night. Let HCD cool their heels and Wait until the 12th or later. We owe no allegiance to HCD. They lost that on the beginning of this ludicrous Sixth Cycle Housing Element. At least we get a park. Please reschedule these two meetings so they do not conflict. I'm really tired of HCD Calling the good people of Cupertino names. Thank you. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin From:Waguih S Ishak To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:rgrymes2001@yahoo.com; batragautam@gmail.com; albertwu38@gmail.com; Sujai; fshew@mindspring.com; kalkocz@icloud.com Subject:Opposition to the Linda Vista Project Date:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 12:23:53 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. June 11, 2024 Dear Planning Committee of the City of Cupertino. I wanted to attend the meeting today (6/11/2024) but my travel schedule prevented me from attending. I'm totally opposed to the new Linda Vista Development Proposal for the following reasons: The area has a very dangerous slope and requires very expensive grading and water drainage management The Fire Insurance will be extremely hard to find and if found, very expensive. The wildlife in this area will be very much threatened. The traffic issues that this project will cause. I'm not happy with the communications we received about this proposal. Emi Sugiyama has been kind enough to update us but she requested a few things from the people who applied for the proposal and over a month passed with no answer. The maps they showed in the preliminary proposal do not show the current houses who will be affected by the project. We asked for accurate maps with no answer. Thank you. Dr. Waguih Ishak 22071 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA 95014 650-283-5501 From:Albert38 To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Opposition to the Linda Vista Development Proposal Date:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 8:29:30 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. June 11, 2024 Dear Planning Commission members, I have a strong urge to express my concern with the Linda Vista Development Proposal, as a resident of a home very close to the project site. Unfortunately, I am in Asia and thus cannot attend today’s meeting. I have been seeing and hearing digging and soil removal of the hill right outside of my windows. My neighbors and I appreciate the tranquility and the natural beauty of our environment, and thus we chose living in our hillside area. The Development Proposal suggests a large scale damage to the original environment, and yet we the concerned community have not seen much transparency of the project to voice our opposition. As my neighbors have enumerated the problematic issues to be or have been presented to the Commission, I want to add my strong opposition to the proposed development. I urge the Commission and the City Government to listen to our voices, and cautiously and carefully study the negative impacts of the development project before further irreparable damages are done. I thank you. Dr. Albert Wu 22121 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, CA 95014 408-663-7952 albertwu38@gmail.com From:fshew@mindspring.com To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:"Gautam Batra"; "Rose Grymes"; albertwu38@gmail.com; "Sujai"; kalkocz@icloud.com; "peter Friedland" Subject:"Vista Heights" Project - Linda Vista Drive - APN 356-27-026, 356-05-007, 356-05-008 Date:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 10:43:32 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 Planning Commission members, My name is Frank Shew and I am the property owner at 11255 Mount Crest Pl. My concerns re: this project: 1). The extensive re-grading that needs to be done, and how that impacts on water/rainfall drainage, as there is a low spot behind Mount Crest Place where run-off accumulates. 2). Traffic – If access to the new development is along the entrance to Linda Vista Park, it should be noted that this entrance is located on a curve of Linda Vista Drive. This curve already poses a driving problem with on-coming traffic appearing suddenly, and because the sidewalk around this area is narrow, most people walk out on the street. With additional housing, including a sports center that will have 12,100 square feet of underground parking and another parking lot of 15,000 square feet, traffic and safety would be significantly impacted. Regards, Frank Shew 11255 Mount Crest Pl 408-483-5311 From:Santosh Rao To:City Council; Pamela Wu; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission Subject:Scheduling planning commission and parks and rec at the same day/time. Date:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 11:49:47 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. Hello Mayor Sheila, Manager Wu, chairs of planning and parks and rec commissions, What is the reason to schedule parks and rec commission at the same day/time as the planning commission. This is only going to reduce stakeholder engagement as residents can only attend one or the other. The parks and rec was planned for last week originally if I recall correctly. It was cancelled and moved to overlap with planning commission. Can you please look into this and direct the city manager and staff to avoid overlapping commission meetings in the interest of stakeholder engagement. I am copying the planning commission and parks and rec commission as well so their chairs may do the same. Thanks, Santosh Rao Planning Commission Meeting June 11, 2024 Written Communications Item #2 From:Sandy Kay To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:Sintiat Te; Joyce Hu; Ying Min Li; Howard Wang Subject:Regarding Agenda Jun 11 2024 project 35 in the housing element - Street: Adriana Date:Thursday, June 6, 2024 7:35:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello My understanding is that this lot will be rezoned R3/TH just want clarification about whether PUDS will be acceptable as long as other criteria for fire, public works, etc are met Thank you! SANDY KAY 408 202 0608 SandyKayHomes.com Keller Williams Bay Area Estates 16780 Lark Ave, Los Gatos 95032 # 01038967 AKownacki - KW BAE #01526679 From:Sandy Kay To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:Sandy Kay; Joyce Hu; Ying Min Li; Scott Poncetta Subject:Planning commission this evening Date:Monday, June 10, 2024 8:30:51 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. Hello Ying Min Li is in the process of purchasing 10231 Adriana Ave Cupertino which is in the housing element. Either one of us copied here will be asking questions about the new zoning and whether single family residence /PUDS will be allowed. Thank you SANDY KAY 408 202 0608 SandyKayHomes.com Keller Williams Bay Area Estates 16780 Lark Ave, Los Gatos 95032 # 01038967 AKownacki - KW BAE #01526679 From:Peggy Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly Cc:City Clerk Subject:2024-06-11 Planning Commission Mtg - ITEM2 - HE changes - What "minor changes"? Date:Monday, June 10, 2024 11:47:21 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. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM. Dear Planning Commission, Planning Manager Gosh and Asst. Director Connolly, Regarding Zoning Map Amendments (Attachment C) Q: What exactly are all the “other minor changes that were made? Please specify them. Thank you, Peggy Griffin From:Peggy Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly Subject:2024-06-10 Planning Commission Mtg-ITEM2 HE Municipal Code Changes-Definition Questions Date:Monday, June 10, 2024 12:32:43 PM Attachments:image002.png 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 AND ANY ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM. Dear Planning Commission, Asst. Director Connolly and Planning Manager Piu, Please see my questions and comments below regarding the “19.08.030 Definitions” section. RE: Muni Code Changes – Attachment A – Draft MCA Resolution.pdf Page 7 of 41 – 19.08.030: Definitions “Base Zoning” Q: What is it? REQUEST: Please add definition of “Base zoning”. “Duplex” – THANK YOU for adding that phrase! “Congregate residence” – what are “lodging houses”? Are student dorms included? Page 8 of 41 cont. Definitions Chapter 19.112 is the ADU Regulations. Q: What does this definition mean with respect to ADUs? GENERAL QUESTION…In some recently built buildings in other cities, I’ve seen what appears to be a building where the ground floor is built on the property line but the second floor and above hangs over public airspace. This is concerning because having a public right-of-way allows for future widening of the streets, addition of utility features, etc. Q: Do these new changes to zoning prevent this from happening? Q: Does the public right-of-way include airspace above it in all cases? If not, when does it not? Thank you, Peggy Griffin From:Peggy Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly Cc:City Clerk Subject:RE: 2024-06-10 Planning Commission Mtg-ITEM2 HE Municipal Code Changes-Definition Questions Date:Monday, June 10, 2024 12:38:02 PM Attachments:image001.png 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. REQUEST: Please also add the definition for “parcel level zoning”. Thank you, Peggy Griffin From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 12:32 PM To: PlanningCommission@cupertino.org; 'Piu Ghosh (she/her)' <PiuG@cupertino.gov>; 'Luke Connolly' <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: 2024-06-10 Planning Commission Mtg-ITEM2 HE Municipal Code Changes-Definition Questions PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM. Dear Planning Commission, Asst. Director Connolly and Planning Manager Piu, Please see my questions and comments below regarding the “19.08.030 Definitions” section. RE: Muni Code Changes – Attachment A – Draft MCA Resolution.pdf Page 7 of 41 – 19.08.030: Definitions “Base Zoning” Q: What is it? REQUEST: Please add definition of “Base zoning”. “Duplex” – THANK YOU for adding that phrase! “Congregate residence” – what are “lodging houses”? Are student dorms included? Page 8 of 41 cont. Definitions Chapter 19.112 is the ADU Regulations. Q: What does this definition mean with respect to ADUs? GENERAL QUESTION…In some recently built buildings in other cities, I’ve seen what appears to be a building where the ground floor is built on the property line but the second floor and above hangs over public airspace. This is concerning because having a public right-of-way allows for future widening of the streets, addition of utility features, etc. Q: Do these new changes to zoning prevent this from happening? Q: Does the public right-of-way include airspace above it in all cases? If not, when does it not? Thank you, Peggy Griffin From:Peggy Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her) Cc:City Clerk Subject:2024-06-10 Planning Commission Mtg-ITEM2 - HE Zoning - ADD R1-a provision Date:Monday, June 10, 2024 9:31:45 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png 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 AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM. Dear Planning Commission, Asst. Director Connolly and Planning Manager Ghosh, The proposed zoning changes to Muni Code 19.28.040 Table 19.28.040 make provisions for two (R1-e and R1-i) of the 3 zoning overlay areas but neglected to include R1-a. REQUEST: Please ADD the following provision to Chapter 19.28.040, Table 19.28.040 (K) for our R1-a neighborhood as follows: “Units located on parcels zoned R1-a shall meet the required front setbacks for R1-a zoning district.” The proposed changes to Chapter 19.28 to allow R2 on corner lots and on lots abutting commercial corridors would impact 23 of the 68 homes in our Linwood Acres neighborhood: The entire west side of Larry Way that abuts the Apple Infinity Loop property. (17 homes including 2 corner homes) 6 other corner homes Our homes are on larger lots with 30-foot front setbacks, part of which is the public easement. If this provision is not added, as homes are remodeled using the R2 provision, they will build to the 20-foot front setback destroying the look of the neighborhood. It will become a hodge-podge of homes, some at 20-ft and some at 30-ft. The homes using the 20-foot setback will look like monster homes and block views of their neighbors. Of the provisions we have in our R1-a overlay, the 30-foot front setback is the most important. The purpose of these proposed Municipal Code zoning changes is to allow increased density that blends into the existing neighborhoods. Near Lawson Middle School, there are homes that are R2 that are not noticeably different than the area around them. PLEASE add this provision to help our neighborhood transition successfully. You have provisions for R1-e and R1-i, please add this R1-a provision. Sincerely, Terry and Peggy Griffin Randy Lane From:Peggy Griffin To:TedBe@hotmail.com; eauch@att.net; ankurkg@hotmail.com; lorraine eaneff; cvanhoy33@yahoo.com; Gary Matsunami; "AndyChristel Mauffet-Smith"; Geoffrey Paulsen Cc:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her) Subject:FW: 2024-06-10 Planning Commission Mtg-ITEM2 - HE Zoning - ADD R1-a provision Date:Monday, June 10, 2024 10:00:10 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png 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 Randy Lane and Larry Way Neighbors, I am sorry for this very late notice. There is a Cupertino Planning Commission meeting tomorrow, Tuesday June 11, 2024 at 6:45 pm. They are reviewing the zoning changes that go with the Housing Element changes the city passed recently. These zoning changes impact our R1-a! I just found out today. Housing Element Strategy HE-1.3.6 allows all R1 corner lots and homes that share a property line with a commercial property (Apple) on major streets to become R2. All the R1-a provisions disappear for those properties that go to R2. This can impact 23 of the 68 homes in our neighborhood: The entire west side of Larry Way that abuts the Apple Infinity Loop property. (17 homes including 2 corner homes) 6 other corner homes PLEASE spread the word to all those you know on Larry Way and Randy Lane. PLEASE send email ASAP to ask that they preserve our 30-foot front setback. You can use any or all of the text below but sign your own name. SEND TO: PlanningCommission@cupertino.org; LukeC@cupertino.org; PiuG@cupertino.gov COPY: CityClerk@cupertino.org SUBJECT: 6-10-2024 Planning Commission Meeting Item2 – HE Zoning – ADD R1-a provision SHORT VERSION OF EMAIL TEXT: PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM. Dear Planning Commission, Asst. Director Connolly and Planning Manager Ghosh, The proposed zoning changes to Muni Code 19.28.040 Table 19.28.040 make provisions for two (R1-e and R1-i) of the 3 zoning overlay areas but neglected to include R1-a. REQUEST: Please ADD the following provision to Chapter 19.28.040, Table 19.28.040 (K) for our R1-a neighborhood as follows: “Units located on parcels zoned R1-a shall meet the required front setbacks for R1-a zoning district.” Thank you, <your name> <your street> END OF EMAIL TEXT This will also come to City Council but it is best to try and get the change in at the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin 10727 Randy Lane From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 9:31 PM To: PlanningCommission@cupertino.org; 'Luke Connolly' <LukeC@cupertino.org>; 'Piu Ghosh (she/her)' <PiuG@cupertino.gov> Cc: 'City Clerk' <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: 2024-06-10 Planning Commission Mtg-ITEM2 - HE Zoning - ADD R1-a provision PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM. Dear Planning Commission, Asst. Director Connolly and Planning Manager Ghosh, The proposed zoning changes to Muni Code 19.28.040 Table 19.28.040 make provisions for two (R1-e and R1-i) of the 3 zoning overlay areas but neglected to include R1-a. REQUEST: Please ADD the following provision to Chapter 19.28.040, Table 19.28.040 (K) for our R1-a neighborhood as follows: “Units located on parcels zoned R1-a shall meet the required front setbacks for R1-a zoning district.” The proposed changes to Chapter 19.28 to allow R2 on corner lots and on lots abutting commercial corridors would impact 23 of the 68 homes in our Linwood Acres neighborhood: The entire west side of Larry Way that abuts the Apple Infinity Loop property. (17 homes including 2 corner homes) 6 other corner homes Our homes are on larger lots with 30-foot front setbacks, part of which is the public easement. If this provision is not added, as homes are remodeled using the R2 provision, they will build to the 20-foot front setback destroying the look of the neighborhood. It will become a hodge-podge of homes, some at 20-ft and some at 30-ft. The homes using the 20-foot setback will look like monster homes and block views of their neighbors. Of the provisions we have in our R1-a overlay, the 30-foot front setback is the most important. The purpose of these proposed Municipal Code zoning changes is to allow increased density that blends into the existing neighborhoods. Near Lawson Middle School, there are homes that are R2 that are not noticeably different than the area around them. PLEASE add this provision to help our neighborhood transition successfully. You have provisions for R1-e and R1-i, please add this R1-a provision. Sincerely, Terry and Peggy Griffin Randy Lane From:Christine P. VanHoy To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Clerk Cc:Chris VanHoy Subject:6-10-2024 Planning Commission Meeting Item2 – HE Zoning – ADD R1-a provision Date:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 10:00:09 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 Planning Commission, Asst. Director Connolly and Planning Manager Ghosh, The proposed zoning changes to Muni Code 19.28.040 Table 19.28.040 make provisions for two (R1-e and R1-i) of the 3 zoning overlay areas but neglected to include R1-a. REQUEST: Please ADD the following provision to Chapter 19.28.040, Table 19.28.040 (K) for our R1-a neighborhood as follows: “Units located on parcels zoned R1-a shall meet the required front setbacks for R1-a zoning district.” Thank you, Christine and Robert VanHoy 10556 Larry Way ==== Christine P. VanHoy Look inside, and be an Everyday Hero! From:Connie Cunningham To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Piu Ghosh (she/her) Subject:PC June 11 Re- zoning Date:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 10:44:18 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 Chair Fung, Vice Chair Lindskog and Commissioners: Thank you to Staff for their fine work on the re- zoning changes to make the General Plan consistent with the new Housing Element. It is exciting to see this next step coming to fruition. Thank you for your time and effort reviewing the Staff Report and attachments. I agree with Staff recommendation to approve and forward to Council in this next step toward HCD approval of the Housing Element. Best, Connie Cunningham, Housing Commission, self only From Connie's iPhone From:Ankur Gupta To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her) Cc:City Clerk; Pooja Gupta; Peggy Griffin Subject:6-11-2024 Planning Commission Meeting Item2 – HE Zoning – ADD R1-a provision Date:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 11:24:06 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 Planning Commission, Asst. Director Connolly and Planning Manager Ghosh, The proposed zoning changes to Muni Code 19.28.040 Table 19.28.040 make provisions for two (R1-e and R1-i) of the 3 zoning overlay areas but neglected to include R1-a. REQUEST: Please ADD the following provision to Chapter 19.28.040, Table 19.28.040 (K) for our R1-a neighborhood as follows: “Units located on parcels zoned R1-a shall meet the required front setbacks for R1-a zoning district.” Thank you, Ankur & Pooja Gupta 10726 Larry Way, Cupertino From:Hickey, John To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:Ebrahimi, Kevin; Piu Ghosh (she/her) Subject:Planning Commission Meeting, June 11, 2024: Agenda Item 2 (MCA-2023-001, SPA-2023-001, CP-2024-002, Z- 2024-001, EA-2024-001) Date:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 2:48:09 PM Attachments:Letter re Proposed Municipal Code Amendments - 20240611.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. Chair Fung and Members of the Planning Commission, SummerHill Homes respectfully submits the attached comments regarding Item 2 on the Planning Commission’s agenda for June 11, 2024. Thank you. John Hickey Vice President of Development SummerHill Homes 777 S. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 Desk (650) 842-2360 • Mobile (650) 303-0992 jhickey@shhomes.com shhomes.com All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to SummerHill Homes LLC and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes LLC. All rights reserved. 777 S. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 SHHomes.com June 11, 2024 Via Email: planningcommission@cupertino.org Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: Municipal Code, Specific Plan, Below Market Rate Mitigation Manual and Zoning Map Amendments related to implementing the 6th Cycle Housing Element Application No.(s): MCA-2023-001, SPA-2023-001, CP-2024-002, Z-2024-001, EA-2024-001 Dear Chair Fung and Members of the Planning Commission, Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code, the Heart of the City Specific Plan, the Below Market Rate Mitigation Manual and the Zoning Map related to implementing the 6th Cycle Housing Element. SummerHill Homes is a local company that has been building communities of distinction in the Bay Area for almost 50 years. SummerHill has built more than 6,800 homes in 81 communities, including more than 1,500 townhouse-style homes. SummerHill has a deep understanding of the challenges and opportunities for homebuilders seeking to develop townhouse-style communities, particularly in cities like Cupertino where the costs of land and construction are high. With that background, SummerHill Homes respectfully submits the following comments with regard to proposed chapter 19.46 (Townhome (TH) Combining District) and related amendments to the Municipal Code regarding townhomes. 1. Expand the Definition of Townhome to Allow Partially Stacked Units SummerHill recommends that the proposed definition of “townhome” or “rowhome” in Municipal Code section 19.08.030 be expanded to allow units that are partially located over other units, subject to the requirement (as currently proposed) that each unit have its own ground-floor access to the outside. For example, in a number of recent projects, SummerHill has built townhome-style homes where each unit has an individual attached garage (with direct interior access) and an individual ground-floor front door, but for some of the units the interior living spaces of the units partially overlap. The partially overlapping units look like townhomes from the outside and live like townhomes on the inside, but rather than having two floors of living area above the garage, each unit has only one story of living area above the garage — either the second floor or the third floor, accessible by an interior stairway. Planning Commission June 11, 2024 Page 2 777 S. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 SHHomes.com One of the great advantages of this type of partially overlapping design is that it gives homebuilders the opportunity to offer two-bedroom homes to homebuyers who do not want (or cannot afford) a three- or four-bedroom home, without sacrificing efficient use of the underlying land. We would be happy to show you examples of this style of unit. 2. Increase the Maximum Floor Area Ratio SummerHill recommends that the maximum FAR for the TH Combining District be increased from 70% of net lot area to at least 110% of net lot area. For sites subject to a minimum density of 20 units per acre, it is not feasible to develop townhomes at an FAR of only 70%. At a minimum density of 20 units per acre and a maximum FAR of 70%, each townhome would have no more than 1,125 square feet of living area (including stairways).1 Based on a survey of townhomes sold in the past five years, the average size of a townhome in Cupertino is approximately 1,350 square feet of living area. For two-bedroom townhomes in Cupertino, the average size is approximately 1,150 square feet of living area. For three- and four- bedroom townhomes in Cupertino, the average size is approximately 1,550 square feet of living area. By contrast, 1,125 square feet of living area would only allow enough room for a cramped two-bedroom townhome, at most. 3. Raise the Height Limit SummerHill recommends that the maximum height limit for the TH Combining district be increased to at least 37 feet in order to allow for traditional styles of architecture with peaked roofs. The Municipal Code defines building height as the maximum vertical distance from the peak of the roof to the grade below. For a three-story building with 9-foot ceiling heights and a 4:12 roof slope — both of which are typical in the homebuilding industry for townhomes — the minimum height of a townhome building would be approximately 36 feet, plus the additional height of the foundation to accommodate stormwater drainage across the site. 4. Clarify Proposed Sections 19.46.040, 19.46.060 and 19.46.070 SummerHill recommends that proposed section 19.46.040 be revised to clarify that it is intended to refer only to the requirements and procedures regarding Development Plans as established in sections 19.36.040 and 19.38.040, not the requirements of chapters 19.36 and 19.38 generally. While the intent of section 19.46.040 might seem clear given its section heading, section 1.01.050 of the Municipal Code does not allow section headings to be taken into account. Therefore, we recommend that proposed section 19.46.040 be revised to include a reference to Development Plans in the text of the section. With regard to proposed section 19.46.060, SummerHill recommends that Row B in Table 19.46.060 be revised to clarify that “Maximum Lot [] Width” refers to the width of a lot on which no more than one townhome unit is located (e.g., where each townhome unit includes “fee simple” ownership of the underlying land), as distinct from a lot on which multiple townhomes are located (e.g,. where each townhome unit is created by a condominium plan and multiple attached townhomes are 1 Enclosed garages count towards floor area (Municipal Code § 19.08.030(F)), and each enclosed garage must have a minimum area of 400 square feet (Municipal Code § 19.124.030). Planning Commission June 11, 2024 Page 3 777 S. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 SHHomes.com located on a single lot). As Row B is currently drafted, it could be construed to mean that townhome projects must comply with both the “maximum lot width” and the “maximum air parcel width,” which would not be practically possible for townhome projects that are mapped as condominiums. With regard to proposed section 19.46.070, please note that the table of Building Development Regulations appears to be mis-labeled as Table 19.36.080 rather than as Table 19.46.070. SummerHill will continue to analyze the potential impacts of the City’s proposed amendments to implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element. We would be happy to meet with City staff to discuss our comments further. Sincerely, John Hickey Vice President of Development cc: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager, City of Cupertino Kevin Ebrahimi, Senior Vice President of Development, SummerHill Homes From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Outrageous Rezoning of the City Of Cupertino Date:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 3:50:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council and Planning Commission: I have been reviewing the changes in rezoning and building standards that are being forced Upon the city of Cupertino by HCD and the Sixth Cycle Housing Element. As an adult, I cannot believe the liberties HCD is taking with my citizen. There is such a new Level of rezoning baggage and nonsense in this Planning Commission meeting document Tonight that I am appalled at what HCD (or some part of HCD) is doing to my city. It is Highway robbery. I don't blame the staff and consultants. A job is a job. They did the best they could with this ridiculous song And dance HCD has been doing with certifying the Housing Elements. It is like a soap Opera. Is HCD mad at Cupertino? Will they sic Yimby Law on the city? Will people call the People living in Cupertino bad names and accuse them of not caring about people? How can HCD rezone parts of the city to the highest density possible and get away with it, especially using Bad Data to start with? How can HCD unstem STEM and use it for nefarious purposes? So HCD won't certify Cupertino and then when HCD is running out of time to certify Northern California, Cupertino gets a letter from HCD (or whoever is running HCD) that they will certify Cupertino, but they have to rezone everything in the city within X amount of days. And I mean, super high densities. And the kicker is, once that land is rezoned for high density Housing zoning, the land can never be rezoned back to non-housing if the city needs parks or Retail. The property owner gets their property upzoned for high density housing and makes More off the property immediately, the minute the city rezones it. There is also no incentive To ever build because each time the property is up-zoned it becomes worth more and more Money. May as well sit on the property for speculation etc. I understand completely why the State Audit Committee voted last month in unison to have An audit of HCD and the Sixth Cycle Housing Element. What ever happened to HCD in the Sixth Cycle, the intent is to rip off and deceive the public and call the public stupid. The Sixth Cycle Housing Element has been a drag on the state as a whole, including Cupertino, Wasting our time and money and trying our patience and resolve. The only thing I have gotten out of the Sixth Cycle is that I consider myself bi-cultural since My mother taught me to speak Spanish at home as a toddler. That is no small matter. Believe me, if the CVRA attorney sues my city on certain principles I will tell him he is Wrong to his face in Spanish. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin From:Cupertino ForAll To:City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly; Benjamin Fu; City Council; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Tejesh Mistry Subject:CFA Commentary Regarding the Draft MCA Resolution Date:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 6:37:01 PM Attachments:PC- Draft MCA - 06.11.24 - Letter - CFA.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, Please see the attached commentary regarding Item 2 on today's Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. Regards, Steering Committee Cupertino for All June 11, 2024 Planning Commission, 10350 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RE: Planning Commission - Agenda Item 2 - Draft MCA Resolution Dear Planning Commission and to whom it may concern, Thank you for expediting the rezoning process given the City’s short timeline. However, we were surprised and disappointed to see that the proposed changes do not reflect an ambitious program we had hoped for, but instead, the draft seems aimed at achieving minimum compliance rather than laying the foundation for a Housing Element that truly facilitates housing development and provides flexibility amidst challenging current market conditions in order to truly promote affordable homes for all income levels. Specifically, we would like to highlight the following concerns: 1. Height Limits : The 5-story limitation on new R4 zoned parcels is unnecessary, given the 70-foot height limit. This story limit should be removed to avoid imposing needless constraints. 2. Restrictive Zoning - Unnecessary Setbacks and Parking Standards : The initial implementation of Strategy HE 1.3.6 is extremely disappointing. It fails to support those wishing to develop duplexes in single-family zones due to unresolved issues in our R2 zoning districts. These issues include restrictive lot coverage (40%) and setbacks-which should be adjusted to a simple 5-foot minimum on each side for interior lots-as well as the high parking standards, which remain unaddressed. The document does not appear to modify R2 zoning standards effectively; instead, the draft imposes new, unnecessary restrictions on duplex definitions, limiting size differences between units (200 square feet) and FAR restrictions that do not exist in the current zoning code. 3. R3 Standards : R3 standards should also be improved by removing story restrictions, reviewing the height limit (a modest increase to at least 35 feet, expanding the lot coverage standard (40%), and expanding or abolishing the FAR restriction altogether. 4. Parking Standards : We urge further modifications to parking standards. Parking continues to be one of the greatest barriers for the actual building cost of affordable housing and is not in alignment with the ambitious climate change mitigation goals that Cupertino believes in, such as the Climate Action Plan 2.0, and moreover, contradicts the spirit of CAP 2.0 Updates that called for revising parking standards. Without these essential changes, particularly those related to Strategy HE 1.3.6 and the associated R2 standards, this zoning code update fails to address the moment and significantly misses the mark on AFFH (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing). We request that staff incorporate these changes into the document before it is presented to the Council next month. This will ensure that we, along with the rest of our community, can support it. Regards, Steering Committee Cupertino For All