CC 02-19-2025 Item No. 9 Zoning Map Amendment_ Written Communications (2)CC 02-19-2025
Item No. 9
Zoning Map
Amendment to correct
zoning for Priority
Housing Site No. 24 in
6th cycle Housing
Element
Written Communications
From:Ali Sapirman
To:City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Cc:Coy, Melinda@HCD; Jose.Jauregui@hcd.ca.gov; Corey Smith
Subject:Re: HAC Comment letter on item 9 Housing Element zoning correction
Date:Wednesday, February 19, 2025 3:06:08 PM
Attachments:HAC Cupertino Housing Element Comment Letter .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.
Apologies, our letter did not attach in the previous email.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 2:44 PM Ali Sapirman <ali@housingactioncoalition.org> wrote:
Dear Mayor Chao, Council, and Staff,
Please see the attached comment letter regarding Item No. 9: Zoning Map
Amendment to correct zoning for Priority Housing Site No. 24 in the 6th Cycle
Housing Element.
We ask that our letter is included in written communications for Item No. 9 on the
Council Agenda of February 19, 2025.
Please reach out with any questions or concerns.
In solidarity,
--Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them
Advocacy & Policy Manager| 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".
--
Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them
Advocacy & Policy Manager| Housing Action Coalition
555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111
Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: ali@housingactioncoalition.org
February 18, 2025
Re: Zoning Map Amendment to correct zoning for Priority Housing Site No. 24 in the 6th Cycle Housing
Element
Dear Mayor Chao and Members of the City Council,
At The Housing Action Coalition, our mission is to advocate for housing at all levels of affordability,
addressing the critical issues of housing shortage, displacement, and affordability crisis in the Bay Area
and California. We write to encourage the City Council to approve the proposed rezoning of Housing
Element Site No. 24, located at 20865 McClellan Road, to align with the city's state-certified Housing
Element and fulfill its legal obligations under California law.
California Government Code Section 65860 explicitly requires that zoning ordinances be consistent with
the General Plan, including its Housing Element. Per the staff report, the current zoning for this site does
not conform with what was envisioned in the Housing Element—specifically, the inclusion of a locally
created zoning district allowing for townhouses. Aligning the zoning for this site with the Housing
Element is a necessary and straightforward step in maintaining General Plan consistency and ensuring
compliance with state law.
This rezoning should not be controversial. The existing R3 zoning already allows for the construction of
apartment buildings at the same density proposed in this item’s rezoning. This change merely ensures that
the zoning ordinance reflects what was already contemplated and approved in the Housing Element.
Furthermore, the city’s Housing Element certification was contingent on necessary rezonings, including
this one. Failure to act raises concerns about whether the city has adequately fulfilled its commitments
under its Housing Element and could put Cupertino at risk of noncompliance with state housing laws.
Importantly, this correction does not impact any other vested rights, including existing applications to
develop the site. Instead, it ensures that the city continues to meet its obligations and avoids potential
legal and regulatory consequences stemming from noncompliance.
We strongly encourage the City Council to approve this zoning correction in accordance with the Housing
Element and state law. Doing so will demonstrate Cupertino’s commitment to meeting its housing goals
and providing much-needed housing opportunities for residents.
Sincerely,
Corey Smith, Executive Director
Housing Action Coalition (HAC)
Ali Sapirman, Advocacy & Policy Manager
Housing Action Coalition (HAC)
From:valerie
To:City Clerk
Subject:downzone 20865 McClellan back to R1
Date:Wednesday, February 19, 2025 11:01:41 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.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the 2/19/25 city council meeting
referenced 20865 McClellan zoning correction.
Thanks!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mayor Chao and Cupertino City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development of a three-story, 27-
unit townhome complex at 20865 McClellan. I believe this development could significantly
compromise the safety of the residents of the lot, as well as the existing neighbors. Yes, I am
concerned about the potential loss of lives if such a large development is completed on this lot.
With this email, I have two requests:
1. Release of the Public Communication Record: It is unimaginable that there is no
public communication record available upon request from a month ago. Unless the city
can provide this record, all Cupertino residents will be convinced that even the city
officials knew the proposal would face strong opposition. The failure to release the
record suggests that the city officials have failed to serve the community they were
elected to represent!
2. Downzone the 20865 McClellan Lot back to R1: Given the potential risks to public
safety, I request that the zoning for 20865 McClellan be reverted back to R1 due to the
serious concern over potential loss of lives.
Overburdened Infrastructure That Can Delay Rescue
As you may be aware, a student on a bike was involved in an accident near
Westacre/McClellan on 2/12/25. The ambulance had difficulty getting through because
McClellan is a two-lane street, and the bike barriers prevent cars from easily moving out of the
way. Fortunately, the student had only minor injuries, but imagine if this were a more serious
accident, where every second counts to save a life!
The bike barriers, designed to protect cyclists, have proven to be ineffective in such situations.
In the accident mentioned above, the barriers delayed the arrival of first responders. Adding
potentially 54 additional cars (27 units with 2 cars each) to McClellan will only increase the
risk of delays and create a more dangerous environment for everyone using this already busy
street.
I have lived in this neighborhood for over 20 years and have witnessed firsthand how
McClellan and surrounding streets have become busier. McClellan is already congested during
school hours and when adults and parents are commuting to work or taking care of their
families. The addition of 54 cars will only worsen the situation.
The developers is the only party that will benefit from this project.
Who will be held responsible for any injuries or loss of life?
Safety Concerns for Potential Residents of 20865 McClellan
The 0.99-acre lot designated for this project is far too small to accommodate 100+ residents,
especially considering that each townhome will likely house families with multiple members,
including young children and older adults. In the event of an emergency, there is only one
access point for residents to evacuate, which would likely be insufficient for a safe and swift
evacuation. Furthermore, this single access road must also accommodate emergency vehicles,
which could delay response times and put lives in danger.
Additionally, the three-story buildings, as opposed to two-story structures, will make it more
difficult for young and elderly residents to evacuate during an emergency. In a panic-filled
situation, such delays could result in chaos. Who will be held responsible for injuries caused in
such circumstances?
Conclusion
McClellan for years has not only been the main street for nearby residents to go to places, but it has
also become a major route for many commuters to reach their destinations. As a result, the traffic
during 'rush hour' on McClellan has become heavier and more prolonged. Even during lunchtime,
when students are at school and most adults are at work, the traffic on McClellan is busier than in
the past. The added traffic from 27 new units will exacerbate this problem, creating a
hazardous environment for pedestrians, particularly children. The increased traffic will
endanger the lives of schoolchildren and other residents. (And let's not forget that the city
council can't control how drivers operates their cars, especially when they are in a hurry.).
I urge you to consider the significant negative impacts this development will have on our
community and take action by:
1. Downzoning the 20865 McClellan lot back to R1. R1 is what this neighborhood was
built for, and
2. Releasing the public communication record to ensure transparency from city
officials.
The well-being of all residents—current and future—should be the top priority for Cupertino
city officials. This project, as currently proposed with R3 zoning, does NOT serve the best
interests of our community.
Which is more important: fulfilling housing mandates or preventing the loss of lives due to
neglectful city planning?
Thank you for your time and attention to this important downzone request.
vj
From:Alison Cingolani
To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:Re: Item No. 9 Zoning Map Amendment to correct zoning for Priority Housing Site No. 24 in the 6th Cycle
Housing Element, February 19, 2025
Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2025 10:07:50 PM
Attachments:image003.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 comment in written communications for Item No. 9 on the Council Agenda of
February 19, 2025.
Dear Mayor Chao and Members of the City Council,
We are writing concerning Item No. 9, Zoning Map Amendment to correct zoning for Priority
Housing Site No. 24 in the 6th Cycle Housing Element, because there seems to be considerable
public confusion about the action Council is called to take. Amending the Zoning Map corrects an
oversight in the City’s prior Housing Element rezoning, and helps protect Cupertino’s Housing
Element against decertification by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD).
The Government Code requires that zoning ordinances be consistent with the General Plan,
including its Housing Element (Cal. Gov’t Code section 65860). Per the staff report, it is clear that the
City’s current zoning for Housing Element Site No. 24, located at 20865 McClellan Road, is not
consistent with the certified Housing Element, which specifically includes this parcel within a locally
created zoning district allowing for townhouses. The staff report notes that the city allowed a series
of sites designated to be rezoned R3 (multifamily housing for more than two dwellings per parcel) as
Priority Housing Sites in the Housing Element site inventory, which were also supposed to allow for
townhouse-style development. The city created the “townhouse combining district” for this
purpose.
Priority Housing Site No. 24 is the only site designated R3 in the Housing Element that mistakenly did
not receive the “TH” district designation. As a result, the city’s zoning ordinance and the General
Plan are not consistent. Rezoning this site to match the permissible development in the Housing
Element allows the city to fulfill the legal requirement of General Plan consistency. This should not
be controversial, especially since the current R3 zoning already allows for the construction of
apartment buildings at the same density proposed in this item’s rezoning.
While there is also a current application for development of townhomes on this site, the application
is unrelated to the City’s obligation under its state-certified Housing Element–a Housing Element
whose certification was contingent on rezoning. If Council decides against bringing the zoning
ordinance into conformity with the General Plan, HCD may find that the City has failed to meet its
Housing Element obligations, which could lead to decertification of the Housing Element and further
exposure to the Builder’s Remedy, loss of access to some state and regional funding sources, and
other consequences associated with SB 330. Cupertino’s Housing Element was created with
extensive community engagement and stakeholder outreach, as well as research and careful
selection of the most appropriate sites for planned growth. We believe that taking necessary steps
to keep the Housing Element in compliance with State law is in everyone’s best interest, as it helps
ensure growth is directed where the City has prioritized and planned for it.
Warm regards,
Alison Cingolani, AICP
Director of Policy | 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