.02 GPA-2008-01 Housing Element update
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CUPERTINO
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE. CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308. FAX (408) 777-3333
Summary
Item No:
Agenda Date: April 28, 2009
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location! APN:
GP A- 2008-01 (EA- 2009-05)
City of Cupertino
City-wide
Application Summary:
General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element Update
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached 2007-2014 Draft Housing Element and
discuss the Policy and Goals section, the Housing Resources section beginning on page 77 and the Available
Site Inventory and make recommendations to the City Council. The following three areas should be addressed:
1. The Available Sites Inventory should be clarified for Council review.
2. A final clear recommendation should be made to the City Council on which sites in North Valko shall
be considered for residential potential.
3. A recommendation should be made to the City Council on whether or not to increase the density in the
North Valko Planning Area with an understanding that this change in density will affect other
residential properties including Cupertino Village and the Morley Brothers site now owned by Apple
Computers.
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with State law, California cities must have an adopted General Plan which must contain a Housing
Element. While all elements of a General Plan are reviewed and revised regularly to ensure that the plan
remains current, state law requires that the Housing Element be updated every five years. The current Housing
Element was adopted by the City Council and certified by the State in 2001 and was most recently amended by the
City Council as part of the comprehensive General Plan update on November 15, 2005. The draft document under
review shows the City's plan to accommodate ABAG's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 734
units. The actual RHNA allocation is 1170 units; however, 516 units have already been approved or built. The
draft document also corresponds to the general plan goal of striving for a "jobs/housing" balance.
The Planning Commission began reviewing the Housing Element at the April 14, 2008 Planning Commission
meeting with the discussion focusing on housing site locations. Since more information was necessary, the
Planning Commission continued the Housing Element review to the April 28, 2009 meeting, directing staff to
continue analyzing the available sites inventory and make recommendations to the Commission on sites to
delete or add to the available sites inventory.
In addition to a more thorough examination by staff, the Commission made suggestions on which areas it would
like to see additional sites and which sites should be removed. The Planning Commission made the following
inquiries and suggestions:
2-1
General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element Update (Continued from April 14, 2009 meeting)
April 28, 2009
Page 2 of 4
. Delete the Measurex site (ill 2) on Results Way since residential development would be unlikely.
· Add the Morley Brothers site, which is currently owned by Apple and is zoned for residential back into
the table.
. Add additional sites, which are not owned by Apple and Hewlett Packard, to the North Vallco area.
. Consider adding sites along Bandley Road to the inventory.
· Consider Cupertino Village as a site (does not meet Tier 1 definition as discussed below, but the zoning
and General Plan allow residential uses).
· Consider the Saich Way properties specifically the property which is cordoned off because of a recent
fire (note that this site was already included in the sites inventory).
These suggestions are discussed in more detail in Attachment A. Also included to aid discussion is an updated
Available Sites Inventory (Attachment B), the April 14, 2009 staff report (Attachment D), draft Housing
Element (Attachment E) and the April 14, 2009 draft minutes (Attachment F). The revised Available Sites
Inventory has been divided into two categories, "Tier I" and "Tier 2". In order to develop the revised sites
inventory, staff toured the city with BAE on April 22, 2009. The tour allowed the consultant to evaluate first-
hand whether each site has realistic redevelopment potential per HCD criteria described below.
Tier 1 Sites
The State Government Code requires that the Housing Element include an "inventory of land suitable for
residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment" (Section
65583(a)(3)). Cities such as Cupertino that have limited vacant land resources can also rely on vacant and
underutilized sites to accommodate its RHNA. Examples of such sites include under-developed properties with
mixed use potential, blighted areas with vacant or abandoned buildings, publicly-owned surplus property, and
any other suitable underutilized land.
The large majority of sites identified to accommodate the City of Cupertino's RHNA are underutilized infill
properties. The Housing Element must demonstrate that the non-vacant, underutilized sites in the inventory can
be realistically developed with residential uses at appropriate densities within the planning period. The
condition and age of existing uses on underutilized properties and the potential for such uses to be discontinued
and replaced with housing within the planning period are important factors in determining the sites' "realistic"
development potential. In some cases, existing uses may continue on a portion of the site and new housing
could be constructed by increasing the intensity of development on the site (i.e. housing above commercial uses
or parking lots). The Housing Element should also address the realistic potential of this type of development
OCCUlTing where appropriate.
As Table 4.2 of the Housing Element indicates, the City of Cupertino has already approved a number of housing
developments that can be counted towards its RHNA for the 2007-20014 planning period. As a result, the
City's outstanding RHNA is 734 units. The City must demonstrate that it has sufficiently zoned residential land
to accommodate these 734 units on vacant or underutilized sites that can be realistically developed within the
planning period.
Table F.l identifies 27 sites that have the potential to accommodate 1,615 units (1,534 which would
accommodate low and very low income households). These "Tier I" sites represents those the sites that have
the most realistic potential to be developed within the 2007-2014 planning period. The Planning Commission
may recommend all sites or only enough sites to accommodate the 734 units required by the RHNA. The Tier 1
sites will be submitted to HCD to accommodate the City of Cupertino's remaining RHNA of 734 units. The
g:\planning\pdreport\pe gpa reports\2009\gpa-2008-0 I pe2.doe
2-2
General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element Update (Continued from April 14, 2009 meeting)
April 28, 2009
Page 3 of 4
Housing Element will include an implementation program which states that the City will rezone the identified
Tier 1 sites to allow for residential uses at appropriate densities where necessary. HCD requires that necessary
rezoning and General Plan Amendments be completed early enough in the planning period to reasonably permit
development during the planning period. Specifically, rezoning and land use changes should be completed
within the two years.
Tier 2 Sites
In addition to the Tier 1 sites, there are other underutilized sites within the City that may be appropriate for
redevelopment for residential purposes (see Table F.2). However, the potential for these "Tier 2" sites to be
redeveloped within the planning period is less likely for varying reasons. For example, the site may contain a
fully occupied office building in good or fair condition or an existing viable commercial use. Because of the
low potential for Tier 2 sites to be redeveloped within the planning period, HCD would be less likely to
determine that these sites are acceptable to accommodate the City's RHNA units.
As such, the Tier 2 sites will be identified separately from the Tier 1 sites in a different implementation program
in the Housing Element. The implementation program will state that the City may consider rezoning identified
Tier 2 sites for residential land uses. The program, however, will not require that the City rezone Tier 2 sites to
allow for residential units.
Tier 2 sites are not necessary to meet the City's RHNA or satisfy other HCD requirements. Rather, the City has
identified Tier 2 sites for its own internal planning purposes to have an understanding of where future long term
residential development could potentially locate and which can achieve specific goals such as balancing land
uses or providing supporting residential development to complement regional commercial districts.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Four residents and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce spoke at the April 14, 2009 public hearing. The
Chamber of Commerce thanked the City for the opportunity to participate in the process and expressed support
for the additional office allocation for Apple and Hewlett Packard. Below is a bulleted list of the comments
from the residents:
. . The City needs to evaluate infrastructure when making decisions on housing allocations.
. Too many sites are in the eastern side of the city.
. Add Morley Brothers site on Pruneridge Avenue to the inventory since it is zoned for residential.
. Schools are overcrowded and this needs to be evaluated when locating residential sites.
. The Vallco Redevelopment Area has specific requirements on the construction of low and extremely low
income housing units. How are the property owners in the redevelopment project area addressing this
issue?
In addition to the public hearing, staff also received an e-mail inquiry from Cupertino resident Keith Murphy
regarding whether the City could count existing second units and senior units towards meeting the RHNA goal.
Any new units and a percentage of preserved units can count towards the meeting the RHNA goals. However, if
the units were not constructed or preserved between 2007, the beginning of the planning period, and the present,
they may not be counted. Since 2007, the City has recorded the production of 11 second units. These second
units, along with the units listed in table 4.2 of the draft Housing Element, are subtracted from Cupertino's
RHNA goal of 1,170. (See Attachment C for more information on this subject).
g:\planning\pdreport\pc gpa reports\2009\gpa-2008-01 pc2.doc
2-3
General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element Update (Continued from April 14, 2009 meeting)
April 28, 2009
Page 4 of 4
NEXT STEPS:
The Planning Commission's recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for discussion at the City
Council public hearing in May. After the City Council has finalized the available sites inventory, the consultant
will.complete the environmental analysis, which will be reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and
the City Council. After the City Council review, the draft Housing Element will be sent to HCD for preliminary
comments. After the comments are received from HCD, City staff will return to the City Council with the final
Housing Element document with revisions to address HCD's concerns. Final adoption of the document is not
expected until late August or early September at the earliest.
Legally, Bay Area cities are required to have an adopted and certified element in place by the June 30, 2009
deadline. However, it appears that a majority of the cities have been delayed in their processes and will not
have met this goal, including Cupertino. BAE believes that it is good practice to have the draft Housing
Element submitted to HCD by before the deadline so that they can begin the review process. The State has up
to 60 days to review and comment on the draft.
PREPARED BY: Vera Oil, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY
/ad~~ _
Aarti Shrivastava
Community Development Director
Enclosures:
Attachment A: Site Analysis with Aerials of North Valko, Homestead and Bandley areas
Attachment B: Available Site Inventory
Attachment C Second Unit and Substantial Rehabilitation Information from BAE
Attachment D: April 14, 2009 Staff Report
Attachment E: Draft Housing Element
Attachment F: April 14, 2009 draft minutes
g:\planning\pdreport\pe gpa reports\2009\gpa-2008-0 1 pe2.doc
2-4
Attachment A
SITE ANALYSIS
Table 6.1: Vacant and Underutilized Land in the Bubb Road and Monta Vista Districts
ID APN
....,. 35717112/113
2 J~7 ~o 040
3 357 20 037
4 357 20 038
5 357 20 036
Maximum Density
Under Current or
Re-Zoning (DUA)
12
~O
20
20
20
Realistic Unit
Capacity (a)
1
01
60
59
18
Maximum
Unit Capacity
1
97
71
70
22
Address
10075 rfl3fidoflQ /\\ C
r4u S;Lu;:) AJJ'l::#;:);:)
10460 Bubb Rd
10420 Bubb Rd
10440 Bubb Rd
Acreage
0.15
-l. 00
3.59
3.53
1.13
Total Units
Total Units @ 20+ DUA
Planning Commission Direction:
~ Delete property 10 2 (former Measurex site) due to potential environmental and
political/ neighborhood factors.
Amendments to Bubb RoadlMonta Vista Planning Areas:
~ Staff has deleted property 10 1 since the unit yield is insignifican t.
~ Property 10 2 has been deleted.
~ Property IDs 3, 4 and 5 have been moved to Tier 2.
2-5
220
219
Attachment A
Table 6.2: Vacant and Underutilized land in the Heart of the City and City Center Districts
Maximum Density
Under Current or
Re-Zoning (DUA)
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
9~
25
25
25
25
25
25
10
~
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
111
APN
32631 019
359 08 024
32632041
31625039
369 03 004
369 03 007
369 03 005 .
31623093
~1 R. 91 nQn
15 36905008
16 36905038
1 7 316 21 031
1 8 316 21 032
19 37507001
20 36901 022
Address
10100 N Stelling Rd
20900 Stevens Creek Blv
10073 Saich Way
20311 Stevens Creek Blv
20030 Stevens Creek Blv
10031 S Blaney Ave
20010 Stevens Creek Blv
20007 Stevens Creek Blv
1 nnnn t\1 RI:::mcy tl.\IC
19960 Stevens Creek Blv
19900 Stevens Creek Blv
19875 Stevens Creek Blv
19855 Stevens Creek 81
19160 Stevens Creek BI
No Situs Address
Maximum
Unit Capacity
96
76
19
4
29
34
11
33
l:\n
10
48
44
6
13
38
8
40
37
5
11
32
Realistic Unit
Capacity (a)
81
64
16
3
24
28
9
28
A9
Acreage
3.86
3.04
0.77
0.19
1.16
1.36
0.47
1.35
9 nn
0.40
1.92
1.78
0.24
0.55
1.54
Total Units
Total Units @ 20+ DUA
428
428
Notes:
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DC&E, 2009; BAE, 2009
Figure 6.3: Potential Housing Sites in the Heart of the City and City Center Districts
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009; DC&E, 2009
Planning Commission Direction:
=> Consider properties along Saich Way, specifically the strip mall which has been
cordoned off due to fire damage.
Amendments to Heart of the City and City Center Planning Areas:
=> Saich Way property has already been listed as site ill 8. If it develops it would most
likely be encouraged as a mixed use development.
=> Site 10 14 has been deleted since it was already constructed.
2-6
Attachment A
=> Site ID 20 has been moved to Tier 2 since it most likely will not redevelop in the near
future.
=> Site ID 45 has been deleted since it is of insignificant size.
=> The shopping center at the comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and East Estates Drive has
been added since it is an older shopping center that will ripe for redevelopment, most
likely as a mixed use product.
2-7
2-8
Attachment A
Table 6.3: Vacant and Underutilized land in the Homestead Road District
10 APN
21 326 09 052
22 32609061
23 326 09 060
Address
20916 Homestead Rd
20956 Homestead Rd
20990 Homestead Rd
Acreage
0.74
1.12
2.75
Maximum Density
Under Current or Maximum
Re-Zoning (DUAl Unit Capacity
20 14
20 22
20 55
Realistic Unit
Capacity (a)
11
18
46
Total Units
Total Units @ 20+ DUA
75
75
Notes:
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximUITI capacity by 15 percent.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DC&E, 2009; BAE: 2009
p
Planning Commission Direction:
=> Explore additional commercial sites
Amendments to the Homestead Planning Area
=> Four sites have been added to this area (PW IT] Max Center). These have been
designated at Tier 2 sites since staff does not anticipate that HCD will deem these viable
sites.
Staff Analysis:
It is unlikely that the entire shopping center will transform into a residential project. However,
there is a potential that a residential component could be added along Franco Ct. to
complement the shopping center and the residen'tial uses immediately west and south.
2-9
Attaclunent A
Table 6.4: Vacant and Underutilized Sites in the Vallco Park North and South Districts
ID APN
~ 31605047
25 31620088
26 31620076
27 31620075
20 J1C ~o 00::;
Maximum Density
Under Current or
Re-Zoning (DUA)
20
20
20
20
20
Realistic Unit
Capacity (a)
22
87
140
156
101
Maximum
Unit Capacity
27
103
165
184
119
Address
19624 Homestead Rd
No Situs Address
19333 Va II co Pk'wy
19333 Vallco Pkv.'Y
19JJJ \"CilIco rkvvJ
Acreage
1.35
5.16
8.29
9.24
:;.9:
Total Units
Total Units @ 20+ DUA
506
506
LORNEVVAY
Planning Commission Direction:
=> Add Morley Bro. Site (Morley Bros. Site - 19310 - 19320 Pruneridge Avenue - 130
Units/8.5ac)
=> Add peripheral properties (i.e., along east side of Tantau Ave.) and properties not
owned by Apple or HP
=> Add Cupertino Village since it is zoned for residential
=> Delete Site ID 25 due to anticipated political and neighborhood factors
2-11
Attachment A
=> Delete site ID 28 since it has already received an entitlement of 160 senior units
=> Find out the density of Hamptons Apartment Complex
Amendments to the Homestead Planning Area
=> Added Site (10300 -10400 N. Tanatau Avenue -125 Units/9.14ac)
=> Retain Site ID 25 - potential affordable senior /high efficiency project site with minimal
school impacts. Staff has entertained discussion from developers on this concept.
=> Hamptons is built at 25 DUA (342 units/13.39Ac)
Staff Analysis:
Emerging industries may have different needs. Staff is concerned with the potential of spot
residential zoning within prime industrial areas. Residential should be identified closer to
commercial centers with coherent boundaries and with adequate pedestrian connections (i.e.
north of Valko Parkway)~
As for residential in the Cupertino Village commercial center, staff believes it is economically
and physically infeasible for thriving commercial centers to be converted into or accommodate
additional residential development.
Any sites owned by Apple and Hewlett Packard, with the exception of the Morely Brothers Site,
have not been analyzed. However, staff does want to confirm with the Commission that this is
the direction given by the Commission.
2-12
Attachment A
Table 6.5: Vacant and Underutilized Land in the North De Anza Boulevard District
10 APN
29 326 10046
30 326 10026
:31 326 10 065
Address
20705 Valley Green Rd
20725 Valley Green Dr
10725 N De AftLd DIva
Acreage
7.98
0.25
2_22
Maximum Density
Under Current or Maximum
Re-Zoning (OUA) Unit Capacity
20 159
20 5
20 44
Realistic Unit
Capacity (a)
135
4
J7
Total Units
Total Units @ 20+ DUA
176
176
Planning Commission Direction:
~ Add more sites in the area
Staff Recommendation:
~ Add five additional sites along the west side of Bandley Dr.
~ Remove site ID 31 since it appears to be prime office space with DeAnza Blvd. frontage.
~ Rezone the area from P(CG, ML, Res 4-10) to P(CG, ML, Res) to be in conformance with
the General Plan max. density of 25 d.u./ acre
Staff Analysis:
2-14
Attachment A
The five additional sites identified along the westerly side of Bandley Dr. are immediately
adjacent to residential uses and have potential for future residential development. Properties
along the east side of Bandley may be problematic given recent improvements and adjacency to
more established office district along De Anza Blvd.
2-15
r' ~
,~
\.~
. . -
~L :.:.
(:::>
.,,-,
, ~
ji
c
. I
I
I
I
I
~ ~I
1
r
; : I
I t
,
J
~
.1
~~g~
~m;ofi)
~ ~. m ?!
en_=
Q~' g:
-<tin
~CD~
~m~
-g~~
g:g.[
0'" c:
0.0
~~m
~~il
~g~
g~.!!.
S. ~ ~
~~~
5-3~
3 ~~.
~g-<
g~~
~ffi-~
@-~~
~. fJ
~ ~
o
o
~
o
(")
ll<>
rn
'"
o
o
."?
m
)>
rn
'"
o
o
to
N
I
......
-J
~~ w w W
......O'-lOlN.
VJWWWW.
mmm0101
mmOltOtO
............ ..................
000'-1'-1
..................00 "
wwwoo..
W......'-I01.......
-l
o
~
r-
e
z
=i-l
UlO
@-l
"')>
or-
+e
OZ
e=i
)>Ul
m~~oo.
~~{J}~~
cncn~............
001ll en en
"'''')>00
)>)>o.CDCD
flfl@?:?i'
0>D> lIlN III
~~ en ~~
c.o. < <
a. a.
0......0............
tobto~~
ONNC>>CO
~~~~~
....'"
w~
"'w
W01 woo
..................NN
01010100
~~
~~
.......
..................NN
WOlW<OO1
~~
mm
w~
....'"
..................NN
......N ......~......
zzz-<-<
ooomm
zzzzz
00000
b> b> b> b> b>
33333
33333
<0 CD CD CD CD
nonoo
~j[j[j[j[
-- - --
~~~~~
~@&:a:a:
i;;;;~~
CD CD CD OJ OJ
en en en--
0: a: a:
CD CD '"
:J:J :J
I:t;e e
~~ ~
-0 -0 -0 -0 -0
~~~oo
b> b> b> Gl Gl
.3.3.3~~
;u ;u ;u
CD '" CD
1Il1ll 1Il
Cf Cf Cf
~~~
~~~~~
(")(")(")(")m
~~~~~
E.S. S. S. m
a:o:o:o:a
~.~. ~.~' ~
iil
~~ ~ ~ ~
ffi ~ ffi ~ ~
a. a.
NN
00
:J :J
S' 5'
"''''
6"0
""
CD '"
~~
iil iil
1Il 1Il
a: a:
'" '"
:J :J
I:t;c:I;
~~
mDi
:J :J
a. a.
c: c:
1Il 1Il
'" '"
~ ~
;u;u
'" '"
1Il 1Il
a:c.:
'" '"
:J :J
~9I
~~
'" CD
:J.:J.
D> 0>
'< '<
'"
to .
"'''''''
'-I Ol 01 "
'" .
'"
m
o
~ :.
m .
"'''''''
mmmo
"'''''''
000
000.
..........0>
'" m 0>
~ .
.....
o
'"
<
!!!.
CD
'<
Gl
m
:J
;u
a.
~~z
to tOo
~~{J}
ww;:+
<<~
~~>
000.
o 0 a.
'1J '1J m
JJl:l
.....
Co
0>
tOo>'"
~~:.....
....tOm
~
~
zzz
5>5>5>
.....
~
-
~
-
'"
'"
"'''''''
"'''''''
to
to
"''''~
"'tOo>
"'00
m
~
~
1Il
"''''~
.........'"
~
-<-<-<
CD CD '"
1Il 1Il 1Il
z
o
zzz
000
~
o
'"
'"
:J
a.
c:
1Il
50
0>
""
(")
o
3
3
'"
Q.
0>
;ij
CD
1Il
is:
'"
:J
"'-
!!!.
(")(")(")
000
333
333
'" '" CD
000
![i[g[
---
~~~
00-.
",,,,a.
;;;;~
CD '" D>
1Il1ll-
0:0:
'" '"
:J :J
9I~
-0
o
s:>
;::
r
;u
'"
1Il
!
s
-0-0-0
~~;c
.:g.:!:!~
1r
:J
!!!.
en
~
o
"
"
:i"
e
r-
cO'
;a:
:J
a.
c:
1Il
50
!!!.
5"5"~
g.g.3
S:S:~
!!!.!!!.;::
~ ~lll
1Il1ll'<;.
o 0 1Il
~~'1J
~ ~"~
00 :J
c:c:",
1Il1llr-
!2.
~
'"
:J
a.
~
:J
5'
'"
6"
5'
o
iil
0>
1Il
'"
a.
'"
:J
1Il
~
c:
"
6"
'"
o
o
c
.,.
~~~
'" '" '"
:J:J :J
a. a. a.
NNN
000
:J:J :J
S' S' 5'
"'''''''
000
" " "
'" '" '"
3 3 3
~ ~ ~
m m m
1Il 1Il 1Il
a: a: a:
'" '" '"
:J:J :J
Q: d:. c:t.
~~~
DrjijDr
:J:J :J
a. a. a.
c: c: c:
1Il 1Il 1Il
'" '" '"
~ ~ ~
N I\,)N N
W N....... 0
~~~~ m
ggg , ~
000:
gj~~.
"'''''''
000
to to to
to"'~
oma>
::c::c::c
000
333
'" '" '"
1Il1ll 1Il
mmm
D> 0> D>
a. a. a.
;U;U;U
0.0.0.
"'~o
:...,:.....:...,
"''''....
-
zzz
5>5>5>
000
"'''''''
"'''''''
~
tOWN (0
m<oOl (0
0>"''''
~"'~
-<-<-<
'" '" '"
1Il1ll 1Il
-<zz
moo
(")(")(")
000
333
333
'" '" '"
on a
iEg[g[
;0;0
'" '"
1Il 1Il
a: a:
'" '"
:J :J
e c:I;
~a!.
;u
'"
1Il
a:
'"
;a.
et
~
'"
:J.
0>
'<
;u;u;u
'" '" '"
1Il1ll 1Il
a: a: a:
'" '" '"
aaa
PIi[i[
~~~
'" '" '"
:J.:J.:J.
D> D> 0>
'< '< '<
-oGlGl
~"''''
;U:J:J
'" '" '"
.0 @ @
moo
aoo
3.~~
CIl '"
n n
f[f[
00
88
;U(")(")
'" 0 0
Q 3 3
'" 3 3
~~~
000
~i[ff
-;::;::
Ui'Ui'
00
!om.
Driii
:J :J
'" '"
00
c: c:
1Il1ll
~~~
CIl '" '"
:J :J :J
0.0.0.
~~~
:J:J :J
5' 5":r
"'''''''
000'
"""
CIl CIl CIl
~~~
ihH
a: a: a:
CIl CIl CIl
:J:J :J
d:.C!:.o:.
~e!.e!..
mmm
:J:J :J
a. a. a.
c: c: c:
1Il1ll 1Il
'" '" CIl
~ !h ~
................................................co'-lm
<OCD~OlWN......O
o
'"
'"
WWWWWWWWWVJWWWW
mmm'-l............m......mmmNOlN
CO<O<OOlQ)CJ)tOQ)COCOCOCJ)COCJ)
OOOONNONOOOWOW
mmm"""'............01WWWWNCO......
00000000000000
oooowww(OoaO~N"""
.J:Io.WN......I\,)......CDW01"""'.J:Io.......~CO
z
o
W-
e:
1Il
)>
a.
a.
iil
1Il
1Il
..........................................N N...... 1\,)""" 1\)"'"
OOO<o<o(Ocoooooooo
~~~~~~~g~8~~~o
01010l0010l0'-l0......OWOO
mmm~~~~~~en~en~z
mmmmmCDmCDCDo:JCD~.CD{J}
@-@-@-aiaiaiaiaiai~aig.aii:
mmm~~~~~~~~:E~S:
1Il 1Il 1Il (")(")(")(")(")(") (")0> (")'"
S?S?S?mmmmmm~m'<m~
^^^^^^ ^ ^
mmmmmm m m
--<<<< < <
.....
Co
0>
00 0 OO.................O............OWW
C>><.nt.oCnN:...,.t.oW~W:.....:...,oC>>
mw 1\J00.J:1o.OJNOl""'" mOl """,.p. m
'"
'"
tr1tr1tr1tr1tr1~~tr1~~~~~~
to
to
~~~~mt&;~~~~(C;OO
'"
'"
NI\) I\.)NI\)NNNI\) I\.)NNI\)I\)
O101U'lOlU'lOlO1U'lU'10101OlO1Ol
~~~~mt~~~~~co~~
a>
to
W~N NI\)......Q)OJ
"""'......<D......Ol~OOJtO(Xl.J:lo.O>~......
z
o
en en en en en en en en en en en enen-<
1J1J1J'1J'1J'1J"U1J"U1J'1J1J"Um
00 OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ m OJ OJ m OJ m OJ
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
CD ro ro ro m CD CD ro CD ro CD CD CD
~ j j j j j ~ j j j j j j
a.c.a.o.c.c.c.c.c.a.c.c.a.
z
o
zzzzzzzzzzzz-<-<
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m
(")
o
3
3
'"
Cl
Dr
a
31
o
~
;U
CIl
1Il
is:
'"
a,
!!!.
b>b>b>b>b>b>b>b>b>b>b>b>22
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ JJ
~. a, a. a, a. a. a. a. a a.~, a" ~ ~
OJ OJ OJ 00 OJ OJ m OJ 00 OJ 00 OJ ==
~~~~a::::::::::::::::::::::::::::o~
nnnn~~~~~~~~ ~
~~~~~&:~~~~~~ ~
mCDCDroro------- 0
~B:~5:~mmmmmmm ~
CD ro ro CD m _._._._._._._,
jjjjjc.c.c.c.o.c.a.
~~C!:.!:t:d:mroCDroCDCDCD
@'~e!.e!.~a~~~~~a:
~e!.!!!.e!.~a!.e!..
::c::c::c::c::r:::c::c::c::c::c::r:::c::c
ro CD ro CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ m OJ OJ OJ m OJ OJ OJ
;:1;::+;::+;::+;::+;::+;:+;::+;::+;:1;::+;:1.;::+
aa~~~~9.9.2.2.a2.2.
(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rnc.ncnrncncn{J}cnc.nrncncncn
-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0
-0
;0
CIl
.1Il
(")
o
.3
~
1J"U"U"U1J1J1J1J"U1J1J1J1JO
mlii"Oi"lii"iii-m---- c
5~555~5gb>~b> ~.
[[[[[~[~~5:~ ~
~~~~~cg:~~~~~ g
~~~~~o~~~,g~ ~
.g.g.g.g.g~.gOJOJ OJ S:
33333~.31i1i 1i 9,
~~~~~~~OQ 0 c5
~~~~~m~~1i' ~ '@
-----c;a-~~ ~ .9
'"
~
:J
~
::c
o
!
~
o
CIl
m
~.
c:
5'
'"
(")(")(")o(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(");U;U
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
333 CIl 3 3 3 3 333 3~-
~~~UJc:~~~~~~~~~~
(") 0 0 _.(") 0 (") 0 0 0 (") 0
PI~e:~~~eI~~~ffe?:
"';::;::;::;::;::;::;::;::
~. ~. ~. ~' ~" ~. ~. ~'
m.m.~~m.m.~m.
mmmmmDi'mDr
j j j j j j j j
CD m ro CD ro CD CD m
00000000
c c c c c c c C
tIl en en tI) en en en en
z
o
:J
'"
)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>
c.c.c.a.c.a.a.a.a.a.c.c.o.c.
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-g-g-g-g"S.~~"S-g"S-g"S.-g-g
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
"R"R"R"&."R"&."R"R"R"RR"RRR
m OJ OJ OJ m OJ OJ m OJ OJ OJ m OJ m
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
00 OJ OJ m m OJ OJ m OJ OJ OJ m OJ m
j j j j j j j j j j ~ j ~ j
c.a.c.a.a.o.o.a.a.a.o.o.c.o.
m m m m @ m m m m m m m m m
< < < < < < < < < < < < < <
m"~'~" ~'m' m' m'm" m" m' m'm" m'm
CD CD CD CD ro CD CD ro CD <0 CD ro CD m
o.c.o.o.o.o.a.c.c.a.c.o.o.c.
::c::c::c::c::c::c::c::c::c::c::c::c::c::c
ro CD CD m CD CD m m CD CD CD CD CD CD
00 OJ OJ OJ m OJ m m m m m 00 m m
::l.::l.::l.::l.::l.::l.::l.::l.::l.::l.::l.::l.::l.::l.
~~~~s.9.9.~~~~9.9.9.
5'5'5' 5'5'5' 5' S' 5' 5'S'5'5'S'
CD m CD m CD m CD CD CD m CD CD CD ro
(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
en en en en en en en en en en en en en en
"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0"0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~5~~~~~~~55~
(") (") (") (") 0 (") 0 0 0 0 0 (") (") 0
'1J1J1J1J1J1J1J1J1J1J1J1J"U1J
Di"mmmDi"Di"mmmiiiDrmDi"m
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
10
~~
lit:
~
~~~ r.
[g6:~ CO
~,~
elll
,.~.
~::> ~
iif!!. !
0..
~
)>Gl
3 CIl
CIl :J
::> CIl
o.iil
3 -
CIl ."
a[
Gl
CIl
::>
CIl
!!.
."
iii
:J
r-
0>
:J
a.
e
1Il
CIl
~
S'
:J
~.
m
><
![
.il'
e
1Il
CIl
~
;tI
CD
n
o
3
3
..
::>
0.
!!l.
o'
::>
,.
."
Z
~
or
,.
0.
!:t
CIl
1Il
1Il
2 ~
::> ~
iif 5: ~
-I
Il>
l:T
iD
"T1
:..
-I
iii'
...
....
~
CD
Ul
5"
;;
=s
o
~
n
c:
=l
CIl
:a
;tI
CIl
N
o
:J
S'
CO
N
I
.....
00
(J)
o
c
o
CD
!'!
o
~
o
-
o
c
"0
CD
;:!.
S'
9
N
o
o
.l!?
Cl
OJ
lii
o
c
o'
;:<;
='
0'
3
!!l-
o'
='
(J)
'<
CIl
CD
3
!!'
N
o
o
.l!?
Cl
o
l<'O
.fT1
N
o
o
<0
OJ
)>
.fT1
N
o
o
<0
WWWWWWWWWWWWWW.
-"~-Jrr.-Jrr.-i.-J.,-Jrr.......-Jrr.-Jrr.-""--a.-"....l.
0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>
..........000000000000
0>0>---1---1---10>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>
00000000000000.
NN-J>.-J>.-J>.01010101-J>.-J>.-J>.WW
---I 01 0> O1-J>.W N..... 0 0> 0>01<0 W
-"-"-Jrr.-Jrr.-Jrr.....Irr.-lr.-Jrr.-Jrr.-1.-"-"-Ir.-J.,
00<0<0<000<0<00000<0.
-J>.W.....O-J>.0101WW01-J>.O>-J>.O
o 0"'" 01 <0 N 0"'" N 010 OW01
00.....0100.....000100010
zz"U"U::c;:oz"U"U;:o;:o;:oz"U.
-1-12200:-1220:0:0:-12
OJ OJ ='=' 310 OJ =' =,101010 OJ ='
=' =' CD CD CD CD =' CD CD CD CD CD =' CD
or at 5: 5: ~ :s. W 5= 5: :S. :S. :S. W 5: :
c ClOlO CD CD ClOlO CD CD CD ClO
)>)>CDCD[-:E)>CDCD:E:E:E)>CD
<<)>)>...,0<)>)>000<)>
CDCD<<........-CD<<-.....-CD<
'CDCDa. CD CD CD
<0 .....
-J>.-J>.-J>......NNO>01NO>0101---1W
:".,~:....~:".,:".,NCnex,~ex,ex,O:....
wo.....owo>o>o>oO-J>.oo<o
3"3"3"3"3"3"3"3"3"3"3"3"3"3"
a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a.
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
~!e.!e.!e.!e.!e.!e.!e.~~!e.!e.!e.!e.
~. ~.~.~.~.~. ~.~.~. ~.~.~.~.~.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----..................-....-...--.................------....-...-....
;:0;:0;:0;:0;:0;:0;:0;:0;:0;:0;:0;:0;:0;:0
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl
0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
=' =' =' =' =' =' =' =' =' =' =' =' =' ='
..................-+....................r-+_......_..................
!)I !)I !)I !)I !)I !)I !)I !)I !)I !)I !)I !)I !)I !)I
"U"U"U"U"U"U"U"U"U"U"U"U"U"U
~~~~~~~;o;o~~~~~
.:g..:g.:g..:g..:g..:g..:gm!..:g..:g.:g.:g.:g
3" 3"::C::C::C 003"3" 3"!::3" 3" 3"
a. a. "U "U "U 3; 3; a. a. a. 10 a. a. a.
5i5is:s:s:005i5i5i;:!:5i5i5i
~::::rQ)D.lQ)CDCD"""q--q---::::r::::r::::r
-. -. -. -. -. OJ OJ ='. -. -. =' -. -. -.
~~='='='cc~~~g-~~~
s:s:0005:5:S:S:S:~S:S:S:
~.~.~ ~ ~ S' S'~'~'~' ffi'~'~'~'
gg"O"O"OlOlOggg_ggg
--ccc --- ---
iiliilCllCllCll iiliiliil iiliiliil
=' =' =' =' =' =' =' ='
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
00 000 000
cc ccc ccc
CIlCll CIlVlCll VlVlCll
ww
0> 0>
0> 0>
..... .....
00
..... .....
WN
0>---1
..... .....
0101
N.....
---101
(J)(J)
ClCl
CD CD
)>)>
=' ='
N N
OJ OJ
OJ OJ
<"<"
a. a.
.....0
:""00
00>
00
o 0
3 3
3 3
CD CD
.., ..,
o 0
!)I !)I
"U"U
~O
00
o 3
3 .
;:0;:0
CD CD
CIl CIl
0101
I .
..........
~--c:J
00
fr~
CD 3
OJ CD
!::.o
. a: iii'
S'-
1OS:
~.
o
~
iil
='
CD
o
c
CIl
WWWWWW
NNNNNN
0>0>0>0>0>0>
wwww-Jrr.-I.
WWWWOO
-Jrr.-Jrr......ooo
.....OO---l-J>.O>..
.....O>N<O---I01.
-lr. -" -" -Jrr. -1r. -"
000000.
-J>.-J>.-J>. W 0>---1
---I <001 0> NN
010101.....---101
OJOJOJOJOJZ
~~~~~Cl
a. a. a. a. a. CD
<D<D<D<D<D)>
'<'<'<'<'<=,
~~~~~!ij
OJ
<"
a.
NONW-J>.N
:....Cnlo~ON
<O<OO1O>ON
000000
3;3;3;3;3;3;
000000
CD CD CD CD CD CD
-...........------.............
3" 3" 3" 3" 3" S'
a. a. a. a. a. a.
c c c c c c
!e.!e.!e.!e.!e.~
ffi' ffi' ffi' ffi' ffi' iir
c:::::=:::::c:::::::::::::::=::::::::::::::
000000
000000
333333
333333
CD CD CD CD CD CD
noooon
iii' iii' iii' iii' iii' iii'
.::::::::::::: z::::::: c:::::.:::::::::::::::
;:0;:0;:0;:0;:0;:0
CD CD CD CD CD CD
CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl
0:0:0:0:0:0:
CD CD CD CD CD CD
:J::J:J:::J::J;:t
[~[~[~
o
C
OJ
~.
"U
c
Q:
O'
;:0;:0;:0;:0
CD CD CD CD
CIl CIl CIl CIl
0:0:0:0:
CD CD CD CD
;a.;aaa
!)I !)I !)I !)I
0000
< < < <
CD CD CD CD
~-,-,...,
iiliiliiliil
'<'<'<'<
"U"U"U"U"U"U
000000
.0 .Q .Q .0 .Q .Q
s:s:s:s:s:s:
.r.r.r.r.r.r
;:O;:OOJ;:O;:O;:O
mmpmmm
!!~!!!
OOCllOOO
--!---
-S
000000
3;3;3;3;3;3;
000000
CD CD CD CD CD CD
OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ
=. =. =. =, =. =.
a: a: a: a: a: a:
S' S' S' S' S' S'
101010101010
W
.....
WWWWWWWW.
....lrr.-l.-"-"-"-Jrr.-Jrr.......
0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>
.....0000000
0><0<0<0<0<0<001
00000000.
WWWWNN.....-J>.
01---10>00>---1<0---1
~~~~~~c5~
~gn5~~(J)~~
OOOOO;:;:O-J>.
"U::C::CTlz5iZ::C
2ooQ-I)>-Io
=' 3 310 OJ a. OJ 3
CDCDCDCD=,a.='CD
::!. !e. ~ CJ or CD ID !e.
J5"CDCD..,CVlCCD
CD~~ )>CIl)>~
)> ;:0 ;:0 Ci5 Ci5;:o
Ci5a.a. a.
-J>.01O>01.....00.....
:""i.nCnex,ex,ex,loW
0>000010W01
3"3"3"3"3"3"3"0
a.a.a.a.a.a.a.c
c c c c c c c OJ
CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl
,.... ,.... r-+ ..... ..... ..... ..... -.
~~~~~~~~
-..................-------........0-
;:o;:o;:o;:o;:o;:o;:o~
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD::::
CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl CIl ='
o:o:o:o:o:o:o:~
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD;:;:
=' =' =' =' =' =' =' c
.....-..................................
iii' iii' iii' iii' iii' iii' iii' o'
-------='
~
"U"U"U"U"U"U"UO
~~~~~~~lii
"U"U"U"U"U"U"UVl
-------J[j
c
Q:
o'
OJ
=.
a:
S'
10
OJ
-9
!::0003"~3"~
cg.3;3;3;g-0g-=
_0 00 CIl OJ CIllO
_CD CD CD _=' -0'
=' OJ OJ OJ ::>. - ='. C
g- =. =. =. ~ s: ~ CIl
CIl a: a: a: s: ~. s:
9: 5' 5' 5' ur ~ Cii"
~101O1O g ffi'g
ffi'1i:ffi'
='o='
CDcCD
gCllg
CIl CIl
N
-J>.
s:
c
;:;:
T'
TI
OJ
2.
'<
Cl
:E
~
S'
10
'"
./..
c
3
.....
01
O1-J>.W
16
~
Z
W
0>
<0
o
01
o
o
0>
WWW'
010101.
---1---1---1
NNN
000
000
WWW
0>0>---1
.....
<0
<0
0>
o
(J)
CD
<
CD
='
CIl
o
CD
CD
;:<;
OJ
<"
.......... .....
000
-J>.-J>.-J>.
-J>.NO>
000
OJ OJ OJ
c c C
0- 0- 0-
0- 0- 0-
;:0;:0;:0
a. a. a.
en
;:;:
CD
~
a.
iil
l/l
l/l
o
:".,
o
~i
.....WW
~<:no,
w W <0
o
o
3
3
CD
..,
o
!)I
3"3"3"
a. a. a.
c c c
CIl CIl CIl
- --
::!.:::!. ::J.
~~~
G)
CD
:J
CD
!.
."
iii
:J
I
Dl
:J
Co
C
UI
CD
;:0;:0;:0
CD CD CD
CIl CIl CIl
0:0:0:
CD CD CD
=' =' ='
- --
!)I !)I !)I
o
3;
o
CD
;:0
CD
CIl
0:
CD
;a
!)I
000
000
333
333
CD CD CD
.., .., ..,
000
!)I !)I !)I
o
<
CD
...
iii
r r I
as' as' as'
:::r:::r :::r
-- -
3"3"3"
a. a. a.
c c c
CIl CIl CIl
- --
.., .., ..,
~!)I~
~~~
I r r
I I I
~~~
N
o
:J
:i'
-"
=' -.-.
Co 10 10
c:::r:::r
gt:::::
='.=' ='
OJ a. a.
-cc
S:CIlCll
ui" 9: 9:
o OJ OJ
~--
iil
='
CD
o
c
CIl
m
><
iii'
-
S'
-t
l>>
0-
CD
"T1
i-.J
-t
CD'
~
N
CJ)
;:;:
CD
UI
5'
<
CD
::::l
-
o
-<
ATTACHMENT C
Second Units
Second dwelling units (also known as accessory dwelling units or granny flats) are attached or
detached, self-contained units on a single-family residential lot. These units are often more
affordable due to their smaller size. The City of Cupertino allows for second units in the R -1,
RHS, A, and A-I zoning districts.
In addition to identifying vacant or underutilized land, the City can address a portion of its RHNA
requirement through the provision of second units. In order to include second units as part of the
City's overall strategy to accommodate its regional housing need, the housing element must
include an estimate of the potential number of second units to be developed in the planning period
based on an analysis that considers the following factors:
1. the number of second units developed in the prior planning period;
2. community need for these types of housing units,
3. the resources and/or incentives available that will encourage the development of second-
units; and
4. other relevant factors as determined by HCD.
The City's projection of second units that will be counted towards its RHNA must be based on
realistic capacity and development trends of second units in the previous planning period.
Furthermore, the housing element must describe and analyze the factors that could affect second
unit development, including the development standards established by the City's Second Dwelling
Unit Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 19.84).
The housing element should also include an analysis of the anticipated affordability of second
units. The affordability levels of second units can be determined by conducting a rent survey of
existing second units or estimating the rent of a second unit using the average rent per square foot
for comparable properties and the anticipated size of the second unit.
Sources:
State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development. "Second Units"
hup:/ /www.hcd.ca. frOV Ihpd/housinfr element2/SIA secondunits. php
1
2-19
ATIACHMENT C
Substantial Rehabilitation, Conversion or Preservation of
Affordable Housing
HCD does not allow cities to count units in existing affordable housing developments towards its
RHNA for very low- and low-income households. However, under limited circumstances, the City
of Cupertino can meet up to 25 percent of its RHNA by making existing units affordable through
rehabilitation, conversion, or preservation (Government Code Section 65583(c)(1)).
In order to meet the alternative sites requirements through rehabilitation, conversion, or
preservation, the City's housing element must include a program action that requires it to provide
"committed assistance" within the first two years of the planning period. "Committed assistance"
refers to a legally enforceable agreement for the City to provide the assistance necessary to make
identified units affordable and that the units are made available for occupancy within two years of
the execution of the agreement.
The complete checklist of requirements necessary to count rehabilitated, converted, or preserved
units toward the City's RHNA is attached. In addition, the following discussion summarizes the
requirements for rehabilitation, conservation, and preservation of affordable housing.
Substantially Rehabilitated
Substantially rehabilitated units that are counted towards the City's RHNA must result in a net
increase in the affordable housing stock for very low-income and low-income households and meet
the following requirements:
. Units must be at imminent risk of loss to the housing stock.
. The City must commit to providing displaced tenants who are not otherwise eligible for
relocation assistance under State law, with assistance, including a minimum of four months
of rent and moving expenses and comparable replacement housing.
. Occupants temporarily or permanently displaced must be provided with relocation
assistance and the City must require that any displaced occupant will have the right to
reoccupy the rehabilitated units.
. Rehabilitated units must have long-term affordability requirements of at least 20 years or
any other term required by federal or State funding laws.
Converted
Non-affordable units in rental complexes of 4 or more units that are converted to affordable by
acquisition or the purchase of affordabiIity covenants and restrictions may be counted towards the
City of Cupertino's RHNA. Converted units may not be acquired through eminent domain and
must result in a net increase in housing stock affordable to low- and very low-income households.
2
2-20
ATTACHMENT C
In addition, converted units must meet the following requirements:
. May not be currently occupied by low- or very low-income households.
. Be in decent, safe, and sanitary condition when occupied.
. Have long term affordability covenants of at least 55 years.
Maitri, a local nonprofit organization, has received $500,000 in CDBG funding from the City of
Cupertino to purchase a four-plex at 19489 Rosemarie Place for transitional housing for South
Asian victims of domestic violence. The property can accommodate 16 people in the nine-
bedroom four-plex. The City of Cupertino may be able to count the four units in the Maitri
Transitional Housing project towards its RHNA for very low- or low-income households.
Preserved
The City of Cupertino may receive credit toward its RHNA for units to be preserved at affordable
housing costs to lower-income households by the acquisition of the units or the purchase of
affordability covenants for the units. Preserved units must meet the following requirements:
. Be located within an assisted housing development.
. Have new long-term affordability covenants and restrictions of at least 40 years.
. Have received government assistance under specified programs.
. Be expected to convert to non low-income uses.
. Be in decent, safe, and sanitary condition.
There is one affordable housing development in the City of Cupertino that is at risk of converting
to non low-income uses. However, the 27 unit apartment complex, LeBeaulieu Apartments, has
affordability requirements that are not set to expire until 2015, one year after the end ofthe current
planning period which runs from 2007 to 2014.
Sources:
State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development. "Adequate Sites
Alternative."
http://www.hcd.ca.2:ovlhpdlhousin2: element2/SIA adeqsites.php
3
2-21
4~
..:,....' ~.
.... .~....
B.~ri3Jt::
San Francisco Bay Area
Sacramento
New York
Exhibit 0
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Washington, D.C.
2~22
City of Cupertino
Housing Element Update
2007 -2014
Bay Area Economics
Headquarters 510.547.9380
1285 66th Street fax 510.547.9388
EmeryviLle, CA 94608 bae1@bae1.com
baya rea economics. com
Table
1.
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
2.
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
2.6.
3.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
3.7.
3.8.
4.
4.1.
4.2.
5.
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
5.5.
6.
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
of Contents
Introduction .................................. ........ ........................................................ 1
Role and Content of Housing Element ...................................................................... 1
Public Participation.............................. .............................. .......... ............................... 2
Organization of Housing Element ...................................................... ........................ 3
Review of Prior Housing Element .......................................................... ..... 4
Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for All Economic Segments....... 4
Goal B: Housing that is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households........... 5
Goal C: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods........................................................... 6
Goal D: Services for Special Needs Households........................................................ 6
Goal E: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities........................................................ 6
ABAG Housing Production Goals..............................................................................7
Housing Needs Assessment .......................................................................8
Regional Context .................. ..................... ......... .......................... .............................. 8
Population & Household Trends.......... ...... .......... ............................. .......................... 8
Employment Trends & JobslHousing Balance ......................................................... 13
Housing Stock Characteristics .................. ................................................. ............... 16
Market Conditions & Income Related to Housing Costs.......................................... 22
Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion .................................................................. 31
Special Housing Needs.......................................................................................... ... 36
Summary........................................................................................... ... ..................... 47
Regional Housing Needs Determinations 2007-2014.............................. 49
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).......................................................... 49
Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households ......................................... 50
Housing Constrai nts .................................................................................. 52
Government Constraints................................... ........................................................ 52
Economic and Market Constraints.............................. ............... .............. ................. 65
Environmental, Infrastructure & Public Service Constraints.................................... 68
Opportunities for Energy Conservation .................................................................... 74
SummalY ........................................................................................... .................. ...... 75
Housing Resources..................................................................... ...............77
Overview of Available Sites for Housing................................................................. 77
General Plan Residential Allocations ....................................................................... 77
Residential Capacity Analysis............. ......... ................ ..... ....................................... 78
2-23
6.4.
6.5.
7.
7.1.
7.2.
7.3.
7.4.
7.5.
7.6.
7.7.
8.
8.1.
8.2.
8.3.
8.4.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Zoning for Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing....................................... 90
Financial Resources for Housing ................................................................... ........... 90
Housing Plan ................... ........................................................................... 93
Quantified Objectives............ ..... ............... ............................................................... 93
Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for All Economic Segments .....94
Goal B: Housing is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households................ 95
Goal C: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods....................................................... 100
Goal D: Services for Special Needs Households.................................................... 102
Goal E: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities.................................................... 103
Goal F: Coordination with Local School Districts.................................................. 104
Analysis of Consistency with General Plan ...........................................1 05
Land U se/Community Design........... ............. ..................:........ .............................. 105
Circulation ......... .................... ................................................................................. 105
Environmental Resources/Sustainability ........... .......... ........................................... 106
Health and Safety ........................... ........................................................... .............. 106
Appendix A: Review of Previous Housing Element ..............................1 08
Appendix B: List of Organizations Contacte.d .......................................113
Appendix C: Windshield Survey .............................................................114
Appendix D. Maximum Affordable Sales Price Calculations ...............115
Appendix E: Summary of City Zoning Standards .................................117
Appendix F: Residential Site Inventory.................................................. 118
2-24
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
1. Introduction
Cupertino is a unique community with a high-quality of life, a renowned school system and a
robust high-tech economy. The long-term vitality of the Cupertino community and local economy
depend on a full range of housing to meet the needs of all segments of the City's population. As
Cupertino looks towards the future, the increasing range and diversity of housing options will be an
integral aspect of the City's growth and development. Consistent with Cupertino's goal of
becoming a balanced community with a full range ofland uses, this plan sets forth a vision for
guiding future residential development, as well as for preserving and enhancing existing residential
areas.
1.1. Role and Content of Housing Element
The purpose of this Housing Element is to adopt a comprehensive, long-term pl~n to address the
housing needs of the City of Cupertino. Along with seven other mandated elements, the State
requires that a Housing Element be a part of the General Plan. Updated every five to seven years,
the Housing Element is Cupertino's primary policy document regarding the development,
rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population. Per State
Housing Element law, the document must
. Outline a community's housing productive objectives;
. List policies and implementation programs to achieve local housing goals;
. Examine the need for housing resources in a community, focusing in particular on special
needs populations;
. Identify adequate sites for the production of housing serving various income levels;
. Analyze the potential constraints to production; and
. Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other components of the General Plan.
Authority
Housing elements are required as a mandatory element of General Plans by Sec. 65580(c) of the
Government Code. In 1980, the State Legislature passed a bill (AB2853) which put into statute
much of the former advisory guidelines regarding housing element content including: the needs
assessment; goals, objectives and policies; and implementation program. Since that time, the
Legislature has made a number of modifications to the law, which are reflected in this update.
Status
This document is an update to the Housing Element of the City of Cupertino General Plan. The
current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and cel1ified by the State in 2001 and
the General Plan was most recently amended by the City Council on November 15, 2005. This
updated Housing Element focuses on housing needs from January 1,2007 through June 30, 2014,
1
2-25
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
in accordance with the Housing Element planning period for San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions
established by State law.
Relationship with General Plan
State law requires that a General Plan and its constituent elements "comprise an integrated,
internally consistent and compatible statement of policies." This implies that all elements have
equal legal status and no one element is subordinate to any other element. The Housing Element
must be consistent with land use goals and policies set forth in the Land Use Element, and closely
coordinated with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. As part of the implementation
process for this Housing Element, the City of Cupertino will initiate and complete amendments to
the City's General Plan as necessary to achieve internal consistency.
1.2. Public Participation
This Housing Element has been developed with extensive participation from members of the
Cupertino community. The public pa11icipation process described below engaged a diverse set of
community stakeholders in a productive dialog on housing issues, including residents, local small
and large employers, school districts' administrators and parents, and other interested parties.
Key Stakeholder Interviews. BAE interviewed 24 members of the Cupertino community to gain
a better understanding of the goals for and concerns about housing in the City.
Focus Group Meetings. The City and BAE convened a key stakeholder Focus Group, which
included 27 leaders in the Cupe11ino Community. Focus Group participants included members
from organized groups interested in housing issues, parents and faculty from the local school
districts, and local business leaders. This Focus Group worked through complex issues associated
with housing through a series of four meetings.
. Focus Group Meeting #1 (August 21, 2008) - This meeting summarized the purpose of
the Housing Element Update, the key components of the Housing Element, the City's legal
requirements, and the implications of having an uncertified Element. In addition, the
meeting focused on the local housing need in Cupertino.
. Focus Group Meeting #2 (September 25, 2008) - The second meeting focused on the
impacts associated with new housing development. Housing impacts discussed at the
meeting included fiscal and economic, traffic, open space, and school impacts.
. Focus Group Meeting #3 (October 23,2008) - This meeting discussed housing design
issues and educated participants about different housing product types, densities, and
heights.
. Focus Group Meeting #4 (November 20, 2008) - The fmal meeting involved a discussion
of housing programs and policies. The Focus Group reviewed the accomplishments of the
2
2-26
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
programs and policies from the City's previous Housing Element and discussed potential
housing goals, programs, and policies for this Update.
City Commissions. BAE also met with the City's Housing Commission and made a formal
presentation to the City's Senior Commission to solicit feedback on senior housing needs.
Online Educational Materials. Presentation materials and web cast archives of Focus Group
meetings were made available on the City's website. These materials were meant to introduce the
issues and outcomes of each Focus Group meeting to the wider community. The Focus Group
meetings were also broadcast live on the City of Cupertino's website.
Community Workshop. On Janumy 22, 2009, a community workshop was held to introduce the
Housing Element, present a selection of educational materials from the Focus Group meetings, and
give participants an opportunity to comment on the Update process.
1.3. Organization of Housing Element
Following this introduction, the Housing Element includes the following major components:
· A review of the prior (2001) Housing Element, including an analysis of housing production
over the previous ABAG fair share period;
· An analysis of the City's current and future housing needs;
· An analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing production;
· An inventory and analysis of housing resources; and
· A housing plan setting forth goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives to address
the City's housing needs.
3
2-27
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
2. Review of Prior Housing Element
A thorough review of the City's housing plan constitutes an important first step in updating the
Cupertino Housing Element. This section provides an evaluation of the City's progress towards
achieving housing goals and objectives as set forth in the prior Housing Element, and analyzes the
efficacy and appropriateness of the City's housing policies and programs. This review forms a key
basis for restructuring the City's housing plan to meet the housing needs of the Cupertino
community.
Adopted by the City Council and certified by the State HCD in 2001, the prior Housing Element
contained five major goals, 12 related policies, and 33 implementation programs. These goals and
policies are listed in Appendix A of this document, along with key achievements that relate to one
or more of the listed policies. The following discussion provides an overview of City housing
accomplishments grouped by major policy area.
2.1. Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for All
Economic Segments
The City's previous Housing Element identified housing production goals for each of the City's 11
Planning Areas. In order to accommodate the number of units identified for each Planning Area,
the City Council rezoned parcels of land in the specified areas to change the land use designation
and zoning to reflect the density ranges necessary to achieve the number of housing units. As
shown in Table 2.1, the City permitted 1,070 housing units between 2001 and 2006. I
I
Note that the total of 1,070 units permitted between 2001 and 2006 differs from the total housing produced
during the previous RHNA period, which ran from 1999 to 2006.
4
2-28
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 2.1: Housing Production by Planning District, 2001-2006
Units Permitted Remaining
Planning District Allocated Units 2001-2006 Allocation
Monta Vista 142 57 85
Neighborhood Other Areas 400 200 200
Vallco Park South 711 311 400
Heart of the City 332 116 216
Homestead Road 300 0 300
Commercial Other Areas 300 0 300
City Center 437 337 100
North De Anza 146 49 97
Vallco Park North 300 0 300
Bubb Road 94 0 94
Employment Other Areas 100 0 100
Total (a) 3,262 1,070 2,192
Notes:
(a) The total units permmitted between 2001 and 2006 differs from the total housing
units produced during the previous RHNA period, which ran from 1999 to 2006.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2008; BAE, 2008
2.2. Goal B: Housing that is Affordable for a Diversity of
Cupertino Households
In addition to encouraging overall housing production through land use policies, the City has
promoted affordable housing through a variety of policies and programs. Cupertino's Housing
Mitigation Plan requires developers to pay fees into an Affordable Housing Fund or provide below
market-rate (BMR) units as part of their developments. In 2007, the City updated the "Office and
Industrial Mitigation" fee after completing an updated nexus study to determine appropriate fee
levels. In addition, the City continues to require residential developers to provide BMR units or
pay an in-lieu fee. Between 1999 and 2006, 25 very low-income and two low-income units were
built by developers through the residential mitigation program. Through its Affordable Housing
Fund, the City assisted the construction of the 24-unit Vista Village affordable rental development
and purchased surplus property from CalTrans on Cleo Avenue for affordable housing.
Beyond the Housing Mitigation Plan, the City of Cupertino has continued to implement a number
of programs that encourage the development and preservation of affordable housing. The City
offers a density bonus to developers who provide housing for very low- and low-income
households and provides regulatory incentives such as park fee waivers and parking reductions for
affordable projects.
5
2-29
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
2.3. Goal C: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods
The City seeks to enhance residential neighborhoods by maintaining and rehabilitating older
housing and conserving the existing stock of owner and rental units that provide affordable housing
opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. The City has made HOME and CDBG
funds available on a competitive basis to developers to acquire and rehabilitate rental units for very
low- and low-income households. During the 2007-2008 fiscal year the City of Cupertino received
approximately $357,900 in CDBG funds. The City also successfully preserved the Sunnyview
West development, the only affordable housing project that had expiring federal subsidies during
the Housing Element period.
Cupertino had three programs which assisted with maintenance and home repair for lower-income
individuals. The Housing Rehabilitation program provided fmancial assistance to very low- and
low-income homeowners to rehabilitate their homes and the Home Access program provided
assistance with minor home repairs and accessibility improvements for lower-income, disabled
households. The Weatherization program assists very low-income homeowners with
weatherization improvements to their homes.
The Housing Rehabilitation Program was eliminated in 2002 after a sharp decline in the number of
annual loans. The average number of loans dropped from five to approximately one a year. City
staff attributed the sharp decline in interest in the program to gentrification. Many seniors who
would have applied for the program simply chose to sell their homes for a large profit and move
out of the area. Younger more economically stable families purchased their homes. In 2006,
Economic and Social Opportunities (ESO) dissolved its Handyworker, Home Access and
Weatherization programs. Like many cities in Santa Clara County, Cupertino has struggled to find
a replacement. However, in 2007, the City began funding Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley who
will provide a volunteer based rehabilitation for qualified Cupertino residents. The agency has also
begun a Neighbor to Neighbor program that provides minor repairs and modifications for eligible
home owners.
2.4. Goal D: Services for Special Needs Households
Cupertino's previous Housing Element included a number of programs for special needs
households, including the homeless and elderly. Currently West Valley Community Services
(formerly Cupertino Community Services) operates a rotating shelter program for the homeless at
churches throughout Cupertino. The City has not yet revised its Zoning Ordinance to allow
permanent emergency shelter facilities in the BQ quasi-public zoning district.
2.5. Goal E: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities
6
2-30
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
To support equal housing opportunities in Cupertino, the City contracts with Project Sentinel to
address fair housing complaints and resolve landlord/tenant dispute in the City. Project Sentinel
receives $30,000 from the City annually, and serves approximately 200 Cupertino residents a year.
During the 2007-2008 fiscal year, Project Sentinel received 201 calls from Cupertino residents and
handled 41 cases. In addition, the City has a contract with Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair
Housing (MCFH) to provide assistance to victims of housing discrimination. Both Project Sentinel
and MCFH services are offered to Cupertino residents free of charge.
2.6. ABAG Housing Production Goals
Cupertino's RHNA for the 1999 to 2006 Housing Element period was 2,720 units. During that
time period, the City issued building permits for 1,339 units accounting for 49 percent of their
RHNA (See Table 2.2). Most of the City's permits were issued for above moderate-income
housing units. The City issued permits for approximately nine percent of its very low-income
allocation and 6 percent of its low-income allocation.
Table 2.2: RHNA Accomplishments, 1999-2006
Percent of
Permits Allocation
RHNA Issued Permitted
Very Low-Income
Low-Income
Moderate-Income
Above Moderate-Income
Total
412
198
644
1 ,466
2,720
36
12
79
1,212
1,339
8.7%
6.1%
12.3%
82.7%
49.2%
Sources: ABAG, 2007; BAE, 2009
7
2-31
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
3. Housing Needs Assessment
The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to describe housing, economic, and demographic
conditions in Cupertino, assess the demand for housing for households at all income-levels, and
document the demand for housing to serve various special needs populations. The Housing Needs
Assessment is intended to assist Cupel1ino in developing housing goals and formulating policies
and programs that address local housing needs.
To facilitate an understanding of how the characteristics of Cupertino are similar to, or different
from, other nearby communities, this Housing Needs Assessment presents data for Cupertino
alongside comparable data for all of Santa Clara County and, where appropriate, for the San
Francisco Bay Area and the state of California.
This Needs Assessment incorporates data from numerous sources, including the United States
Census; the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); the State of California, Department of
Finance; and Claritas, Inc., a private demographic data vendor. In addition, BAE contacted local
service providers to discuss housing needs for special needs populations in Cupertino. Appendix B
includes a list of organizations contacted.
3.1. Regional Context
Cupertino is a suburban city of 10.9 square miles located in Santa Clara County. The city was
incorporated in 1955 and grew from a small agricultural community into a suburban community
during the expansion of Silicon Valley. The cities of Los Altos and Sunnyvale limit the northern
frontiers of Cupertino while the cities of Santa Clara and San Jose lie to the east of Cupertino.
Unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County form the southern and western boundaries of the city.
Cupertino is dominated by single-family subdivisions with distinctive commercial and employment
centers separated from the surrounding residential areas. Because of the suburban pattern, the city
has a largely automobile-based land use and transportation system. Highway 85 functions as the
main north/south traffic route through the city and Interstate 280 is a major east/west route through
Cupertino.
3.2. Population & Household Trends
Population
As presented in Table 3.1 below, Cupertino's population grew at a slightly slower rate than Santa
Clara County and the San Francisco Bay area as a whole between 2000 and 2008. During this
period, Cupertino grew fi.om 50,600 to 55,600 persons, which translates to an increase of 10
percent. However, a portion of this population growth can be attributed to the City's annexation of
8
2-32
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
168 acres ofland between 2000 and 2008. Cupertino's annexation of Garden Gate, Monta Vista,
and scattered islands, resulted in an increase of 1,600 new residents. After removing population
increases from annexation, the City of Cupertino experienced seven percent increase in its
population. By comparison, Santa Clara County's population grew by nine percent while the nine-
county Bay Area's population grew by eight percent. Overall, the state of California's population
grew more rapidly between 2000 and 2008, increasing by 12 percent.
Households
A household is defined as a person or group of persons living in a housing unit, as opposed to
persons living in group quarters, such as donnitories, convalescent homes, or prisons. According
to the California Department of Finance, there were 19,700 households in Cupertino in 2008 (see
Table 3.1). The City added approximately 600 new households between 2000 and 2008 through
annexation. After adjusting for household increases due to annexation, the number of households
in Cupertino grew by five percent between 2000 and 2008. During the same time period, the
number of households in Santa Clara County increased by eight percent.
A verage Household Size
Average household size is a function of the number of people living in households divided by the
number of occupied housing units in a given area. In Cupertino, the average household size in
2008 was 2.80, slightly lower than the Santa Clara County figure of2.97. Because population
growth has outpaced the increase in households in Cupertino and the County, the average
household size has increased for both jurisdictions since 2000.
Household Type
Households are divided into two different types, depending on their composition. Family
households are those consisting of two or more related persons living together. Non-family
households include persons who live alone or in groups of unrelated individuals. As shown in
Table 3.1, Cupertino has a very large proportion offamily households. In 2008, family households
comprise 75 percent of all households in Cupertino, compared with 70 percent of Santa Clara
County households.
Household Tenure
Households in Cupertino are more likely to own than rent their homes. Approximately 64 percent
of households living in Cupertino owned their own homes in 2008, a figure essentially unchanged
from 2000. By comparison, only 59 percent of households in Santa Clara County owned their own
residences in 2008.
9
2-33
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.1: Population and Household Trends, 2000-2008
City of Cupertino
Population (b)
Households (b)
Average Household Size (b)
Household Type
Families
Non-Families
Tenure
Owner
Renter
Santa Clara County
Population (b)
Households (bl
Average Household Size (b)
Household Type
Families
Non-Families
Tenure
Owner
Renter
Bay Area lc)
Population (b)
Households (b)
Average Household Size (b)
Household Type
Families
Non-Families
Tenure
Owner
Renter
California
Population (b)
Households (b)
Average Household Size (bl
Household Type
Families
Non-F am i1ies
2000
Annexation
2008 (est.) 2000-2008 (a)
Total Change
less annexations
2000-2008
Percent Change
2000-2008
50,602
18,223
2.75
55,551
19,660
2.80
1,563
578
3,386
859
74.8%
25.2%
75.0%
25.0%
63.6%
36.4%
64.0%
36.0%
1,682,585 1,837,075
565,863 608,652
2.92 2.97
69.9% 69.9%
30.1% 30.1%
59.8% 59.3%
40.2% 40.7%
6,784,348 7,301,080
2,466,020 2,643,390
2.69 2.71
64.7% 64.8%
35.3% 35.2%
57.7% 57.8%
42.3% 42.2%
154,490
42,789
516,732
177,370
33,873,086
11,502,871
2.87
38,049,462
12,653,045
2.94
4,176,376
1,150,174
68.9%
31.1%
69.0%
31.0%
Tenure
Owner
Renter
Notes:
(a) Between 2000 and 2008, the City of Cupertino annexed 168 acres of land. The population and household increases resulting
from annexation are not included in population and household growth calculations for the City.
(b) Population, households, and household size figures from California Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2000 and 2008.
(c) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties.
Sources: California, Department of Finance, 2008; Claritas, 2008; BAE 2008.
56.9%
43.1%
57.6%
42.4%
10
2-34
6.7%
4.7%
9.2%
7.6%
7.6%
7.2%
12.3%
10.0%
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Age Distribution
Cupertino's age distribution, shown in Table 3.2, is relatively similar to that of Santa Clara County
with a few notable exceptions. In both Cupertino and Santa Clara County, there are significant
proportions of persons under 20 years old. However, the propOliion of Cupeliino residents under
the age of 20 years old has declined since 2000. Compared to the County as a whole, Cupertino
has a lower proportion of adults in the 25 to 34 age range but a higher proportion of 45 to 54 year
old adults. From 2000 to 2008, the fastest growing segment of the community was residents in the
45 to 54 year old age category, which increased from 15.4 to 18.0 percent of the total population.
The proportion of residents in the 25 to 34 age range and the 35 to 44 cohort showed the sharpest
decline between 2000 and 2008. Cupertino's elderly population, residents age 65 years old and
above, increased from 11 percent to 13 percent between 2000 and 2008.
In 2008, the median age in Cupertino was 40.8, increasing from 37.9 in 2000. Santa Clara County
experienced a parallel aging of its population as evidenced by an increase in the median age from
34.0 to 36.7 years.
Table 3.2: Age Distribution, 2000 and 2008
City of Cupertino Santa Clara County
Age Cohort 2000 2008 2000 2008
Under 15 22.4% 19.8% 20.9% 21.2%
15 to 17 4.3% 5.1% 3.9% 3.9%
18 to 20 2.5% 3.5% 3.9% 3.8%
21 to 24 2.7% 4.8% 5.4% 5.0%
25 to 34 12.1% 8.1% 17.8% 13.4%
35 to 44 21.0% 16.5% 17.6% 16.7%
45 to 54 15.4% 18.0% 13.0% 14.9%
55 to 64 8.7% 11.7% 8.0% 10.4%
65 to 74 5.8% 6.5% 5.2% 5.9%
75 to 84 3.8% 4.2% 3.3% 3.5%
85 + 1.4% 1.9% 1.1% 1.4%
Median Age 37.9 40.8 34.0 36.7
Sources: Claritas, 2008; BAE 2008.
Household Income
According to Claritas estimates, the median household income in Cupertino in 2008 was $115,400.
This figure is significantly higher than the estimated median household income of $85,454 for
Santa Clara County and $74,300 for the Bay Area. Over half of Cupertino households (58 percent)
earned more than $100,000 in 2008, whereas only 42 percent of Santa Clara households and 35
percent of Bay Area households fall into this income categOlY.
11
2-35
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
On a per capita basis, Cupertino is also wealthier than Santa Clara County and Bay Area. In 2008,
the per capita income in Cupertino was $52,200, compared to $37,500 in the County and $36,300
in the Bay Area.
Table 3.3 summarizes the distribution of household incomes for Cupertino, Santa Clara County,
and the Bay Area.
Table 3.3: Household Income Distribution, 2008
City of Cupertino Santa Clara County Bay Area (a)
Household Income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $15,000 802 4.3% 37,893 6.4% 208,322 8.1%
$15,000 to $24,999 692 3.7% 30,785 5.2% 163,949 6.4%
$25,000 to $34,999 632 3.4% 34,517 5.8% 177,443 6.9%
$35,000 to $49,999 1,031 5.6% 58,619 9.9% 291,229 11.4%
$50,000 to $74,999 2,318 12.5% 99,221 16.7% 450,515 17.6%
$75,000 to $99,999 2,343 12.7% 86,440 14.5% 362,903 14.2%
$100,000 to $149,999 4,402 23.8% 122,222 20.6% 474,017 18.5%
$150,000 to $249,999 4,100 22.2% 87,039 14.6% 292,620 11.4%
$250,000 to $499,999 1 ,466 7.9% 25,535 4.3% 89,355 3.5%
$500,000 and over 686 3.7% 12,090 2.0% 46,437 1.8%
Total (b) 18,472 100.0% 594,361 100.0% 2,556,790 100.0%
Median Household Income $115,466 $85,454 $74,256
Per Capita Income $52,153 $37,470 $36,322
Notes:
(a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties.
(b) Total number of households here may differ from population and household estimates provided by CA
Department of Finance.
Sources: Claritas, 2008; BAE 2008.
12
2-36
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
3.3. Employment Trends & Jobs/Housing Balance
Table 3.4 and Table 3.5 provide a summary of employment by industry sector and the number of
employed residents in Cupertino and Santa Clara County based on data from California
Employment Development Department.
Local Employment Opportunities
As shown in Table 3.4, the number of jobs in Cupertino grew by 14 percent between the 2003 and
2007, double the growth in jobs for Santa Clara County as a whole. Cupertino added 3,700 jobs in
the four year period, for a total of 30,900 jobs in 2007.
With the exception of retail trade and transportation and warehousing, all industry sectors grew in
Cupertino between 2003 and 2007. By far, the manufacturing industry added the largest absolute
number of jobs (4,600), followed by wholesale trade (900) and professional, scientific, and
technical services (800). Manufacturing represents the largest job sector in both Cupeliino and
Santa Clara County. However, Cupertino has a much higher propOliion of manufacturing jobs (34
percent) than Santa Clara County (19 percent). The manufacturing sector includes the production
of computer, electronic, and communication equipment and includes such major employers as
Apple and HP.
With the recent collapse of the financial and credit markets and the worldwide recession, Cupeliino
and the broader Silicon Valley region lost some of the gains in key sectors that were achieved
between 2003 and 2007. As of Febmary, 2009, unemployment in Santa Clara County stood at 9.9
percent compared to 10.5 percent in California and 8.1 percent in the nation as a whole. The
impacts of the economic downturn, though serious, have been somewhat localized to particular
sectors and industries such as finance and insurance, construction and retail trade. Fortunately for
Cupertino, high-tech employment has not declined at the same rate as the rest of the economy and
long-term prospects for this sector remain strong.
13
2-37
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.4: Jobs by Sector, 2003-2007 (a)
City of Cupertino Santa Clara County
Q3 2003 (bl Q3 2007 (c) % Change Q3 2003 (b I Q3 2007 (cl % Change
Industry Sector Jobs % Total Jobs % Total 2003-2007 Jobs % Total Jobs % Total 2003.2007
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (d) 11 0% nla nla nla 4,778 1% 4,541 1% -5%
Mining (d) nla nla nla nla nla 173 0% 262 0% 51%
Construction 395 1% 462 1% 17% 39,981 5% 46,824 5% 17%
Man ufacturing 6,061 22% 10,618 34% 75% 172,236 20% 165,665 19% -4%
Utilities (d) nla nla nla nla nla 1,474 00/0 1,843 0% 25%
Wholesale Trade 760 3% 1,682 5% 121% 33,751 4% 39,622 4% 17%
Retail Trade 3,247 12% 3,085 10% -5% 80,100 10% 83,356 9% 4%
Transportation and Warehousing 126 0% 94 0% -25% 12,146 1% 11,513 1% -5%.
Information 1,243 5% 1,697 5% 37% 31,572 4% 40,202 4% 27%
Finance and Insurance 691 3% 696 2% 1% 19,876 2% 21,631 2% 9%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 350 1% 699 2% 100% 14,978 2% 15,889 2% 6%
Professional. Scientific, and Technical Services 1,937 7% 2,699 9% 39% 98,608 12% 112,335 13% 14%
Management of Companies and Enterprises (d) nla nla nla nla nla 15,632 2% 9,197 1% -41%
Administrative and Waste Services 1,197 4% 1,335 4% 12% 52,271 6% 56,791 6% 9%
Educational Services 276 1% 502 2% 82% 21,461 3% 26,533 3% 24%
Health Care and Social Assistance 1,350 5% 1,618 5% 20% 65,159 8% 70,834 8% 9%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 154 1% 230 1% 49% 11,047 1% 11,591 1% 5%
Accommodation and Food Services 1,951 7% 2,456 8% 26% 58,094 7% 64,416 7% 11%
Other Services, except Public Administration 546 2% 758 2% 39% 26,553 3% 30,619 3% 15%
Unclassified (d) nla nla nla nla nla 57 0% 16 0% -72%
Government (d) (e) nla nla nla nla nla 81,057 10% 80,580 9% -1%
Total 27,199 100% 30,862 100% 13% 841,004 100% 894,260 100% 6%
Notes:
(a) Includes all wage and salary employment covered by unemployment insurance.
(b) Represents employment for third quarter, 2003.
(c) Represents employment for third quarter, 2007.
(d) Local employment for Agriculture, Foresly, Fishing and Hunling (2007 only), Mining, Management of Companies and Enterprises, Unclassified, and Government
was suppressed by EDD due to the small number of firms In Cupertino reporting in this category. Total employment includes jobs in these categories.
(e) Government employment includes wor1<ers in all local, state and Federal sectors, not just public administration. For example, all public school staff are in
the Government category.
Sources: California Employment Development Department, 2008; BAE, 2008.
Employed Residents
Cupertino's job growth outpaced the City's growth in employed residents. While the number of
jobs grew by 14 percent, Cupertino's population of residents with jobs grew from 22,300 to 23,300,
or by five percent between 2003 and 2007. Santa Clara County's employed residents also grew by
five percent, but the County's job growth was more modest at six percent between 2003 and 2007.
Cupertino can be characterized as an increasingly "jobs rich" community, meaning that the number
of jobs exceeds the number of working residents. In 2003, the number of employed residents stood
at 82 percent of the number of jobs in Cupertino (see Table 3.5). Over the next four years, the
number of employed residents dropped to just 76 percent of the number of jobs. Cupertino added
more than twice as many jobs as employed residents between 2003 and 2007. This phenomenon
was present but less pronounced in Santa Clara County overall. In 2007, the county's number of
employed residents represented 91 percent of its employment.
14
2-38
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.5: Employment Trends, Cupertino
Cupertino
Percent
Change
2003 (a) 2007 (a) 2003-2007
Employed Residents 22,300 23,300 4.5%
Total Jobs 27,199 30,862 13.5%
Employed ResidentslTotal Jobs 0.820 0.755
Unemployment rate 5.4% 3.0%
Santa Clara County
Percent
Change
2003 (a) 2007 (a) 2003-2007
779,200 814,700 4.6%
841,004 894,260 6.3%
0.927 0.911
8.3% 4.7%
Notes:
(a) Represents employed residents and jobs in the third quarter of 2003 and 2007.
Sources: Califomia Employment Development Department, 2008; BAE 2008
Long Term Projections
Table 3.6 presents population, household, and job growth projections for Cupertino, Santa Clara
County, and the nine county Bay Area between 2005 and 2035. The figures represent the analysis
conducted by ABAG using 2000 Census data and a variety of local sources.
Cupertino's population is expected to grow by 7,100 residents from 53,500 in 2005 to 60,600 in
2035. This translates into an increase of 13 percent. ABAG projects Santa Clara County and the
Bay Area as a whole will experience much larger population increases of 35 percent and 27
percent, respectively.
Job growth is expected to continue to outpace population and household growth in Cupertino,
compounding the "jobs rich" nature of the city.
15
2-39
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.6: Population, Household, and Job Projections, 2005-2035
Total Change % Change
City of Cupertino 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2005 . 2035 2005 . 2035
Population 53,500 55,400 56,600 57,900 58,500 59,200 60,600 7,100 13.3%
Households 19,250 19,910 20,380 20,780 21,040 21,430 22,000 2,750 14.3%
Jobs 31,060 32,350 33,730 35,140 36,600 38,100 39,660 8,600 27.7%
Santa Clara County
Population 1,763,000 1,867,500 1,971,100 2,085,300 2,177,800 2,279,100 2,380,400 617,400 35.0%
Households 595,700 628,870 665,000 701,470 732,830 769,750 806,210 210,510 35.3%
Jobs 872,860 938,330 1,017,060 1,098,290 1,183,840 1,272,950 1,365,810 492,950 56.5%
Bay Area (a)
Population 7,096,100 7,412,500 7,730,000 8,069,700 8,389,600 8,712,800 9,031,500 1,935,400 27.3%
Households 2,583,080 2,696,580 2,819,030 2,941,760 3,059,130 3,177,440 3,292,530 709,450 27.5%
Jobs 3,449,640 3,693,920 3,979,200 4,280,700 4,595,170 4,921,680 5,247,780 1,798,140 52.1%
Notes:
(a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties.
Sources: Association of Bay Area Governments, 2008; Bay Area Economics, 2008.
3.4. Housing Stock Characteristics
Housing Stock Conditions
The age of Cupertino's housing stock is similar to that of Santa Clara County. As shown in Table
3.7, the largest prop0l1ion of homes (30 percent) was built between 1960 and 1969 in Cupertino.
In both Cupertino and Santa Clara County, the median year housing structures were built was 1970.
Unless carefully maintained, older housing stock can create health, safety, and welfare problems
for occupants. Even with normal maintenance, dwellings over 40 years of age can deteriorate,
requiring significant rehabilitation.
16
2-40
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.7: Housing Structures Year Built, Cupertino
Year Built
1999 to March 2000
1995 to 1998
1990 to 1994
1980 to 1989
1970 to 1979
1960 to 1969
1950 to 1959
1940 to 1949
1939 or earlier
Cupertinio
Number Percentage
356 1.9%
1,198 6.4%
1,021 5.5%
2,287 12.2%
4,466 23.9%
5,622 30.0%
2,952 15.8%
591 3.2%
221 1.2%
Santa Clara County
Number Percentage
10,402 1.8%
29,525 5.1 %
26,941 4.7%
77,749 13.4%
145,718 25.2%
132,161 22.8%
96,285 16.6%
30,002 5.2%
30,546 5.3%
Total
18,714
100.0%
579,329
100.0%
Median Year Built
1970
1970
Sources: US Census, SF3-H34, 2000; BAE, 2008.
Notwithstanding this finding, the City's housing stock remains in relatively good condition. Data
on the number of units which lack complete plumbing and kitchen facilities are often used to assess
the condition of a jurisdiction's housing stock. As Table 3.8 indicates, virtually all of Cupertino's
housing units contain complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. The 2000 Census indicates that
less than one percent of the City's units lack these facilities.
17
2-41
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.8: Housing Conditions, Cupertino, 2000
Plumbing Facilities
Owners
Complete plumbing facilities
Lacking complete plumbing facilities
Renters
Complete plumbing facilities
Lacking complete plumbing facilities
Total
Kitchen Facilities
Owners
Complete kitchen facilities
Lacking complete kitchen facilities
Renters
Complete kitchen facilities
Lacking complete kitchen facilities
Total
Number Percent of Total
11,521 63.2%
19 0.1%
6,653 36.5%
24 0.1%
18,217 100.0%
11,532 63.3%
8 0.0%
6,653 36.5%
24 0.1%
18,217 100.0%
Sources: US Census, SF3-H48 and H51, 2000; BAE, 2008
To characterize the physical conditions of Cupertino's stock of older residential structures, a
windshield survey was performed for this Housing Element (inspecting exterior building
components visible from the public right-of-way only). The windshield survey was conducted for
the Rancho Rinconada residential neighborhood in the eastern part of Cupertino. This
neighborhood, which is bordered by Lawrence Expressway, Bollinger Road, Miller Avenue, and
Stevens Creek Boulevard, is one of the City's older neighborhoods with many small, single-story
homes built in the 1950s. In the 1990s, new homeowners in the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood
began demolishing and rebuilding much larger single-family homes. Neveltheless, much of the
neighborhood continues to be fairly representative of Cupertino's older housing stock.
The windshield survey assessed the exterior condition of dilapidated housing units, including a
review of each unit's foundation, roofing, siding and/or stucco, and windows. 2 Over half of the
several dozen homes surveyed in this area had shingles missing from the roof while nearly all had
siding or stucco that needed to be patched and repainted. Many of the dilapidated homes surveyed
were characterized by a lack of maintenance with overgrown yards or garbage and debris on the
property .
2
Appendix C provides a sample windshield survey form.
18
2-42
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Distribution of Units by Structure Type
As shown in Table 3.9, a majority of housing units in Cupertino are single-family detached homes;
61 percent of homes were single-family detached dwelling units in 2008. This is a slightly smaller
share than the 61 percent proportion that single-family detached homes represented in 2000, but a
much larger share than Santa Clara County's 54 percent in 2008.
Large multi-family housing units (defmed as units in structures containing five or more dwellings)
represent the second largest housing category in Cupeltino and have experienced the most rapid
growth between 2000 and 2008. The number oflarge multi-family housing units grew by 14
percent while single-family detached dwellings grew by seven percent between 2000 and 2008.
But at 20 percent in 2008, Cupertino still has a smaller proportion of multi-family housing units
compared to Santa Clara County, where over a quarter (26 percent) of all housing was in large
multi-family structures.
Single-family attached homes comprised the third largest housing category in Cupertino at 11
percent in 2008, a higher figure than the nine percent of all homes in Santa Clara County. The
remaining housing categories, small multi-family homes (defined as units in structures containing
2-4 dwellings) and mobile homes represented relatively small proportions of Cupertino's housing
stock in 2008 and have experienced little or no growth since 2000.
19
2-43
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.9: Housing Units by Type, 2000-2008
Percent
2000 2008 Change
City of Cupertino Number of Units Percent of Total Number of Units Percent of Total 2000-2008
Single Family Detached 11,425 61.1% 12,235 60.7% 7.1%
Single Family Attached 2,028 10.8% 2,145 10.6% 5.8%
Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 1,663 8.9% 1,698 8.4% 2.1%
Multifamily 5+Units 3,576 19.1% 4,085 20.3% 14.2%
Mobile Home 9 0.0% 9 0.0% 0.0%
Total 18,701 100.0% 20,172 100.0% 7.9%
Percent
Change
Santa Clara County Number of Units Percent of Total Number of Units Percent of Total 2000-2008
Single Family Detached 323,913 55.9% 336,196 54.0% 3.8%
Single Family Attached 52,739 9.1% 55,834 9.0% 5.9%
Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 46,371 8.0% 46,932 7.5% 1.2%
Multifamily 5+Units 136,628 23.6% 164,151 26.4% 20.1%
Mobile Home 19,678 3.4% 19,666 3.2% -0.1%
Total 579,329 100.0% 622,779 100.0% 7.5%
Percent
Change
Bay Area Number of Units Percent of Total Number of Units Percent of Total 2000-2008
Single Family Detached 1,376,861 53.9% 1,466,501 53.7% 6.5%
Single Family Attached 224,824 8.8% 233,612 8.5% 3.9%
Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 266,320 10.4% 272,843 10.0% 2.4%
Multifamily 5+Units 623,388 24.4% 699,127 25.6% 12.1%
Mobile Home 61,011 2.4% 61,328 2.2% 0.5%
Total 2,552,404 100% 2,733,411 100% 7.1%
Sources: CA Department of Finance, E-5 2008; BAE, 2008.
Building Permit Trends
Building permit trends demonstrate that while Cupertino experienced growth in multi-family unit
between 1999 and 2008, new residential development has largely focused on detached single-
family homes. Since 1999, Cupertino issued 970 building permits for single-family homes,
compared to only 418 permits for all duplex and multi-family units (See Table 3.10).
20
2-44
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.10: Building Permits Issued by Building Type in Cupertino 1999-2008
Total
Building Type 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1999-2008
Single Family 240 112 45 111 36 87 114 78 83 65 971
2 Units 0 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 42 54
3 & 4 Units 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 or More Units 80 14 24 252 0 0 0 48 0 0 418
Total Permits Issued 320 126 77 371 36 87 114 126 83 107 1,447
Sources: U.S. Census, 2008; BAE, 2008.
Overcrowding
Overcrowding refers to a household with an average of 1.01 or more persons per room, with those
rooms being bedrooms, kitchens, and dining rooms but not bathrooms. Units with more than 1.5
persons per room are considered to be severely overcrowded. As shown in Table 3.11 Cupertino
households were less likely to be overcrowded than Santa Clara households in 2000. Of all
households in Cupertino, 10 percent of households were overcrowded or severely overcrowded
versus 14 percent in Santa Clara County. Overcrowding was much more common in Cupertino's
renter-occupied households, with 17 percent overcrowded, while only five percent of owner-
occupied households in Cupertino were overcrowded.
Table 3.11: Overcrowded Households, 2000 (a)
Cupertino
1.51 or more persons per room(Severely Overcrowded)
1.01 to 1.50 (Overcrowded)
1.00 or less
Owners
Households
146
452
10,940
Percent
1.3%
3.9%
94.6%
Renters
Households Percent
526 7.9%
626 9.4%
5,523 62.7%
Total Overcrowded
Households Percent
676 3.7%
1076 5.9%
16.463 90.4%
Total 11,540 100.0% 6677 100.0% 18,217 100%
% Overcrowded by Tenure 5.2% 17.3% 9.6%
Owners Renters Total Overcrowded
Santa Clara County Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent
1.51 or more persons per room (Severely Overcrowded) 13,216 3.9% 33,046 14.5% 46,264 ----a.2%
1.0110 1.50 (Overcrowded) 14,695 4.3% 19,945 6.8% 34,640 6.1%
1.00 or less 310.725 91.6% 174,234 76.7% 464,959 85.7%
Total 338,636 100.0% 227,227 100.0% 565,863 100%
% Overcrowded by Tenure 8.2% 23.3% 14.3%
Notes:
(a) The U.S, Census defines overcrowded an unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding
bathrooms and kitchens). Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severley overcrowded.
Sources: U.S. Census, SF3-H20, 2000; BAE, 2008.
21
2-45
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
3.5. Market Conditions & Income Related to Housing Costs
This section of the needs assessment provides information on market conditions for housing in
Cupertino. This information is important, because it reveals the extent to which the private housing
market is providing for the needs of various economic segments of the local population. The
information on housing market conditions is combined with information on the demographics of
the local population to identify those segments of the population that face difficulties in securing
housing in Cupertino at costs that do not place them under excessive housing cost burden.
Rental Market Characteristics and Trends
A review of rental market conditions in Cupertino was conducted for this Housing Element by
reviewing advertised apartment listings, and by obtaining Real Facts apartment data. Real Facts is
a commercial database service that tracks rental apartment occupancy statistics and rents within
Cupertino and other California cities. As shown in Table 3.12, Real Facts reports rents for studios
averaging $1,260 a month, a $1,685 average monthly rent for one-bedroom units, and a monthly
rent of $1,915 and $2,849 for two and three bedroom units, respectively.
Cupe11ino rents were higher than current levels in 2000 at the peak of the dot com boom. Average
monthly rents subsequently declined to $1,519 in 2004 before rising again to $2,030 in 2008.
Between 2004 and 2008, apartment rents within Cupertino have outpaced inflation, increasing by
34 percent.
22
2-46
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.12: Overview of Rental Housing Market, Cupertino, 4th Quarter 2008 (a)
CURRENT MARKET DATA:
Percent Avg.
Unit Type Number of Mix Sq.Ft.
Studio 135 3% 466
Jr 1 BR/1 BA 69 2% 660
1 BR/1 BA 1,539 36% 720
1 BR TH 12 0% 909
2 BR/1 BA 582 13% 920
2BR/1.5 BA 0%
2 BR/2 BA 1,350 31% 1,057
2 BR Townhouse 353 8% 1,070
3 BR/1.5 BA
3 BR/2 BA 172 4% 1,276
3 BR/3 BA
3 BR Townhouse 106 2% 1,321
Totals 4,318 100% 909
AVERAGE RENT HISTORY:
2006-2007
Unit Type 2006 2007 Change
studio $1,071 $1,199 12.0%
jr 1bd $1,265 $1,402 10.8%
1bd 1bth $1 ,444 $1,630 12.9%
2bd 1 bth $1,719 $1,885 9.7%
2bd 2bth $1,997 $2,157 8.0%
2bd TH $1,992 $2,306 15.8%
3bd 2bth $2,450 $2,644 7.9%
3bd TH $2,201 $2,433 10.5%
All $1,744 $1,928 10.6%
OCCUPANCY RATE:
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Average
Occupancy
95.8%
96.2%
96.7%
96.5%
96.3%
AGE OF HOUSING INVENTORY (by Project):
Year
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
Percent of
Projects
29%
33%
5%
33%
0.0%
Avg.
Rent
$1,272
$1,115
$1,727
$1,933
$1,844
$2,319
$2,509
$2,762
$2,628
$2,032
2008 (b)
$1,272
$1,115
$1,727
$1,844
$2,319
$2,509
$2,762
$2,628
$2,032
Avg.
Rent/Sq. Ft.
$2.73
$1.69
$2.40
$2.13
$2.00
$2.19
$2.34
$2.16
$1.99
$2.24
2007-2008
Change
6.1%
-23.9%
8.1%
-3.4%
13.5%
16.9%
9.8%
16.3%
8.7%
Notes:
(a) Represents only housing complexes with 50 units or more.
Sources: RealFacts, Inc., 2008; Bay Area Economics, 2008.
23
2-47
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Home Sale Trends
. HOlne values in Cupertino have increased significantly since 2000. According to DataQuick
Infonnation SystenlS, the median sales price for a single-family home increased by 40 percent froln
$825,000 in 2000 to $1,153,000 in 2008. Condominium sale prices experienced a parallel increase,
growing by 42 percent fronl $480,000 to $680,000 benveen 2000 and 2008. While other areas of
the state and nation have experienced downturns in the housing market recently, Cupeliino home
values have continued to grow (See Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1: Annual Median Home Price for Cupertino, 1990-2008
$1,400,000
$800,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
o ~
(J) (J)
(J) (J)
~ ~
C\I
(J)
(J)
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ro (J) 0 ~
(J) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) 0 0
(J) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C\I C\I
C\I ~
o 0
o 0
C\I C\I
~ ~ ~ ~ ro
00000
00000
C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I
- Condos
- Single Family Homes
Sales volunle for single-family homes peaked in 1999 \vith 812 units sold. The nUlnber of single-
falnily hOlne sales declined to 436 units in 2001 during the economic downtunl in Silicon Valley.
Sales volume of both single-family homes and condolniniums in the City has fluctuated since 2001.
As shown in Figure 3.2, condominium sales volume parallel trends for single- falnily hOlnes. In
2008, 337 single-family hOlnes and 140 condominiums were sold in Cupeliino. The decline in
honle sales in 2008 is indicative of the tightening credit nlarket and current recession.
24
2-48
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Figure 3.2: Homes Sales Volume, Cupertino, 1990 - 2008
900
800
700
600
(/) 500
~
.2
=:l 400
=I:t:
300
200
100
0
0 ~ N Cf') ~ L() CD r-- co 0) 0 ~ N Cf') ~ L() CD r-- co
0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N
- Condos
-Single Family Homes
Vacancy Rates and Trends
Based on U.S. Census data, the vacancy rate for housing units in Cupertino was very low in 2000.
The Census repolied a vacancy rate of2.7 percent in Cupertino, slightly higher than Santa Clara's
vacancy rate of2.3 percent (See Table 3.13). However, Real Facts, which surveys large apaliment
complexes, repolis that the 2008 vacancy rate for rental housing is higher at 4.6 percent. The rental
vacancy rate has increased since 2004 when 4.2 percent of Cupertino rental units were not
occupied.
25
2-49
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.13: Housing Occupancy and Vacancy Status, 2000
Occupancy Status
Occupied Housing Units
Vacant Housing Units
For rent
For sale only
Rented or sold, not occupied
For seasonal, recreational or occasional use
For migrant workers
Other vacant (a)
Total
Cupertino
Number Percent
18,217 97.3%
497 2.7%
132 0.7%
135 0.7%
65 0.3%
83 0.4%
53 0.3%
29 0.2%
Santa Clara County
Number Percent
565,863 97.7%
13,466 2.3%
4,450 0.8%
2,155 0.4%
2,294 0.4%
2,821 0.5%
202 0.0%
1,544 0.3%
California
Number Percent
11,502,870 94.2%
711,679 5.8%
201,388 1.6%
115,343 0.9%
54,785 0.4%
261,950 2.1%
2,194 0.0%
76,019 0.6%
18,714
100%
579,329
100% 12,214,549
100%
Note:
(a) If a vacant unit does not fall into any of the classifications specified above, it is classified as .other vacant." For example, this
category includes units held for occupancy by a caretaker or janitor, and units held by the owner for personal reasons.
Sources: US Census, SF3-H6 and H8, 2000: BAE, 2008.
Housing Affordability
According to the federal government, housing is considered "affordable" if it costs no more than 30
percent of the household's gross income. Often, affordable housing is discussed in the context of
affordability to households with different income levels. Households are categorized as very low-
income, low-income, moderate-income, or above moderate-income based on percentages of the
Area Median Income (AMI) established annually by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development. Income limits vary by household size. Table 3.14 provides the
maximum income limits for a four person household in Santa Clara County in 2008. Very low-
and low-income households are eligible for federal, state, and local affordable housing programs.
Moderate-income households are eligible for some state and local housing programs. These
income categories are also used by the Association of Bay Area Governments in their Regional
Housing Needs Allocation.
Table 3.14: Household Income Limits, Santa Clara County, 2008
Income Category
Extremely Low Income
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate
% of Area
Median Income
0% to 30%
31% to 50%
51% to 80%
80% to 120%
Santa Clara Median
100%
$97,800
Top of Income
Range (a)
$31,850
$53,050
$84,900
$117,400
Notes:
(a) Based on HCD 2008 Household Income Limits a household of four in Santa Clara County.
Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2008; BAE, 2008.
26
2-50
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Another way to think of the household income categories is to consider what types of jobs people
in these different categories might have. Figure 3.3 provides representative households for Santa
Clara County, with hypothetical jobs and family compositions.
Figure 3.3: Representative Households, Santa Clara County, 2008
Moderate Income Household (80% -120% AMI)
~~**
Estimated Annual Income: $84,900 - $117,400
Dad works as an elementary school teacher, mom
works as a secretary; they have two children.
Low Income Household (50% - 80% AMI)
~~**
Estimated Annual Income: $53,050 - $84,900
Dad works as an office building janitor, mom
works as a child care provider; they have two
children.
Very Low Income Household (Up to 50% AMI)
~*
Estimated Annual Income: Up to $42,450
Mom works as a retail clerk and is the only
source of financial support in her family; she has
one child.
Sources: Calfironia Department of Housing and Community Development,
2008; Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, 2008;
BAE, 2008
Ability to Purchase/Rent Homes
Table 3.15 shows affordability scenarios for four-person households with very low-, low-, and
moderate-incomes. The analysis compares the maximum affordable sales price for each of these
households to the market rate prices in Cupertino between June 1,2007 and June 1,2008. The
maximum affordable sales price was calculated using household income limits published by the
California Department of Housing and Community Development, conventional financing terms,
and assuming that households spend 30 percent of gross income on mortgage payments, taxes, and
insurance. Appendix D provides details the calculations for the maximum affordable sales price.
Home sales data for Cupertino between June I, 2007 and June I, 2008 was obtained from
DataQuick Information Systems.
As shown in Table 3.15, the median sales price for a three bedroom, single-family home was
$1,081,000. In comparison, the highest cost residence that a moderate-income family (earning up
to 120 percent of AMI) could afford is $477,000. Only 1.7 percent of three bedroom single-family
homes sold between June I, 2007 and June I, 2008 fall within this price range. This analysis
indicates that for all but above moderate-income households, current market prices present a
27
2-51
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
serious obstacle to single-family homeownership.
Condominiums are also out of reach for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.
Cupertino condominiums sold for a median price of $665,000 between June 1, 2007 and June 1,
2008 with an average cost per square foot of$521. As discussed previously, a four-person,
moderate-income household could qualify to purchase a residence costing up to $477,000, which is
still well below the median three bedroom condominium price of $886,000. There were no three
bedroom condominiums sold between June 1,2007 and June 1,2008 that would be affordable to a
four person, moderate income household.
Current market rate rents for three-bedroom units in Cupertino were compared to the maximum
affordable monthly rents for a four-person household in Santa Clara County. Maximum affordable
monthly rents assumed that households pay 30 percent of gross income on rent and utilities.
According to Real Facts, the average monthly rent for a three bedroom unit in Cupertino in the first
quarter of2008 was $2,762. This analysis suggests that low-, very low-, and extremely low-
income households must pay significantly in excess of 30 percent of their incomes to compete in
the CUlTent market without some fmm of rental subsidy. The gap is especially large for extremely
low- and very low-income households who have to pay more than 60 percent of their income to
afford current market rents. Only moderate-income households can afford average monthly rents
in Cupertino.
28
2-52
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.15. Affordability of Market Rate Housing in Cupertino (a)
For Sale
Max. Affordable
Sale Price (b)
Percent of SFRs
on Market within
Price Range (e)
Percent of Condos
on Market within
Price Range (c)
Very Low-Income (Up to 50% AMI)
$219,000
0.6%
0.0%
Low-Income (Up to 80% AMI)
$350,500
1.1%
0.0%
Moderate-Income (Up to 120% AMI)
$484,700
0.0%
0.0%
Slngle-Family
Residence (c)
Condominiums (c)
Median Sale Price
$1,081,300
$885,800
Max. Affordable
Rental Monthly Rent (d)
Average Market
Rent (e)
Extremely Low Income (Up to 30% AMI) $640
$2,760
Very Low-Income (Up to 50% AMI) $1,170
$2,760
Low-Income (Up to 80% AMI) $1,960
$2,760
Moderate-Income (Up to 120% AMI) $2,780
$2,760
Notes:
(a) Affordable sale price and rent based on a four-person household income, as defined by CA HCD for Santa Clara County.
(b) Assumptions used to calculate affordable sale price.
Annual Interest Rate (Fixed)
Term of mortgage (Years)
Percent of sale price as down payment
Initial property tax (annual)
Mortgage insurance as percent of loan amount
Annual homeowner's insurance rate as percent of sale price
Percent of household income available for PITI
PITI = Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance
(c) Based on all full and verified sales of units with 3 bedrooms in Cupertino between June 1, 2007 and June 1, 2008.
(d) Assumes 30 percent of household income spent on rent and utilities, based on Santa Clara Housing Authority utility allowance.
(e) For three-bedroom units in Cupertino, per RealFacts. Based on rent survey from first quarter 2008.
Sources: Data Quick, 2008; RealFacts, 2008; Santa Clara County Housing Authority, 2007; CA HCD, 2008; BAE, 2008.
6.6%
30
20%
1.10%
0.00%
0.04%
30%
Assumes 20% down payment.
CA Dept. of Insurance, average, assuming $150K coverage.
Freddie Mac, ten-year average.
To augment this analysis, the household incomes of select occupations were analyzed to evaluate
these workers' ability to rent or purchase a home in Cupertino. Figure 3.4 summarizes the
household incomes for a range of occupations in Santa Clara County, based on 2000 Census data,
with all incomes adjusted to 2008 dollars. Teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and nurses were
selected for this analysis because these occupations are often considered vital to communities.
This analysis shows that of these four vital professions, teachers have the lowest household
incomes. Thirty-six percent of households with teachers are very low-, low-, and moderate-income
households; 28 percent of firefighter households, 33 percent of police officer households, and 31
percent of nurse households earn less than 120 percent of AMI. Based on the analysis previously
provided, these households earning moderate-incomes or less would have difficulty purchasing
29
2-53
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
hOll1es in Cupertino.
Figure 3.74: Household Income of Select Occupations, Santa Clara County, 2000 (a)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
I
20% L .. .
10%
0%
I
I
I
1-
Teachers (b)
Police Officers (d)
Nurses (e)
Firefighters (c)
Moderate Income
Very Low Income
t Median Income
. Extremely Low Income
-Above Moderate Income
(1 Low Income
Overpayment
According to Depaliment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) standards, a household is
considered to be "cost-burdened" (i.e. overpaying for housing) if it spends lnore than 30 percent of
gross income on housing-related costs. Households are "severely cost burdened" if they pay n10re
than 50 percent of their income on housing cost. The 2000 Census repolis that 31 percent of
renters and 28 percent ofholneowners were overpaying for housing in Cupeliino in 2000. In Santa
Clara County, 36 percent of renters and 28 percent ofholneowners were cost-burdened in 2000.
The housing cost burden is particularly pronounced for extremely low- and very low-incolne
households. In 2000,61 percent ofCupeliino's extremely low-incolne renters and 72 percent of
very low-incolne renters were severely cost burdened. This finding is consistent with the analysis
of the local housing Inarket, which revealed a significant gap bet\veen prices and rents and the
ability of lower-incolne households to afford adequate housing.
30
2-54
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Figure 3.5: Housing Cost Burden by Household Income Level, Cupertino 2000
Renters
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
=r---
-I
I
-I
-'
I
-.
--'
--' I
I~
; -
Extremeley Low Very Low
Low
Median and All Households
Above
- No cost burden - Cost burden 30-500/0
Severe burden > 500/0
Homeowners
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-j
-j
-1--- -;-- -
~ ~
I
- -,
_r
_i
j
-l
-I
-I
-!
---l
Extremeley Low Very Low
Low
Median and All Households
Above
r No cost burden - Cost burden 30-50%
Severe burden > 500/0
3.6. Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion
State Law requires local Housing Elements to include an inventolY of affordable housing
developments that could be at risk of conversion to Inarket rates during the 10-year period that
follows the adoption of the Element. For those units found to be at risk of conversion, the Housing
31
2-55
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Element must estimate the cost to preserve or replace the at-risk units, to identify the resources
available to help in the preservation or replacement of those units, and to identify those
organizations that could assist in these efforts.
Inventory of Existing Affordable Units
Table 3.16 presents the inventory of affordable housing units in the City of Cupertino and indicates
the earliest dates of termination of affordability restrictions for each project.
The affordable units that were developed as part of the City's below-market-rate program, which
requires 15 percent of units be developed as BMRs are required to be affordable for 99 years and
are not yet at risk of conveliing to market rate.
32
2-56
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.16. Inventory of Affordable Rental Housing Units
Number of Household Income Earliest
Affordable Developments Affordable Units Very Low or Low Moderate Termination Date
Sunnyview West 100 100 0 5/31/2004
22449 Cupertino Rd.
Stevens Creek Village 40 40 0
19140 Stevens Creek Blvd.
LeBeau lieu Apartments 27 27 0 9/12/2015
10092 Bianchi Way
CCS Transitional Housing 4 4 0
10311-10321 Greenwood Ct.
Park Circle East 8 8 0
20651-20653 Park Circle East
Beardon Drive 8 8 0
10192-10194 Beardon Dr.
Vista Village 24 24 0
10114 Vista Drive
TOTAL 211 211 0
Group Homes
Adult Toward Independent Living 8 persons
19147 Anne Ln.
Pacific Autism Center for Education 12 persons
19681 Drake Dr.
7576 Kirwin Ln
Simms House 5 households
Below Market Rate (BMR) Rental Units
Lake Biltmore Apartments
10159 South Blaney Ave. 2 2 0
City Center Apartments 4 4 0
20380 Stevens Creek Blvd.
The Hamptons 34 34 0
19500 Pruneridge Ave.
Arioso Apartments 20 20 0
19608 Pruneridge Ave.
Forge-Homestead Apartments 15 15 0
20691 Forge Way
Aviare Apartments 22 22 0
20415 Via Paviso
Chateau Cupertino 10 10 0
10150 Torre Ave.
TOTAL 107 107 0
Source: City of Cupertino, 2008; BAE, 2008
Maturity
Date
8/1/2019
5/1/2037
Units At Risk of Conversion During Next Ten Years
The affordable housing develoPlnents at risk of conversion during the next ten years include those
whose affordability restrictions expire in 2017 or earlier. As presented in Table 3.16, the lone
project with affordability restrictions which will expire within the 10 year period following
adoption of this elelnent is the Le Beaulieu project with affordability restrictions expiring in
33
2-57
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
September 2015. Cupertino Community Housing originally developed Le Beaulieu in 1984 and
utilized project based Section 8 vouchers. Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, a nonprofit
organization, acquired and rehabilitated the project in 1998. Le Beaulieu contains 27 one- and two-
bedroom units for adults with physical disabilities who are able to live independently. All units are
handicap accessible and affordable to low income households (less than 50 percent of AMI).
Options for retaining this affordable housing resource in the community include preserving the
units, or replacing them. An analysis of these two options follows.
Preserve Affordability
The HUD established Fair Market Rents (FMR) for Santa Clara County are generally lower than
prevailing market rents in the Cupertino market area. As shown in Table 3.17, cumulatively, the
monthly subsidy being provided to these 27 units is $15,900 per month, or $191,200 per year in
2008 dollars. If the property owner is willing to enter into a rental subsidy agreement with the City
or some other entity that would subsidize the rents on behalf of the lower-income renters, this
would be the ongoing cost to provide equivalent subsidies.
Table 3.17: At-Risk Housing Preservation Analysis
Unit Type
# Units
Market Rents (b) Per Unit Gap (c)
Total Gap (d)
1 BR
2BR
21
6
FMR (a)
$1,113
$1,338
$1.727 $614
$1,844 $506
$12,894
$3,036
Total
27
$15,930
Yearly Cost to Preserve 27 Units (e)
Total Cost to Replace Units (f)
$191,160
$2,548,800
Notes:
(a) 2009 Fair Market Rents for Santa Clara County as established by HUD.
(b) Prevailing market rents in the City of Cupertino, as reported by RealFacts.
(c) Represents the difference between Fair Market Rents and prevailing market rents.
(d) The total difference between rents received by project sponsors and the potential rental
income the project could receive if all units were rented at prevailing market rates.
(e) Represents the yearly cost to preserve current affordability levels in current 2008 dollars.
(f) Represents the net present value of the yearly rent subsidy based on a 30 year mortgage
period and an interest rate of 7.5 percent.
Source: BAE, 2008
Replace Affordable Units
As an alternative to providing ongoing monthly rent subsidies, the City or another entity could
attempt to purchase or develop replacement housing units that could be rented to the displaced
lower-income households at similar rents. In order to make this possible, it would be necessary to
34
2-58
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
provide a subsidy for the purchase or construction of the replacement units that would be the
equivalent of$191,200 per year in current dollars. The initial investment in existing or new
housing units that would be necessary to allow a $191,200 reduction in annual rent can be
estimated by calculating the net present value of m0l1gage payments equal to $15,900 per month
on the theory that if the property manager (e.g., a non-profit housing organization) can reduce its
required mortgage payments by $15,900 per month, then it could reduce the rents that it needs to
charge its tenants by a similar amount. Based on a 30-year mortgage term at 7.5 percent interest, it
would take an initial investment of approximately $2.55 million to reduce the monthly debt service
by $15,900 per month.
This analysis, however, likely understates the true cost of replacing the units, as it would be quite
difficult to assemble an appropriate combination of subsidies to develop a similar project with the
same mix of unit sizes and affordability levels.
Financial Resources Available to the City to Assist in Preservation
Clearly, the costs are substantial to preserve or replace housing units that currently rent below
market rates. In light of the challenge, the City must consider what resources are available to help
preserve or replace those units so that lower-income tenants are not displaced in the event that the
projects are converted to market rates. The City has access to a range of different funds that could
potentially assist in a preservation eff0l1 including:
. City Affordable Housing Fund
. CDBG Entitlement Funds
. Mortgage Revenue Bonds
. State Grant Programs
. Federal Grant Programs
. Low Income Housing Tax Credits
. HUD Section 8 "Mark to Market" Program
. Housing Trust of Santa Clara County
Once the City becomes aware of an impending conversion, it will be necessary for to begin
exploring the availability of funding from various sources at that particular time. In many cases,
the City will fmd it advantageous to collaborate with private affordable housing developers or
managers to develop and implement a viable plan to preserve affordable housing units. Private
developers can often bring additional expertise and access to funding, such as tax credits. The
State Department of Housing and Community Development maintains a listing of affordable
housing developers and property managers who have expressed an interest in working with local
communities on preservation of affordable housing projects. This database lists organizations that
are interested in working in any county within the State of California, including such well-known
35
2-59
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
affordable housing providers as Mercy Housing, Inc., and EAR, Inc. The database also lists
numerous organizations that have expressed interest in working on preservation projects in Santa
Clara County in particular. This list includes such organizations as BRIDGE Housing Corporation,
the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, and Eden Housing. The organizations listed above are but a
few of those listed in the HCD database that the City of Cupertino might consider as potential
partners in the event that it becomes necessmy to assemble a team to preserve an affordable
housing project whose conversion to mm"ket rate housing is imminent.
3.7. Special Housing Needs
This section of the needs assessment profiles populations with special housing needs, including
large families, single parent families, extremely low income households, persons with disabilities,
elderly households, farm workers, and homeless persons and families.
Large Households
Cupertino has a smaller proportion oflarge households (defined as five or more persons) than
Santa Clara County. As shown in Table 3.18,10 percent of all households in Cupertino has five or
more persons in 2000 versus 16 percent in Santa Clara County overall. Large households were
more common among homeowners than renters; 11 percent of homeowner households had five or
more persons compared to eight percent of renter households.
Although Cupertino has a smaller proportion of large households than Santa Clara County, the city
has a larger proportion of homes with three or more bedrooms. As shown in Table 3.19, 61 percent
of units in Cupertino had three or more bedrooms compared to only 53 percent of Santa Clara
County homes. In Cupertino, the most common home configuration for renters was two bedrooms,
while households that owned their own home were more likely to live in three-bedroom units than
any other housing type.
36
2-60
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.18: Household Size by Tenure, 2000
Owner Renter Total
Cupertino Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1-4 persons 1Q,309 89.3% 6,152 92.1% 16,461 90.4%
5+ persons 1,231 10.7% 525 7.9% 1,756 9.6%
Total 11,540 100.0% 6,677 100.0% 18,217 100.0%
Santa Clara County
1-4 persons 286,006 84.5% 192,273 84.6% 478,279 84.5%
5+ persons 52,630 15.5% 34,954 15.4% 87,584 15.5%
Total 338,636 100.0% 227,227 100.0% 565,863 100.0%
Sources: U.S. Census, SF3-H17, 2000; BAE, 2008.
Table 3.19: Existing Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms, 2000
Owner Households Renter Households Total
Cupertinio Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
No bedroom 33 0.3% 315 4.7% 348 1.9%
1 bedroom 540 4.7% 1,930 28.9% 2,470 13.6%
2 bedrooms 1,826 15.8% 2,524 37.8% 4,350 23.9%
3 bedrooms 4,218 36.6% 1 ,446 21.7% 5,664 31.1%
4 bedrooms 3,787 32.8% 397 5.9% 4,184 23.0%
5 or more bedrooms 1,136 9.8% 65 1.0% 1,201 6.6%
Total 11,540 100.0% 6,677 100.0% 18,217 100.0%
Santa Clara County
No bedroom 5,487 1.6% 29,370 12.9% 34,857 6.2%
1 bedroom 16,168 4.8% 76,008 33.5% 92,176 16.3%
2 bedrooms 62,956 18.6% 75,466 33.2% 138,422 24.5%
3 bedrooms 132,230 39.0% 33,922 14.9% 166,152 29.4%
4 bedrooms 98,071 29.0% 10,633 4.7% 108,704 19.2%
5 or more bedrooms 23,724 7.0% 1,828 0.8% 25,552 4.5%
Total 338,636 100.0% 227,227 100.0% 565,863 100.0%
Sources: US Census, SF3-H42, 2000; BAE, 2008.
Female Headed Households
Single female-headed households with children tend to have a higher need for affordable housing
than family households in general. In addition, such households are more likely to need childcare
since the mother is often the sole source of income and the sole caregiver for children within the
household.
37
2-61
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.20 shows that in 2000, there were 600 single female householders with children in
Cupertino. As a proportion of all families, such households represented three percent of all
households in Cupertino and five percent of family households in the city. However, single female
headed households with children living in poverty represented 31 percent of all families living
below poverty in Cupertino in 2000. As Table 3.21 shows, there were approximately 160 single
female headed households with children living below poverty in the City. The U.S. Census Bureau
sets poverty level thresholds each year and they are often used to establish eligibility for federal
services.
Table 3.20: Family Characteristics, Cupertino, 2000
Percent
Household Type Number of Total
1-person household: 3,532 19.4%
Male householder 1,680 9.2%
Female householder 1,852 10.2%
2 or more person household: 14,674 80.6%
Family households: 13,642 74.9%
Married-couple family: 11,771 64.7%
With own children under 18 years 6,853 37.6%
Other family: 1,871 10.3%
Male householder, no wife present: 651 3.6%
With own children under 18 years 222 1.2%
Female householder, no husband present: 1,220 6.7%
With own children under 18 years 617 3.4%
Nonfamily households: 1,032 5.7%
Male householder 693 3.8%
Female householder 339 1.9%
Total Households 18,206 100.0%
Sources: U.S. Census, SF3-P10, 2000; Bay Area Economics, 2008.
38
2-62
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.21: Poverty Status, Cupertino, 2000
Families Below Poverty Line Number Percent
Maried-couple Family 285 56.5%
Other Family
Male Householder 61 12.1%
Female Householder 158 31.3%
Total Families Below Poverty Line 504 100.0%
Sources: U.S. Census, SF3-P90, 2000; BAE, 2008.
According to Claritas estimates, the number of single female householders with children rose to
700 or four percent of all households in 2008. Cupertino's proportion of single female headed
households with children is lower than Santa Clara County's proportion of five percent. In
addition, Cupertino has an estimated 200 single male headed households with children in 2008.
Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income households are defmed as households earning less than 30 percent of area
median income. These households may require specific housing solutions such as deeper income
targeting for subsidies, housing with supportive services, single-room occupancy units, or rent
subsidies or vouchers.
In 2000, 1,300 Cupertino households earned less than 30 percent of AMI. Extremely low-income
households represented 10 percent of all renter households and five percent of all owner
households in the city. A majority of extremely low-income households were severely overpaying
for housing; 61 percent of renters and 55 percent of homeowners paid more than 50 percent of their
gross income on housing.
Table 3.22: Housing Needs, Extremely Low-Income Households, Cupertino
Renters Owners Total
Total Number of ELI Households 687 620 1307
Percent with Any Housing Problems 66.5% 65.5% 66.0%
Percent with Cost Burden (30% of income) 63.6% 63.2% 63.4%
Percent with Severe Cost Burden (50% of income) 61.0% 54.7% 58.0%
Total Number of Households 6,683 11,534 18,217
Percent ELI Households 10.3% 5.4% 7.2%
Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) special tabulations from Census 2000; BAE, 2008.
39
2-63
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Seniors
Many elderly residents face a unique set of housing needs, largely due to physical limitations, fixed
incomes, and health care costs. Unit sizes and accessibility to transit, health care, and other
services are important housing concerns for the elderly. Housing affordability also represents a key
issue for seniors, many of whom are living on fixed incomes.
As Table 3.23 shows, in 2000,18 percent of Cupertino householders were 65 years old or older,
slightly higher than the 16 percent of Santa Clara County's population. A large majority of elderly
households owned their homes; 86 percent of elderly households were homeowners, compared to
59 percent of householders aged 15 to 64 years.
Table 3.23: Elderly Households by Tenure and Age, 2000
15-64 years
Owner
Renter
Cupertino
Number Percent
8,805 58.6%
6,222 41.4%
Santa Clara county
Number Percent
268,358 56.6%
205,742 43.4%
Total
15,027
100.0%
65 plus years
Owner
Renter
2,735
455
85.7%
14.3%
474,100 100.0%
70,278 76.6%
21,485 23.4%
91,763 100.0%
565,863
16.2%
Total
3,190
100.0%
Total Householders
Percent Householders 65 plus years
18,217
17.5%
Sources: US Census, SF3-H14; BAE, 2008.
Cupertino's elderly renter households were more likely to be lower-income than elderly owner
households. Table 3.24 indicates that 65 percent of elderly renter households earned less than 80
percent of median family income compared to 36 percent of elderly owner households.
40
2-64
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.24: Household Income of Elderly Households by Tenure, Cupertino, 2000 (a)
Elderly Renter Households Number Percent
<=30% MFI 190 39.2%
>30% to <=50% MFI 65 13.4%
>50% to <=80% MFI 60 12.4%
>=80% MFI 170 35.1%
Total 485 100.0%
Elderly Owner Households Number Percent
<=30% MFI 294 10.7%
>30% to <=50% MFI 395 14.4%
>50% to <=80% MFI 297 10.8%
>=80% MFI 1,765 64.2%
Total 2,751 100%
Notes:
(a) Figures reported above are based on the HUD-published CHAS 2000 data series, which uses
reported 1999 incomes. CHAS data reflect HUD-defined household income limits, for various
household sizes, which are calculated for Cupertino.
Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) special tabulations from Census 2000; BAE, 2008
41
2-65
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Generally, elderly households across the country tend to pay a larger portion of their income to
housing costs than other households. While 31 percent of all renter households in Cupertino were
overpaying for housing in 2000, 62 percent of elderly renter households were paying more than 30
percent of their income toward housing. On the other hand, the proportion of elderly owner
households overpaying for housing was smaller than the proportion of all Cupertino owner
households; 22 percent of elderly owner households overpaid for housing versus 28 percent of all
Cupertino owner households.
Table 3.25: Housing Cost Burden by Elderly Households, Cupertino, 2000 (a)
All Elderly
Extr. Low Very Low Low Median + Households
Elderly Renter Households 190 65 60 170 485
% with any housing problems 71.1% 69.2% 58.3% 50.0% 61.9%
% Cost Burden >30% 71.1% 69.2% 58.3% 50.0% 61.9%
% Cost Burden >50% 71.1% 69.2% 58.3% 11.8% 48.5%
Elderly Owner Households 294 395 297 1,765 2,751
% with any housing problems 54.1% 32.9% 12.8% 16.1% 22.2%
% Cost Burden >30% 50.7% 32.9% 12.8% 16.1% 21.9%
% Cost Burden >50% 44.2% 20.3% 6.1% 3.7% 10.7%
Notes:
(a) Figures reported above are based on the HUD-published CHAS 2000 data series, which uses reported 1999 incomes.
CHAS data reflect HUD-defined household income limits, for various household sizes, which are calculated for Cupertino.
Definitions:
Any housing problems: cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen or
plumbing facilities.
Renter: Data do not include renters living on boats, RVs or vans. This excludes approximately 25,000 households nationwide.
Cost Burden: Cost burden is the fraction of a household's total gross income spent on housing costs. For renters, housing
costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance,
and utilities.
Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) special tabulations
from Census 2000; BAE, 2008
Cupertino offers a number of resources for seniors. As shown in Table X, there are six Residential
care facilities for the elderly and three skilled nursing facilities in Cupertino. Residential care
facilities for the elderly (RCFEs), also known as "assisted living" or "board and care" facilities,
provide assistance with some activities of daily living while still allowing residents to be more
independent than in most nursing homes. Skilled nursing facilities, also known as nursing homes,
offer a higher level of care, with registered nurses on staff 24 hours a day.
In addition to assisted living facilities, there are two subsidized independent senior housing
developments in the City. As shown in Table 3.26, there are a total of 115 unit of affordable senior
housing in Cupertino. Demand for these subsidized units is high. Staff at Sunnyview West
estimate that there is over 500 people on the waiting list and it cun'ently takes approximately 5
years for individuals to get a unit.
42
2-66
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.26: Housing Resources for the Elderly
Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly
The Forum at Rancho San Antonio
Paradise Manor 4
Pleasant Manor of Cupertino
Purglen of Cupertino
Sunnyview Manor (a)
Zen's Care Home
Total
Location
23500 Cristo Rey Drive
19161 Muriel Lane
10718 Nathanson Avenue
10366 Miller Avenue
22445 Cupertino Road
20351 Bollinger Road
Capacity
741
6
6
12
115
6
886
Skilled Nursing Facilities
Health Care Center at Forum at Rancho San Antonio
Pleasant View Convalescent Hospital
Sunnyview Manor
Total
23500 Cristo Rey Drive
22590 Voss Avenue
22445 Cupertino Road
48
170
47
265
Subsidized Indepndent Senior Rental Housing
Chateau Cupertino
Park Circle
Sunnyview West
Total
10150 Torre Avenue
20651-20653 Park Circle East
22449 Cupertino Road
10
8
99
107
Source: California Department of Social Services, 2008; California Healthcare Foundation, 2008;
Avenidas, 2008; City of Cupertino, 2008; BAE, 2008
Persons with Disability
A disability is a physical or mental impainnent that limits one or more major life activities.
Persons with a disability generally have lower incomes and often face barriers to finding
employment or adequate housing due to physical or structural obstacles. This segment of the
population often needs affordable housing that is located near public transportation, services, and
shopping. Persons with disabilities may require units equipped with wheelchair accessibility or
other special features that accommodate physical or sensory limitations. Depending on the severity
of the disability, people may live independently with some assistance in their own homes, or may
require assisted living and supportive services in special care facilities.
Within the population of civilian, non-institutionalized residents over the age of five, 11 percent
and 16 percent had a disability in Cupertino and Santa Clara County, respectively.
43
2-67
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.27: Persons with Disabilities by Employment Status, 2000
Age 5-64, Employed Persons with a Disability
Age 5-64, Not Employed Persons with a Disability
Persons Age 65 Plus with a Disability
Total Persons with a Disability
Total Population (Civilian Non-institutionalized 5 years +)
Number
2,149
1,429
1,504
5,082
47,102
Cupertino
Percent of
Total
Population
4.6%
3.0%
3.2%
Santa Clara County
Percent of
Total
Population
7.4%
5.1%
3.9%
Number
114,389
79,730
60,610
10.8"10 254,729
100.0"10 1,552,217
16.4"10
Sources: U.S. Census, SF3-P42, 2000; BAE 2008.
100.0"10
According to the 2000 Census, physical disabilities represented the most pervasive disability type
for seniors. Among people under the age of 65, 28 percent of disabilities prevented individuals
from working while 17 percent of disabilities prevented people from leaving their home to shop,
visit the doctor, or access other services (a "go-outside-home disability"). Physical disabilities
affected approximately 650 Cupertino residents.
Table 3.28: Persons with Disabilities by Disability Type, 2000
Total Disabilities for Ages 5-64
Sensory Disability
Physical disability
Mental disability
Self-care disability
Go-outside-home disability
Employment disability
Number
5,647
376
647
617
201
1,453
2,353
Cupertino
Percent of
Total
Disabilities
66.7%
4.4%
7.6%
7.3%
2.4%
17.2%
27.8%
Total Disabilities for Ages 65 and Over
Sensory Disability
Physical disability
Mental disability
Self-care disability
Go-outside-home disability
2,823 33.3%
556 6.6%
962 11.4%
303 3.6%
280 3.3%
722 8.5%
8,470 100.0"10
Total Disabilities Tallied
Santa Clara County
Percent of
Total
Disabilities
72.4%
4.1%
9.5%
7.9%
3.4%
18.0%
29.5%
Number
319,867
18,284
41,897
34,919
14,885
79,636
130,246
121,693 27.6%
20,564 4.7%
39,508 8.9%
18,128 4.1%
12,897 2.9%
30,596 6.9%
441,560 100.0"10
Sources: U.S. Census, SF3-P41, 2000; BAE 2008.
Table 3.29 below summarizes the licensed community care facilities in Cupertino that serve some
of the city's special needs groups. Adult residential facilities offer 24 hour non-medical care for
44
2-68
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
adults, ages 18 to 59 years old, who are unable to provide for their daily needs due to physical or
mental disabilities. Group homes, small residential facilities that serve children or adults with
chronic disabilities, provide 24 hour care by trained professionals.
Table 3.29: Community Care Facilities in Cupertino
Adult Residential Facilities
Paradise Manor 2
Paradise Manor 3
Total
Location
19133 Muriel Lane
19147 Muriel Lane
Capacity
6
6
12
Group Homes
Pace-Morehouse
Pacific Autism Center for Education Miracle House
Total
7576 Kirwin Lane
19681 Drake Drive
6
6
12
Notes:
(a) Sunnyview Manor has 115 units for independent and assisted (RCFE) living. All 115 units are licensed
as RCFE units, but residents may choose between indpendent and assisted living options. The
distribution of indpendent and assisted living units varies over time.
Source: California Department of Social Services, 2008; California Healthcare Foundation, 2008;
BAE, 2008
Farm workers
As shown in Table 3.30, the USDA Census of Agriculture reported that there were approximately
5,500 fannworkers in Santa Clara County in 2002. A majority offarmworkers (69 percent) was
seasonally employed, working less than 150 days a year on a farm.
Table 3.30: Farmworker Trends, Santa Clara County, 1992-2002 (a)
Percent
Santa Clara County 1992 1997 2002 Change
Hired farm labor (farms) 438 494 484 10.5%
Hired farm labor (workers) 6,821 5,779 5,456 -20.0%
California
Hired farm labor (farms) 38,347 36,450 34,342 -10.4%
Hired farm labor (workers) 583,794 549,265 535,526 -8.3%
Notes: Includes hired farm labor (workers and payroll).
Source: USDA Census of Agriculture, Table 5, 1997,Table 7,2002; BAE, 2008.
Families and Individuals in Need of Emergency or Transitional Shelter.
Demand for emergency and transitional shelter in Cupertino is difficult to determine, given the
episodic nature ofhomelessness. Generally, episodes ofhomelessness among families or
45
2-69
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
individuals can occur as a single event or periodically. The 2007 Santa Clara County Homeless
Survey reported a point-in-time count of 7,202 homeless people on the streets and in emergency
shelters, transitional housing, and domestic violence shelters. This included 53 homeless
individuals in the City of Cupertino. This count, however, should be considered conservative
because many homeless individuals cannot be found, even with the most thorough methodology.
Table 3.31: Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey, 2007 (a)
Individuals Total
Setting Individuals Within Families Population ~
Cupertino
Unsheltered (b) 15 0 15 28.3%
Emergency Shelters 26 12 38 71.7%
Total 41 12 53 100.0%
% Total 77% 23% 100%
Santa Clara County
Unsheltered 4,840 261 5,101 70.8%
Emergency Shelters (c) 759 240 999 13.9%
Transitional Housing Facilities (c) 346 756 1,102 15.3%
Total 5,945 1,257 7,202 100.0%
% Total 82.5% 17.5% 100.0%
Notes:
(a) This Homeless Census and Survey was conducted over a two day period, from Jan. 29 to Jan. 30th, 2007. Mountain View
unsheltered homeless data was collected on Jan 30, 2007. This survey, per HUD's new requirements, does not include people in
rehabilitation facilities, hospitals or jails due to more narrow HUD definition of point-in-time homelessness.
(b) Individuals found sleeping in cars, RV's, vans, or encampments are considered part of the "unsheltered" homeless.
In this survey, 57 individuals were counted sleeping in motor vehicles in Mountain View on Jan 30, 2007.
(c) Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing data was collected from individual facilities on Jan.28, 2007.
Sources: Homeless Census and Survey, Santa Clara County and Applied Survey Research (ASR), Jan 29-30, 2007; BAE, 2009.
Table 3.32 below provides a listing of facilities within Cupertino that serve the needs of homeless.
Emergency shelters provide temporary shelter for individuals and families while transitional
shelters serve families making a transition from homelessness to permanent housing. West Valley
Community Services operates a rotating shelter program and transitional housing facility for
homeless individuals.
46
2-70
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 3.32: Homeless Facilities in Cupertino
Organization/Agency
Emergency Shelters
West Valley Community Services
Facility Address Total Beds
Rotating Shelter 11 churches and one synagogue 15
in Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and
Saratoga
Transitional Housing
West Valley Community Services
Transitional 10104 Vista Dr. 22
Total 37
Sources: City of Cupertino 2006-2009 Consolidated Plan; BAE 2008
The rotating shelter program provides shelter, food, transportation, job search apparel, and case
management services to homeless men. The shelter operates at 11 churches and one synagogue in
Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and Saratoga. The program provides assistance for 15 homeless men for 90
days, including an average of about five men from Cupertino. The program typically has a waiting
list of20 people. West Valley Community Services staff believes that there is a need for more
emergency shelter services in Cupertino.
In addition, West Valley Community Services owns and operates a transitional housing project
which accommodates up to 22 working homeless men and homeless women with children. The
program serves successful graduates of the rotating shelter program and other eligible individuals.
3.8. Summary
. Cupertino grew faster than Santa Clara County and the Bay Area between 2000 and 2008.
The City's population increased by 10 percent from 50,600 people to 55,600. However,
some of this growth is due to the annexation of 168 acres of unincorporated land in Santa
Clara County between 2000 and 2008.
. ABAG projects Cupertino will grow to 60,600 residents by 2035. Santa Clara County and
the Bay Area are anticipated to experience larger population increases of 29 and 23 percent
between 2005 and 2035; Cupertino's population is expected to increase by 11 percent
during the same time.
. Cupertino has an aging population. The median age in Cupertino rose from 37.9 years old
in 2000 to 40.8 years old in 2008. The percent of elderly residents, aged 65 years old and
older, increased from 11 percent to 13 percent.
47
2-71
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
· The City has a high percentage of family households; in 2008 family households comprise
75 percent of all households in Cupertino, compared with 70 percent of Santa Clara County
households.
· Cupertino is becoming an increasingly jobs-rich city. The number of jobs in Cupertino
increased by 14 percent between 2003 and 2007 while the number of employed residents
increased by just five percent.
· The City's housing stock is dominated by single-family detached homes; 61 percent of
homes were single-family detached dwellings in 2008. Although the number oflarge
multi-family housing units experienced the most rapid growth between 2000 and 2008,
Cupertino still has a smaller proportion of multi-family housing units than Santa Clara
County.
· Virtually all housing units in Cupertino have complete plumbing and kitchen facilities; less
than one percent of homes lack these facilities. A certain small number of single-family
homes in certain areas show need of rehabilitation and improved maintenance.
· Housing costs have increased since 2000. Single-family home prices rose by 40 percent
between 2000 and 2008 while condominium prices increased by 42 percent.
· All but above moderate income households would have difficulty purchasing a single-
family home or condominium in Cupertino.
· Current market rents of $2,762 for a three bedroom unit exceed the maximum affordable
monthly rent for extremely low income, very low income, and low income households.
· In 2000, 31 percent of renters and 28 percent of homeowners were overpaying for housing
in Cupertino.
· In 2000, 62 percent of elderly renter households were overpaying for housing.
· The 2007 Santa Clara County Homeless Survey reported a point-in-time count of 7,202
homeless people on the streets and in emergency shelters, transitional housing, and
domestic violence shelters, including 53 individuals in the City of Cupertino.
48
2-72
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
4. Regional Housing Needs
Determinations 2007-2014
This section of the Housing Element discusses Cupertino's projected housing needs for the current
planning period, which runs from January 1,2007 through June 30, 2014.
4.1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584, the State, regional councils of government
(in this case, ABAG) and local governments must collectively determine each locality's share of
regional housing need. In conjunction with the State-mandated Housing Element update cycle that
requires Bay Areajurisdictions to update their Housing Elements by June 30, 2009, ABAG has
allocated housing unit production needs for each jurisdiction within the Bay Area. These
allocations set housing production goals for the planning period that runs from JanualY 1,2007
through June 30, 2014. The following is a summary of ABAG's housing need allocation for
Cupertino, along with housing production data for the 2007-2014 time period.
Table 4.1 presents a summary of ABAG's housing needs allocation for Cupertino for 2007 to 2014.
Table 4.1: RHNA, Cupertino, 2007-2014
Income Category
Very Low (0-50% of AMI)
Low (51-80% AMI)
Moderate (81-120% of AMI)
Above Moderate (over 120% of AMI)
Projected
Need
341
229
243
357
Percent
of Total
29.1%
19.6%
20.8%
30.5%
Total Units
1,170
100.0%
Sources: ABAG, 2007; BAE, 2008.
The City of Cupertino may count housing units constructed, approved, or proposed since J anumy 1,
2007 toward satisfying its RHNA goals for this planning period. As shown in Table 4.2,516 units
have been constructed, approved, or proposed within this planning period. The City has already
met its RHNA for above moderate-income units, but has a remaining allocation of 734 units very
low-, low-, and moderate-income units.
49
2-73
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 4.2: Units Constructed, Approved, and Planned, 1/1/07 - present
Address
Project Name
APN
Affordability
Very Low Low Moderate Above Total
Monta Vista
10056 Orange Ave.
10217 Pasadena Ave.
21871 Delores Ave.
10121 Pasadena Ave.
357-17-058
357-18-025
357-14-026
357-17-045
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Vallco Park South
Sandhill Main Street Senior Housing
10123/10150 N. Wolfe Rd. Rose Bowl
316-20-078,79,85
316-20-037
o
o
o
o
24
31
136
173
160
204
Homestead
2800 Homestead Road Villa Serra
10630 Linnet Lane
326-09-056
316-47-017
9
o
8
o
o
o
99
3
116
3
Other Neighborhoods
10855 N. Stelling Rd. Los Palmas 326-07-037 0 0 3 19 22
22823 San Juan Road 342-22-078 0 0 0 1 1
21947 Lindy Lane 356-25-029 0 0 0 1 1
19935 Price SI. Senior Housing Solutions 369-05-035 4 0 0 0 4
Total Credits 13 8 58 437 516
2007-2014 RHNA 341 229 243 357 1,170
Balance of RHNA (a) 328 221 185 nfa 734
Notes:
(a) Balance of RHNA is equal to sum of very low, low, and moderate-income units. City has satisfied its above moderate income RHNA.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009
4.2. Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households
State law requires Housing Elements to quantify and analyze the existing and projected housing
needs of extremely low-income households. HUD defines an extremely low-income household as
one earning less than 30 percent of AMI. These households encounter a unique set of housing
situations and needs, and may often include special needs populations or represent families and
individuals receiving public assistance, such as social security insurance (SSI) or disability
msurance.
As discussed in the Needs Assessment section of the Housing Element, approximately 1,300
Cupertino households earned less than 30 percent of AMI in 2000. Extremely low-income
households represented 10 percent of all renter households and five percent of all owner
households in the city.
To estimate the projected housing need for extremely low-income households, 50 percent of
Cupertino's 341 very low-income RHNA units are assumed to serve extremely low-income
households. Based on this methodology, the City has a projected need of 171 units for extremely
50
2-74
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
low-income households.
Extremely low-income households often rely on supportive housing as a means oftransitioning
into stable, more productive lives. Supportive housing combines housing with supportive services
such as job training, life skills training, substance abuse programs, and case management services.
Efficiency studios can also provide affordable housing opportunities for extremely low-income
households.
51
2-75
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
5. Housing Constraints
Section 65583(a)(4) of the California Government Code states that the Housing Element must
analyze "potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or
development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their
enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local
processing and permit procedures." Where constraints are identified, the City is required to take
action to mitigate or remove them.
In addition to government constraints, this section assesses other factors that may constrain the
production of affordable housing in Cupertino. These include infrastructure availability,
environmental features, economic and fmancing constraints, and public opinion.
5.1. Government Constraints
Government regulations affect housing costs by limiting the supply of buildable land, setting
standards and allowable densities for development, and exacting fees for the use of land or the
construction of homes. The increased costs associated with such requirements are often passed on
to consumers in the form of higher home prices and rents. Potential regulatory constraints include
local land use policies (as defmed in a community's general' plan), zoning regulations and their
accompanying development standards, subdivision regulations, growth control ordinances or urban
limit lines, and development impact and building permit fees. Lengthy approval and processing
times also may be regulatory constraints.
General Plan
The Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020 was completed in November 2005. The comprehensive
update pr~)Vides the policy and program direction necessary to guide the City's land use decisions
in the first two decades of the 21st century. The existing General Plan is current and legally
adequate and is not considered an impediment to housing production.
As required by State law, the General Plan includes a land use map indicating the allowable uses
and densities at various locations in the city. The Land Use/Community Design section of the Plan
identifies five categories of residential uses based on dwelling unit density, expressed as the
number of dwelling units permitted per gross acre. The "Very Low Density" classification,
intended to protect environmentally sensitive areas from extensive development and to protect
human life from hazards associated with floods, fires, and unstable telTain, applies one of four
slope-density formulae to determine allowable residential density. The "Low Density" and
"Low/Medium Density" categories promote traditional single-family development, allowing
densities of 1 to 5 units per gross acre and 5 to 10 units per gross acre, respectively. Finally, the
52
2-76
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
"Medium/High Density" and the "High Density" categories provide for a wide range of multi-
family housing opportunities at densities of 10 to 20 units per gross acre and 20 to 35 units per
gross acre, respectively. In addition to the five residential categories, the General Plan allows for
residential uses in the "CommerciaVResidential" and "Neighborhood CommerciaVResidential"
land use categories.
None of the City's General Plan policies have been identified as housing constraints. The General
Plan does not define whether residential units are to be rented or owned or whether they are to be
attached or detached.
The General Plan's land use policies incorporate housing goals, including the following:
Policy 2-1: Concentrated Development in Urban Centers - Concentrate development in urban
nodes and selectively include housing with office and commercial uses in appropriate designated
centers.
Policy 2-15: Multi-Family Residential Design - Maintain a superior living environment for
multi-family dwellings
Policy 2-16: Single-Family Residential Design - Preserve the character of residential
neighborhoods by requiring new development to be compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Policy 2-19: Jobs/Housing Balance - Strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs and housing units.
Policy 2-23: Compatibility of Lot Sizes - Ensure that zoning, subdivision, and lot line adjustment
requests related to lot size or lot design consider the need to preserve neighborhood lot patterns.
The General plan contains very few policies addressing the siting of housing, other than those
pertaining to hillside areas. The City's land use policies limit development in hillside areas to
protect hillside resources but allows for low-intensity residential development in the foothills.
Thus, even in hillside areas, the General Plan creates limited opportunities for housing production.
Zoning Ordinance
The Cupertino Zoning Ordinance establishes development standards and densities for new housing
in the City. These regulations include minimum lot sizes, maximum number of dwelling units per
acre, lot width, setbacks, lot coverage, maximum building height, and minimum parking
requirements. These standards are summarized in Appendix E.
As required by state law, the Cupertino's Zoning Map is consistent with the General Plan. The
53
2-77
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
City's residential zoning districts and their respective permitted densities and development
standards are summarized below.
R-l Single Family Residential. The R-l District is intended to create, preserve, and enhance
areas suitable for detached single-family dwellings. The District includes five sub-districts that
vary by minimum lot size from 5,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. Residential structures in
the R -1 District are limited in size by a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent and a maximum floor
area ratio of 45 percent. Setbacks are 20 feet in the front and rear yards and a combined 15 feet of
side yards, with no one side yard setback less than 5 feet. The maximum building height of28 feet
allows for a wide range of single family housing types on flat terrain. Structures in R-I Districts
with an "i" designation at the end are limited to one story (18 feet).
TWo-stOlY structures in the R-I District require a Two-Story Residential Permit. The Director of
Community Development may approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for a two-story
residential permit. Projects must be harmonious in scale and design with the general
neighborhood.
R-2 Residential Duplex. The R-2 District is intended to allow a second dwelling unit under the
same ownership as the initial dwelling unit on a site. Minimum lot area ranges from 8,500 square
feet to 15,000 square feet, depending on which one of four sub-districts the parcel is located in.
Building heights in this district cannot exceed 30 feet. The R-2 District limits lot coverage by all
buildings to 40 percent of net lot area. Setbacks are 20 feet in the front yard and the greater of 20
feet and 20 percent of lot depth in the rear yard; the minimum side yard setback is 20 percent of the
lot width. Structures in R-2 Districts with an "i" designation at the end are limited to one story (18
feet).
R-3 Multi-Family Residential. The R-3 District permits multi-family residential development in
Cupertino. This District requires a minimum lot area of9,300 square feet for a development with 3
dwelling units and an additional 2,000 square feet for every additional dwelling unit. The
minimum lot width in the R-3 District is 70 feet and lot coverage may not exceed 40 percent. For
single-story structures, required setbacks are 20 feet in the front yard, six feet in the side yard, and
the greater of 20 feet or 20 percent of lot depth in the rear yard; the minimum side yard setback for
two-story structures is nine feet. The maximum height any building is two stories and may not
exceed 30 feet.
RHS Residential Hillside. The RHS District regulates development in the City's hillsides to
balance residential uses with the need to preserve the natural setting and protect life and property
from natural hazards. The District allows for single-family dwellings with no more than one unit
per lot. Seven sub-districts determine the minimum lot size, which range from 20,000 square feet
54
2-78
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
to 400,000 square feet. The minimum lot width in the RHS District is 70 feet with an exception for
lots served by a private driveway and which do not adjoin a public street.
R-l C Residential Single Family Cluster. The purpose of the R -1 C District is to provide a means
for reducing the amount of street improvements and public utilities required in residential
development, to conserve natural resources, and encourage more create development and efficient
use of space. The owner of a property within Cupertino may submit an application for single-
family residential cluster zoning or rezoning to the Planning Commission. Altematively, the
Planning Commission and/or the City Council may initiate a public hearing to rezone specific
properties to the R-IC District. The allowable density on a parcel is determined by the existing
land use designations in place prior to the rezoning. While the maximum height in the district is 30
feet, a height increase may be permitted if the City Council or Planning Commission determines
that it would not have an adverse impact on the immediately adjacent neighborhood. The R-IC
District also regulates site design and plivate streets within the cluster.
A Agricultural. Agricultural zones are intended to preserve agriculture and forestry and to
provide conidors of agriculture and foreshy between cities or neighborhoods. Single-family
dwellings are permitted in the Agricultural District. The minimum lot size for this Distlict is
215,000 square feet and the maximum lot coverage is 40 percent of the net lot area. The District
requires setbacks of 30 feet in the front yard, 20 feet in the side yards, and 25 feet in the rear yard.
The maximum building height of 28 feet allows for a wide range of single family housing types on
flat terrain. Structures in the A District with an "i" designation at the end are limited to one story
(18 feet).
A-IAgricultural-Residential. The A-I District provides for semi-rural residential development
while preserving agriculture and forestry activities. Single-family dwellings as well as residences
for farmworkers and their families are permitted in the A-I District. The minimum size of lots
with incidental residential uses in the A-I District is 43,000 square feet. Building coverage cannot
exceed 40 percent of the lot area and the maximum floor area ratio is 45 percent. The District
requires setbacks of 30 feet in the front yard, 20 feet in the side yards, and 25 feet in the rear yard.
The maximum building height of 28 feet allows for a wide range of single family housing types on
flat terrain. Structures in the A-I District with an "i" designation at the end are limited to one story
(18 feet).
In addition to the districts discussed above, limited residential uses are allowed in other zoning
districts. Often housing in these non-residential districts is limited to housing for farmworkers,
employees, or caretakers. The permitted residential uses in non-residential districts are
summarized below.
55
2-79
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
ML Light Industrial. Residential dwellings for caretakers or watchmen are permitted for those
employed for the protection of the principal light industrial permitted use. The residential dwellings
must be provided on the same lot as the principal permitted use.
PR Park and Recreation. The PR District regulates publicly owned parks within the City.
Single-family residences for the purpose of housing a caretaker for the park are permitted in this
District. A caretaker is defined as a person who maintains surveillance of the park areas during and
after the hours of park operation. The residence may take the form of a mobile home or a
permanent residential structure.
Parking
Excessive parking requirements may serve as a constraint of housing development by increasing
development costs and reducing the amount ofland available for project amenities or additional
units. Off-street residential parking requirements vary by zone. As shown in Table 5.1, the
parking ratio ranges from two parking spaces per dwelling unit to 4 spaces per dwelling unit.
Table 5.1: Off-Street Parking Requirements
Housing Type
Zone
Parking Ratio
Single-Family
Small Lot Single-Family, Townhouse
Duplex
High Density Multi-Family
R-1, RHS, A-1, P
P
R-2
R-3, P
4/ DU (2 garage, 2 open)
2.8/ DU (2 garage, 0.8 open)
3/ DU (1.5 enclosed, 1.5 open)
2/ DU (1 covered, 1 open)
Sources: Cupertino Zoning Ordinance, 2008; BAE, 2008
Cupertino's parking requirements are higher than many other jurisdictions, particularly for single-
family homes. Given the high cost ofland and parking, the City's high parking standards may
serve as a constraint to housing provision. In addition to high off-street parking standards, the
Zoning Ordinance does not include parking reductions for senior housing, affordable housing, or
group homes. Often, vehicle ownership among elderly and lower-income households is lower than
other populations, making reductions in parking requirements appropriate. The City may want to
consider establishing more lower and more flexible residential parking standards.
Provisions for Homeless Shelters, Group Homes, and Farmworkers
The Zoning Ordinance allows for "rotating homeless shelters" in the Quasi Public Building (BQ)
zone. Rotating homeless shelters are permitted within existing church structures in the BQ for up
to 25 occupants. The operation period of rotating shelters cannot exceed two months in anyone
year span at a single location.
56
2-80
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Cupertino's zoning ordinance does not permit or conditionally permit permanent homeless shelters
in any zone. The previous Housing Element indicated that the City would revise the Zoning
Ordinance to allow permanent emergency shelter facilities in the BQ Quasi Public Building zone.
The City has not yet revised the Ordinance to allow for permanent homeless shelters. In order to
comply with state law, this Housing Element outlines a program to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
allow a permanent homeless shelter by-right in the BQ zoning district.
Pursuant to State law, licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer residents are pennitted by
right in all residential districts (including A, A-I, R-l, R-2. R-3, RRS, R-IC). Licensed small
group homes are not subject to special development requirements, policies, or procedures which
would impede such uses from locating in a residential district. Furthermore, small group homes
which are not required to obtain a license and large group homes (with more than six residents) are
conditionally permitted uses in all residential districts.
Farmworker housing is a pennitted use in Agricultural (A) and Agricultural Residential (A-I)
Districts. Farmworker housing is allowed for workers and their families whose primary
employment is incidental and necessary to agricultural operations conducted on the same parcel of
land on which the residences are located. This requirement does not pose a significant constraint to
locating farmworker housing in Cupertino. There are no special development standards or
procedures for fannworker housing. However, the high cost of land, absence of seasonal
agriculture, and lack of significant fannworker population in the City makes it unlikely that
proposals for fannworker housing will be received in the future.
Second Dwelling Units
A second dwelling unit is an attached or detached, self-contained unit on a single-family residential
lot. These units are often more affordable due to their smaller size. To promote the goal of
affordable housing within the City, Cupertino's zoning ordinance pennits second dwelling units on
lots in Single-Family Residential (R-l), Residential Hillside (RRS), Agricultural (A), and
Agricultural Residential (A-I) Districts. Second dwelling units on lots of 10,000 square feet or
more may not exceed 800 square feet while units on lots smaller than 10,000 square feet cannot
exceed 640 square feet. All second dwelling units must have direct outside access without going
through the principal dwelling. If the residential lot is less than 10,000 square feet, the second
dwelling unit must be attached to the principal dwelling. One additional off-street parking space is
must be provided if the principal dwelling unit has less than the minimum off-street parking spaces
for the residential district in which it is located. Second dwelling units must also comply with the
underlying site development regulations specified by the zoning district.
Second dwelling units are subject to an architectural review by the Director of Community
Development. The design and building materials of the proposed second unit must be consistent
57
2-81
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
with the principal dwelling. In addition, the second dwelling unit may not require excessive
grading which is visible from a public street or adjoining private property.
Site Improvement Requirements
Residential developers are responsible for constmcting road, water, sewer, and storm drainage
improvements on new housing sites. Where a project has off-site impacts, such as increased mnoff
or added congestion at a nearby intersection, additional developer expenses may be necessary to
mitigate impacts. These expenses may be passed on to consumers.
Chapter 18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (the Subdivision Ordinance) establishes the
requirements for new subdivisions, including the provision of on- and off-site improvements. The
Ordinance requires that subdivisions comply with frontage requirements and stormwater mnoffbe
collected and conveyed by an approved storm drain system. Furthermore, each unit or lot within
the subdivision must be served by an approved sanitary sewer system, domestic water system, and
gas, electric, telephone, and cablevision facilities. All utilities within the subdivision and along
peripheral streets must be placed underground.
The Subdivision Ordinance also includes land dedication and fee standards for parkland. The
formula for dedication of park land for residential development is based on a standard of three
acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. The developer must dedicate parkland based on this formula
or pay an in lieu fee based on the fair market value of the land.
In addition to parkland dedication, the City Council may require a subdivider to dedicate lands to
the school district as a condition of approval of the fmal subdivision map. If school site dedication
is required and the school district accepts the land, the district must repay the subdivider the
original cost of the dedicated land plus the cost of any improvements, taxes, and maintenance of
the dedicated land.
The developer may also be required to reserve land for a park, recreational facility, fire station,
library, or other public use if such a facility is shown on an adopted specific plan or adopted
general plan. The public agency benefiting from the reserved land shall pay the developer the
market value of the land at the time of the filing of the tentative map and any other costs incuned
by the developer in the maintenance of the area. The Ordinance states that the amount of land to be
reserved shall not make development of the remaining land held by the developer economically
unfeasible.
Bui/ding Codes
The City of Cupertino has adopted the 2007 Edition of the California Building Code, the 2007
California Electrical Code and Uniform Administrative Code Provisions, the International
58
2-82
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Association of Plumbing Officials Uniform Plumbing Code (2007 Edition), the California
Mechanical Code 2007 Edition, and the 2007 California Fire Code and the 2006 International Fire
Code. The City also enforces the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Housing Code, the 1997 Uniform
Code for Building Conservation, and the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings Code.
Cupertino has adopted several amendments to the 2007 California Building Code. The City
requires that roof coverings on new buildings and replacement roofs comply with the standards
established for Class A roofmg, the most fire resistant type of roof covering. This amendment
applies more stringent roofing requirements than the California Building Code, which requires a
minimum of Class B or Class C roofing, depending on the construction type. The California
Building Code and the City's amendments to it have been adopted to prevent unsafe or hazardous
building conditions. The City's building codes are reasonable and would not adversely affect the
ability to construct housing in Cupertino.
Constraints for Persons with Disabilities
California Senate Bill 520 (SB 520), passed in October 2001, requires local housing elements to
evaluate constraints for persons with disabilities and develop programs which accommodate the
housing needs of disabled persons.
Procedures for Ensuring Reasonable Accommodation. Both the federal Fair Housing Act and
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties
to make reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such
accommodations are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities.
Reasonable accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to particular policies that
facilitate equal access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access
structures or reductions to parking requirements.
Many jurisdictions do not have a specific process specifically designed for people with disabilities
to make a reasonable accommodations request. Rather, cities provide disabled residents relief from
the strict terms of their zoning ordinances through existing variance or conditional use pelTIlit
processes. Cupertino is one of these judsdictions. Currently the City addresses reasonable
accommodations on an ad hoc basis through variance and conditional use procedures. The City
does not however have a formalized policy regarding reasonable accommodation procedures for
persons with disabilities.
In May 15, 2001 letter, the California Attorney General recommended that cities adopt formal
procedures for handling reasonable accommodations requests. While addressing reasonable
accommodations requests through variances and conditional use permits does not violate fair
59
2-83
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
housing laws, it does increase the risk of wrongfully denying a disabled applicant's request for
relief and incurring liability for monetary damages and penalties. Furthermore, reliance on
valiances and use permits may encourage, in some circumstances, community opposition to
projects involving much needed housing for persons with disabilities. For these reasons, the
Attorney General encouraged jurisdictions to amend their zoning ordinances to include a written
procedure for handling reasonable accommodations requests.
Zoning and Other Land Use Regulations. In conformance to state law, Cupertino's Zoning
Ordinance permits small, licensed residential care facilities (six or fewer residents) in all residential
zones. Small residential care facilities that are not required to be licensed by the State and large,
licensed and unlicensed residential care facilities are conditionally permitted in all residential
zones. Licensed and unlicensed residential care facilities with more than six residents in the
Single-Family Residential (R-I) District are subject to siting restrictions that are not present in
other residential zones.
The City's Zoning Ordinance contains a broad definition of family. A family means an individual
or group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide single housekeeping unit in a
dwelling unit. Families are distinguished from groups occupying a hotel, lodging club, fraternity or
sorority house, or institution of any kind. This definition of family does not limit the number of
people living together in a household and does not require them to be related
Cupertino's Zoning Ordinance does not currently offer reductions in parking requirements for
group homes. The City may consider parking reductions for residential care facilities.
Building Codes and Permitting. The City's Building Code does not include any amendments to
the California Building Code that might diminish the ability to accommodate persons with
disabilities. However, the City may want to consider adoption of universal design elements as part
of the building code. Universal design refers to the development of products and environments that
are usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for specialization or
adaptation.
Housing Mitigation Plan
The City's Housing Mitigation plan requires all new residential developers to either provide below
market rate (BMR) units or pay an in-lieu fee. Under this program, developers must designate at
least IS percent of units as affordable. For-sale BMR units must be affordable to median- and
moderate-income households while affordable rental units must serve very low- and low-income
households. Projects of seven or more units must provide on-site BMR units. Projects of six units
or less can either build a unit or provide pay an in-lieu fee. Currently, the in-lieu fee is $2.58 per
square foot.
60
2-84
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Although concerns exist that inclusionary housing programs like Cupertino's Housing Mitigation
Program may constrain production of market rate homes, studies have shown evidence to the
contrary. The cost of an inclusionary housing requirement must ultimately be borne by either (1)
developers through a lower return, (2) landowners through decreased land values, or (3) other
homeowners through higher market rate sale prices. In fact, the cost of inclusionary housing and
any other development fee "will always be split between all players in the development process." 3
However, academics have pointed out that, over the long term, it is probable that landowners will
bear most of the costs of inclusionary housing, not other homeowners or the developer (Mallach
1984, Hagman 1982, Ellickson 1985).
In addition, a 2004 study on housing starts between 1981 and 2001 in communities throughout
California with and without inclusionary housing programs evidences that inclusionary housing
programs do not lead to a decline in housing production. In fact, the study found that housing
production actually increased after passage oflocal inclusionary housing ordinances in cities as
diverse as San Diego, Carlsbad, and Sacramento. 4
Recognizing the need for a financially feasible program that does not constrain production, some
jUlisdictions allow developers to pay an in-lieu fee for all units, regardless of project size. As
discussed previously, Cupertino's Housing Mitigation program requires large developments (with
seven or more units) to provide units. One local developer noted that although the 15 percent
requirement is comparable to other jurisdictions, the option to provide an in-lieu fee for large
projects would provide more flexibility.
Park Impact Fees .
The City of Cupertino assesses park impact fees for new residential development. The fee ranges
from $8,100 per unit of high density residential development (at 20 dwelling units per acre or
more) to $15,750 per single-family unit.
Cupertino's park fees are comparable to or lower than similar requirements established in other
Santa Clara County jurisdictions. Mountain View and San Jose require park land dedication or the
payment ofa park in-lieu fee. The in-lieu fee in both cities are based on fair market value of the
land. San Jose's park fees for single-family detached units ranged from $15,850 to $38,550,
depending on the area of the City. Park fees for multifamily units in San Jose ranged from $10,450
to $35,600, depending on location and the size of the development. In Mountain View, park in-lieu
3
W.A. Watkins. "Impact of Land Development Charges." Land Economics 75(3).1999.
4
David Rosen. "IncIusionary Housing and Its Impact on Housing and Land Markets." NHC Affordable Housing Policy
Review 1(3).2004
61
2-85
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
fees range from approximately $15,000 to $25,000.
The City of Palo Alto's park dedication requirements vary depending on whether the project
involves a subdivision or parcel map. Palo Alto collects $9,354 per single-family unit and $6,123
per multifamily unit. However, the requirement is substantially higher for projects involving a
subdivision or parcel map. The City requires developers to dedicate 531 square feet per single-
family unit or pay an in-lieu fee of $47,700. The requirement for multifamily units is land
dedication of 366 square feet per unit or an in-lieu fee of $32,670 per unit.
Fees and Exactions
Like cities throughout California, Cupertino collects development fees to recover the capital costs
of providing community services and the administrative costs associated with processing
applications. New housing typically requires payment of school impact fees, sewer and water
connection fees, building permit fees, wastewater treatment plant fees, and a variety of handling
and service charges. Typical fees collected in the City are outlined below in Table 5.2. One local
developer indicated that impact fees collected in the City of Cupertino are similar to those assessed
in other jurisdictions.
62
2-86
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 5.2: Fees and Exactions
Single- Multi-
Fee Amount Family (a) Townhouse (b) Family (c)
Sanitary Connection Permit (d) $77.50 $78 $78 $78
Water Main Existing Facilities Fee (e) $4,704 (1 inch service) + permit fee of $6,894 $6,894 $2,280
$2,190
Off-Site Storm Drainage Fee $1,290 per acre (SF) $160 $160 $90
$9261 acre + $70 I unit (MF)
Parcel Map (1-4 lots) $3,638 N/A N/A N/A
Tract Map (> 4 lots) $7,553 $755 $755 N/A
Park Impact Fee $15,750 $9,000 $8,100
Single Family $15,750
Small Lot Single Family (5-20 dual $9,000
High Density (20+ dual $8,100
Housing Mitigation In-Lieu Fee $2.581 Sq. Ft. $5,160 $4,130 $4,050
Cupertino Union School District Fee $1.7821 Sq. Ft. $3,564 $2,851 $2,495
Fremont Union High School District Fee $1.191 Sq. Ft. $2,380 $1,904 $1,666
Plan Check and Inspection $560 $560 $560 $560
Building Permit Fee $4,055 $3,735 $662
Apartment Bldgs. (Base Size 40,000 Sq. Ft.) $25,048 + $21.00 for every 100 Sq. Ft.
Dwellings -- Production Phase (Base Size 1,000 Sq. Ft.) $3,254 + $80.13 for every 100 Sq. Ft.
Mechanical $160 $128 $98
Single-Family and Duplexes $0.081 Sq. Ft.
Multifamily $0.07 I Sq. Ft.
Electric $160 $128 $98
Single-Family and Duplexes $0.081 Sq. Ft.
Multifamily $0.07 I Sq. Ft.
Plumbing $160 $128 $98
Single-Family and Duplexes $0.081 Sq. Ft.
Multifamily $0.07 I Sq. Ft.
TOTAL $39,836 $30,451 $20,275
Notes:
(a) Fees estimated for a 2,000 square foot, 3 bedroom home in a 10 unit subdivision.
(b) Fees estimated for a 1,600 square foot, 2 bedroom townhouse in a 10 unit subdivision.
(c) Fees estimated for a 1,400 square foot, 2 bedroom apartment unit in a 50 unit building.
(d) Average of fees charged in the four Cupertino Sanitary District zones.
(e) Connection fee for San Jose Water, which serves the largest area of Cupertino. Cal Water and Cupertino Municipal also serve parts of the City.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; San Jose Water, 2009; Cupertino Sanitary District, 2009; BAE, 2009
Permit Processing Time
The entitlement process can impact housing production costs, with lengthy processing of
development applications adding to financing costs, in particular.
Planning Commission and City Council Approvals. The Planning Commission and City
Council review applications for zoning amendments and subdivision approvals. The Planning
Commission holds a public hearing about proposed zoning changes or subdivisions and makes a
recommendation to the City Council to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application.
Upon receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council holds a public
hearing before making a final decision on the proposed zoning change or subdivision.
Local developers have noted that the entitlement process in Cupertino can be a time consuming and
63
2-87
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
protracted process. One developer had to go to the Planning Commission several times, which
provided more opportunity for more opponents of the project to voice concerns. Another local
developer said that while the Planning Commission and City Council have a clear vision of what
they want to accomplish, their ideas are often not in-sync with the community, resulting in long,
entitlement processes.
Design Review. Cupertino has not adopted citywide residential design guidelines. However, the
RHS District, the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area, and the North De Anza Boulevard
Conceptual Plan Area are subject to design guidelines. These design guidelines pertain to features
such as landscaping, building and roof forms, building entrances, colors, outdoor lighting, and
building materials. The design guidelines are intended to ensure development is consistent with the
existing neighborhood character and do are generally not considered significant constraints to
housing production.
The Heart of the City Specific Plan design guidelines for multi-unit residential development
requires that building materials be high quality, long lasting, and durable, with a minimum life span
of 50 years for siding and 40 years for roofmg. Examples of such materials include stucco or
clapboard for siding and tile or asphalt shingles for roofs.
The City of Cupertino requires design review for certain residential developments. These include:
. Variances in the R -1 District,
. Two-story residential developments with a floor area ratio over 35 percent in a single-
family zoning district,
. Single-family homes in a planned development residential zoning district, and
. Signs, landscaping, parking plans, and minor modifications to buildings in the R-3 District
The Design Review Committee considers factors such as building scale in relation to existing
buildings and design harmony between new and existing buildings. During an interview with
BAE, one developer indicated that the design review process could be lengthy, with multiple
meetings required. The developer was required to make many adjustments and changes to the
project over the course of the design review process.
Building Permit. Standard plan check and building permit issuance for single-family dwellings in
Cupertino takes approximately 10 business days. Plan checks for large additions, remodels, and
major structural upgrades for single-family homes are also processed within 10 days. If a second
review is necessary, the City will take approximately 5 business days to complete the review. Prior
to the fma1 building pennit inspection for two-StOlY additions and new two-story homes, applicants
must submit a pdvacy protection plan, which illustrates how views into neighbodng yards second
64
2-88
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
story windows will be screened by new trees and/or shrubs. The plan check process may take
longer for projects which entail off-site street improvements.
Over-the-counter plan checks are available for small residential projects (250 square feet or less).
Building Department staff typically review these projects in less than 30 minutes during normal
business hours. In addition, an express plan check is offered for medium-sized residential projects
(500 square feet or less) and takes approximately 5 days. The plan review can take from four
weeks to several months for larger projects, depending on the size. Examples of this type of plan
check include apartments and single-family residential subdivisions over 10 units. Cupe11ino's
building permit procedures are reasonable and comparable to those in other California
communities.
Tree Preservation
The City of Cupertino has a Protected Tree Ordinance that is intended to preserve trees for their
environmental and aesthetic importance. The Ordinance protects heritage trees, which are
identified as significant for their historic value or unique characteristics, and ce11ain trees that have
a minimum single-trunk diameter of 10 inches or a minimum multi-truck diameter of 20 inches
when measured at 4.5 feet from natural grade. These trees include native oak tree species,
California Buckeye, Big Leaf Maple, Deodar Cedar, Blue Atlas Cedar, Bay Laurel or California
Bay, and Westem Sycamore trees.
Trees protected by this Ordinance may not be removed from private or public property without first
obtaining a tree removal permit. Applications for tree removal permits are reviewed by the
Community Development Director. The Director may approve, conditionally approve, or deny
applications. In some cases, the City may require tree replacement as a condition ofperrnit
approval.
Because a large share of residential development in Cupertino involves infill development
involving demolition and replacement, building footprints are often already in place and tree
preservation issues do not arise as a major concern to developers. Nevertheless, one developer did
report that they incurred financial costs associated with relocating trees on their property.
5.2. Economic and Market Constraints
In addition to governmental constraints, there may be non-governmental factors which may
constrain the production of new housing. These could include economic and market related
conditions such as land and construction costs.
65
2-89
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Decline in Housing Market and Availability of Financing
Local residential developers reported that the decline in the housing market and current economic
downturn represent a constraint to new housing production. Although home values in Cupertino
have remained high through 2008, annual sales volume has decreased since 2004. In 2004, 719
single-family homes were sold in Cupertino, compared to 337 in 2008. As a result oflocal, state,
and national housing and economic trends, local developers predicted that far fewer housing units
will be produced over the next several years. In many cases, the highest and best use of land is no
longer for-sale housing, as it was over the past five years.
A major short-term constraint to housing development is the lack of available fmancing due to
tightening credit markets. Local developers reported that there is very little private financing
available for both construction and permanent loans. Credit is available in rare cases because of
the capacity of a development group or the unusual success of a project. However, developers
suggest lenders are currently offering loans up to 50 percent of the building value, compared to 70
to 90 percent historically. This tightening credit market will significantly slow the pace of housing
development in Cupertino.
An affordable housing developer interviewed by BAE reported that affordable housing may be
more challenging in Cupertino due to more limited affordable housing funding sources. While the
City has access to CDBG and HOME funds, as well as in-lieu fees generated by the Housing
Mitigation Program, it does not have redevelopment agency (RDA) money cUlTently available for
affordable housing.
Land Costs
Land costs in Cupertino are generally high due to the high demand and limited supply of available
land. Local developers indicated that land prices are adjusting during this economic downtum.
However, the seller market, particularly in cities like Cupertino, is slow to react to the declining
market because many are not compelled to sell their property. Rather, many will wait for the
market to recover.
Nonetheless, one developer did report that at the height of the housing boom, land prices in
Cupertino were in the range of $3 million per acre.
Construction Costs
According to 2009 R.S. Means, Square Foot Costs, hard construction costs for a two-story, wood-
frame, single-family home range from $110 to $145 per square foot. Costs for three-story, wood
frame multifamily projects range from $145 to $210 per square foot. Construction costs, however,
vary significantly depending on building materials and quality of fmishes. Parking structures for
66
2-90
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
multifamily developments represent another major variable in the development cost. In general,
below-grade parking raises costs significantly. Soft costs (architectural and other professional fees,
land carrying costs, transaction costs, construction period interest, etc.) comprise an additional 10
to 15 percent of the construction and land costs. Owner-occupied multifamily units have higher
soft costs than renter-occupied units due to the increased need for construction defect liability
insurance. Permanent debt financing, site preparation, off-site infrastructure, impact fees, and
developer profit add to the total development cost of a project.
In recent months, key construction costs have fallen nationally in conjunction with the residential
real estate market. Figure 5.1 illustrates construction cost trends for key materials based on the
Producer Price Index, a series of indices published by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of
Labor Statistics that measures the sales price for specific commodities and products. Lumber
prices have declined by 19 percent between 2004 and 2008. As shown in Table 5.1, steel prices
have fallen sharply since August 2008. Local developers have confmned that construction costs,
including labor, have fallen by approximately 10 percent in tandem with the weak housing market.
However, it is imp01tant to note that although land cost and construction costs have waned,
developers report that they have not fallen enough to offset the decrease in sales prices.
67
2-91
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Figure 5.1: Producer Price Index for Key Construction Costs
300
250
><
Q)
"C 200
.E
Q)
(.)
"i:
a.. 150
~
Q)
(.)
:3
"C 100
0
~
a..
50
o
0') 0')
0') 0')
I I
C C
ro :J
-, -,
en 0 0 ~
en 0 0 0
I L!.. I I
> 0. n. ..c
~ <1: ~ tf
~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
"S 0 >'0 Co Ol C C > D. n...c"S
-, ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <1: ~ tf -,
~ ""' ""' co co 0')
o 0 0 0 0 0
I I I I I I
O' >. 0 Co Ol C
~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
Month
-Materials and components for construction -Lumber -Steel Mill Products
Base year: 1982 = 100
Sources: U.S. Dept. of labor, Bureau of labor Statistics, 2009; BAE, 2009
5.3. Environmental, Infrastructure & Public Service Constraints
Roads
The aluount of traffic or congestion on a roadway is measured in tenus of Level of Service (LOS)
ranging from A to F, \vith A representing intersections which experience little or no congestion and
F representing intersections with long and unacceptable delays. Cupeliino's 2005 General Plan
established a policy of maintaining a minimum of LOS D for major intersections during the
morning and afternoon peak traffic hours. The LOS standard for the Stevens Creek and De Anza
Boulevard intersection, the Stevens Creek and Stelling Road intersection, and the De Anza
Boulevard and Bollinger Road intersection shall be at least LOS E +.
The environmental assessment of individual residential projects considers any associated traffic
impacts. If the study finds that the project could cause an intersection to deteriorate, mitigation
may be required. This usually consists of in1provelnents to adjacent roads and intersections, but
may also include changes to the nUlnber of units in the project, or to site design and layout.
68
2-92
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Water
Two water suppliers provide service to the City of Cupertino: the California Water Company and
the San Jose Water Company. Both of these providers purchase their water supply from the Santa
Clara Valley Water District. According to the City's General Plan EIR, which was completed in
2005, the Santa Clara Valley Water District indicated it has the ability to meet the long-term needs
of Cupertino water providers. The District's Water Supply master Plan planned for growth based
on the maximum growth potential of all municipalities in the District, which does not exceed
ABAG projections.
Wastewater
Cupertino Sanitary District serves as the main provider of wastewater collection and treatment
services for Cupertino while the City of Sunnyvale serves a small portion of the Cupertino Urban
Service area on the east side of the City. Cupertino Sanitary District has purchased a processing
capacity of 8.6 million gallons per day (mgd) from the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution
Control Plant in north San Jose. According to the City's 2005 General Plan EIR, the District was
only using 5.1 mgd of its total capacity, indicating that there is additional capacity to accommodate
future growth. In 2005, the City of Sunnyvale Wastewater Treatment Plant used approximately 15
mgd of its 29 mgd capacity.
Cupertino Sanitary District has indicated that some lines in the system may not have sufficient
carrying capacity to accommodate new development in the Town Center, south of Wolfe Road,
south ofI-280, Wolfe Road, Stelling Road, and Foothill Boulevard areas. In order to accommodate
wastewater from major new developments, the lines running at or new capacity in these areas will
have to be upgraded. Developers will be responsible for the fmancial costs associated with
upgrading the infrastructure.
Storm Drainage
Cupertino's storm drain system consists of underground pipelines that carry surface runoff from
streets to prevent flooding. Runoff enters the system at catch basins found along curbs near street
intersections and is discharged into City creeks. The stonn drainage system has been designed to
accommodate a lO-year storm, and the City requires that all new developments conform to this
standard.
Open Space
Cupertino's General Plan outlines a policy of having parkland equal to three acres for every 1,000
residents. Currently, the City has approximately 162 acres of parkland. Cupertino's current
RHNA of 1,170 new housing units for 2007 to 2014 would produce an estimated need of9.8 acres
of new park land. The General Plan identified an additional 49 acres of potential neighborhood and
69
2-93
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
community parks, which would be more than enough to maintain the standard of three acres for
every 1,000 residents. In addition, Cupertino's park impact fees of $8, 100 to $15,750 per unit
would generate between $13.2 and $15.4 million for the City to purchase new parkland and
maintain existing recreational resources.
Schools
Community concerns about impacts on school districts can be a constraint to housing production.
Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) are
among the best in the state and residents are particularly concerned about the impacts of new
housing on schools.
During the 2008-2009 school year, CUSD served 17,300 students from Cupmiino and parts of San
Jose, Sunnyvale, Saratoga, Santa Clara, and Los Altos at 20 elementary schools and 5 middle
schools. Approximately 55 percent ofCUSD's students reside iil Cupertino. FUHSD served
10,300 students from Cupertino, most of Sunnyvale and parts of San Jose, Los Altos, Saratoga, and
Santa Clara. Approximately 62 percent ofFUHSD's students reside in Cupertino.
Operating Finances. Most of CUSD revenues are tied to the size of its enrollment. The State
Department of Education guarantees CUSD a certain level of operations funding known as the
"Revenue Limit." The Revenue Limit is established annually by the State based on the District's
average daily attendance (ADA).
The Revenue Limit is composed of State funding and local property tax revenues. If the District's
property tax revenue falls below the Revenue Limit in any given year, the State will increase its
contribution to make up the difference (see Figure 5.2). CUSD therefore relies on gradual, steady
increases in enrollment to maintain its financial health over time. Because the Revenue Limit
makes up about 75% ofCUSD revenues, and this Limit is tied directly to enrollment, the District
needs predictable, ongoing student growth to keep up with costs. Declines in enrollment would
require the District to cut costs.
70
2-94
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Figure 5.2: CUSD Historic Revenue Limit per Average Daily Attendance (ADA)
$6,000
~ $5,000
c -
~
L.. $4,000 i
Q)
c.
..
.E $3,000
::J I
Q) H
::::s $2,000
c:
Q)
>
Q)
" $1,000
$0
I
2002-2003
-
.
.
j
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
- Local Property Taxes and Fees
. State Aid
Sources: Education Data Partnership, 2008; BAE, 2008
In contrast, FUHSD relies exclusively on property taxes for-most of its revenue. FUHSD receives
propeliy taxes in excess its Revenue Lhnit. The District keeps these additional revenues for
operations. As a result, the State does not provide annual per-ApA funding to the Distlict.
Therefore, FUHSD counts on a growing propeliy tax base to keep up with costs and maintain per-
student funding. New developnlent helps promote a healthy tax base over time. As shown in
Table 5.2, lTIultifalnily developlTIent can be paliicularly beneficial to the tax base, generating higher
revenues per acre than single-falnily hOll1es. This translates into 1110re revenue for Fl.)HSD.
71
2-95
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 5.2: Comparison of FUHSD Property Tax Revenue per Acre
Multifamily Single-family
housing housing
Value per Unit (a) $665,250 $1,143,500
Density (Units/Acre) 20 5
Total Value/Acre $13,305,000 $5,717,500
Property Taxes to FUHSD per Acre (b) $22,619 $9,720
Notes:
(a) Median sales prices from June 2007 to June 2008
(b) FUHSD receives approximately 17% of 1% of assessed value.
Sources: DataQuick, 2008; Santa Clara County Controller, 2008;BAE, 2008.
Moreover, property taxes from new multifamily housing can exceed the cost to FUHSD to serve
students. Table 5.3 illustrates this point, using recently-built projects as examples. Nonetheless,
FUHSD stresses that the impacts of new residential development should be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis to mitigate any undue effects on the District.
Table 5.3: Financial Impacts of Cupertino Developments on Fremont Union HS District
Montebello City Center Travigne Metropolitan
FUHSD REVENUE
Assessed Value of Dev't $117,855,778 $38,068,014 $23,638,365 $63,024,913
Property Tax Revenue (a) $196,952 $63,617 $39,503 $105,323
FUHSD COSTS
Number of Students in Dev't 11 5 3 11
Cost to Serve Students (b) $101,545 $46,157 $27,694 $101,545
NET SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) $95,407 $17,460 $11,809 $3,777
Civic Park
$90,538,152
$151,301
10
$92,314
$58,987
Notes:
(a) Percentage of base 1.0 percent property tax FUHSD receives (after ERAF shift) in TRA 13-003: 16.71%
(b) FUHSD General Fund Expenditure per Student, FY 08-09: $9,231
Sources: Santa Clara County Assessor, 2008; Santa Clara County Controller, 2008; FUHSD, 2008; BAE, 2008.
Enrollment and Facilities. Both Districts expect to continue growing over the next ten years.
CUSD projects enrollment to grow by 4% to a peak of 18,000 students by 2013, then decline to
17,400 students by 2017. FUHSD anticipates enrollment to flatten over the next five years, then
rise to 11,600 students by 2017, a 13% gain (~ee Figure 5.3). It is important to note that this
growth comes from the other cities that the Districts serve, in addition to Cupertino. Cupertino-
based students comprise about 60% of enrollment in each District.
72
2-96
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Figure 5.3: Enrollment Projections, 2008-2013, CUSD and FUHSD
20,000
18,000
J!l 16,000
c
~ 14,000
.a 12,000
en
'0 10,000
; 8,000
.0
E 6,000
~ 4,000
2,000
o
~ ~
.... T .... ,.- .... ~
- - - - - ----
-+-CUSD
-FUHSD
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2017
The Districts will continue to use their facilities efficiently to accommodate projected growth.
CUSD and FUHSD report that their ability to absorb new students is not unlimited, and rapid
growth does pose a challenge. However, they will strive to make space and maintain student-
teacher ratios through creative solutions such as relocating special programs, adjusting schedules,
selectively using modular classrooms, and other approaches. In addition, FUHSD is developing a
plan to dedicate the $198 million raised from Measure B for facility improvements. These include
athletic facilities, solar power, IT systems, infrastructure, classrooms, labs, and lecture halls.
The Districts also augment their facilities using impact fees from new development. CUSD
receives $1.78/square foot in fees from residential development, and earned $693,000 in 2007-
2008. FUHSD receives $0.95 to $1. 19/square foot of residential development, earning $1.3 million
in 2007-2008. The Districts can also address impacts on a case-by-case basis, establishing
partnerships with home builders to construct new facilities or expand existing schools.
Higher-density housing generally generates fewer students per unit. Table 5.4 illustrates this trend
among recently-built projects in Cupertino. On average, the Districts report that new single-family
homes and townhouses generate 0.8 K-12 students per unit, while new multifamily homes generate
0.3 K-12 students per unit. In addition, most enrollment growth comes from existing homes that
are either sold or rented to families with children, not new development. Nonetheless, the Districts
indicate that new housing will contribute to future demand for classroom space, which the Districts
must address through the strategies outlined above.
73
2-97
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 5.4: Student Generation in Cupertino Developments
Higher Density Lower Density
Montebello City Center Travigne Metropolitan Civic Park
Density (Units/Acre) 96 63 24 30 31
Students/Unit
CUSD (a) 0.13 0.07 0.17 0.09 0.37
FUHSD (a) 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.08
Total 0.18 0.10 0.24 0.20 0.44
Notes: (a) Student enrollment data for 2008-2009 school year, provided by CUSD and FUHSD.
Sources: City of Cupertino; CUSD; FUHSD; BAE, 2008.
Public Opinion
Other constraints to housing production in the City include public opinion, specifically community
concerns about impacts on the school districts, traffic, and parks.
Over the past several years, a number of housing developments and related planning efforts have
been subject to citizen initiatives and referenda. Citizen concern about the impacts of housing
development on community quality of life remain a significant potential constraint to housing
development.
Local developers indicated that public opposition to new development can be a obstacle to the
production of both market rate and affordable housing in Cupertino. In any jmisdiction, the
entitlement process can be a costly one. , As discussed above, several developers successfully
obtained the necessary entitlements from the City but had their projects halted by citizen referenda,
resulting in fmanciallosses. This threat of a referendmTI and associated financial losses makes
development in the City more risky.
The potential for community opposition means that good design and planning are essential,
particularly for higher density projects.
5.4. Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Planning to maximize energy efficiency and the incorporation of energy conservation and green
building features can contribute to reduced housing costs for homeowners and renters. In addition,
these efforts promote sustainable community design, reduced dependence on vehicles, and can
significantly contribute to reducing green house gases.
All new buildings in California must meet the standards contained in Title 24, Part 6 of the
California Code of Regulations (Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and nonresidential
74
2-98
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Buildings). These regulations were established in 1978 and most recently updated in 2005 with
amended standards going into effect in 2009. Energy efficiency requirements are enforced by local
governments through the building permit process. All new construction must comply with the
standards in effect on the date a building permit application is made.
In addition to compliance with state regulations, the Environmental Resources/Sustainability, Land
Use, and Circulation Elements of Cupertino's General Plan includes policies related to energy
conservation and efficiency. In particular, the Land Use Element provides for energy efficient
higher density housing in proximity to employment centers and transportation corridors and
includes mixed use development where appropriate.
The development industry is also becoming increasingly aware of opportunities for energy
conservation at the site planning level and even at the community planning level. New
developments are increasingly being planned so that building orientations will take advantage of
passive solar energy benefits. Larger scale land use planning is increasingly considering benefits
of compact urban form (i.e., higher densities) as a means to reduce auto dependency for
transportation, and the benefits of mixed-use land use patterns to make neighborhoods more self-
contained so that residents can walk or bicycle to places of work, shopping, or other services.
Compact urban development patterns also are necessary to improve the effectiveness of buses and
other forms of public transit. If effective public transit is available and convenient, energy will be
conserved through reduced auto use. In the future, the City will consider incorporating these
and/or other sustainable development principles into new developments that are planned within
Cupertino.
5.5. Summary
. Cupertino's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are not development constraints to new
housing production. The Land Use/Community Design element of the General Plan
identifies five categOlies of residential use while the Zoning Ordinance permits residential
development in seven districts.
. The Zoning Ordinance does not permit or conditionally permit permanent homeless
shelters in any zone. In order to comply with state law, this Housing Element outlines a
program to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow a permanent homeless shelter by-right in
the BQ zoning district.
. Site improvement, building code requirements, and permit processing time in Cupertino
are comparable to surrounding communities and are not a development constraint.
75
2-99
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
· Development fees in Cupertino are comparable to those in neighboring jurisdictions.
. The decline in the housing market and availability of financing will constrain housing
development in the near term.
. A potential constraint to housing development is road capacity. Residential projects may
be required to undertake mitigation measures if developments result in traffic impacts.
. Capacity and fiscal impacts to the Cupertino Union School District and Fremont Union
High School District must be evaluated on a case by case basis.
. Public opinion may serve as a constraint to housing development. Overthe past several
years, projects have been subject to citizen initiatives and referenda opposition the
developments.
76
2-100
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
6. Housing Resources
6.1. Overview of Available Sites for Housing
The purpose of the adequate sites analysis is to demonstrate that the City of Cupertino has a
sufficient supply ofland to accommodate its fair share of the region's housing needs during the
planning period (January 1,2007 - June 30, 2014). The State Govemment Code requires that the
Housing Element include an "inventory of land suitable for residential development, including
vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment" (Section 65583(a)(3)). It further
requires that the Element analyze zoning and infrastructure on these sites to ensure housing
development is feasible during the planning period.
Demonstrating an adequate land supply, however, is only part of the task. The City must also show
that this supply is capable of supporting housing demand from all economic segments of the
community. High land costs in the Bay Area make it difficult to meet the demand for affordable
housing on sites that are zoned at relatively low densities. Pursuant to Govemment Code Section
65583.2(c)(3)(B), local govemments may utilize "default" density standards (e.g. the "Mullen
Densities") to provide evidence that "appropriate zoning" is in place to support the development of
housing for very-low and low-income households. The purpose of this law is to provide a
numelical density standard for local govemments, resulting in greater certainty in the housing
element review process. Specifically, if a local govemment has adopted density standards that
comply with the population based criteria provided in the law and promulgated by HCD, no further
analysis is required to establish the adequacy of the density standard. The default density standard
for Cupeltino and other suburban jurisdictions in Santa Clara County to demonstrate adequate
capacity for low and very low income units is 20 dwelling units per acre (DUA) or more.
6.2. General Plan Residential Allocations
In order to balance the long-tenn housing, economic and civic needs of the Cupertino community,
the City's General Plan adopted in 2005 provided an overall "allocation" of commercial and
residential uses by planning district and for the City overall. Taking into account the residential
projects already developed or pelmitted since 2007 (see Table 4.2), an analysis of sites with
residential potential in Cupertino indicates the potential to develop approximately 1,500 units of
new housing within the context of the current General Plan land use allocations. This includes
1,484 units that can realistically be accommodated on sites with allowable densities of20 DUA or
more. The following sites inventolY and residential capacity analysis focuses on sites with
densities of 10 DUA or more.
77
2-101
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
6.3. Residential Capacity Analysis
For the purposes of this analysis, housing sites in Cupertino have been grouped into seven
geographic areas. Each ofthese areas is described below, with accompanying maps and tables
used to quantify residential development potential. Because more than a quarter of the 7.5-year
planning period has already passed, the analysis also accounts for housing that has been
constructed since January 1,2007.
In preparing for this Housing Element document, City staff conducted a thorough study evaluating
the amount of vacant and underutilized land in Cupertino. A parcel-by-parcel review of the City's
data base was conducted and all vacant, underutilized and infill parcels were identified. These
parcels included residentially-zoned land as well as other designations such as commercial, quasi-
public use, mixed use and industrial.
Based on current General Plan Land Use designations and zoning, an analysis of the City's land
inventory indicates sufficient land zoned at residential densities to accommodate 543total units of
which 370 are zoned at a minimum density of201DUA. In order to meet the remaining need of
734 units during the remaining five years of the current planning peliod, the City proposes to adopt
policies and programs to increase the permitted densities on sites with no infrastructure constraints
(see Policies 1 and 2 in the Housing Plan Section of this Housing Element). The full sites
inventory with current zoning and proposed land use and zoning changes is provided as Appendix
F.
Figure 6.1 below displays the total potential residential capacity in Cupertino on sites that can
accommodate residential development of 10 dwelling units to the acre or more. These sites can
accommodate up to 1,542 residential units, including 1,484 units on sites that with current or
proposed zoning designations that permit a minimum density of 20 dwelling units to the acre or
more. As shown, approximately 60 percent of the City's near-telID residential development
potential is in the North and South Vallco and Heart of the City areas. The remaining development
potential is mainly on smaller sites distributed across the City. For the most part, the sites
identified below are underutilized sites in mixed-use areas rather than vacant greenfield sites with
exclusively residential zoning. As demonstrated by the developments already underway or
completed during the current planning period as displayed in Table 4.2, Cupertino has a strong
track record of supporting and facilitating the development of residential projects in mixed-use
areas and of intensifying residential uses where appropriate within the context off the general plan
land use allocations.
78
2-102
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT417/2009
Figure 6.1: Potential Units by Planning Area
Va!!:::> ParY. N=rth
_ V"Uro Pari< S:lutl,
~o
.Area ouui..1e of ?lan"ing Areas
r.s
x.~o:: Oty.:rl Cir~o. 5l\E.. DC&f: 2~.
Total PotentiaJ Housing Units = I,S42
79
2-103
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Bubb Road and Manta Vista Districts
The Bubb Road District is located south of Stevens Creek Boulevard and west of Highway 85. The
area is pnmarily a low-rise industrial and research and development area. However, neighborhood
commercial and residential uses are also allowed.
The City's General Plan allows for a total residential buildout of94 dwelling units in the Bubb
Road District. As of January 1,2007, there were no residential units in the Bubb Road District.
Therefore, the available residential allocation in the Bubb Road District is 94 units. The sites
identified below in the Bubb Road area are underutilized light industrial properties which will be
rezoned to accommodate residential uses. The residential allocation for this area will also need to
be increased from the current 94 to 137 based on the proposed zoning changes.
The Monta Vista area is Cupertino's primary neighborhood of historical interest. Monta Vista
consists of a mix of commercial, light industrial, and residential uses. The City's General Plan
encourages mixed-use development with residential uses and seeks to retain the industrial area that
provides small-scale light industrial and service industrial opportunities. Residential development
in the Monta Vista neighborhood is limited to 12 dwelling units per acre. The total residential
buildout for the Monta Vista District is 902 units, with a remaining residential allocation of 85
units as of January 1,2007. Two sites in the Monta Vista neighborhood were identified for this
Housing Element. One of these (parcel 357 20 046) will require new residential zoning consistent
with the existing land use designation.
Table 6.1: Vacant and Underutilized Land in the Bubb Road and Monta Vista Districts
Address
10075 Pasadena Ave
No Situs Address
10460 Bubb Rd
10420 Bubb Rd
10440 Bubb Rd
Acreage
0.15
4.86
3.59
3.53
1.13
Maximum Density
Under Current or
Re-Zoning (DUA)
12
20
20
20
20
Maximum
Unit Capacity
1
97
71
70
22
Realistic Unit
Capacity (a)
1
82
60
59
18
ID APN
1 35717112/113
2 357 20 046
3 357 20 037
4 357 20 038
5 357 20 036
Total Units 220
Total Units @ 20+ DUA 219
Notes:
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DC&E, 2009; BAE, 2009
80
2-104
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Figure 6.2: Potential Housing Sites in the
Bubb Road and Monta Vista Districts
I~: . ~~.~.. J.
\ '--.~
\ \ \
, b~a;K-Qt~.l
Heart of the City and City Center Districts
The Heali of the City Districts encornpass one of the lnost irnporiant conunercial corridors in
Cupertino. The Heali of the City Specific Plan, originally adopted by the City Council in 1995,
provides developrnent guidelines for the approximately 250-acre Stevens Creek Boulevard
COITidor. This Specific Plan was recently updated and is cUITently under review by the City's
Planning Comrnission. The revised Specific Plan encourages the developl11ent of pedestlian-
oriented activity centers and mixed use developrnents vvith cornmercial and residential uses.
Under the existing adopted Specific Plan, the total residential buildout for the Heali of the City
neighborhood is 570 dwelling units, with a remaining residential allocation of 216 units as of
January 1, 2007. This will be updated to provide more residential capacity as part of the new
Specific Plan update to accormnodate an increased residential capacity of 396 new units. This
vvould increase the total residential buildout for the Heari of the City neighborhood fronl 570 units
to 750 units.
The City Center District is a 111oderate-scale, medium density, mixed use district located south of
Stevens Creek Boulevard and east of De Anza Boulevard. The District allows for office, housing,
hotel, public facilities, stores, restaurants, and mixed use developments. The total residential
buildout for the City Center District is 656 units, with a relnaining residential allocation of 100
units as of January 1, 2007.
81
2-105
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
As displayed in Table 6.2 and Figure 6.3 below, these areas have a realistic capacity of 428 new
uni ts.
Table 6.2: Vacant and Underutilized Land in the Heart of the City and City Center Districts
ID
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
APN
32631 019
359 08 024
32632041
31625039
369 03 004
369 03 007
369 03 005
31623093
31621 090
369 05 008
369 05 038
31621031
31621 032
375 07 001
36901 022
Address
10100 N Stelling Rd
20900 Stevens Creek Blv
10073 Saich Way
20311 Stevens Creek Blv
20030 Stevens Creek Blv
10031 S Blaney Ave
20010 Stevens Creek Blv
20007 Stevens Creek Blv
10000 N Blaney Ave
19960 Stevens Creek Blv
19900 Stevens Creek Blv
19875 Stevens Creek Blv
19855 Stevens Creek BI
19160 Stevens Creek BI
No Situs Address
Acreage
3.86
3.04
0.77
0.19
1.16
1.36
0.47
1.35
2.00
0.40
1.92
1.78
0.24
0.55
1.54
Maximum Density
Under Current or
Re-Zoning (DUA)
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
Maximum
Unit Capacity
96
76
19
4
29
34
11
33
50
10
48
44
6
13
38
Total Units
Total Units @ 20+ DUA
Realistic Unit
Capacity (a)
81
64
16
3
24
28
9
28
42
8
40
37
5
11
32
428
428
Notes:
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DC&E, 2009; BAE, 2009
Figure 6.3: Potential Housing Sites in the Heart of the City and City Center Districts
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009; DC&E, 2009
Homestead Road District
The Homestead Road District is located along the nOlihelTI boundary of Cupeliino between Stelling
2-106
82
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Road and De Anza Boulevard. This District is intended to be an integrated, mixed-use commercial
and housing village along Homestead Road. The total residential buildout for the Homestead Road
District is 784 units, with a remaining residential allocation of 300 units as of January 1,2007.
Table 6.3 and Figure 6.4 below display three residential opportunity sites identified in the
Homestead area. Although the general plan designations for these three sites currently permit
residential uses at the required densities, all three sites need to be rezoned to accommodate
residential use.
Table 6.3: Vacant and Underutilized land in the Homestead Road District
Address
20916 Homestead Rd
20956 Homestead Rd
20990 Homestead Rd
Acreage
0.74
1.12
2.75
Maximum Density
Under Current or
Re-Zoning (DUA)
20
20
20
Maximum
Unit Capacity
14
22
55
Realistic Unit
Capacity (a)
11
18
46
ID APN
21 326 09 052
22 32609061
23 326 09 060
Total Units
Total Units @ 20+ DUA
75
75
Notes:
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DC&E, 2009; BAE, 2009
83
2-107
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Figure 6.4: Potential Housing Sites in the
Homestead Road District
~;;: C rn ~
~ ~ . 1;;:10- LA CONNER DR {J;:
U U I D "'U1 II'~;';~
:> " \.U iiT, C:~01)r:c-ff I i'~' ~~
~~ :--EI ~~~' ~
Z Lij ~ ~l a~~ P- ~i
~ ~ :j n LA GRANDE [')8 ~" . .' <i!
1 c:I 0 I-~r-rr--- .:::,13 I
&~IL~ -=-E! Pi ,'LJ',7! I" r;~~ L
~._-_._._. 21 ___jiOt:l.ES.T~~
~~" r. "-- """,' -,---, ~
~ l ~ :-j+_J l..:ct ~
~ I-=--- - -- .L I > [!Jt
~I.. Homestead, Road I ~ ~ ~~
I) I..... ---;" T--r-....L-4 1> I
.., " I I I'\J._
." ,~R.. t Z ~
11 ~ .- J~ . :::::::
z
~: J b.4:":i~ ~
~I~I~ ,~,EIIIftl~,29~~11 ~j,~
I I" \. \ I I . ", ., p "'11:'
~ I :- I I ~ '.' 30 ,.~t....J' ~. '. f;{~~~.
ILW~I I - ~'/r:
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009; DC&E, 2009
Val/co Park (North and South) Districts
Vallco Park NOlih is an elnployment area ofpredolninantly office and light industrial activities
with neighborhood cormnercial uses. The Vallco Park NOlih District allovvs for residential
densities up to 25 d\velling units per gross acre. The total residential buildout for the Vallco Park
NOlih District is 851 units, with a remaining residential allocation of 300 units as of JanualY 1,
2007.
Vallco Park South is intended to be a large-scale cormnercial area \vith regional cormnercial,
office, and enteliainment uses and supporting residential development. The main features of this
area include a regional shopping mall and office and industrial buildings. The City has fonned a
redevelopnlent project area that encolnpasses the regional mall propeliies. According to the
General Plan, the precise land use nlix shall be detelmined by a master plan for the area. The
District includes several undelutilized parcels as \vell as a number of vacant parcels along Vallco
Parkway. The total residential buildout for the Vallco Park South District is 711 units, with a
relnaining residential allocation of 400 units as of J anualY 1, 2007.
A variety of land use and zoning policy changes are required to make these sites available for
residential use dUling the planning period.
84
2-108
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 6.4: Vacant and Underutilized Sites in the Vallco Park North and South Districts
10 APN
24 31605047
25 31620088
26 31620076
27 31620075
28 31620085
Address
19624 Homestead Rd
No Situs Address
19333 Vallco Pkwy
19333 Vallco Pkwy
19333 Vallco Pkwy
Acreage
1.35
5.16
8.29
9.24
5.95
Maximum Density
Under Current or
Re-Zoning (DUA)
20
20
20
20
20
Maximum
Unit Capacity
27
103
165
184
119
Total Units
Total Units @ 20+ DUA
Realistic Unit
Capacity (a)
22
87
140
156
101
506
506
Notes:
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DC&E, 2009; BAE, 2009
85
2-109
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Figure 6.5: Potential Housing Sites in the
Valleo Park North and South Districts
7 -
ffi
~18. ..!!:.. --;:::.~..-...:.-~;.c.~;:~,;, ts.-. .c_;: ~
.., ~_..J! L .... .. . : '
..JI , ~il ; - ~~I I..~
~ ~ ~ . ~ ~J.1:::j
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009; DC&E, 2009
North De Anza Boulevard District
The N olih De Anza Boulevard District is intended to be a regional eInployment center with
sUPPoIiing cormnercial and residential land uses. The area, located south of Interstate 280 around
North De Anza Boulevard, includes the Apple Computer campus and other office, industrial, and
research and developInent uses. The total residential buildout for the NOIih De Anza Boulevard
District is 146 units, with a remaining residential allocation of97 units as of January 1,2007.
The three sites identified in this area are cUITently undeIutilized sites \vith office or industrial uses.
Although the zoning is cUITently in place under the City's P(CG, ML, Res 4-10) zoning category,
the remaining residential allocation for the area should be increased froIn 146 to 176. This would
increase the total residential allocation froIn 146 units to 225 units.
86
2-110
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Table 6.5: Vacant and Underutilized land in the North De Anza Boulevard District
Maximum Density
Under Current or Maximum Realistic Unit
10 APN Address Acreage Re-Zoning (DUA) Unit Capacity Capacity (a)
29 326 10046 20705 Valley Green Rd 7.98 20 159 135
30 32610026 20725 Valley Green Dr 0.25 20 5 4
31 326 10065 10725 N De Anza Blvd 2.22 20 44 37
Total Units
Total Units @ 20+ OUA
176
176
Notes:
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources: City of C~pertino, 2009; DC&E, 2009; BAE, 2009
Figure 6.6: Potential Housing Sites in the
North De Anza Boulevard District
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009; DC&E, 2009
South De Anza Boulevard District
The South De Anza Boulevard area is located along De Anza Boulevard south of Stevens Creek
Boulevard. Developlnents in this area are encouraged to include a neighborhood cOminercial
presence along the street. Residential uses are appropriate on second levels and should also be
used as a buffer behveen cOlnm~rcial uses and neighboring low-density residential propeliies. The
General Plan designates the maximum residential buildout for Other Neighborhood COllllnercial
Areas, which includes the South De Anza Boulevard District, as 306 units, with a remaining
allocation of 300 units.
87
2-111
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Many of the sites in this area that have General Plan land use designations permitting residential
uses need to be rezoned as described in Appendix F.
Table 6.6: Vacant and Underutilized Land in the South De Anza Boulevard District
Maximum Density
Under Current or Maximum Realistic Unit
ID APN Address Acreage Re-Zoning (DUA) Unit Capacity Capacity (a)
32 359 17 001 10251 S De Anza Blvd 1.29 20 25 21
33 359 17 002 10301 S De Anza Blvd 0.29 20 5 4
34 35917003 10311 S De Anza Blvd 0.29 20 5 4
35 35917004 10321 S De Anza Blvd 0.34 20 6 5
36 359 17 005 10381 S De Anza Blvd 1.48 20 29 24
37 36610137 No Situs Address 0.92 15 13 11
38 36610127 1515 S De Anza Blvd 0.86 15 12 10
39 36610138 1527 S De Anza Blvd 1.10 15 16 13
40 36610131 1581 S De Anza Blvd 1.02 15 15 12
41 36610133 1633 S De Anza Blvd 0.90 15 13 11
Total Units 115
Total Units @ 20+ DUA 58
Notes:
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DC&E, 2009; BAE, 2009
88
2-112
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Figure 6.7: Potential Housing Sites in the South De Anza Boulevard District
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009; DC&E, 2009
Non-Designated Areas
There are several sites that are located outside designated neighborhood planning areas. These
remaining areas are not planned as unique neighborhoods in the City's most recent general plan.
Development intensity in these non-designated areas is determined by the existing zoning and land
use designations. The residential allocation remaining for non-designated areas was just 22
dwelling units as of January 1, 2007.
Table 6.7: Vacant and Underutilized Land in Non-Designated Areas
Maximum Density
Under Current or Maximum Realistic Unit
10 APN Address Acreage Re-Zoning (DUA) Unit Capacity Capacity (a)
42 36937022 20421 Bollinger Rd 0.40 20 8 6
43 36231 030 20667 Cleo Ave 0.41 20 8 6
44 36231 004 No Situs Address 0.28 20 5 4
45 375 07 045 10029 Judy Ave 0.42 20 8 6
Total Units
Total Units @ 20+ DUA
22
22
Notes:
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DC&E, 2009; BAE, 2009
89
2-113
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
6.4. Zoning for Emergency Shelters and Transitional
Housing
State law requires Cupertino to permit emergency shelters without discretionary approvals in at
least one zoning district in the City. Currently, the zoning ordinance allows for "rotating homeless
shelters" in the Quasi Public Building (BQ) zone. Rotating homeless shelters are permitted within
existing church structures in the BQ for up to 25 occupants. The operation pedod of rotating
shelters cannot exceed two months in anyone year span at a single location. However, Cupel1ino's
zoning ordinance does not permit or conditionally permit permanent homeless shelters in any zone.
To comply with state law, Program 25 of this Housing Element commits the City to amend its
zoning ordinance to allow emergency shelters by right in the BQ Quasi-Public zone.
6.5. Financial Resources for Housing
The City of Cupertino has access to a variety of existing and potential funding sources for
affordable housing activities. These include programs from federal, state, local, and private
resources.
Community Development Block Grant Program Funds
Through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to local governments for funding a wide
range of housing and community development activities for low-income persons.
Duling the 2007-2008 fiscal year, the City of Cupertino received $357,900 in CDBG funds. If the
City continues to receive similar allocations, Cupertino will have approximately $2.5 million in
CDBG funds dudng the 2007-2014 period. CDBG funds are used for site acquisition,
rehabilitation, first-time homebuyer assistance, development of emergency and transitional shelters
and fair housing/housing counseling activities. Additional activities in support of the new
construction of affordable housing include site clearance and the financing of related infrastructure
and public facility improvements.
Redevelopment Agency Set-Aside Funds
The Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (RDA) has one Redevelopment Project Area which
encompasses the Valko Fashion Park Shopping Center and the adjacent "Rose Bowl" site at
Valko Parkway and Wolfe Road. The RDA must set aside 25 percent of its annual tax increment
funds for the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation oflow- and moderate-income housing
5
within the Project Area and in other Cupertino neighborhoods. Five percent of the 25 percent set-
5
The California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) requires that 20 percent of the tax increment into a
90
2-114
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
aside must be reserved for extremely low-income housing. Once redevelopment activity begins
within the Vallco Project Area and tax increment funds begin flowing to the RDA, set-aside funds
will be available for affordable housing activities.
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (L1HTC)
Created by the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the LIHTC program has been used in combination with City
and other resources to encourage the construction and rehabilitation of rental housing for lower-
income households. The program allows investors an annual tax credit over a ten-year period,
provided that the housing meets the following minimum low-income occupancy requirements: 20%
of the units must be affordable to households at 50% of area median income (AMI) or 40% of the
units must be affordable to those at 60% of AMI. The total credit over the ten-year period has a
present value equal to 70% of the qualified construction and rehabilitation expenditure. The tax
credit is typically sold to large investors at a syndication value.
Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program
The M011gage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program was created by the federal government, but the
program is locally administered by the County of Santa Clara to assist frrst-time homebuyers in
qualifying for a mortgage. The IRS allows eligible homebuyers with an MCC to take 20% of their
annual mortgage interest as a dollar-for-dollar tax credit against their federal personal income tax.
This enables first-time homebuyers to qualify for a larger mortgage than otherwise possible, and
thus can bring home ownership within reach. In 1987, the County of Santa Clara established an
MCC Program that has assisted over 200 low and moderate-income first time homebuyers in
Cupertino to qualify for a mortgage. During the last Housing Element period, the MCC Program
three Cupertino low- and moderate-income residents.
Section 8 Assistance
The Section 8 program is a federal program that provides rental assistance to very-low income
persons in need of affordable housing. This program offers a voucher that pays the difference
between the CUlTent fair market rent and what a tenant can afford to pay (e.g. 30% of their income).
The voucher allows a tenant to choose housing that may cost above the payment standard but the
tenant must pay the extra cost.
Affordable Housing Fund
The City of Cupeltino has an Affordable Housing Fund that provides financial assistance to
affordable housing developments. As a second and third priority, the Affordable Housing Fund
can also be used to establish a down payment assistance plan or a rental subsidy program to make
market rate units more affordable. The Office and Industrial Mitigation fee, which is assessed on
housing fund. The Cupertino Valleo Redevelopment Project Five Year Implementation Plan, 2006-2010,
establishes the higher 25 percent requirement.
91
2-115
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
developers of office and industrial space for affordable housing, and the BMR in-lieu fees are
deposited into the Affordable Housing Fund.
92
2-116
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
7. Housing Plan
This section outlines the City of Cupertino's quantified objectives for new unit construction,
conservation, and rehabilitation during the 2007-2014 planning period. It then presents policies
and programs to meet these objectives and address local housing needs. The policies and programs
are grouped under the following major goals:
. Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for all Economic Segments
. Goal B: Housing that is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households
. Goal C: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods
. Goal D: Services for Special Needs Neighborhoods
. Goal E: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities
. ' Goal F: Coordination with Local School Districts
This section also identifies the responsible party and provides a time1ine for each implementation
program.
7.1. Quantified Objectives
The following table outlines the City's proposed housing production, rehabilitation, and
conservation objectives for the current Housing Element planning period. These objectives
correspond with the City's remaining 2007-2014 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
from ABAG.
Table 7.1: Quantified Objectives
Already New
Approved Construction Rehabilitation Preservation Total
Very Low 13 328 0 0 341
Low 8 221 0 0 229
Moderate 58 185 0 0 243
Above Moderate 437 0 0 0 357
Totals 516 734 0 0 1170
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009.
93
2-117
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
7.2. Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for All
Economic Segments
Policy 1: Sufficiently Residentially Zoned 'and for New Construction Need
Designate sufficient residentially-zoned land at appropriate densities to provide adequate sites that
will meet ABAG's estimate of Cupertino's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,170
units for 2007-2014.
Pro!!ram 1: Zonm!! and Land Use Desi!!nations. In order to accommodate the City's remaining
RHNA, some parcels of land will need a change in land use designation and/or zoning. The City
will change land use designations and zoning to permit residential development at appropriate
densities where needed.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
2009-2010
N/A
1,114
Bubb Road and Monta Vista Industrial Sites Rezoning. Rezone the identified residential
opportunity sites in the Bubb Road and Monta Vista areas to allow residential development
at 20/DUA. Ensure consistency between the general plan land use designations and the
zorung.
Increase Residential Densities in the Heart of the City and City Center Districts.
Consistent with the Draft Heart of the City Specific Plan, increase densities to 25 units per
gross acre in mixed use areas of the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area.
Homestead Road Rezoning. Rezone the three identified sites in Appendix F to
accommodate residential uses.
North and South Valko Rezonings. Adopt changes to the zoning code to pennit
residential use on the sites identified in Appendix F of this Housing Element. .
South DeAnza Boulevard Rezoning;s. Adopt changes to the zoning code to permit
residential uses identified in Appendix F of this Housing Element.
Nondesignated Areas Rezonings. Adopt changes to the zoning code to pennit residential
uses identified in Appendix F of this Housing Element.
94
2-118
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Proeram 2: Second Dwelline Unit Ordinance. The City shall continue to implement the Second
Dwelling Unit Ordinance and encourage the production of more second units on residential parcels.
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: N/ A
Quantified Objective: 25 second units, 2009-2014
7.3. Goal B: Housing is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino
Households
Policy 2: Housing Mitigation Plan
Assign priority to households who live or work in Cupel1ino for BMR units produced through the
plan or affordable housing units built with mitigation fees.
Proeram 3: Housine Mitieation Plan - Office and Industrial Mitieation. The City will
continue to implement the "Office and Industrial Mitigation" fee program. This program requires
that developers of office, commercial, and industrial space pay a fee, which will then be used to
support affordable housing for families who work in Cupertino but live elsewhere. These fees are
collected and deposited in the City's Affordable Housing Fund.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Ongoing
N/A
N/A
Proeram 4: Housine Mitieation Plan - Residential Mitieation
The City will continue to implement the "Housing Mitigation" program. This program applies to
all new residential development of one unit or greater. Mitigation includes either the payment of
an in-lieu fee or the provision of a Below Market Rate (BMR) unit or units. Projects of seven or
more units must provide on-site BMR units. Projects of six units or less can either build a unit or
pay an in-lieu fee. Implementation of the program shall include:
a) Priority. Priority for occupancy to households who reside, work, attend school or have
family in Cupertino;
b) Public Service. Additional priority for households with wage earners who provide
a public service; specifically, employees of the City, local school district and public safety
agencIes;
95
2-119
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
c) Rent Schedule. Utilize City's Affordable Rent Schedule as a guideline in setting rents for
new affordable housing;
d) Rent Adjustments. Update the rent schedule each year as new income guidelines are
received and determine a uniform method for allowing rent adjustments for affordable
housing;
e) Land for Affordable Housing. Allow developers to meet all or a portion of their BMR
requirement by making land available for the City or a nonprofit housing developer to
construct affordable housing;
t) BMR Term. Require BMR units to remain affordable for a minimum of99 years;
g) 15% BMR. Enforce the City's first right of refusal for BMR units, and require 15% BMR
units.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Ongoing
N/A
N/A
Prol!ram 5: Affordable Housinl! Fund
The City's Affordable Housing Fund provides financial assistance to affordable housing
developments. "Requests for Proposals" (RFPs) will be solicited from interested parties to develop
affordable units with housing funds. Affordable housing funds will be expended in the following
manner (ranked in order of priority):
a) Finance affordable housing projects in Cupertino.
b) Establish a down payment assistance plan that may be used in conjunction
with the BMR program or to make market rate units more affordable. The assistance
should be in the form of low interest loans and not grants.
c) Establish a rental subsidy program to make market rate units more affordable.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Ongoing
Housing Mitigation Plan Fees
N/A
96
2-120
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Policy 3: Range of Housing Types
Encourage the development of diverse housing stock that provides a range of housing types
(including smaller, moderate cost housing) and affordable levels. Emphasize the provision of
housing for lower and moderate income households and, also, households with wage
earners who provide services (e.g., school district employees, municipal and public safety
employees, etc.)
Pro!!ram 6: Mort!!a!!e Credit Certificate Pro!!ram
Participate in the countywide Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program. This program allocates
mortgage credit certificates to first-time homebuyers to purchase housing. Due to the high cost of
housing units in Cupertino, it is estimated that most of the County's MCC' will be used
in the City of San Jose, where there are more low cost housing units available for sale.
Responsihle Party:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Ohjective:
Santa Clara County Mortgage Credit Certificate Program
2009-2014
Santa Clara County Mortgage Credit Celtificate Program
1-2 households assisted annually
Pro!!ram 7: Move-In for Less Pro!!ram
The Tri-County Apartment Association is managing this program, which recognizes
the high cost of securing rental housing. The program is geared to classroom teachers
in public or private schools who meet income criteria. Apartment owners/managers who
agree to participate in the program require no more than 20% of the monthly rent as a security
deposit from qualified teachers.
Responsihle Party:
Time Frame:
Tri-County Apartment Association and City of Cupertino
2009-2014
Pro!!ram 8: Surplus Property for Housin!!
In conjunction with local public agencies, school districts and churches, the City will develop a list
of surplus property or underutilized property that have the potential for residential development,
compatible with surrounding densities. Additionally, long-term land leases of property from
churches, school districts corporations for construction of affordable units shall be encouraged.
Fmther, the feasibility of developing special housing for teachers or other employee groups on the
surplus properties will be evaluated. Teacher-assisted housing programs in neighboring districts,
such as Santa Clara United School district, will be reviewed for applicability in Cupertino.
Responsihle Party:
Time Frame:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
2009-2014
97
2-121
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Proe:ram 9: Jobs/Housine: Balance Proe:ram
Require major new office/industrial development to build housing as part of new development
projects. As part of the development review process, the City will evaluate the impact of any
application that will produce additional jobs in the community. The purpose of the evaluation is to
describe the impacts of the new jobs on the City's housing stock, especially in relation to the
jobs/housing ratio in the City.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
2009-1-24
Policy 4: Housing Rehabilitation
Pursue and/or provide funding for the construction or rehabilitation of housing that is affordable to
very low, low and moderate-income households. Actively support and assist non-profit
and for profit developers in producing affordable units.
Proe:ram 10: Affordable Housine: Information and Support.
The City will provide information, resources and support to developers who can
produce affordable housing. Information will be updated on a regular basis in regard to
available funding sources and be distributed to all interested developers. In addition,
information regarding additional City incentives such as the Density Bonus Program (see
program #11) will also be provided and updated on a regular basis. Further, the City
will involve the public from the beginning of an affordable housing application so that
there are fewer objections to the project as it goes though the City approval process
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
2009-2014
Policy 5: Development of Affordable Housing
Maintain and/or adopt appropriate land use regulations and other development tools to encourage
the development of affordable housing. Make every reasonable effort to disperse units throughout
the community but not at the expense of undermining the fundamental goal of providing affordable
units.
Proe:ram 11: Density Bonus Proe:ram.
The City's Density Bonus Program provides for a density bonus and additional concessions for
development of 6 or more units that provide affordable housing for families and seniors. Included
in the concessions are reduced parking standards, reduced open space requirements, reduced
setback requirements, and approval of mixed use zoning. The City will change the Ordinance
definition of affordable unit to housing costs affordable at 30% of household income for very low
and low income households.
Responsible Party:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Deprotment
98
2-122
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Time Frame:
Ongoing
Pro!!ram 12: Re!!ulatorv Incentives for Affordable Housin!!
The City will continue to waive park dedication and construction tax fees for all affordable units.
Parking standards will also be discounted for affordable developments. For mixed-use and higher
density residential developments, the Planning Commission or City Council may approve
deviations from the Parking Regulation Ordinance of the Cupertino Municipal Code, if the
applicant can provide a study supporting the deviation. Further, the City will continue to efficiently
process all development applications.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
2009-2014
Pro!!ram 13: Residential and Mixed Use Opportunities in or Near Emplovment Centers
The City will encourage mixed use development and the use of shared parking facilities in or near
employment centers. In addition to the development opportunities available through the "Heart of
the City" Specific Plan, the City will evaluate the possibility of allowing residential development
above existing parking areas except where mixed use is herein excluded. In specific, these
areas would be near or adjacent to employment centers and could provide additional oppOliunities
for housing.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
2009-2014
Policy 6: Tax-Increment Funds
Continue to use a minimum of 25% of tax increment funds generated from the Redevelopment
Project Area for housing activities that create affordable housing for lower and moderate income
households. Set aside 5% of the 25% for extremely low income housing.
Pro!!ram 14: Redevelopment Housin!! Set Aside Fund
The City has established a Redevelopment Project Area, from which tax increment funds are
collected. A minimum of25% of tax increment funds will be directed to low and moderate-income
households, 5% of which are directed to extremely-low income households. The Redevelopment
Agency will develop policies and objectives for the use of those funds. All policies and objectives
shall be developed to reflect the goals and objectives of the Housing Element.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Ongoing
Redevelopment tax Increment Funds
99
2-123
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Policy 7: Housing Densities
Provide a full range of ownership and rental housing unit densities, including apaliments and other
high-density housing.
Prog:ram 15: Flexible Residential Standards
Allow flexible residential development standards in planned residential zoning districts,
such as smaller lot sizes, lot widths, floor area ratios and setbacks, particularly for higher density
and attached housing developments.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Ongoing
Prog:ram 16: Residential Development Exceeding: Maximums
Allow residential developments to exceed planned density maximums if they provide special needs
housing and the increase in density will not overburden neighborhood streets or hUli neighborhood
character.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Depaliment
Ongoing
7.4. Goal C: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods
Policy 8: Maintenance and Repair
Assist very low and low-income homeowners and rental property owners in maintaining and
repairing their housing units.
Prog:ram 17: Apartment ACQuisition and Rehabilitation
This program provides financial assistance to eligible very low and low-income homeowners to
rehabilitate their housing units.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
City of Cupeliino
Ongoing
Affordable Housing Fund and CDBG funds
3-5 Units Annually
Policy 9: Conservation of Housing Stock
Conserve the existing stock of owner and rental housing units, which provide affordable housing
opportunities for lower and moderate income households.
100
2-124
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Proeram 18: Preservation of "At Risk Units"
The lone project with affordability restrictions which will expire within the 10 year period
following adoption of this element is the Le Beaulieu project with affordability restrictions expiring
in September 2015. Cupertino Community Housing originally developed Le Beaulieu in 1984 and
utilized project based Section 8 vouchers. Although not within the current Housing Element
planning period, the City will monitor the development and will initiate contact with the owner as
needed and to ensure that these units remain affordable.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
2009-2014
Proeram 19: Condominium Conversions.
The City's existing Condominium Conversion Ordinance regulates the conversion of rental units in
multi-family housing development in order to preserve the rental housing stock. Condominium
conversions are not allowed if the rental vacancy rate in Cupertino is less than 5% at the time of the
application for conversion and has averaged 5% over the past six months.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Ongoing
Proeram 20: Rental Housine Preservation Proeram
The City's existing multi-family rental units provide housing opportunities for households of
varied income levels. The City will develop and adopt a program that includes the following
guidelines:
When a proposed development or redevelopment of a site would cause a loss of
multi -family rental housing, the City will grant approval only if at least two of the following
three circumstances exist:
. The project will comply with the City's BMR Program based on the actual number of new
units constructed, not the net number of units, and/or
. The number of rental units to be provided on the site is at least equal to the number of
existing rental units, and/or
. No less than 20% of the units will comply with the City's BMR Program. Fmiher, the
preservation program will include a requirement for a tenant relocation plan with
provisions for relocation of tenants on site as much as possible.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Depaliment
Ongoing
101
2-125
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Proeram 21: Conservation and Maintenance of Mfordable Housine.
Develop a program to encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of residential structures to
preserve the older, more affordable housing stock.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
2009-2014
Proeram 22: Neiehborhood and Community Clean Up Campaiens
Continue to encourage and sponsor neighborhood and community clean up campaigns for both
public and private properties.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Ongoing
Policy 10: Energy Conservation
Encourage energy conservation in all existing and new residential development.
Proeram 23: Enerey Conservation Opportunities
The City will continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation and will evaluate
utilizing some of the other suggestions as identified in the Environmental Resources/Sustainability
element.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
City of Cupeliino, Community Development Department
2009-2014
Proeram 24: Fee Waivers or Reduction for Enerey Conservation
The City will evaluate and implement the potential to provide incentives, such as waiving or
reducing fees, for energy conservation improvements to residential units (existing or new).
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Depaliment
Ongoing
7.5. Goal 0: Services for Special Needs Households
Policy 11: Special Needs Households
Support organizations that provide services to special need households in the City, such as the
homeless, elderly, disabled and single parent households.
Proeram 25: Emereency Shelters.
The City will continue to suppOli the rotating emergency shelter operated by West Valley
Community Services. In order to comply with SB 2 and to facilitate any future emergency shelter
102
2-126
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
needs, the City will revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow permanent emergency shelter facilities in
"BQ" Quasi-Public zoning districts.
Responsible Party: Cupertino City Council
Time Frame: 2009-2010. Revise Zoning Ordinance to allow permanent emergency
shelters in BQ zoning districts.
Funding Source: N/ A
Quantified Objective: N/ A
Prol!ram 26: Rotatinl! Homeless Shelter
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Quantified Objective:
West Valley Community Services
Ongoing
CDBG and McKinney Act Funding
N/A
PrOl!ram 27: Catholic Social Services (Sinl!le Parents)
Catholic Social Services provides help to place single parents in shared housing situations.
The program in funded with Santa Clara County Urban County funds.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Catholic Social Services
Ongoing
County of Santa Clara Urban County Funds
7.6. Goal E: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities
Policy 12: Housing Discrimination
The City will work to eliminate on a citywide basis all unlawful discrimination in housing with
respect to age, race, sex, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic background, medical
condition, or other arbitrary factors, so that all persons can obtain decent housing.
Prol!ram 28: Santa Clara County Fair Housinl! Consortium
The Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium includes the Asian Law Alliance, Mid-Peninsula
Citizens for Fair Housing, Project Sentinel and the Mental Health Advocates Program. These
organizations provide resources for Cupertino residents with tenant/landlord rental mediation,
housing discrimination and fair housing concems.
Responsible Party:
Time Frame:
Funding Source:
Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium
Ongoing
County of Santa Clara Urban County Funds
103
2-127
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
7.7. Goal F: Coordination with Local School Districts
Policy 13: Coordination with Local School Districts
The Cupertino community places a high value on the excellent quality of education provided by the
two public school districts which serve the city. In order to ensure the long-term sustainability of
the schools in tandem with the preservation and development of vibrant residential areas, the City
will institute a new policy of coordinating closely with the Cupertino Union School District
(CUSD) and Fremont Union High School Distdct (FUHSD)
Proe:ram 29: Coordination with Local School Districts
Form a new committee of key staff from the City and the school districts to meet on a bi-monthly
basis or as needed to review City planning initiatives, development proposals and School capital
facilities and operating plans. Prepare annual reports with key recommendations from this
committee to the School District Boards and the City Planning Commission and City Council.
Time Frame:
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Staff and
Staff from CUSD and FUHSD
2009-2014
Responsible Party:
104
2-128
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
8. Analysis of Consistency with
General Plan
The City's various General Plan components were reviewed to evaluate their consistency with the
policies and programs outlined in the Housing Element Update. The following section summarizes
the goals of each General Plan element and identifies supporting Housing Element policies and
programs. This analysis demonstrates that the policies and programs of this Housing Element
provide consistency with the policies set forth in the General Plan and its associated elements.
8.1. Land Use/Community Design
Goals
. A cohesive, connected community with a distinctive center and an identifiable edge
. A compact community boundary that allows efficient delivery of municipal services
. A high sense of identity and connectivity
. Thriving, balanced community
. Thriving and diverse businesses that bring economic vitality to the community, while
balancing housing, traffic and community character impacts
. Hillside protection
. Protection of historically and archaeologically significant structures, sites and artifacts
. A civic environment where the arts express an innovative spirit, celebrate a rich cultural
diversity and inspire individual and community participation
. A full range of park and recreational resources, for linking the community, outdoor
recreation, preservation of natural resources and public health and safety
8.2. Circulation
Goals
. Regional transportation planning decisions that support and complement the needs of
Cupe11ino
. Increased use of public transit, carpools, bicycling, walking and telecommuting
. A comprehensive network of pedestrian and bicycle routes and facilities
. Increased use of existing public transit service and the development of new rapid transit
105
2-129
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
servIce
. Roadway design that accounts for the needs of motorists, pedestrians, bicycles and
adjacent land use
. A transportation system that has minimal adverse impact on residential neighborhoods
8.3. Environmental Resources/Sustainability
Goals
. A sustainable future for the City of Cupertino
. Reduced use of non-renewable energy resources
. Energy conserving and efficient buildings
. Healthy air quality levels for the citizens of Cupertino utilizing local planning efforts
. Protection of special areas of natural vegetation and wildlife habitation as integral parts of
the sustainable environment
. Mineral resource areas that minimize community impacts and identify future uses
. Protection and efficient use of water resources
. Improved quality of storm water runoff
. A solid waste stream reduction program that meets or exceeds state requirements
. Adequate sewer capacity
8.4. Health and Safety
Goals
. Reduced risks associated with geologic and seismic hazards
. Efficient and effective fire and emergency services to protect the community from hazards
associated with wild and urban fires
. Fire preventive measures that minimize the loss oflife and property
106
2-130
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
. An all weather emergency road system to serve the rural areas
. Available water service in the hillside and canyon areas
. High quality police services that maintain the community's crime rate low and ensure a
high level of public safety
. Protection from the risks associated with hazardous materials and exposure to
electromagnetic fields
. A high level of emergency preparedness to cope with both natural or human-caused
disasters
. Protection from risks associated with floods
. A compatible noise environment for existing and future land uses
. Reduced noise impact of major streets and fi-eeways on Cupertino residents
. Residential areas protected as much as possible from intrusive non-traffic noise
. Buildings designed to minimize noise
107
2-131
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
9. Appendix A: Review of Previous
Housing Element
108
2-132
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT41712009
Table A.l: Achievements of Previous Housing Element
leti"F.I"'_'~RIiTJIilI=-""I!I""_,,iKlD!nil'ililmmTi1lL..I'i'I'E'II."""II""'"I_'''''HI''"''''
Policy 3.1: Sufficient residentially zoned land for new construction
Program 1: Housing by planning dlsrlct. Encourage residential development at a density of 15-35+ units per acre.
Manta Vista - -142 units
Neighborhood Other Areas. 400 units
Vallce Park South - 711 units
Heart of the City. 332 units
Homestead Road. 300 units
Commercial Other Areas - 300 units
City Center - 437 units
NorU1 De Anza -146 units
VaUco Park North - 300 units
Bubb Road - 94 units
Employment Other Areas - 100 units
Total- 3,262 units
Program 2: Land use designations. Change land use designation or zoning to reflect density ranges in Program 1.
Program 3: Residential potential outside of planning districts. Include existing inventory of residentially zoned
parcels with residential potential that are outside of the planning districts in addressing RHNA.
Program 4: Second dwelling unit ordinance. Assure that Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance encourages production of
more second units on residential parcels.
ICfi101.:.:I'II""II..IiF.1~ili1JiF.1i1r=-li'T1RIIilNiR:fl".i}.WfJTiTi]ifIil'iWitiTTaiJi1i1Ti....
Policy 3~2: Housing Mitigation Plan
Program 5: Office and Industrial Mitigation. Continue to implement "office and Industrial mitigation" fee; deposit fees
into Affordable Housing Fund. Conduct updated "nexus study."
Program 6: Residential Mitigation. Continue to implement "Housing Mitigation" program. Require payment of In-lieu
fee or provision of BMR units. Provide:
159 Very Low Income Units
159 Low Income Units
53 Median Income Units
53 Moderate Income Units
Program 7: Affordable Housing Fund. Rnance affordable housing projects, establish a down payment assistance
program, and establish a rental subsidy program. Provide:
40 Very Low Income Units
40 Low Income Units
109
2-133
57 units
200 units
311 units
116 units
o units
o units
337 units
49 units
o units
o units
o units
1,070 units permitted (a)
Complete. The City Council adopted zonIng amendments to
reflect zoning designations above.
The City continues to include residential potential outside
planning districts to address its RHNA.
The City continues to encourage the production of second
dwelling units.
Complete. An updated nexus study was completed and the
City Council adopted fees in June 2007.
The City continues to implement the Housing Mitigation
Program by col1ectomg in~lieu fees or requiring developers to
provide units.
25 very low~income units were built through this program.
2 low~income units were built through this program.
No median-income units built.
No moderate-incorne units built.
The Affordable Housing Fund contributed funding to the 24-unit
Vista Village affordable rental project.
The Affordable Housing Fund was used to purchase surplus
property from Cal Trans on Cleo Ave. for affordable housing.
The City has not established a downpayment assistance
program.
The City has not established a rental subsidy program.
Policy 3-3: Range of Housing Types
Program 8: Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. Participate in countywide Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC)
Program. Assist 1-2 households annually.
Program 9: Move-in for Less Program. Tri..county Apartment Association program. Classroom teachers who meet
income criteria pay no more than 20% of monthly rent as security deposit at participating apartments.
Program 10: Surplus Property for Housing. Develop a list of surplus or underutilJzed property that have the potential
for residential development Evaluate the feasibility of developing special housing for teachers or other employee
groups on surplus properties
Program 11: Jobs/Housing Balance Program. Evaluate the feasibility of policy/program that ties new job production
to housing production. Require major new office!industrial development to build housing as part of new development
projects. Reduce jobslhousing ratio from 2.4 jobs to every household.
Policy 3-4: Housing Rehabilitation
Program 12: Affordable Housing Information and Support. City will provide information, resources and support to
developers who can produce affordable housing
Policy 3.5: Development of Affordable Housing
Program 13: Density Bonus Program. Continue to implement density bonus program. Change the ordinance
definition of affordable unit to housing costs affordable at 30% of household income for very low and low income
households.
Program 14: Regulatory Incentfves. Continue to waive park dedication and construction tax fees for affordable units.
Parking standards will be discounted for affordable developments.
Program 15: Residential and Mixed Use Opportunities In or Near Employment Centers. Encourage mixed use
development and use of shared parking facilities in or near employment centers. Evaluate the possibility of allowing
residentIal development above existing parking areas except where mixed use Is herein excluded.
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
The City issued 3 Mortgage Credit Certificates.
The City continues to participate in the Move-in for less
Program.
None available.
The job-housing nexus study has not been completed. The
City has not yet adopted housing production requirements for
new officelindustrial development
The City continues to provide information and support to
affordable housing developers.
The City continues to implement the density bonus program.
The City Council amended the density bonus ordinance
definition of affordable housing.
The City contInues to provide regulatory incentives for
affordable housing developers.
The City has not yet considered permitting residential
development above parking in employment centers.
Polley 3-6: Tax Increment Funds
Program 16: Redevelopment Housing Set Aside Fund. Minimum of 25% of tax increment funds for low and
moderate income households, S% of which directed to extremely low income households. Develop policies and
objectives for use of those funds.
Polley 3-7: Housing DensIties
Program 17: Flexible Residential Standards. Allow flexible standards such as smaller lot sizes. lot widths, FARs and Ongoing. The City continues to allow flexible residential
setbacks. particularty for higher density and attached housing. standards.
The City sets aside 25% of tax increment funds for affordable
housing.
Program 18: Residential Development Exceeding Maximums. Allow residential developments to exceed planned Ongoing.
density maximums if they provide special needs housing.
110
2-134
IC'Ii'F.1...:::rn.r.lllllu..::lD!nimilRil.I!P.IIi'Inili'liliTiTiTi...
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
Policy 3-8: Maintenance and Repair
Program 19: Housing Rehabilitation. Provide financial assistance to eligibile very low and low-income homeowners This program has been eliminated. The City now supports
to rehab units. Rebuilding Together, a program Ulat provides volunteer based
rehabilitation assistance to qualified homeowners.
Program 20: Home Acce.s Program. Provide assistance with minor home repairs and accessibility improvements for This program has been eliminated.
low-income, disabled households.
Program 21: Weatherization Program. Assist very low-income homeowners with weatherization improvements. This program has been eliminated.
Program 22: Apartment Acquisition and Rehabilitation. HOMElCDBG funds available on competitive basis to The City continues to make HOMElCDBG funds available to
developers to acquire and rehab rental units for very low and low income households developers to acquire and rehab rental units for very low- and
Policy 3-9: Conservation of Housing Stock
Program 23: Preservation of "At Risk Units." Preserve SunnyviewWest development (only at-risk building).
Program 24: Condominium Conversions. No condo conversions if rental vacancy rate is less than 5% at the time of
application and has been less than 5% over the past six months.
Program 25: Rental Housing Preservation Program. Proposed developments that will cause a loss of multi-family
rental housing will be approved only if at least two of the following exist ('> Comply with BMR program based on actual
number of new units constructed, not net number of units (2) Number of rental units provided is at least equal to Ule
number of existing rental units (3) No less than 20% of the units will comply with the BMR program. Include a tenant
relocation plan with relocation on site as much as possible.
Program 26: Conservation and Maintenance of Affordable Housing. Develop a program to encourage the
maintenance and rehabilitation of residential structures to preserve the older, more affordable stock.
Program 27: Neighborhood and Community Cleanup Campaigns. Continue to encourage and sponsor
neighborhood and community cleanup campaigns for public and private properties.
Policy 3.10: Energy Conservation
Program 28: Energy Conservation Opportunities. Enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation and
evaluate utilization of new altematives.
Program 29: Fee Waivers or Reduction for Energy Conservation. Evaluate and implement potential to provide
incentives, such as fee wafvlng or reducing fees, tor energy conservation improvements to new or existing residential
units.
111
2-135
The Sunnyview development has been preserved. The owner
has no intention of converting the project to market-rate
housing.
The City continues to enforce restrictions on condominium
conversions.
Ongoing. Developers are requested to provide 20% BMR units
plus relocation plan.
The City has not yet developed a conservation and
maintennace program for affordable housing.
The City continues to sponosr neighborhood cleanup
campaigns.
The City enforces Title 24 requirements as part of its
Sustalnabillty Program.
Under auspices of sustainability program
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT41712009
IC1iJiI.._,......,..........I.I......,......,.-.nnr.9~iTi1I'iL
Policy 3-11: Special Needs Households
Program 30: Cupertino Community Services (Homeless Services). Revise the zoning ordinance to allow permanent The City Council has not yet amended the zoning ordinance to
emergy shelter facilities in the BQ quasi-public zones and promote and encourage the location of pennanent shelters in allow pennanent emergency shelters in the SO zone.
the BQ zones. Provide transItional housing for 12-24 households annually.
Program 31: Project MATCH (Senior Shared Housing). Place seniors in housing arrangements with other persons Project MATCH no longer exists.
interested in shared housing. Place 5-10 households annually.
Program 32: Catholic Social Services (Single Parents). Catholic Social Services provides help to place single Catholic Social Services continues to assist single-parents find
parents in shared housing situations. shared-housing opportunities.
1~.::III~..I...u...,....,.....,.....'....II!l.~.I.UmiT1ll....
Policy 3.12: Housing Discrimination
Program 33: Santa Clara County Fair Housing Constortlum. Constortlum provides resources for residents with
tenantllandlord mediation, housing discrimination, and fair housing concerns.
The Fair Housing Consortium continues to provide housing
resources for Cupertino residents.
The City contracts with Project Sentinel to provide
tenant/landlord rental mediation. Project Sentinel serves
approximately 200 residents annually.
Notes:
(a) The total units permmitted between 2001 and 2006 differs from the total housing
units produced during the previous RHNA period, which ran from 1 ggg to 2006.
Sources: CIty of Cupertino, 2008; BAE, 2008
112
2-136
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
10.Appendix B: List of Organizations
Contacted
Housing and Service Providers
Project Sentinel
Sunnyview West Senior Housing
West Valley Community Services
Tonya Clarke
Case Manager
Developers
BRIDGE Housing
Tom Earley
Director of Development
Hunter Properties
Deke Hunter
President
113
2-137
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
11.Appendix C'
Windshield
Survey
Windshield Survey Instrument
Address:
Vacancv:
Mixed Use Bldg?
For Sale:
Yes / No
Yes
No
Partial (for multi family)
Yes
No
Construction Tvoe:
Structure Tvoe:
Wood Frame
Masonry
Mobile
Modular
Other.
Frontaae Improvements if Aoplicable:
Curbs
Paved Street
Gutters
Single Family w/ Detached Garage
Single Family w/ Attached Garage
Duplex
Multi Family # Units:
Other:
Sidewalks
Driveway
Adequate Site Drainage
Buildina Conditions:
# 1 - Foundation:
o
10
15
25
# 2 - Roofing:
o
5
5
10
25
Existing foundation in good condition
Repairs needed
Needs a partial foundation
No foundation or needs a complete foundatio
# 3 - Siding/Stucco:
o
1
2
10
Does not need repair
Needs re-painting
Needs to be patched and re-painted
Needs replacement and painting
Does not need repair
Shingles missing
Chimney needs repair
Needs re-roofing
Roof structure needs replacement and re-roofing
# 4 - Windows:
o
1
5
10
Does not need repair
Broken window panes
In need of repair
In need of replacement
Points based on criteria above:
Structural Scoring Criteria:
# 1 - Foundation
# 2 - Roofing
# 3 - Siding/Stucco:
# 4 - Windows:
TOTAL
Sound:
Minor:
Moderate:
Substantial:
Dilapidated:
7 or less
8 -12
13 - 30
31 - 43
44 and over
SOUND - A unit that appears new or well maintained and structurally intact. The foundation should appear
structurally undamaged and there should be straight roof lines. Siding, windows, and doors should be in good
repair with good exterior paint condition. Minor problems such as small areas of peeling paint, and/or other
maintenance items are allowable under this category.
MINOR - A unit that shows signs of deferred maintenance, or which needs only one major component
such as a roof.
MODERATE - A unit in need of replacement of one or more major components and other repairs, such as
roof replacement, painting, and window repairs
SUBSTANTIAL - A unit that requires replacement of several major systems and possibly other repairs (e.g.
complete foundation work, roof structure replacement and re-roofing, as well as painting and window replacement.
DILAPIDATED - A unit suffering from excessive neglect, where the building appears structurally unsound
and maintenance is non-existent, not fit for human habitation in its current condition, may be considered
for demolition or at minimum, major rehabilitation will be required.
114
2-138
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
12.Appendix D. Maximum Affordable
Sales Price Calculations
115
2-139
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT41712009
Table 0.1: Maximum Affordable Sales Price Calculator
Household Sale
IncomeCa) ~
Extremely Low Income (30% AMI)
4 Person HH $31,850 $131,485
Very low Income (50% AMI)
-4 Person HH $53,050 $219,005
Low Income (80% AMI)
4 Person HH $84,900 $350,490
Median Income (i00% AMI)
4 Person HH $97,800 $403,745
Moderate (120% AMI)
4 Person HH $117,400 $484,859
Monthly
Down Total Monthly Property Mortgage
Payment (b) Mortgage (b) ~ ~ Insurance Cd)
Total
Homeowner's Monthly
Insurance eel ~
$28,297 $105,188 $671.79 $120.53 $0.00 $3.93 $796.25
$43,801 $175,204 $1,118.95 $200.75 $0.00 $6.54 $1,326.25
$70,098 $280,392 $1,790.75 $321.28 $0.00 $10.47 $2,122.50
$80,749 $322,996 $2,062.84 $370.10 $0.00 $12.06 $2,445.00
$96,932 $387.727 $2,476.25 $444.27 $0.00 $14,48 $2,935.00
Notes:
(a) Published by California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and HUD.
(b) Mortgage tanns:
Annuallnlerest Rate (Fixed)
Term of mortgage (Years)
Percent of sale price as down payment
(e) Initial property tax (annual)
(d) Mortgage Insurance as percent of loan amount
(e) Annual homeowner's insurance rate as percent of sale price
(f) PlTl = Principal, Interest. Taxes, and Insurance
Percent of household income available for PITI
Income limits for Santa Clara County
6.60% Freddie Mac historical monthly Primary Mortgage Market Survey data tables. Ten-year average.
30
20.0%
1.10%
0.00% Assumes 20% down payment
0.04% CA Dept. of Insurance websile, based on average of all quotes. assuming $150K covergae
Sources: CA HCD 2008; Freddie Mac 2008; CA Department of Insurance. 2008; BAE 2008.
30.0%
116
2-140
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
13.Appendix E: Summary of City
Zoning Standards
Table E.1: Summary of City Zoning Standards
Zone District
A
A-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
RHS
R-1C
Bldg. Ht.
(ft)
18-28
20-28
28
15-30
30
30
30
Min. Lot
Width
(ft.)
50-60
200
60
60-70
70
70
N/A
Minimum Yard Setback
Front Side Rear
30 20 25
30 20 20-25
20-25 10-15 20-40
20 6-12 10-20
20 6-18 20
20-25 10-15 25
N/A N/A N/A
Min. Lot
Area (sq. ft.)
215,000
43,000-215,000
5,000-20,000
8500-15,000
9,300
20,000-400,000
N/A
Site
Coverage
NA
40%
45%
40%
40%
45%
N/A
Minimum
Parking
per DU
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
Sources: Cupertino Municipal Code, 2009; BAE, 2009.
117
2-141
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT4/7/2009
14.Appendix F: Residential Site
Inventory
118
2-142
Exhibit E
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre A venue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. APRIL 14,2009 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of April 14,2009, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre A venue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson
Lisa Giefer.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLLCALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Lisa Giefer
Paul Brophy
Winnie Lee
Marty Miller
David Kaneda
Commissioner absent:
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Planning Intern:
City Attorney:
Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao
Vera GiI
George Schroeder
Carol Korade
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the March 24,2009 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Miller, to approve the
March 24, 2009 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented.
(Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Kaneda absent)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Giefer noted receipt of items regarding Item No. I.
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. U-2009-02,
ASA-2009-02
Muthana Ibrahim
(Atam Sandhu)
1699 So. DeAnza Blvd.
Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval for
the construction of a new automated car wash tunnel,
a new trash enclosure, enhancements to the parking lot,
and new landscaping features at an existing gas station.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
2-143
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
April 14, 2009
George Schroeder, Planning Intern, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for a use permit and architectural and site approval for construction
of a new 846 foot automated car wash tunnel at an existing gas station, a new trash enclosure,
landscaping enhancements to the site and sidewalk and driveway improvements at the
intersection along Prospect road, as outlined in the staff report.
. He reviewed the proposed site plan. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the safety hazards
caused by the two driveways nearest the intersection by closing the self-driveway on DeAnza
and modifying the east right driveway on Prospect to ingress-only. The proposed location of
the car wash is ideal for queuing and will not create any traffic hazards. Vehicles will enter
the car wash from DeAnza Boulevard and will exit onto Prospect Road. The applicant
proposes to improve the landscaping along Prospect Road, providing a landscape parkway and
attached sidewalk consistent with the Sunnyvale-Saratoga Conceptual Zoning Plan. The
applicant is also proposing to extend existing planters on site and plant several trees as well as
new shrubs and groundcover; and to add decorative trellises with vines to all sides of the
tunnel to reduce building mass. He reviewed the parking requirements; the project proposes
six parking spaces.
. A noise study recommended a 9 foot high sound wall and a noise reducing drying fan be
implemented in order to comply with the Cupertino noise ordinance. Staff requests that the
Planning Commission add a condition for the Planning Department to approve the final design
of the sound wall prior to the issuance of building permits.
. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the use permit and architectural and site
review in accordance with the conditions in the model resolution.
Applicant, 2960 Camino Diablo, Walnut Creek:
. Said they worked hard with the Planning Dept. to reach the current layout of the site plan and a
design of this project and agree with conditions set forth. No questions were asked of the
applicant.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Ting Kao, Cupertino resident:
. Resides directly behind the current Keiko Sushi restaurant and said the main concern was
potential noise problems in the evening. Asked that the Planning Commission and City
Council consider limiting the hours of operation of the car wash so they would not be exposed
to loud music from car radios and they could leave their house windows open at night without
negative noise impacts.
. Said that based on the guidelines, there should be a concrete wall separating the residential
area from the business area, to mitigate the noise problem; and the wall does not exist.
. Opposed to the application.
Philip La Barbera, Owner of Liquor Store next to Service Station:
. Expressed concern about potential traffic jams. He said he had no objections to the operation
of the car wash if the traffic jams were addressed and minimized.
Upi Rekhi, Owner of Liquor Store next to lot:
. Said he was concerned about the driveway being blocked as the Fire Department needed
access. He suggested that the Fire Department be consulted before approval of application, as
there was a previous incident where access was blocked during an incident.
2-144
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
April 14,2009
Pat Kennedy, Cupertino resident:
· Opposed to the application because of noise from the car wash, which is about 100 yards from
his home. He questioned the need for another car wash in Cupertino since there were four in
Cupertino and two at Westgate.
Patricia Wandry, Prospect Road:
. Questioned the need for another car wash in Cupertino.
. Concerned about traffic congestion; and the effect it will have on the entrance and exit to the
Coach House Center which already gets congested. People use the area in the back of the gas
station as a way to get into the center; the only other option is entering by the restaurant in the
back or from Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road.
. Concerned about safety for the customers of the smog business. Previously it had two bays,
with room for the customers to sit inside on chairs; recently they have only one bay and
customers are sitting on folding chairs in the parking lot, where the new ingress-only entrance
is, and where the other cars are going to be exiting.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing, and summarized issues for staff review.
. The hours of operation for the car wash.
. Review of the proposal by the Fire Department to determine if they have full access.
George Schroeder:
. Responded that the applicant proposed to have the car wash opened from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.,
7 days a week.
. Convenience store hours are 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., 7 days a week; service bay is open 9 a.m. to
6 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
. The Fire Department has reviewed the plan for full access and don't anticipate any problems.
Gary Chao, City Planner:
. Said the Prospect driveway is not being touched; it currently exists as a two-way in/out
driveway and will be maintained as a two-way in/out. The one previously discussed is the one
closest to the intersection, and will be reduced to an in-only because of traffic issues or hazards
related to the current situation. With the enhancements to that driveway and also the enclosure
of driveway along DeAnza, closest to the intersection, Public Works feels that it will be an
enhancement to the overall circulation at least around the peripheral of the project site.
. Said that Public Works is concerned that the cars do not get backed up into the street and is
comfortable with the proposed layout along the northerly property line where five cars could
queue up.
. There was a brief discussion about noise impacts, Gary Chao said that the sound wall is
primarily to protect the office complex next to it, because of its close proximity to the car
wash.
Applicant:
. Said the source of noise from the car wash is toward the exit, not the entrance, where there is
nothing to make noise. The sound study determined that the sound decibel would be below the
city ordinance at 55 north of the entrance which is why they don't need a wall at the north
property line to protect the shopping center. Prospect is noisy enough that a wall is not needed
to reduce the decibel on the street.
2-145
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
April 14, 2009
Com Brophy:
. Said that the issues of the public concern have been addressed by the applicant; staff has done
a good job of identifying them and resolving them with the various departments.
. Supports the ordinance as drafted.
Com. Lee:
. Concurred with Com. Brophy's comments.
Com. Miller:
. Said he concurred with Com. Brophy's comments. There is adequate alternatives should this
become an issue later on resulting in complaints. There are some choices to be made to
improve the situation.
Chair Giefer:
. Concurred with the suggestion about hours of operation, No.3 on use permit; that the facility
should not operate between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. She suggested that the hours of operation for
the car wash be specifically stated, since many people are concerned there may be an increase
in noise from the site.
Gary Chao:
. Staff suggested that the Planning Commission add a condition that requires that the [mal
design of the sound wall be reviewed prior to the issuance of the building permit.
. Suggested that the hours of operation for the service bay be limited from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and
the convenience store limited to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Hours of the car wash are 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Lee, to approve Application U-2009-02,
ASA-2009-02 as drafted by staff with following modifications: No.3, hours of
operation; hours be listed as drafted in staff report rather than language
currently used, and language be added that the 9 foot sound wall design be
reviewed by staff, and approved prior to the issuance of the building permit.
(Vote: 3-0-1, Com. Kaneda absent)
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Brophy, to revise the agenda order and
discuss Item 3. (Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Kaneda absent)
3. ASA-2009-03
Barre Barnes
(Pasricha
residence)
10450 Serra St.
Appellant: Leigh and Tim Stevens
Appeal of a Design Review Committee decision approving an
architectural and site review for a new 5,202 square foot, two-story
new residence in the Oak Valley Planned Development. Planning
Commission decision final unless appealed.
George Schroeder presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the appeal of the DRC's decision of Architectural and Site Approval of a new 5,202
square foot, two-story, single-family residence, located at 10450 Serra Street, as outlined in the
staff report.
. Leigh and Tim Stevens, the appellants reside south of the project site and feel that the project
will change the neighborhood character; the current location has potential safety and welfare
concerns; and that the current location of the house will potentially decrease property values.
. The applicants feel that rotating the house will help alleviate the concerns. They are not
2-146
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
April 14, 2009
requesting changes to the design or size of the house. The applicant is not required to rotate
the house since the current situation is within the prescribed setbacks and other developmental
regulations. The applicant's home is within the required development parameters set forth by
the Oak Valley Planned Residential District and is consistent with the mass and bulk of other
homes in the area. Staff is not aware of any health, safety or welfare concerns with the current
site of the house; the city geologist reviewed the project and his recommendations were added
to the conditions of the original DRC approval. The applicant still has to submit detailed soil
reports and structural calculations during the building permit phase. Staff is not aware of any
factors associated with the property values as far as decreasing them.
. The Planning Commission may consider the options; uphold. the appeal, uphold the appeal
with modifications, or deny the appeal and uphold the DRC's decision.
. He explained that the application was sent to the DRC because it is in the Oak Valley Planned
Development District, and the use permit that applies to that site states that all new houses
have to go through the DRC.
. Explained that the homeowners association no longer exists, and as stated in the CC&Rs, the
procedure after the homes are built is that it defaults to the city as the authority for reviewing
any new proposals or any modifications. That is why it is being reviewed by the DRC and
before the Planning Commission.
Tim Stevens, Appellant, presented rationale for his opposition to the application.
. Said they appealed the DRC decision because of threat to health and safety, and property
values; the major issue being that the proposed project will change the character of the
neighborhood. Homes in Oak Valley have been master planned to have a certain consistency;
one that complements the size, shape, harmony and balance of the underlying properties. The
current house is not centrally placed on the lot; it is pushed over to one side, with setbacks of
35 feet on one side and 96 on the other side. The house is squared to the cuI de sac as opposed
to shaped around the cuI de sac. They feel the project does not conform to the Rl ordinance
for this respect.
. Said he felt the solution was to move the house to angle it to complement the curve of the cuI
de sac. They are not requesting that the house be redesigned, are not objecting to the overall
design of the house or the size of the house; but feel that the orientation and placing of the
house where they have placed it is going to create a big gap and will be inconsistent with how
all the other houses in the development are situated.
. He said they have tried to resolve the matter with the homeowner; the first contact with the
homeowner of the project was just a few days before the DRC, with a notice that they approve
or concur with the designs. He reviewed the subsequent discussions and meetings with the
applicant, real estate agent and builder. They were informed that no changes could be made
and no accommodation without having to change the overall design and overall project. They
suggested moving it over and angling it which would be sufficient for them to support the
project. There were follow up meetings with the real estate agent, but they were informed that
the applicants did not want to make any changes.
. Said that the property owners are trying to sell the property.
. Said they were in agreement with all the other issues except the angle of the house on the
property. If the house is moved a few feet and angled, that would be enough for them to
support the project. In doing so, it would alleviate the perceptive mass and scale of the house;
it is one of the largest homes in all of the Oak Valley development.
P. J. Pasricha, applicant:
. Said throughout the 14 month process period, they have been good citizens, and followed
every lUle and directive given to them, went through multiple iterations at considerable cost to
them, not only to comply with city law, but also so their house would conform to the shape
2-147
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
April 14, 2009
and feel of the neighborhood as instructed by the city. All the neighbors with the exception of
the Stevens have signed approval of the plans. The desire of the Stevens is to have an
unobstructed view from the side of the house; clearly stated by Mrs. Stevens when she
appeared in front of the Planning Commission before. He said he felt the Stevens have dealt
with the issue in a hostile manner, threatening them with lawsuits. The city has to decide
whether the city designed review system will be allowed to be hijacked by a single person with
clearly very selfish motivations.
. He said he felt they were victims in the process because they were faced with difficult
monetary consequences because of the delay. He said they put the house up for sale because
of the possibility of losing hundreds of thousands of dollars on the loan if the project was not
completed by the end of this year.
. He clarified that the setbacks were not 35 feet and 96, but 50 feet and 35 feet; and said it was
not the biggest house on the street; and was designed in accordance with city law.
Com. Miller:
. Asked the applicant if there was further cost and delay involved to re-orient the house.
Mr. Pasrlcha:
. Said the reasons he would not want to do that was that they don't feel that the orientation of
the house is incongruous with the neighborhood; it would compromise the design of their back
yard; and according to their builder and the sketch that the Stevens made, the site is not valid
and is not safe as part of it is close to the canyon. He said he did not want to spend more time
going back with design review.
Gary Chao:
. Said that the area has been built out and the original design guidelines were followed with
some exceptions. The guidelines were meant to give staff and property owners guidance; he
recently walked the site to make sure that the proposal isn't repetitive product and it adds to
the diversity which is the intent of that document.
Chair Giefer:
. Said that on Page 3-4 of staff s report, there is a site plan of the house and a shaded gray area
to the left with a label that says "private open space easement". Who put that easement on,
and is it actually private property. What is the definition of that and how can that property be
used?
Gary Chao:
. In the Oak Valley CC&Rs, when the area was subdivided and entitled, there were open space
easements that were required and are not public spaces. In this case they would be part of the
back yard of a private property, but it is intended to keep open, and be unobstructed from
structures to keep that visual openness to it, to preserve the rural feeling of the area. It is part
of private property but it is easement, so it is more intended for view to be openness; the
property cannot encroach into that area.
. Said the shaded area shown is easily confused with the cone of vision for privacy protection;
there is some overlap of the cross hatching; staff can clarify where the easement actually lies
which runs parallel to the rear property line.
Chair Giefer:
. Said she would like another site plan to refer to be clear where the easement is to make sure
they are not building into that envelope.
2-148
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
April 14,2009
Gary Chao:
. Said that the pie-shaped darker shade of the area, is the cone of vision for privacy protection; it
happens to be in the same area, it is not the open space easement. The open space easement is
like the rear yard setback that runs along the back. If the applicant decides to rotate the house,
it is not going to encroach it to that open space easement referred to.
Com. Miller:
. Said the appellant argued that the current orientation was inconsistent with the Rl ordinance,
and Com. Miller said it was the first time he heard that orientation was something addressed
by the R 1 ordinance.
Gary Chao:
. Clarified that the property is zoned Planned Development Residential; unfortunately the Rl
ordinance is not applicable in this case. All the findings that the appellant raised aren't
applicable.
. In terms of orientation, it is correct that to the extent that the setbacks control the minimum
distances that the proposed house had to be away from the property lines, those are the extent
of the orientation discussed. Within the boundary of the buildable envelope, usually the
appellant can maximize that or optimize that to whatever extent they may be maximize the
functionality of their yard.
. He reiterated that the house meets all the Planned Development requirements.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Anne Walker, Cupertino resident/real estate agent:
. Said she was the real estate agent representing the applicant in the purchase of the lot at 10450
Serra Street a year ago. She attested to their outstanding character and their diligent efforts to
follow the zoning ordinance for building on their lot. They communicated with 40 different
neighbors in the interest of maintaining good relationships with the neighbors and all
neighbors except Tim and Leigh Stevens have been positive and supportive. The Stevens are
the only opponents of the project. She said they tried to address the Stevens' objections and on
March 25th the Stevens said they would support the home so long as the home was moved to a
position they suggested. She said she felt the reason the Stevens wanted the house moved to a
more centered location was that they wanted it further away from their house, as they have
lived next door to a vacant lot for the past 7 years and simply wanted the neighbors' house
further away from them.
. Asked that the Planning Commission support the DRC's approval of the home and deny the
appeal. The City of Cupertino benefited from the sale of the lot in 2005 when it sold for $1.2
million in the style and location that the Pasricha's designed.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Com. Miller:
. Said he felt from the discussions, there was no justification or legal basis for an appeal. It is
clear that the applicant has met every city requirement and has followed everything. He
voiced concern that the process took so long; one of their goals is to be as accommodating as
possible, and help people through this process as painless and expeditiously as possible.
. Said he would support denial of the appeal.
2-149
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
April 14, 2009
Com. Lee:
. Said she noted in the DRC meeting that she felt it would not be practical to rotate the house as
proposed by appellant because it would likely make the entrance into the garage awkward.
. Said she would uphold the DRC decision and deny the appeal.
Com. Brophy:
. Said one issue to address is the notification process on site approvals. In this case one of the
concerns the appellant made to the DRC and tonight, was that they were not cognizant of what
was being proposed until quite late, even though from the applicant's perspective, the project
had been in the hopper for over a year at the time. Regardless of the outcome of this case, he
suggested that when applications come in, the notification go out at an earlier stage before the
story pole stage.
. Said he supported denial of the appeal.
Chair Giefer:
. Said she felt the project met the requirements, the code, and all regulations regarding the
planned development at Oak Valley.
. Said she supported the denial of the appeal.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Brophy, to deny the appeal and to
uphold the DRC decision of approval on Application ASA-2009-03. (Vote: 3-0-1;
Com. Kaneda absent)
The agenda was moved back to Item 2. Chair Giefer declared a short recess.
2. GP A-2008-01 (EA-2009-05),
GP A-2009-01 (EA-2009-03)
City of Cupertino, Citywide
Location.
(A) General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing
Element update and; (B) General Plan Amendment
to increase the office allocation. Tentative City Council
Date: May 5, 2009.
Paul Penninger, Bay Area Economics (BAE), Consultant on General Plan Housing Element:
. Explained the housing element is part of the General Plan that deals with residential land uses;
it is one of the 7 required elements of the General Plan and as it is adopted, it needs to be made
consistent with the other parts of the General Plan, such as land use element, circulation
element, etc. It provides a look at where housing is in Cupertino, where it could be in the
future and to set down programs and policies to guide your residential development over time.
. Said they were also guided by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process,
which is the process whereby the Regional Council of Governments ascertains how much
housing each jurisdiction in the Bay Area needs to build, over the particular planning period
being considered. When looking at the housing element update, they are also looking at the
goal for planning and looking at the available sites both designated in the General Plan as
residential land use sites and have the appropriate zoning. Along with that, they will
recommend some key land use and policy changes to make sure that they do have all of the
programs, policies, land use designations and zoning in place to accommodate their RHNA
planning goals and other city planning goals for housing over the planning period.
. Provided an update on the process, which included a very lengthy public outreach process and
update process, somewhat more extensive than might be the case in other communities.
Meetings were conducted with various Commissions and stakeholders and four focus group
meetings, which are on the Cupertino website. Recently the Housing Commission was
presented with an administrative draft containing all the fundamental elements of the Housing
Element update that need to be provided to the State Department of Housing and Community
2-150
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
April 14, 2009
Development for certification. The Housing Commission has reviewed the draft and
forwarded it to the Commission tonight for their consideration. After your review, the
Planning Commission will decide whether or not to forward it to the City Council; the City
Council will have the option of forwarding an approved draft of the Housing Element to the
State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The HCD will assign a
reviewer and it will come back to the Commission again and they will have the option to
comment and forward it to City Council for final adoption. It is a careful and extensive
process, because this becomes part of the land use constitution; it is the framework by which
all land use planning decisions are made. It is a good process to go through to make sure you
get a document the community can believe in. .
. He explained the benefit of having certification from the HCD; it can be viewed as an
opportunity to take a fresh look at residential land uses and decide if there is enough housing
and the right type of housing to meet the community needs. It is also a way to make the city
competitive for different types of state funding; there are certain bond programs that are only
available to communities that have certified housing elements. Under the law, if you don't
have a certified housing element past a certain period, you expose yourself to the risk of
lawsuits. By having a certified housing element, you make yourselves competitive for funding
and you avoid any potential risk of lawsuit going forward.
. He reviewed the RHNA as outlined in the staff report. Page 2/3 of staff report, Item 2.
. Consultant is looking for direction from the Planning Commission on what direction staff and
the consultant should take; should they look at the maximum number of sites as suggested over
the course of this update process; to identify all of the potential sites in the city that could take
residential land uses and provide recommendations for those. That is the maximum envelope;
or look at a more scaled back number of sites that are particularly appropriate for residential
uses and very likely to develop as housing over a shorter time frame.
. Said he would recommend the latter route; working over the course of the next week or two,
paring down the list of sites, to focus on just those sites that are most appropriate for
residential land uses that are likely to meet the minimum density standards of 20 DUA and that
are likely to meet community support over the planning period.
. Said there was a benefit of having an extensive inventory; it is a full list of potential residential
opportunity sites to continue to work on; but in terms of what is forwarded to City Council and
what gets presented to HCD, he recommended forwarding a narrower list of sites, and asking
for more indepth work on a specific set of sites; and in particular those areas of the city; the
Heart of the City, South Val1co, perhaps some others that have the highest redevelopment and
development potential over the next planning period.
. Reviewed Table FI, available sites inventory, which includes the 370 already appropriately
designated in zone sites at 20 DUA, plus an additional number that have commercial,
industrial, other types of zoning in place that would need to get changed. The land use
changes that would need to happen to accommodate the full 1500 involved some rezoning on 3
or 4 opportunity sites in the Bubb Road and Monta Vista area, increased residential densities
in the Heart of the City and City Center districts, and zoning changes to permit residential
development on designated parcels in the Homestead Road, North and South Valko Park,
South DeAnza Boulevard and other non-designated areas.
. Consideration may be given to shifting around some of the residential allocations; there is an
overall residential allocation that the city has in mind and presently that is about 2,800 total
residential units across the city divided by district. The City Council has at its discretion the
ability to move around those allocations from district to district. You may want to decide to
memorialize that shifting around of residential units between districts as part of this housing
element; it is not something you necessarily need to show to HCD; what matters to HCD is
that you have parcels of land that have the right land use designation, the right zoning and the
right infrastructure in place to accommodate a housing proposal. We wanted to put this policy
2-151
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
April 14, 2009
change in front of you in case you wanted to consider that as part of memorializing that as part
of this housing element update. Two other key policy changes, one of the benefits of having
the housing element updates occur on a regular basis is that your last housing element with the
exception of the sites inventory is up-to-date and has a comprehensive set of policies regarding
most of the issues that housing practitioners and RCD in particular look at.
. There are two other areas beyond the residential development sites that require attention; one
is that under State law there needs to be at least one zone in the city that can accommodate an
emergency shelter for homeless persons or families by right. Presently there is a rotating
shelter allowed in the BQ zone and that responsibility is shared for the rotating emergency
shelter with neighboring jurisdictions. The State law requires that the city identify at least one
zone in the city that can accommodate an emergency shelter for homeless individuals and
families by right. That is one significant change and is something that would need to be
incorporated into the city's update in order to secure certification.
. A proposed optional change is to propose closer coordination with the local school districts,
specifically that a new committee is formed of key staff from the city and the two school
districts that serve the community of Cupertino; that the committee meet on a regular basis to
review city planning initiatives, specific development proposals and also school capital
facilities and operating plans.
. One of the goals is to ensure that as the city considers new residential development, and also
as the school is planning for its future needs, that they work together and carefully consider
where the housing goes in relation to where the new school facilities are being built; which
schools are already very impacted, which schools may be able to accommodate future
development; so the policy makers both at the school district level and the city level have that
in mind when they are considering planning initiatives and proposals. It is a good best practice
idea going forward to help the city consider what is arguably one of its most important
resources, its schools and high quality of public education offered. This is not required by
RCD, it is optional, and something they feel is a good idea for the city, and which came out of
the community process to date.
. The direction they are seeking from the Commission is whether to focus on the least number
of sites needed to meet RCDs requirements or on a more expanded inventory of sites. What
are the city's key areas and sites for new housing development; looking at all the different
areas in the city, we think that probably given current development trends and land use
characteristics, that the Reart of the City and North and South Valko are probably the areas
that have the most capacity in terms of land to accommodate new growth. Re said he would
not necessarily concentrate efforts on rezoning industrial parcels of land in other parts of the
city, particularly those that are unlikely to redevelop in the short term.
. Re asked if the Planning Commission wanted to coordinate with the local school districts.
Going forward, this process will likely change; they are in the midst of some legal changes
statewide where SB375 was recently passed that will change how housing element updates
take place, hopefully for the better. It is an opportunity to look at jobs housing balance, to
look at the community's stability and quality of life and how through this document you can
bring together the joint needs of keeping your economy healthy and making sure you have
enough and the right type of housing to meet the community needs. The item is partially
informational and partially action item; the Planning Commission can elect to forward to the
City Council on May 5th and show them an edited draft, or have the consultant return on April
28th, taking into account the feedback received tonight and see another iteration of the draft.
Com. Miller:
. Said they were also being asked tonight to consider an increase in the number of square feet of
office space in the General Plan, approximately .5 million square feet. Asked that in all the
2-152
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
April 14,2009
. calculations done, did they consider the increase in square footage of office space, or how it
would change the equation.
Paul Penninger:
. Said that HCD requires a jobs/housing balance analysis. Currently Cupertino would be
considered a very jobs-rich community which is a positive thing given the overall state of the
economy. It has strong high tech businesses in the city that are doing relatively well; however,
are out of balance given the number of residential units, vis a vis its employment
characteristics. An additional 500,000 sq. ft. of office if it were to be approved, would impact
the jobs housing balance in the way of providing more jobs and growing that disparity.
Com. Miller:
. If we don't address it now, the next time we come around to the housing element, we are going
to be forced to address it. If we don't plan for it, we are going to be in a more difficult
situation the next time around.
Paul Penninger:
. Asked the Planning Commission to at least identify sites or ask the consultant and staff to
identify sites to accommodate 364 units under new zoning; it could be increased depending on
what their policy goals were.
Com. Miller:
. When redoing the General Plan in 2005, much time was spent on the numbers and office space
allocations available were lowered in order to make sure that they were in balance. They are
now being told that because the method of calculation has changed, there is more office
development than housing development.
Paul Penninger:
. Said that Cupertino had more jobs than before. The framework in the General Plan is useful in
the sense that it looks at where over the long term from a general goal perspective, new
housing should occur, where new office and retail should occur. What is different this time
around in the housing element, is they have to look parcel by parcel, and when you get to that
level, the analysis changes a little; it doesn't necessarily add up to the same number of units.
Com. Miller:
. Said that many of the comments made were very good and to the point. He said that in
looking at the inventory of sites proposed, there were some that did not seem practical, such as
the site behind Macy's in the South Vallco area, which was voted down by referendum and the
likelihood of it being developed was very low in the short term. The site identified in South
Vallco in the Main Street area where Toll Brothers had proposed about 484 units, was also
voted down by referendum. Some of those units were supposed to be senior housing.
. The remaining 300 looks like it is identified for two sites that have industrial buildings on it
that Apple recently purchased and plan to continue to use in an industrial manner. He said he
was not sure there were realistic sites there. If considering the 500,000 square feet they are
being asked to put back in the General Plan, most of it will go into North Vallco. If serious
about building more housing or more affordable housing and we are serious about balance, it
is not building more housing in town.
. Said if they weren't building more office space, he did not see the need to build more housing,
but since they are building more office space, there are two major corporations in town who
will be building more office space; that brings along with it the need for the housing to follow.
2-153
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
April 14, 2009
. One of the comments made was to focus on sites with the highest development potential which
is North Valko. It may make sense to tie the housing requirement to the business
development requirement because that is what is going to drive the need for more housing.
North Valko has a number of desirable characteristics and a number of undesirable
characteristics. If we focus on the desirable ones, it is far away from residential development
in general, and lends itself to more intensity. Not all of North Valko is in the Cupertino
School District, so the impact on the schools of having some housing development there is
considerably less than putting it anywhere else in town.
. The next point is if we are just talking about housing in general, that is one issue; if we are
talking about trying to address some of the affordable housing, 20 DUA is ludicrously low; it
makes no sense whatsoever; it is the same requirement that San Benito County has. San
Benito County has less population than Cupertino and maybe ten times the land mass and they
have the same requirement as here. Here land costs $3 million per acre, there it cost $250,000
per acre. If we are serious about building affordable housing, we either need to get someone to
donate some land or we need to increase the density or some combination of the factors.
Paul Penninger:
. Said the densities are referred to as the Mullen densities and are based on metropolitan areas;
Cupertino is part of the San Jose Metropolitan area and the 20 DUA applies to all of Santa
Clara County; the standard in San Mateo County is 30 DUA. The comment is well taken, the
development economics are such that 20 DUA is actually difficult for sponsors of affordable
housing and other types of housing to make it work without a lot of subsidy.
Com. Miller:
. He said, if serious about it, they should be increasing the densities; they should be at least as
high as some of the other higher density; So. Valko is 35 DUA and the Rose Bowl may be
even higher.
Paul Penninger:
. The maximum allowed under the General Plan was 35 DUA.
Com. Miller:
. If density is increased, there is a concern that more houses are going to bring more kids to the
schools; I would also want to limit the size of any units that are proposed to minimize the
impact on the schools. Your comment about working the schools is appropriate. I also think
that in the last reiteration that the school was planning of their development plans; Cupertino
High School which is the one that might be affected by any housing in that area that does go in
is actually slated for an increase in capacity.
Paul Penninger:
. Expressed caution in the policy document about specifying whether or not particular sites can
accommodate certain units of particular bedroom sizes; there is a fair housing consideration
regarding large families. In general, on a project-by-project basis, it makes sense to look at
what the distribution of bedrooms and the types of housing being proposed. He said they could
consider eliminating the square footage and not mentioning bedrooms.
Com. Miller:
. Said it was difficult to meet everyone's objective in the city, but balance is important; location
makes a lot of sense and tying the development to areas where new development is likely to
happen in the next two to four years makes the most sense, and increasing the density is
something that if serious about doing any of this housing, needs to go along with it.
2-154
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
April 14,2009
Com. Brophy:
. Question regarding the need for zoning by right for permanent emergency shelters; if there is a
zone in which emergency shelters are an approved use, does that prevent the city from
requiring a special use permit within that zone?
Tessa Munakeo, BAE:
. Said the law rNuires they have one zone that allows by right a pennanent emergency shelter
without any other additional discretionary permits.
Paul Penninger:
. Said that there were requirements in terms of insurance, liability, etc. on behalf of the operator
of a permanent emergency shelter. They would provide further details. Re said there would
be a standard of reasonableness; if you have reasonable requirements that a typical project
sponsor of an emergency shelter or more likely a transitional housing development for people
who are transitioning from homelessness, that they will used to working with to make their
project work.
. If there are extraordinary standards built into the housing element particular that are clearly
meant to dissuade a viable sponsor from locating in the community, RCD will identify those
and likely ask for them to be addressed.
Vera GiI, Senior Planner:
. Said it would be highly unlikely for a project sponsor to try to locate a large capacity
emergency shelter in a city like Cupertino, since last homeless census showed there were only
11 unsheltered homeless people within the city limits.
Paul Penninger:
. Said he agreed. Many non-profit developers and service providers are looking at temporary
and permanent supportive housing for individuals and families experiencing homelessness,
rather than building new shelters, particularly high capacity shelters in suburban jurisdictions,
remote from services.
Com. Brophy:
. Asked if sites zoned for residential but also for other uses, are acceptable from the RCD
calculation purposes?
Paul Penninger:
. As long as the General Plan land use designation and the zoning are consistent and the
infrastructure is appropriate.
. You can have zoning that would allow office, retail or housing; it just needs to be a viable site
for housing, if that were to be the development proposal in front of you.
. Said his recommendation given the current round of RCD comments on other housing
elements they worked on in other communities, would be for a short list of high quality sites
that are suitable for residential development and could accommodate particularly affordable
housing, rather than an extensive inventory of sites that mayor may not have problems.
Com. Brophy:
. Said that in Cupertino, it is not that the sites are unsuitable for residential, but that the
economics make it difficult to work. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a larger list of
possible sites rather than a small list.
2-155
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
April 14, 2009
Paul Penninger:
. Said the issue is that some of the uses on the 45 sites that are on the list are currently in
operation; they are commercial and/or other uses that mayor may not redevelop over the next
planning period. They are underutilized land on these parts in the form of parking lots or just
land not utilized, but there may be a viable economic use there already. In providing the
owner of the land with the option of doing residential development in the next period, that is
one way to go; but from HCD's perspective it isn't likely that it is going to redevelop. Is it
what would be considered an under-utilized site from a strictly economic perspective right
now? That is the analysis that has to be done.
Paul Brophy:
. Said it seems a lot of the sites described are one story tilt-up buildings from the 70s; while they
are perfectly useful as an office building in a physical sense, economically a great number of
them could potentially be converted to residential use.
Paul Penninger:
. Said there may be opportunities to do better quality mixed use development with higher design
standards and more appropriate retail on some of these sites that are higher quality commercial
and flexible types of commercial uses. Are the owners of those properties realistically going
to look at turning those over in the next planning period. Are there viable development
alternatives; are they in the right places in the city that are likely to receive support from the
community?
Com. Brophy:
. Said that Bandley Avenue has one-story tilt-ups that would potentially be a source where the
owners might wish to convert property from residential development if they could get
permission; R&D buildings, looking at tearing down and replacing.
Com. Lee:
. No questions or comments.
Chair Giefer:
. Thinking about the longer list which suggests that if there is incompatibility between current
zoning and the General Plan, she recalled years ago trying to put in place a more flexible
planned development overlay on many commercial properties to make it easier for someone to
come forward, and give the property owner greater flexibility in terms of the type of project
the property owner may chose to redevelop or build.
. Said in reviewing the list, she was looking at the compatibility between zoning and General
Plan; if we move forward on that and make a recommendation to rezone, what are the legal
implications with regard to suggesting manipulating zoning for a specific purpose so we are in
compliance with our housing element; would we need to be conscious and aware throughout
that process?
Carol Korade, City Attorney:
. Said that they had to be aware of spot zoning, which is the legal conclusion where you identify
particular parcels that have a particular motivation. A general overlay in order to provide
flexibility, would not be presumed to violate the legal standard for spot zoning. Caution has to
be exercised in looking at a particular parcel and giving it a particular zoning characteristic
that the owners could claim violates the legal standard of inverse condemnation, which means
that you are wanting to take a residential parcel, and zoning it for open space because you
2-156
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
April 14, 2009
. wanted some free recreation area, that would be a typical example of what would be found as
spot zoning. She said her initial review does not reveal any type of legal standard or problem.
Chair Giefer:
. As Com. Brophy suggested, Bandley Avenue may have some potential; the present buildings
have struggled in terms of having tenants. Another area is the Edge property along Stevens
Creek; there was a fire on some properties across from target; hopefully they will be
redeveloped; not certain of zoning.
. Perhaps what we might do is either suggest looking at some additional areas or removing some
areas that are on the proposed map.
. Com. Miller brought up a good point with regards to looking at adding additional commercial
squares to the General Plan which we understand why it is highly desirable to do that and we
do want to service our commercial headquarter companies here, but it does have an impact on
the amount of housing that we need to approve. We need to reconcile that as part of this and
see what implication that will have on this plan. I do agree with that. Does that make sense for
us to look at the lengthy plan and either eliminate sites we know that are not going to be
coming forth for redevelopment before 2014, or potentially add items to the list and then direct
staff to look at the high potential sites.
Vera GiI:
. Said the Planning Commission can add sites for the City Council's consideration and make
recommendations to remove sites, and staff would take the list to the Council.
Chair Giefer:
. Asked if there were any other areas that should be considered.
Com. Miller:
. North Valko from the west side of Wolfe Road to the east side of Tantau, on the east and
west; and highway 280 on the south, and Homestead on the north. Suggest they look at the HP
campus; it is highly populated with buildings, most of the HP campus is not in the Cupertino
School District, and it has to be considered a potential site for housing. HP has come in and
asked for an increase in square footage, which is an indication they may seriously be thinking
about adding commercial or office space.
Com. Brophy:
. Said it was an important issue, but he was not sure in the context of having to do a housing
element, that it would move them forward.
. Important to have continued informal discussions with HP and Apple about their plans; start
placing units on property that is controlled by two industrial corporations,
. Said since they have no ability to force them to do that; if they are informed there may be
some interest in it, to disassociate that issue from the housing element would seem to be the
preferred way to go.
Com. Miller:
. Said he struggled with the intent to build more office space in that area which will trigger a
requirement on the city to produce more housing units somewhere else. If that is the area that
is going to cause the need for more housing units, from a logical standpoint it seems like that is
the area to designate. Whether the housing units end up there or not is the separate issue, but
tying the housing units to the construction of additional office square footage is good logic.
2-157
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
April 14, 2009
Chair Giefer:
. Asked staff if they felt the HP campus or new Apple campus would be built in the next five
years before the current plan expires.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Said both Apple and HP have expressed an interest in coming in within the plan period; staff
will follow up with them regarding any sites the Planning Commission would want to send to
Council once known. They do know about the Valko Parkway site, Apple, and they are fine
with the recommendation from staff that they have the residential overlay on that. Presently
the zoning isn't there; the General Plan allocation is there so it would have to be zoned to
allow residential in addition to the office.
Com. Miller:
. It is a good site for housing; however, the problem is that they have already been through a
referendum where the residents have voted against putting further housing there. Said he
would like North Valko from the standpoint there is not nearly as strong an argument from a
residential standpoint to oppose housing, and there are also some sites that are not on either the
HP campus or the proposed new Apple campus that also could be very desirable for housing
there and some of them are not in the Cupertino School District either.
. Apple purchased the Morley Bros. housing project with a unit count between 120 and 140
units in the middle of their site which is currently zoned and approved for a housing project.
The reason for building new housing is that housing does not drive office space; office space
drives housing; if someone is going to build more housing, he liked the idea of tying the
housing to the office space.
Chair Giefer:
. Asked Com. Miller if he was suggesting that when they approve an office space project, they
insist on building housing or that they come with housing as part of their overall project; or
was he talking about in the zoning.
Com. Miller:
. Presently they are talking about zoning and locations in town; and from a smart growth
standpoint, ail the smart growth principles talk about putting the two together, near
infrastructure, near avenues of transportation. What is nice about that area is it is at the edge
of the city; it doesn't impact the housing areas in town; it is close to transportation; and has a
lot of the attributes that make it a good place for housing, if we are going to build further
housing in town. If HP and Apple never decide to do that office space there, that is the only
trigger that generates the need for housing in the first place.
Com. Brophy:
. Said that Com. Miller has discussed very important points; but tonight's agenda is to move
forward the housing element to the State by June 30th, and it is not the appropriate time and
place to open up the issue of what to do with North Valko and how that relates to the
intentions of HP and Apple.
. He said it was an important issue and hoped they could work with them to let them accomplish
what they need to do as important businesses, but to open that up in trying to finish a housing
element, would be counter-productive.
Com. Miller:
. Said the purpose was to identify the sites, not to require the housing be built, and he suggested
that it is a viable site and there are also locations in that general area that are not either in the
2-158
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
April 14,2009
lands that HP and Apple would develop on, that are potential sites as well. There are a
significant number of locations here, whether we talk about them on the HP campus or Apple
campus, or outside that, where additional housing could very easily be accommodated.
Chair Giefer:
. Said she heard that it needs to be probable that the units would be moved on within this plan
period.
Paul Penninger:
. Said "feasible" was more accurate; they could look if there are specific sites in the North
VaIlco area, particular parcels, addresses that bear further examination, as part of their analysis
and he felt it was a viable way to go. Some sites may need to be subtraCted, such as the ones
that have been on referendums. He said they were willing to add some sites in the North
VaIlco area to make it a more balanced planning document.
Chair Giefer:
· Said she was comfortable looking at North Valko, not HP and the Apple lands because she did
not feel they are realistic in terms of development. If there are other parcels that might be
developed that are not part of the toxic mitigation in the area, that is fine.
Com. Miller:
. There are other lands, but I would also suggest that it is hard to see, if we zoned an area for 35
units per acre on HP property, we are not forcing HP to do anything with that. It is hard to see
how they would object to increasing the value of their property with a residential zoning of 35
units per acre. I cannot imagine them coming down and screaming no, we don't want that;
because we are not taking anything away from them, we are adding to what they already have.
That said, all the lands on the east side of Tantau are the ones that Apple hasn't already
purchased, are potential sites that are not on Apple's or HP's asset list. Then there are also
some lands on the west side of Wolfe that are similarly so designated; one may be included in
this list; that is where the 22 comes from. We haven't considered the ones on the east side of
Tantau at all at this point.
Chair Giefer:
. Said she felt it would be futile to anticipate that HP or Apple would move forward on housing
within this plan period.
Com. Miller:
. Said they do not know who is going to move forward with what in what location; all they have
is an indication they have asked for more density, more square feet of office space, which is a
reasonable indication they are going to move forward in the near future.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Said that if the Commission wanted to take action on another list of sites they want us to look
at, we are happy to do that; and then we can provide the follow up once we provide the pros
and cons, and leave it up to the Council to decide which one of these sites they would like to
go with. We are willing to forward the Planning Commission recommendations but we would
like a motion on the list of sites so we are clear which ones we need to review. We can, if we
are not clear, bring back some of the sites, such as Bandley, just to make sure we have the
right sites.
2-159
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
April 14, 2009
Paul Penninger:
. Explained the review process at HCD. When they look at the list of sites, they look at sites
according to whether they are vacant or under-utilized. For the vacant sites they decide does
the vacant site have the right infrastructure in environmental characteristics and planning
controls in place to provide feasibility for residential development in the next period. For the
proposed under-utilized sites they require some analysis of whether or not the existing
commercial or other use actually constitutes an under-utilization of the sites; so they will look
at improvement to land value ratios; that is whether or not the improvement to build structure
on the site is worth less than the appraised value of the underlying land. If looking at sites that
currently have a structure and particularly where there is an occupied structure, and we are
attempting to show evidence that it is under-utilized, we need to have some objective criteria.
. Said his only concern in this discussion would be if they are looking at office uses in particular
that are fully occupied that have employees working in them and that are viable, particularly in
the current economic climate. It is a hard analytical hoop to show economically that they are
under-utilized at least today, based on objective criteria. From a review perspective there will
be more raised eyebrow when looking at sites we are showing as evidence of your ability to
accommodate the RHNA in the next period if there are under-utilized sites with the existing
viable commercial uses, where we are simply proposing changing the zoning.
. Asked if the Commission wanted to comment on the sites identified in the Bubb Road and
Monta Vista areas and in the North DeAnza areas. Are there concerns and issues that the
consultant should be aware of.
Com. Miller:
. The Monta Vista site; the school system is most seriously impacted in the Monta Vista district,
therefore any site designated in the Monta Vista school district is going to be next to
impossible to do anything with.
Paul Penninger:
. Said he inquired in particular about this neighborhood because there isn't any parcel that
stands out as a vacant parcel and are clearly severely under-utilized that has the right zoning
land use designations and infrastructure in place. Some of the parcels may be a stretch to
prove that they are acceptable as residential development over the next planning period.
Com. Miller:
. Said the other area of town which has a relatively high number, 396 units along Stevens Creek,
might get argument that it conflicts with the Heart of the City Plan. There is a lot of
opposition.
Paul Penninger:
. Said it was consistent with the Heart of the City Plan.
Com. Miller:
. Reiterated that the site behind Macys could be removed from the list.
. Said Valley Green properties currently has existing office buildings on them.
Com. Lee:
. Said she had no questions or additions; and agreed with Com. Miller regarding looking at
more sites for the North Vallco area.
2-160
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
April 14, 2009
Com. Brophy:
· Bandley Drive is similar to Bubb Road, except it also has the advantage that it is adjoining
existing multi-family development, and in most parts it is not adjoining single family. The
structures are sufficient; they are the one story tilt-up from 30 to 35 years ago which might be
logical.
Vera GiI:
· Clarified that Sites 21, 22 and 23 were the shopping center, which because of the age of the
center and the property owner has approached the city, have the potential to redevelop as a
mixed use project in the future.
. Said that Villa Serra Apartments is still on the list at a lower density with a lower unit yield
because there are still some open spaces and they are considered under-utilized. They could
propose constructing new units in certain areas.
Chair Giefer:
. Commented on some of the Bubb Road addresses. A number of the tilt-up older buildings on
Bubb Road are currently leased by Apple. When Apple does move into their new facilities,
some of those buildings may become vacant and potentially available for redevelopment.
. Said they should look at those and try to come up with some perspective in terms of how likely
that will happen. There are tremendous school implications in that area to be considered.
Measurex has pulled pennits to redevelop the commercial site in the area; when it came to us
before as housing, it did require rezoning as well.
. Relative to the corner of Monta Vista, she recalled that when Measurex proposed housing, one
of the adjacent parcels had a toxic well on it; there were some issues relating to the mitigation
of the contaminants on that site and the effect of that specific parking lot. There may be some
problematic environmental issues.
Gary Chao:
. Said that Measurex has submitted a request which will go to the Planning Commission soon,
to extend their use permit to prolong the approval pending current economic situation.
Com. Miller:
. Said that a proposal on the Measurex site came up for 100+ housing units and it brought out a
tremendous 'amount of residential opposition and the City Council ultimately voted it down;
these sites are right across the street, or in one case, on the same side. The likelihood that in
the near future that somebody is going to come in and try that again is next to zero.
Gary Chao:
. Sites 29, 30 and 31 are the sites in between offices along DeAnza and apartments in the back
adjacent to the Oak Park Village and the storage facility. Given its proximity to multi-family
uses sandwiched in between, there should be some potential in those areas.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Said they are zoned for 4 to 10 DUA; if adjacent housing is zoned too much higher, the
proposal was to rezone it about that much to increase it from 4 to 10 to 10 to 20. That is the
specific action that would be taken. They currently have office structures on them.
Paul Penninger:
. They do currently, but the zoning would accommodate residential development at a lower
density.
2-161
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
April 14, 2009
. Said it would be a city initiated rezoning within a particular period of time after the housing
element is adopted, about a year. In some cases it is just a clarification because you already
have the General Plan land use designations that provide residential land uses; it is just
bringing it together making it consistent.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. She expressed her opposition to more housing, especially at the eastern end of Cupertino. She
pointed out that there were no grocery stores, gas stations, car washes or other amenities in the
eastern end of the city; and that traffic problems already existed, as well as overcrowding in
the schools. Office allocation: Said the city spent a lot of money on the North Valleo Master
Plan project and meeting after meeting said no housing in North Valleo. Several corporations
wish to increase the office allocation which is fine. North VaIleo is traditionally a strong tech
park; we need to make sure we protect the tech parks in Cupertino; we don't want housing on
them.
. She said she did not know what the plan was if they increased the office allocation; but if it
means pulling in extra housing units, and piling them up on HP, HP is going to decide that
they are going to move their corporate headquarters across the street to Sunnyvale and sell that
land for housing.
. She expressed concern about what was being done with the General Plan amendments and
increasing the office allocation. She said that in her opinion, Cupertino was high tech and
housing was secondary. Requests for office allocation need to be managed in a sensitive
practical manner. If the plan is to carve up the city, there needs to be another year of public
input. She said they do not want more housing at their end of the city down Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
Susie Blackman, CEO, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce:
. She thanked the city and consultants for the opportunity for the Chamber to participate in the
process. She attended the focus group meetings, and there were also reps from Apple and HP
at most of those meetings; and they also spoke privately with the consultant and other groups.
Not only did they represent Apple and HP in those discussions, but we had a rep from each of
those companies on the Chamber Board of Directors. It gave a broader vision for the
Chamber's interaction.
. Said she felt the discussions were vague on where the building was going to take place.
Tonight reviewing that and hearing some of the comments, once you start putting addresses in
places into the process, it changes some of the discussion and it changes the way people begin
to look at it.
. Staff has done a good job of working with the consultant in identifying the needs that we have
and encouraging that broad based input from the community. The Chamber supports that the
process must move forward.
. Said she was not certain if the board would have any additions or changes, but Apple and HP
would probably have some concerns about housing being built either on their property or in
close proximity. She said they would like to support the list in whatever additions or changes
the Commission recommends and that it move forward to the Council so that the next stage
can take place.
. Regarding the office allocation, that was a very big deal that came up during the housing
discussion for our businesses in town and she was pleased to see that there was an opportunity
for the 500,000 square feet to be put back into the plan; and it relieves a lot of people that there
was that opportunity.
2-162
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
April 14, 2009
. It is clear that comes with a price which is additional housing. The consultant stated that there
is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to identify the minimum number of houses
needed to meet the standard report for 07 to 14, as well as going up to as many as 1500
housing units. It might be a way of looking at it to say that we look beyond the minimum, but
we don't quite go to the maximum 1500 square feet, so we have a broader range of places to
choose from. It also sounds like the Commission had some additional ideas on where those
places might be.
. Said the Chamber supports the recommendation to move forward with the additional office
square footage. It is an important concept for the two largest companies in the community
who have invested a great deal and plan to stay in the community; it gives them a certain
amount of assurance which is an important concept as well.
Dennis Whitaker, Cupertino resident:
. Said he was not anti-development or anti-housing; the problem is that the State keeps pushing
down on the city with their demands, and they have little control of what they can ask for.
. He questioned the purpose of a General Plan; three years were spent reviewing it, followed by
six months of meetings and another six months of committee meetings; and then faced with a
housing requirement; and being informed that the General Plan is supposed to stay for ten
years and now twenty years. What good is the General Plan if the State keeps throwing
different angles on the city. The city and residents have to get control of themselves. He
suggested that the city charter a bus to go and speak to ABAG.
. Said that the Cupertino population of 28,000 in 1985 has increased to 55,000; where is more
water, more electricity, and more school sites? People move to Cupertino because of the
schools.
. The high school population has grown; a study was paid by the city 2003/04 and at that time
the population of the high school was 8,400 and they said in 2007/08 the population would go
down. In 2007, the population exceeded 11,000 and it is well above 10,000 now. More
housing, greater impact on schools. Elementary school district, they get paid by adding more
students; if they add more students; we have a parcel tax now, they are going to have to come
up with another parcel tax to allow to rebuy the sites and build on them and then another
parcel tax to staff and administrate those schools.
. Jobs/housing balances will change over and over again; can we guarantee HP and Apple will
stay here. When you are planning for the future, can you lock that in concrete; I can't. So
when you plan for things, plan for everything, not just that. Plan for retail, we need it
desperately.
Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident:
. Referred to a slide presentation to indicate potential areas for housing, including the HP site;
the Currier building is for lease and was not identified in the survey; quasi-public sites such as
the hall and the DeOro building; available locations across from Villa Serra; the former skate
park office could be used for housing but is not marked as such. Granny units are also
affordable housing possibilities.
. The schools are overcrowded; Cupertino is a jobs rich area but the surrounding community of
San Jose has a lot of housing, but is jobs poor.
. Office allocation; It would be reasonable if we are going to add the office allocation to find a
way to also add the housing at the same time. There is also a correction; on Table 4, Point 2,
we are missing the Morley Bros. development; it is 130 units and it should be there because it
is still on the books as being zoned residential. I don't know what Apple is going to do with it,
but it is still zoned residential.
2-163
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
April 14, 2009
Keith Murphy, Cupertino resident:
· Said he felt the Valko RDA had some conflicts of interest about goals and although the State
of California and ABAG require certain kinds of low income housing and things to be built,
the city itself also has issues that if it wants to free up incremental tax dollars in the RDA, at
some point they have to provide some low income housing. They must provide that before
they get their share of the taxes. I am interested how the city is going to be doing that and if
that somehow plays into where the sites are going to be chosen; where the low income housing
is going to go.
· Relative to the Chamber's CEO statement that businesses have been polled about them
wanting to support the current housing element update, he questioned whether they would be
willing to take on some of the responsibility of which Apple and HP want to push on smaller
businesses and property owners in the community; and are they willing to take that on for
what they think will be a fair trade from Apple and HP for the development they will bring to
our community; especially if they don't want to have a lot of the housing allocation put in
North Valko.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Vera GiI:
· Clarified that there are 2,000 units left in the current General Plan available sites; out of that
they are being asked to provide 1175, which is a small reduction from what is currently in the
General Plan as far as number of sites.
Paul Penninger:
· Said he felt they were parallel but separate processes. In the General Plan update, the overall
capacity as a community was identified for absorbing new residential development and
presently there is a balance of about 2800 sites.
· It is a different exercise than what is being done which is looking parcel by parcel; what is
being done fits within the overall context of your General Plan in terms of the maximum
number of units that your community can absorb over time; and one of the ways that will come
out is when you see the environmental analysis that our subconsultant is going to complete
where they evaluate what the real impact would be if this proposed residential development on
water, sewer, other infrastructure and environmental issues. They are separate but related.
. A certain number of sites have to be rezoned to accommodate 364 additional residential units
with viable proposals. Most of the approved units have been for above and above-moderate
incomes; hence you have already approved a great many housing units for above and above-
moderate income households. They need to be sites that are zoned at a minimum of 20 DUA.
Chair Giefer:
. Asked if they need to look at their housing manual and look at the ratio in high density
housing. If zoned at 20 DUA, will they still get the yields in categories where they are
attempting to get that; or do they need to increase the ratio very low, low income and moderate
income yields out of the housing manual.
Vera GiI:
. Said she was referring to the inclusionary housing program and she may be talking two
different things. In this case all we need to do is get them at 20 units per acre for them to be
considered meeting the requirement and providing low and very low income housing; whether
it will realistically occur or not. In the case of the housing mitigation program, we require
15% of all new development and rental is targeted for low and very low; and ownership is
targeted to medium and moderate.
2-164
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
April 14, 2009
Paul Penninger:
· The way that HCD considers inclusionary housing ordinances analytically is as a potential
government constraint on development. We are obliged under the review standards to
consider all of these government regulations as a potential constraint on development.
Attempting to meet your RHNA goals for low and very low income housing production
through the inclusionary ordinance is not what I would recommend as your consultant. The
other thing to say is that we are focusing a lot on sites and on densities; that is because you
have a lot of other programs already in place to support affordable housing development. You
have a staff person, you have a housing planner who works with project sponsors to make sure
that the city is supportive of viable developments which meets the community's needs. You
are doing financial and regulatory support already for viable affordable housing development;
so you have those programs in place.
· Said there were some developments discussed such as Habitat for Humanity, and some
particularly for people with special needs in very low income brackets that have been
supported by the city in recent years. The missing part of the equation is land; which is the
reason for the focus on programs and policies.
Com. Miller:
· Said the only way to get a serious effort in terms of truly affordable housing is to work with an
affordable housing developer and rezone some of the property to a high enough density and
work with some land owner on an arrangement that can make it happen. It is not going to
happen through the BMR program at 15%.
Paul Penninger:
· There has been the suggestion in certain communities across the state that in order to meet the
legal requirements, they would increase the number of inclusionary units required up to 67%
or 70%, which will clearly not be satisfactory. There was another issue about accessory
dwelling units; the city does have an accessory dwelling unit ordinance and does count a
certain number of the ADDs toward the RHNA goals in every period.
We are looking at that; they are somewhat difficult to quantify and it is not always clear that
they are accommodating low and very low income households but we do our best to count
those up and include them in your targets.
Chair Giefer:
· Said they must determine the direction they want to take; does the Commission want to give
direction to go out and do some more legwork; or is it comfortable making recommendations
to pass onto Council at this point.
Com. Lee:
· Suggested that staff look at North Valko area to see if there is more numbers there.
Com. Brophy:
. Said he preferred to send it to City Council. He said he felt it was an imaginary exercise done
because the State requires it, and people should not be confused in thinking it relates to
affordable housing or fair share of housing. If the issues are important to the city they should
be part of the Planning Commission's work plan. They should work to get housing element
passed, send it onto City Council and get it approved by the State without having any adverse
effect on the city.
2-165
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
April 14, 2009
Com. Miller:
. Said he was opposed to sending it onto the City Council without Planning Commission
recommendations. The two issues at hand are the RHNA requirements and the increase in
density in housing. He said as stated earlier, he was not necessarily in favor of more housing,
but was in favor of balance, and they were not in control, but forced to go through the exercise.
The additional allocation of square footage is going to put more pressure on the Commission;
possibly not in this planning period, but in the next; and preparing for it is better than just
closing our eyes to it and letting someone else deal with it, because the same Planning
Commission and City Council won't be around at that point in time.
. Said they want to accommodate their corporate citizens and help them to be successful and to
grow. He said he supported increasing the square footage in order to allow them to build what
they think they need. However, as speakers said, the extra squares come with the
responsibility and it is not sufficient to say we want the extra squares but the housing is your
problem to put somewhere else on somebody else's shoulders in Cupertino. The correct
response is to say they can have the extra squares, but let' work with you to make your
projects what they are. In return, the city has the additional requirement because of your
request for extra squares; and that is an accountability to share some of the responsibility.
. Said he supported extra squares, but felt in return it is appropriate to zone some of that area in
North Valleo where those extra squares could go for housing to meet their goals and
objectives. That is the main reason for pushing North Vallco, and if they choose not to
develop because the economic environment is not conducive to that at this point in time, there
is no need to go ahead and do the housing either. It is only when they actually do the
development that it triggers the housing; and whether or not they do it, it is still under their
control because it is their land. There are also some lands that are peripheral to the HP and
Apple lands that there is no reason shouldn't be zoned for more housing; and that includes
every property on the east side of Tantau from Highway 280 on up to Homestead.
. Said he felt they provided further guidance in terms of what other sites to consider and those
not to consider; staff can call some of the property owners involved in the discussions and
bring something back to the Commission.
Chair Giefer:
. Said the majority wanted some more legwork to be done on the list, either by adding or
diminishing addresses from the list and determining which are most likely to come in for
redevelopment. She said the 138 units of the Morley Brothers project that have not been
rezoned should be included in the calculations.
Paul Penninger:
. Said they would look into it; they understood the use permit had expired and didn't count it
toward the current period accomplishments. They had also heard there was another viable
proposal for office space on the same site, and they need to find out what is occurring there
and whether or not it is a viable residential site.
Chair Giefer:
. Said that the fact remains that they did rezone it and will not likely reverse the zoning.
. Said there are at least two Commissioners who felt there needs to be greater exploration in the
North Vallco area, and she was not opposed to evaluating sites that are not HP or Apple
owned.
. She said that it is good if they can get a greater yield than what is currently on the map. She
agreed that if they are adding more squares of commercial, they also need to figure out how to
incorporate supporting that in housing. She said she did not want to diminish the success of
their corporations that are some of the largest employers in the area. She did not support tying
2-166
'Cupertino Planning Commission
25
April 14, 2009
it to their redevelopment as they move forward.
. Said her concern about North Valleo is they completed the North Valleo study area where the
community said they don't want housing there; that has to be part of the evaluation of the site,
since it is equal to the referendum done on the Valleo edge property where there was housing
as well. It is not a fertile site when it relates to housing.
Chair Giefer:
. Said additionally in that area she heard that Cupertino Village is holding back on their
redevelopment of some of the intensification of that, so perhaps they are also looking for other
possibilities, which might merit additional review.
. Said she did not object to the properties on the east side of Tantau; one site is being
redeveloped. There may be potential properties on Bandley; it merits looking into. They also
expressed some concerns with regard to some of the areas that were identified with potential
problems.
Paul Penninger:
. To the extent that the North Valleo plan is already in place, that guides development in that
area, and they are proposing something different, it is part of the housing element update. He
asked what the procedural issues related to that were.
Carol Korade, City Attorney:
. Said that Cupertino is a general law city and all documents have to be consistent, so staff will
have to take a hard look at all the different master plans, specific plans, general plans, etc. and
ultimately down to the zoning.
Paul Penninger:
. That is what we have done for all the other sites on this list; that is what we will have to do for
the North Valleo site.
. In the current matrix there is the current zoning, current land use designation, and
recommendations for making those consistent. If there is an overlay or a specific plan in
place, it is referenced. To the extent that there is any other plan in place on site that has not
been identified, they will look at those, analyze them and asked the Commission to make
appropriate changes.
Com. Miller:
. Relative to North Vallco, he clarified that three public hearings were held as well as three or
four committee hearings; and while some members of the committee expressed a concern
about housing there, the topic was never fully vetted because time ran out. There was never a
full discussion on that and there was never a vote or anything of that nature taken in terms of
housing; it was not addressed.
Paul Penninger:
. Said that as part of their work, they would look at the General Plan land use designations,
zoning, and see what needs to be changed, to make any sites they are analyzing suitable for
residential development.
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Staff is recommending that you separate those two only because HCD has its own timeline and
there may be additional discussion the community, the Planning Commission and the Council
might want to have in this office allocation. To meet the timelines staff felt it was appropriate.
2-167
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
April 14, 2009
Chair Giefer:
. Is there a desire to move forward on (B) tIus evening. We got public testimony supporting it,
recognizing the adjacent issue with housing; do we want to move forward on the B section
which is the General Plan amendment for office allocation.
Com. Miller:
. Said he was willing to move forward provided that there is language stating that it comes with
the responsibility for additional housing.
Com. Brophy:
. Said he agreed, but wanted to see the specific language as the letters from HP and Apple are
asking for the additional space for their own use. He clarified that the additional space is for
the use of the corporate campuses and not to be used as third party lease space.
. Said he was not opposed to language stating that in the future, the city recognizes an obligation
to deal with the housing challenges faced, and there is hope and expectation that when the
proposals come for the city utilizing tills additional square footage, thought be given by the
applicants about the housing challenges the city faces. He said he was not looking to throwing
down the gauntlet to them.
Com. Lee:
. Said she agreed.
Chair Giefer:
. Page 3 of the staff report states specifically that if the Planning Commission recommends
adding back the residual of 483,000 square feet of office, it will not affect the city's RHNA
requirements for this planning period. ABAG is looking to reverse the projections modeling
system, so their system has changed. She said she was not sure they need to include the
language suggested by Com. Miller, because it specifically states that it will not have an affect
on it; is that because it is already in the General Plan?
Aarti Shrivastava:
. The office allocation mayor may not count at that time. For this planning period, we have the
numbers from HCD, but if the Planning Commission feels like a balance is important, they can
forward a recommendation to Council.
Com. Miller:
. Said he felt they were just postponing the problem and he was not in favor of doing that; the
issue is present today and to say you can have the office square footage but you are not
required to do any housing along with it, is the wrong way to go. It is setting up for future
failure; the right thing to do is address it now while it is before them.
Chair Giefer:
. Said she was not comfortable including any language that says if squares are added and their
corporate sites take advantage of it, they must build housing.
Com. Miller:
. Clarified he was stating that whether they (the companies that make use of the square footage
that will go into the General Plan) build it or find some other location where it gets built, they
have a responsibility to consider and to be part of the solution.
2-168
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
April 14, 2009
Chair Giefer:
. Summarized two suggestions of what might be included in (B) if they choose to move forward
on that. One is to specify that it is specifically for corporate headquarters use by companies
that have headquarters in Cupertino, although HP is technically not headquartered there. The
other is that for those taking advantage of it, they have to help solve the problem by
specifically fmding a place for the residents.
Gary Chao:
. Said the Council will ultimately make the decision if the allocation will be specifically
earmarked for HP or Apple or if it is just a general increase in the allocation. The Commission
can make recommendations to them in tenns of where they think the pot should go.
Aarti Shriyastaya:
. Said there was a pool available and that may be a place where the Council can allocate it later
and Planning Commission as projects come forth.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Chair Giefer, to add the additional square
footage of 483,053, limiting the additional square footage to major corporate
campuses. (Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Miller No; Com. Kaneda absent)
Com. Brophy:
. Said that while he was concerned about the housing issue, he was not willing to add that as a
condition at this time.
. Said he would support it if they needed 480 in addition to the 150; but was not in favor of
adding more for the reasons that Com. Miller pointed out, by allowing the additional office
space just for the sake of building it if it is not part of the specific campuses that provide
substantial financial benefits to the city.
The agenda was moved back to Item 2A.
(A) General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element update.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Miller, to continue Item 2A General
Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element update, to the April 28, 2009
Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Kaneda absent)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: No meeting.
Housinl! Commission: No report.
Mayor's Monthly Meetinl! With Commissioners:
Com. Lee summarized reports given at the meeting:
. Dog park discussion.
2-169
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
April 14, 2009
. Fine Arts Commission: building at Tantau across from HP behind Kaiser; lighting in front of
sculptures; needs to be LEED
. Bike and Pedestrian Committee: Ribbon cutting ceremony for Mary Ave. pedestrian
footbridge April 30; May 16, 17 - Bike to Work Day; Revising Bike transportation plan;
. Public Safety: April 22 - Walk, Bike and Carpool Day; working with Teen
Commission/contacted all schools to coordinate event
. Feeder streets issue: speeding
. Library: No. 1 in US for circulation; Art wall display in reading room; late fee for videos is
reduced; National Library Week; End of Oct. 5 yr celebration of Library opening
. Parks and Rec: Future use of Simms property and Stocklmeir property
. TIC: Working with Environmental Coordinator on video about solar panels.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Aarti Shrivastava:
. Said she was pleased to be working with the City of Cupertino again in her new position as
Community Development Director.
. She provided updates on Heart of the City, Modification to Use Permit on Town Center Lane;
Matrix permit process.
MISC:
Com. Lee requested that Item 2B be reopened so that she could change her vote on the item. City
Attorney Carol Korade explained that the item would have to be reopened, and a motion made for
reconsideration, followed by a revote. She advised that the application would have to be reopened
in a public hearing, since the public has left the meeting and the matter has been closed. She said
that under Roberts Rules and Parliamentary Procedure the request would have to have the support
and a motion with an affirmative vote in order to reopen the item before discussion of the item.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Lee, to reopen Item 2B.
(Motion died for lack of 3 affirmative votes to reopen Item 2B)
The city attorney clarified that because there were not three affirmative votes, the item is not
reopened. She explained that there was a final action, and no reconsideration opportunity exists;
the item is closed and the action is considered final.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for April 28, 2009 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
2-170
Exhibit F
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CUPERTINO
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE. CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 · FAX (408) 777-3333
Summary
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location! APN:
GP A-2008-01 (EA-2009-05)
City of Cupertino
City-wide
Agenda Date: April 14, 2009
Application Summary:
A. General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element Update
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached 2007-2014 Draft Housing
Element and discuss the Policy and Goals section, the Housing Resources section beginning on
page 77 and the Available Site Inventory and make recommendations to the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Selections of Consultant:
In February 2008, staff distributed a Request for Proposals for the preparation of the Housing
Element of the General Plan to nine bay area consultants specializing in Housing Element
preparation. Of the nine consultants, two responded with proposals. Staff interviewed the two
consultants and selected Bay Area Economics (BAE) to prepare Cupertino's Housing Element
for the planning period of 2007-2014. BAE was selected as the City's consultant because of their
experience and the thorough public participation plan submitted with their proposal.
Housing Element Process:
In accordance with State law, California cities must have an adopted General Plan which must
contain a Housing Element. While all elements of a General Plan are reviewed and revised
regularly to ensure that the plan remains current, state law requires that the Housing Element be
updated every five years. The current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and
certified by the State in 2001 and was most recently amended by the City Council as part of the
comprehensive General Plan update on November 15,2005.
State law also dictates the issues that the Housing Element must address and furthermore requires
the element to be reviewed by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) to ensure that it meets the minimum requirements established by
Government Code ~65580-65589.8. This process is commonly referred to as "certifying"
2-171
General Plan Amendment for 2007-2014 Housing Element Update
April 14,2009
Page 2 of 3
the Housing Element. The adopted Housing Element needs to be submitted to the State no
later than June 30, 2009 for review by HCD.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
The major and most controversial requirement of the Housing Element is for cities to adequately
plan for their existing and projected housing needs, including their share of the regional housing
need. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) completed the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) in June 2008. As part of this process, ABAG worked with regional
and local governments to develop a methodology for distributing the nine-county Bay Area's
housing need (as determined by HCD) to all local governments in the region.
Each city and county has received an allocation of housing units, broken down by income
categories, for which it must plan by identifying adequate sites zoned at adequate densities.
Cupeltino's RHNA for the 1999-2006 Housing Element period was 2,720 units. In contrast,
Cupertino's RHNA goal for the 2007-2014 period is 1,170 units, a reduction of nearly 57%. It
should be noted that HCD does not require that units be built but instead requires municipalities
to "identify adequate sites for housing and make adequate provision for the existing and
projected needs of all economic segments of the community."
Of the 1170 units in the new RHNA, the City has already approved, planned or constructed 516
units (see table 4.2 of the Draft Housing Element) which reduces the RHNA balance to 734 units.
The remaining 734 units must serve the extremely low, very low and low income populations.
Meeting this requirement means either having property in the City that is zoned at a density of
20+ units to the acre or requiring sites to be rezoned to a minimum density of 20 units/acre to
accommodate the balance. State Government Code requires that the Housing Element include an
"inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having
the potential for redevelopment" (Section 65583(a)(3)). It further requires that the Housing
Element analyze zoning and infrastructure on these sites to ensure that housing development is
feasible during the planning period (2007-2014). For example, if a project has recently been
built on a site that could have accommodated greater density than that of the built project, the
City is not allowed to count the balance since the likelihood of the site being redeveloped in the
planning period (2007-2014) is unlikely to occur.
Appendix F of the attached Draft Housing Element shows potential residential sites and the
required density while Section 6, beginning on page 77, analyzes the sites in more detail.
Appendix F contains a list of sites totaling well above the remaining 734 units. Taking into
account the public and Planning Commission feedback, staff will perform further site analysis
and conduct an environmental review prior to bringing forward the Planning Commission's
recommendations to the City Council.
Process:
During this update, particular attention is being paid to the public participation process. The
consultant has held four focus group meetings with key stakeholders and a community workshop.
Stakeholders groups included a representatives from City commissions and the City Council, the
Council of Churches, PT A groups, teacher unions, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Silicon
g:\planning\pdreport\pc gpa reports\2009\gpa-2008-0~=1~ 2
General Plan Amendment for 2007-201 using Element Update
April 9, 2009 Page 300
Valley Association of Realtors, League of Women Voters, Cupertino Union School District,
Fremont Union High School District, DeAnza College, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, West
Valley Community Services (WVCS), and public interest groups such as Cupertino Against
Rezoning (CARe), Concerned Citizens of Cupertino (CCC) and Advocates for a Better
Cupertino (ABC). Each stakeholder group self-selected its own representative.
All stakeholder and community meetings were webcast and archived for viewing on the city
website. Furthermore, PowerPoint presentations have also been archived on the City website for
review. The stakeholder and community meetings were advertised on the city website and a city-
wide postcard with key dates was mailed out in advance of the first public hearing. To review
materials and video archives of the stakeholder and community meetings, please go to
www.cupertino.org/housingelement.
On April 9, 2009, the Cupertino Housing Commission reviewed the Draft Housing Element and
a PowerPoint presentation prepared by BAR After discussion, the Commission has
recommended the Planning Commission review the Draft Housing Element and forward it to the
City Council for submission to HCD for review. After the Planning Commission reviews and
comments on the Draft Housing Element, its recommendations will be forwarded to the City
Council for consideration.
As mentioned earlier, after the Council adopts the element, it will be submitted to HCD for
certification, a process which could take several months.
PREP ARED BY: Vera Gil, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY
~~ik_
Aarti Shrivastava
Community Development Director
Enclosures:
Draft Housing Element
g:\planning\pdreport\pc gpa reports\2009\pc 4-9-09.do2_1 73