24A. GPA Housing ElementOFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPE.RT.INO, CA 95014 -3255
(408) 777 -3308 • FAX (405) 777 -3333 • planning4cupertino
CITY COUNCIL, STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. A! i
Agenda Date: April 6, 2010
Application Summary: Consider adopting a resolution approving a General Plan
Amendment to the 2007 -2014 Housing Element and the Heart of the City Specific Plan,
Resolution No. 106, application No. GPA- 2008 -01, EA- 2009 -05, Z- 2010 -02, MCA -2010-
02, City of Cupertino, Citywide:
This staff report will focus on proposed charges to Housing Element of the General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends the following:
1. Adopt a Negative Declaration (EA- 2009 -05)
2. Conduct a straw vote adopting an amendment to the 2007 -2014 General Plan
related to the Housing Element (GPA-2- 008 -01), Resolution No. 10-
3. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 10- : "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino amending the Cupertino Municipal Code" (MCA -
2010-02)
4. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 10 -01 : " An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino approving the rezoning of" (Z- 2010 -02):
• Approximately 59.13 acres, consisting of 27 parcels located in the North De
Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan area generally located tivest of North De Anza
Boulevard, north of Lazaneo Drive and south of the 280 Freeway from Planned
Development (CG, ML, Res 4 -10) to Planned Development (CG, ML, Res)
• Approximately 3.15 acres located in the North De Anza Boulevard Conceptual
Plan Area west of Bandley Drive, from Planned Development (CG, ML, BQ, Res
4 -10) to Planned Development (C(:,, ML, BQ, Res)
April 6, 2010 GPA- 2008 -01, EA- 2009 -05, Z- 2010 -02, MCA - 2010 -02 Page 2 of 6
• Approximately 6.21 acres, consisting of 25 residential parcels located on Arcadia
Court and along the north side near the terminus of Greenleaf Drive, from
Planned Development (CG, ML, Res 4 -10) to R1 -7
If the Council is ready to adopt the general plan amendment, the Council should first
conduct a straw vote to adopt this amendment, and then hear the Heart of the City
application, followed by one motion to collectively adopt the resolution approving a
General Plan Amendment on both the Housing Element and the Heart of the City. This
will allow the City to collectively adopt these amendments as one general plan
amendment. Staff recommends this method to allow the City to "bundle" these
amendments together so that the City may have the flexibility to consider other general
plan amendments for the rest of this calendar year. By state law, cities are allowed to
adopt no more than four general plan amendments a year.
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 1999 -2006 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 2007 -2014 Housing Element under review shows the City's
plan to accommodate ABAG's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1170 units.
Since 453 units approved or built since January 2007 can be credited towards the RHNA
goals, the City's remaining allocation is 717 units. Appendix G of the attached draft
Housing Element is the final list of sites the City Council approved to meet the
requirement, previously referred to as Tier 1.
Initial Planning Commission and City Council Review
The Planning Commission reviewed the Housing Element at its April 14 and April 28,
2009 meetings and recommended forwarding the Housing Element to the Council with
some changes to the list of sites. On June 2, and June 16, 2009, the City Council reviewed
the Housing Element and after hearing public feedback made some final revisions to the
list of sites forwarded to the State.
Recent Planning Commission Review
On March 9, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the amendments that follow and
unanimously recommended that the City Council approved the Housing Element
amendments, the rezoning and the Municipal Code ameudments. Four members of the
public addressed the Planning Commission at the Planning Commission Hearing. Most of
the comments were positive with one speaker suggesting a much more inclusive and
interactive public process for vetting the Housing Element Sites Inventory. Another
speaker suggested that the City should rezone fewer properties in order to meet the
RHNA goals. Staff explained to the speaker that the City Council intentionally suggested
rezoning the least number of parcels to meet the RHNA goals.
April 6, 2010 GPA- 2008 -01, EA- 2009 -05, Z- 2010 -02, MCA - 2010 -02 Page 3 of 6
DISCUSSION
State HCD Review
Since the initial submission of the draft Housing Element to HCD on June 16, 2009, staff
has participated in six conference calls with HCD staff and sent HCD updated information
to address their comments. The most significant comments received requested additional
details on the site analysis, zoning code constraints, local processing and permit
procedures, energy conservation, and on and off -site improvements. Furthermore, the
City was asked to amend the zoning ordinance to address reasonable accommodations for
persons with disabilities, transitional and supportive housing in residential zones and
emergency shelters in the Quasi Public Zoning (BQ) district and to clarify our process
related to parking flexibility for projects. The revised draft of the Housing Element was
forwarded to HCD for a final review on March 23, 2010.
To address comments from HCD, the following changes in the draft Housing Element
have been made:
• Additional detail has been added to the Residential Capacity Analysis to strengthen
the sites analysis.
• Additional detail has been added to the constraints section for each residential zoning
district.
• Additional language has been added explaining that it is not necessary for permitted
uses to apply for conditional use permits. To avoid confusion, staff has removed
references to a "use permit" in Planned Development and other residential zoning
districts where residential uses are permitted. Instead, a new category for "planned
development permits" has been added.
• A table to address the permit processing timeline has been added to the element.
• Additional language on energy conservation programs has been added.
• Additional detail on required on and off -site improvements has been added for
clarification in response to HCD's inquiry. Specifically, more information was
provided on the City's required street width and right of way improvements.
• Additional detail on flexible parking standards, especially for mixed -use and
affordable housing projects, has been added to the element to address concerns from
HCD.
• Staff proposes that a reasonable accommodation ordinance be created providing equal
access to housing for persons with disabilities needed to comply with the both State
and Federal laws requiring reasonable accommodations in the City's zoning and land
use.
Staff proposes amending the residential zoning ordinances to comply with S132
(Chapter 633, Statutes of 2007) which requires that transitional and supportive housing
should be permitted as a residential use and can only be subject to those restrictions
that apply other residential uses in the same zone.
April 6, 2010 GPA- 2008 -01, EA- 2009 -05, Z- 2010 -02, MCA - 2010 -02 Page 4 of 6
• Government Code Section 65583(a)(4) requires the identification of a zone or zones
where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or
other discretionary permit. Staff proposes amending the BQ (Section 19.64 - Quasi -
Public Building) Ordinance to allow permanent emergency shelters in the BQ zone by-
right without a use permit.
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
The following is a brief explanation for each of the ordinance amendments proposed in
response to HCD comments:
• Planned Development Permits - A "planned development permit" category has been
created to accommodate review and approval process for permitted uses that are
located in a Planned Development zone (Chapter 19.48). The review process for a
"planned development permit" will continue to follow the current process for
conditional use permits since the findings are applicable. However, the Zoning
Ordinance now differentiates the process for permitted uses and for conditional uses.
Amendments are also made to the entire Zoning Ordinance to add "planned
development permits" as a new permit type.
• Parking Regulations - Currently, the City's Parking Ordinance (Chapter 19.100)
provides specific parking requirements for each use including one for mixed -use and
shared parking. The Ordinance also allows for alternative parking considerations for
projects, provided a parking study indicates that supply is adequate, and certain
criteria are met. Examples of prior projects approved with alternative parking
considerations include: Murano (Saxon Gardens), Villa Serra Apartments, Hamptons
Apartments, Cupertino Village, Vallco Shopping Center and Main Street Cupertino. In
response to HCD's comments, revisions are being proposed to add clarity- and
consistency related to alternative parking requirements in the Parking Ordinance. The
amendments do not propose changes to the current process.
• Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance - Per HCD's requirement, staff is proposing
creating a reasonable accommodation ordinance (Chapter 19.50) providing equal access
to housing for persons with disabilities.
• Transitional and Supportive Housing - Chapters 19.16 through 19.48 of the zoning
ordinance have been amended to comply with SB2 (Chapter 633, Statutes of 2007)
which requires that transitional and supportive housing be permitted as a residential
use and that they can only be subject to those restrictions that apply other residential
uses in the same zone.
• Permanent Emergency Shelters - To comply with Government Code Section
65583(a)(4), the BQ (Quasi - Public) Zone (Chapter 19.64) - has been amended to allow
permanent emergency shelters by -right without a use permit. The BQ zone already
allows rotating shelters as a permitted use in conjunction with a church use and if
certain criteria are met. Therefore, staff believes that this is the most appropriate zone
to allow permanent emergency shelters using the same criteria as rotating shelters.
April 6, 2010 GPA- 2008 -01, EA- 2009 -05, Z- 2010 -02, MCA - 2010 -02 Page 5 of 6
Property Rezoning
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 655�3(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 Housing Element draft includes an implementation program which states that the
City will rezone the identified sites in the sites inventory to allow for residential uses at
appropriate densities where necessary. HCD requires that necessary rezoning and
General Plan Amendments be completed early enough to reasonably permit development
during the planning period. Specifically, rezoning and land use changes should be
completed within the first two years of the planning period.
One site on the Housing Element site inventory, 20705 Valley Green Drive, requires
rezoning from P(CG, ML, Res 4 -10) to P(CG, ML, Res). The rezoning would keep the
mixed use designation (except for the single - family residential parcels on Acadia Court)
and would allow residential at a density of 25 units / acre per the General Plan. In
reviewing the zoning for the area, staff noted an inconsistency between the zoning and the
General Plan. Since State law requires that the zoning be consistent with the General Plan,
staff is recommending the following changes to the North De Anza Boulevard Planning
Area to make it consistent with the General Plan:
• Rezoning approximately 50 acres, consisting of 27 parcels located in the North De Anza
Boulevard Plaru Area generally located west of North De Anza Boulevard, north of
Lazaneo Drive and south of the 280 Freeway from Planned Development (CG, ML, Res
4 -10) to Planned Development (CG, ML, .Res) to be consistent with the General Plan.
• Rezoning of approximately a 3 -arce parcel located in the North De Anza Boulevard
Planning Area west of Bandley Drive, from Planned Development (CG, ML, BQ, Res 4-
10) to Planned Development (CG, ML, BQ, Res); and
• Rezoning approximately 4.3 acres, cor sisting of 25 residential parcels located on
Acadia Court and along the north side near the terminus of Greenleaf Drive, from
Planned Development (CG, ML, Res 4 -10) to R1 -7 in order to be consistent with the
General Plan Land Use Designation.
Initial Shitty for General Plan Amendment
The original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2005 General Plan update
analyzed a maximum of 22,369 units. This Housing Element update would allow up to
717 new dwelling units, which is well � the residential development envelope
analyzed in the General Plan EIR. An Initial Study was prepared by Design Conununity
and Environment that addressed the rezoning of the properties, new programs and
conducted any new environmental analysis required by State law since the last General
April 6, 2010 GPA- 2008 -01, EA- 2009 -05, Z- 2010 -02, MCA - 2010 -02
Page 6 of 6
Plan update in 2005. Since the Housing Element is not expected to have significant
impacts on the environment, a Negative Declaration is recommended.
NEXT STEPS
The revised draft Housing Element was forwarded to HCD on March 23, 2010 and staff is,
expecting an expedited review and should have a status report at the Public Hearing on
April 6, 2010. Once the compliance letter is received from HCD, staff will forward a copy
through the City Manager's Items of Interest.
Prepared by: Vera Gil, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Plaruzer06&
Reviewed by:
Aarti Shrivastava
Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS
Model Resolution
Model Ordinance
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attaclunent E
Attachment F
Attachment G
Approved by:
David W. app
City Manager
Comment letter from State HCD dated August 25, 2009
Initial Study for GP Amendment
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Proposed Municipal Code Amendments
Legal Descriptions and Zoning Plat Map
Planning Commission Resolutions
Draft Planning Commission Minutes from March 9, 2010
G: �Pl aiming�PDREPORTI,CC1,2008'\, 2000 -01,7- 2010 -02, lv1CA- 2010 -02 U-Jor
GPA- 2008 -01 (EA- 2009 -05) /GPA- 2010 -01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Tori e Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 10- 0
DRi�F i
m oD EL
� E soc._v.`r r oN
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THI. CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING A
RESOLUTION APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RELATED TO
THE 2007 -2014 HOUSING ELEMENT AND THE HEART OF THE CITY
SPECIFIC PLAN
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Application Nos.: GPA- 2008 -01 (EA- 2009 -05) & GPA- 2010 -01
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: City Wide (Housing Element) and Heart of the City Specific Plan
Area
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino initiated applications for a General Plan Amendment
as described in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held one or
more public hearings on this matter, considered public testimony from the public and
applicable agencies /public interest groups; z.nd
IATIIEREAS, said Initial Study for the Housing Element (EA- 2009 -05) reflects the
independent judgment of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined tl-.at certain potential environmental impacts
resulting from adoption of the Housing Element ma�7 cause a significant effect upon the
environment, but that changes have been incorporated into the project to avoid or
substantially lessen the significant epviro;zmental effect and a mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared;
WHEREAS, the City Council 1 determined that the General Plan Amendment is
necessary to achieve consistencv with the updated Heart of the City Specific Plan as
described in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that there will not be significant
environmental impacts to update the General Plan Land Use Map and associated maps
Resolution No. 10 - 071 GPA- 2008 -01 (EA- 2009 -05) & GPA- 2010 -01 April 6, 2010
Page 2
and language in the Land Use /Community Design Element of the General Plan related
to the Heart of the City Specific Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino
that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for General Plan Amendment, application no.
GPA- 2008 -01 (EA- 2008 -05) and GPA- 2010 -01 are hereby approved subject to the
following:
Exhibit A : Draft Housing Element of the General Plan to the City Council
Exhibit B : Changes in the General Plan Land Use Map as shown and in pages 2 -5, 2 -19,
2 -23, 2 -24 and 2 -25 of the Land Use/ Community Design Element of the General Plan
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 6th day of April 2010, by the following votes:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Mayor
Cupertino City Council
G:\ Plam ting \PDREPORT\ RES\ 2010\ GPA- 2008- 01,GPA- 2010- 01CC.doc
EXHIBIT A
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
City of Cupertino
Housing Element Update
2007 -2014
Bay Area Economics
Headquarters 510.547.9380
1285 66th Street fax 510.547.9388
San Francisco Bay Area Sacramerto New York Washincton, D.C. Emeryville, CA 94608 bael @bael.com
bayareaeconomics.com
Page 1 of 136
HCD DRAFT Fear March 2009
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3
4.
5.
6.
Page 2 of 136
00introduction ............................................................... ..............................1
1.1.
1414Role and Content of Housing Element ................................ ...............................
1
1.2.
1515Public Participation .............................................................. ...............................
2
1.3.
1616Organization of Housing Element ....................................... ...............................
4
11Review of Prior Housing Element ............................ ..............................5
2.1.
1717Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for All Economic Segments
2.2.
1818Goal B: Housing that is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households ...
6
2.3.
1919Goal C: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods .................... ...............................
7
2.4.
2020Goa1 D: Services for Special Needs Households ................. ...............................
7
2.5.
2121 Goal E: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities ................. ...............................
8
2.6.
2222-A Housing Production Goals ....................................... ...............................
8
22Housing Needs Assessment .................................... ..............................9
3.1.
2323Regional Context ................................................................. ...............................
9
3.2.
2424Population & Household Trends .......................................... ...............................
9
3.3.
2525Employment Trends & Jobs /Housing Balance .................. ...............................
14
3.4.
2626Housing Stock Characteristics ........................................... ...............................
17
3.5.
2727Market Conditions & Income Related to Housing Costs ... ...............................
22
3.6.
2828Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion ........................... ...............................
31
3.7.
2929Special Housing Needs ...................................................... ...............................
36
3.8.
3030Summary ............................................................................ ...............................
47
33Regional Housing Needs Determinations 2007 - 2014 ..........................
49
4.1.
3131Regional Housing Needs Allocation ( RHNA) ................... ...............................
49
4.2.
3232Housing Needs for Extremely Low - Income Households .. ...............................
50
44Housing Constraints ................................................ .............................52
5.1.
3333Government Constraints .................................................... ...............................
52
5.2.
3434Economic and Market Constraints ..................................... ...............................
70
5.3.
3535Environmental, Infrastructure & Public Service Constraints ............................
72
5.4.
3636Opportunities for Energy Conservation ............................. ...............................
78
5.5.
37375 ummary ............................................................................ ...............................
79
55Housing Resources .................................................. .............................81
6.1.
38Overview of Available Sites for Housing .............................. ...............................
81
6.2.
3939General Plan Residential Allocations ................................ ...............................
81
6.3.
4040Residential Capacity Analysis ........................................... ...............................
81
Page 2 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFuar-y 2009
6.4.
41Zoning for Emergency Shelters and Transitional .................. ............................... 98
421-Iousing ................................................................................................ ...............................
98
6.5.
43Financial Resources for Housing ......................................... ...............................
100
7 .
66Housing Plan ............................ ............................... ............................103
7.1.
4443Quantified Objectives ...................................................... ...............................
103
7.2.
4544Goa1 A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for All Economic Segments
103
7.3.
4645Goal B: Housing is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households ......
105
7.4.
4746Goal C: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods ................ ...............................
111
7.5.
4847Goa1 D: Services for Special Needs Households ............. ...............................
114
7.6.
4948Goal E: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities ............. ...............................
116
7.7.
5049Goal F: Coordination with Local School Districts ........... ...............................
117
8.
77Analysis of Consistency with General Plan .......... ............................118
8.1.
51501-and Use /Community Design .......................................... ...............................
118
8 .2.
5251Circulation ....................................................................... ...............................
118
8.3.
5352Environmental Resources /Sustainability ......................... ...............................
119
8.4.
545314ealth and Safety ............................................................. ...............................
119
9. Appendix A: Focus Group Participants ..................... ............................121
10. 88Appendix B: Review of Previous Housing Element ..........................122
11. 99Appendix C: List of Organizations Contacted ....... ............................128
12. 1010Appendix D: Windshield Survey ......................... ............................129
13. 1111Appendix E. Maximum Affordable Sales Price Calculations ........130
14. 1212Appendix F: Summary of Cirty Zoning Standards ..........................132
15. 1313Appendix G: Residential Site Inventory ............. ............................133
Page 3 of 136
HCD DRAFT €eta March 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 development. Consistent with Cupertino's goal of becoming a
balanced community with a full range of land 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 plan 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 production 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 certified 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,
Page 4 of 136
HCD DRAFT March 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 participation 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 21 members of the Cupertino community
representing various income groups 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 over 25 leaders in the Cupertino 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. Partie, representing various income groups
participated in the Focus Group. 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, trafEc, open space, and school impacts.
Appendix A provides a complete list of organizations represented at the Focus Group meetings.
Page 5 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFuaar -y March 2009
• Focus Group Meeting #3 (October 23, 2008) — This meeting discussed housing design
issues and provided information to participants about different housing product types,
densities, and heights.
Focus Group Meeting #4 (November 20, 2008) — The final meeting involved a discussion
of housing programs and policies. The Focus Group reviewed the accomplishments of the
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 January 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.
Community Involvement in Sites Inventory. The City's inventory of residential opportunity
sites was developed in consultation with the Housing Commission, Planning Commission, City
Council, and members of the public. The Housing Element and sites inventory was presented at
one meeting of the Housing Commission, two Planning Commission meetings, and two City
Council meetings. At each meeting, commissioners and council members, as well as members of
the public, discussed the inventory. During these discussions, several sites were removed and new
sites were added based on input from these various stakeholders. Decisions to add or remove sites
were based on realistic expectations for sites to be redeveloped within the planning period.
Incorporation of Community Feedback. Community stakeholders and Cupertino residents
provided valuable feedback at various points throughout the Update process that were incorporated
into the Housing Element. At the focus group meetings, stakeholders emphasized the regional
context of housing need in Santa Clara County and encouraged the City to work with neighboring
jurisdictions. Community members at the focus group meetings and community workshop also
asked questions about particular housing needs in the City which were addressed through data
provided in the Needs Assessment. Community concerns regarding the impact of new residential
development on local schools were addressed through a new Program in the Housing Element that
encourages coordination between the City and local school districts. As discussed above,
community members were particularly involved in the site inventory to accommodate the City's
Page 6 of 136
HCD DRAFT Febff -March 2009
RHNA. Several sites suggested by community members during the various public hearings were
incorporated into the Housing Element.
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.
Page 7 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFuay March 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 B 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. Specifically, the Element indicated the City would designate sufficiently
residentially -zoned land at appropriate densities to provide adequate sites to meet and exceed its
RHNA of 2,325 units for the 2001 -2006 planning period. An analysis conducted by the City
indicated that there were sufficient residentially zoned sites to accommodate 2,523 units at the time
the Housing Element was adopted. As such, rezoning was not necessary to meet Cupertino's
RHNA for the previous planning period. Appendix B provides a breakdown of the number of units
that could be accommodated in each Planning Area.
As shown in Table 2. 1, the City permitted 1,070 housing units between 2001 and 2006.
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.
Page 8 of 136
HCD DRAFT €e-hlFuar March 2009
Table 2.1: Housing Production by Planning District, 2001 -2006
Notes:
(a) The total units permmitted between 2001 and 2006 differs from the total housing
units produced during the previous RHNA period, which ran frcm 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 a "Housing Mitigation" fee. Between 1999 and 2006, 25 very low- income and two low -
income units were built by developers through the affordable housing mitigation program.
Through its Affordable Housing Fund, the City assisted the construction of the 24 -unit Vista
Village affordable rental development and purchasi:d 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 p:- eservation 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.
Page 9 of 136
Units Permitted
Remaining
Planning District
Allocated Units
2 001 -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 frcm 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 a "Housing Mitigation" fee. Between 1999 and 2006, 25 very low- income and two low -
income units were built by developers through the affordable housing mitigation program.
Through its Affordable Housing Fund, the City assisted the construction of the 24 -unit Vista
Village affordable rental development and purchasi:d 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 p:- eservation 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.
Page 9 of 136
HCD DRAFT F ebruary March 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 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 financial 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 assisted 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.
Page 10 of 136
HCD DRAFT ebFuayF March 2009
2.5. _Goal E: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities
To support equal housing opportunities in Cupertino, the City contracts with Project Sentinel to
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 and address fair housing complaints. 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
412
36
8.7%
Low - Income
198
12
6.1%
Moderate - Income
644
79
12.3%
Above Moderate - Income
1,466
1,212
82.7%
Total
2,720
1,339
49.2%
Sources: ABAG, 2007; BAE, 2009
Page 11 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 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 Cupertino 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 C
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 and Saratoga lies
to the West 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 from 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
Page 12 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
168 acres of land 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 dormitories, 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.
Average 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 of 2.97. 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 of family 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.
Page 13 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebFaarr -y March 2009
Table 3.1: Population and Household Trends, 2000 -2008
Santa Clara Count
Population (b)
1,682,585
1,837,075 154,490 9.2%
Total Change
565,863
608,652 42,789 7.6%
Average Household Size (b)
Annexation
less annexations
Percent Change
City of Cupertino
2000
2008 (est.) 2000 -2008 (a)
2000 -2008
2000 -2008
Population (b)
50,602
55,551 1,563
3,386
6.7%
Households (b)
18,223
19,660 578
859
4.7%
Average Household Size (b)
2.75
2.80
Household Type
Families
74.8%
75.0%
Non - Families
25.2%
25.0%
Tenure
Owner
63.6%
64.0%
Renter
36.4%
36.0%
Santa Clara Count
Population (b)
1,682,585
1,837,075 154,490 9.2%
Households (b)
565,863
608,652 42,789 7.6%
Average Household Size (b)
2.92
2.97
Household Type
Families
69.9%
69.9%
Non - Families
30.1%
30.1%
Tenure
Owner
59.8%
59.3%
Renter
40.2%
40.7%
Bav Area (c
Population (b)
6,784,348
7,301,080 516,732 7.6%
Households (b)
2,466,020
2,643,390 177,370 7.2%
Average Household Size (b)
2.69
2.71
Household Type
Families
64.7%
64.8%
Non - Families
35.3%
35.2%
Tenure
Owner
57.7%
57.8%
Renter
42.3%
42.2%
California
Population (b)
33,873,086
38,049,462 4,176,376 12.3%
Households (b)
11,502,871
12,653,045 1,150,174 10.0%
Average Household Size (b)
2.87
2.94
Household Type
Families
68.9%
69.0%
Non - Families
31.1%
31.0%
Tenure
Owner 56.9% 57.6%
Renter 43.1% 42.4%
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.
Page 14 of 136
HCD DRAFT Feuary March 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 end Santa Clara County, there are significant
proportions of persons under 20 years old. However, the proportion of Cupertino 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 evi denced 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 incom. category.
Page 15 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFI +a- March 2009
On a per capita basis, Cupertino is also wealthier than Santa Clara County and the 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.
Page 16 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ear-y March 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 Cupertino and
Santa Clara County. However, Cupertino has a much higher proportion 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, Cupertino
and the broader Silicon Valley region lost some of the gains in key sectors that were achieved
between 2003 and 2007. As of February, 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.
Page 17 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ar-y March 2009
Table 3.4: Jobs by Sector, 2003 -2007 (a)
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, Foresty, Fishing and Hunting (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 workers 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.
Page 18 of 136
City
of Cupertino
Santa Clara County
Q3 2003 (b)
03 2007 (c)
% Change
03 2003 (b)
Q3 2007 (c)
% Change
Industry Sector
Jobs
% Total
Jobs
% Total
2003 -2007
Jobs
% Total
Jobs
% Total
2003 -2007
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (d)
11
0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
4,778
1%
4,541
1%
-5%
Mining (d)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
173
0%
262
0%
51%
Construction
395
1%
462
1%
17%
39,981
5%
46,824
5%
17%
Manufacturing
6,061
22%
10,618
34%
75%
172,236
20%
165,665
19%
-4%
Utilities (d)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1,474
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)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
15,632
2%
9,197
1%
-41%
Administrative and Waste Services
1,197
4%
1,335
4%
12%
52,271
6%
56,791
6%
yob
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)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
57
0%
16
0%
-72%
Government (d) (e)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
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, Foresty, Fishing and Hunting (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 workers 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.
Page 18 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ehuar-y - March 2009
Table 3.5: Employment Trends, Cupertino
Notes:
(a) Represents employed residents and jobs in the third quarter of 2003 and 2007.
Sources: California 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 e. variety of local sources.
Cupertino's population is expected to grow by 7,1 W 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.
Page 19 of 136
Cupertino
Santa Clara County
Percent
Percent
Change
Change
2003(a)
2007(a
2003 -2007
2003(a
2007(a)
2003 -2007
Employed Residents
22,300
23,300
4.5%
779,200
814,700
4.6%
Total Jobs
27,199
30,862
13.5%
841,004
894,260
6.3%
Employed Residents /Total Jobs
0.820
0.755
0.927
0.911
Unemployment rate
5.4%
3.0%
8.3%
4.7%
Notes:
(a) Represents employed residents and jobs in the third quarter of 2003 and 2007.
Sources: California 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 e. variety of local sources.
Cupertino's population is expected to grow by 7,1 W 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.
Page 19 of 136
HCD DRAFT Febr March 2009
Table 3.6: Population, Household, and Job Projections, 2005 -2035
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 proportion 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.
Table 3.7: Housinq Structures Year Built, Cupertino
Cupertino
10,402
Year Built
Number Percentage
1999 to March 2000
356
1.9%
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 proportion 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.
Table 3.7: Housinq Structures Year Built, Cupertino
Santa Clara Coun
Number
Cupertino
10,402
Year Built
Number Percentage
1999 to March 2000
356
1.9%
1995 to 1998
1,198
6.4%
1990 to 1994
1,021
5.5%
1980 to 1989
2,287
12.2%
1970 to 1979
4,466
23.9%
1960 to 1969
5,622
30.0%
1950 to 1959
2,952
15.8%
1940 to 1949
591
3.2%
1939 or earlier
221
1.2%
Total
18,714
100.0%
Median Year Built
1970
Santa Clara Coun
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%
579,329 100.0%
1970
Sources: US Census, SF3 -1-134, 2000; BAE, 2008.
Page 20 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFuary 2009
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.
Table 3.8: Housing Conditions, Cupertino, 2000
Plumbing Facilities
Number
Percent of Total
Owners
Complete plumbing facilities
11,521
63.2%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities
19
0.1%
Renters
Complete plumbing facilities
6,653
36.5%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities
24
0.1%
Total
18,217
100.0%
Kitchen Facilities
Owners
Complete kitchen facilities
11,532
63.3%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities
8
0.0%
Renters
Complete kitchen facilities
6,653
36.5%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities
24
0.1%
Total
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. Nevertheless, 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
Page 21 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ems_ --y- rch 2009
review of each unit's foundation, roofing, siding and/or stucco, and windows.' 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.
_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 (defined as units in structures containing five or more dwellings)
represent the second largest housing category in Cupertino and have experienced the most rapid
growth between 2000 and 2008. The number of large 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.
i
Appendix D provides a sample windshield survey form.
Page 22 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
Table 3.9: Housing Units by Type, 2000 -2008
Percent
Percent
2000
2008
Change
City of Cupertino
Number of Units Percent of Tot
Number of Units
Percent of Total
2000 -2008
Single Family Detached
11,425 61.1%
12,235
607%
7.1%
Single Family Attached
2,028 10.3%
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%
- 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).
Page 23 of 136
Percent
Change
Santa Clara County
Number of Units
Percent of Tot
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%
- 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).
Page 23 of 136
Percent
Change
Bay Area
Number of Units Percent of Tota
Number of Units
Percent of Total
2000 -2008
Single Family Detached
1,376,861
53.8
1,466,501
53.7%
6.5%
Single Family Attached
224,824
8.E%
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
1OC%
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).
Page 23 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFuayF March 2009
Table 3.10: Building Permits Issued by Building Type in Cupertino 1999 -2008
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)
Owners
Renters
Total Overcrowded
Cupertino
Households
Percent
Households
Percent
Households
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)
%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 -H2O, 2000; BAE, 2008.
Page 24 of 136
Owners
Renters
Total Overcrowded
Cupertino
Households
Percent
Households
Percent
Households
Percent
1.51 or more persons per room(Severely Overcrowded)
148
1.3%
528
7.9%
676
3.7%
1.01 to 1.50 (Overcrowded)
452
3.9%
626
9.4%
1078
5.9%
1.00 or less
10,940
94.8%
5,523
82.7%
16,463
90.4%
Total
11,540
100.0%
6,677
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%
33,048
14.5%
46,264
8.2%
1.01 to 1.50 (Overcrowded)
14,695
4.3%
19,945
8.8%
34,640
6.1%
1.00 or less
310,725
91.8%
174,234
76.7%
484,959
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 -H2O, 2000; BAE, 2008.
Page 24 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 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.
Cupertino rents were higher than current levels in 2000 at the peak of the dot corn boom. Average
monthly rents subsequently declined to $1,519 in 2304 before rising again to $2,030 in 2008.
Between 2004 and 2008, apartment rents within Cupertino have outpaced inflation, increasing by
34 percent.
Page 25 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ery 2009
Table 3.12: Overview of Rental Housing Market, Cupertino, 4th Quarter 2008 (a)
CURRENT MARKET DATA:
Avg.
Avg.
Sq. Ft.
Percent
Unit Typ e
Number
of Mix
Studio
135
3%
Jr 1BR/1BA
69
2%
1 BR/1 BA
1,539
36%
1 BR TH
12
0%
2 BR/1 BA
582
13%
2BR/1.5 BA
1,070
0%
2 BR/2 BA
1,350
31%
2 BR Townhouse
353
8%
3 BR/1.5 BA
909
$2,032
3 BR/2 BA
172
4%
3 BR/3 BA
Change
2008 b
3 BR Townhouse
106
2%
Totals
4,318
100%
AVERAGE RENT
HISTORY:
$1,727
Unit Typ
2006
2007
studio
$1,071
$1,199
jr 1bd
$1,265
$1,402
1bd 1bth
$1,444
$1,630
2bd Ibth
$1,719
$1,885
2bd 2bth
$1,997
$2,157
2bd TH
$1,992
$2,306
3bd 2bth
$2,450
$2,644
3bd TH
$2,201
$2,433
All
$1,744
$1,928
OCCUPANCY RATE:
Average
Year
Occupancy
2004
95.8%
2005
96.2%
2006
96.7%
2007
96.5%
2008
96.3%
AGE OF HOUSING INVENTORY
(by Project):
Percent of
Year
Projects
1960s
29%
1970s
33%
1980s
5%
1990s
33%
2000s
0.0%
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
Sq. Ft.
Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
466
$1,272
$2.73
660
$1,115
$1.69
720
$1,727
$2.40
909
$1,933
$2.13
920
$1,844
$2.00
1,057
$2,319
$2.19
1,070
$2,509
$2.34
1,276
$2,762
$2.16
1,321
$2,628
$1.99
909
$2,032
$2.24
2006 -2007
2007 -2008
Change
2008 b
Change
12.0%
$1,272
6.1%
10.8%
$1,115
-23.9%
12.9%
$1,727
8.1%
9.7%
$1 ,844
-3.4%
8.0%
$2,319
13.5%
15.8%
$2,509
16.9%
7.9%
$2,762
9.8%
10.5%
$2,628
16.3%
10.6%
$2,032
8.7%
Notes:
(a) Represents only housing complexes with 50 units or more.
Sources: RealFacts, Inc., 2008; Bay Area Economics, 2008.
Page 26 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFuar -y March 2009
Home Sale Trends
Home values in Cupertino have increased significantly since 2000. According to DataQuick
Information Systems, the median sales price for a single- family home increased by 40 percent from
$825,000 in 2000 to $1,153,000 in 2008. Condominium sale prices experienced a parallel increase,
growing by 42 percent from $480,000 to $680,000 between 2000 and 2008. While other areas of
the state and nation have experienced downturns in the housing market recently, Cupertino home
values have continued to grow (See Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1: Annual Median Home Price for Cupertino, 1990 -2008
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
Condos Single Family Homes
Sales volume for single - family homes peaked in 1999 with 812 units sold. The number of single -
family home sales declined to 436 units in 2001 during the economic downturn in Silicon Valley.
Sales volume of both single - family homes and condominiums in the City has fluctuated since 2001.
As shown in Figure 3.2, condominium sales volume parallel trends for single - family homes. In
2008, 337 single - family homes and 140 condominiums were sold in Cupertino. The decline in
home sales in 2008 is indicative of the tightening credit market and current recession.
Page 27 of 136
O N M � u'> (0 r` 00 O O r N M � U) O r` 00
O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O M O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O
� � � c = c = � � � N N N N N N N N N
HCD DRAFT €- March 2009
Figure 3.2: Homes Sales Volume, Cupertino, 1990 - 2008
700
600
w 500
400
300
200
100
0
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 reported a vacancy rate of 2.7 percent in Cupertino, slightly higher than Santa Clara's
vacancy rate of 2.3 percent (See Table 3.13). However, Real Facts, which surveys large apartment
complexes, reports 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.
Page 28 of 136
0 M M 0 rn 0 0 M CO M 0 O O O O O O O 0
rn M M M rn M M M M M o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
� - r- r- r - r- r- r- r- r- r- N N N N N N N N N
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
Table 3.13: Housing Occupancy and Vacancy S 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
Cuperl:ino
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 Cateaory
Extremely Low Income
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate
Santa Clara Median
% of Area
Top of Income
Median Income
Range (a)
0% to 30%
$31, 850
31 % to 50%
$53,050
51% to 80%
$84,900
80% to 120%
$117,400
100% $97,800
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.
Page 29 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebF!!a March 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
ffff Dad works as an elementary school teacher, mom
works as a secretary; they have two children.
Low Income Household (50 %- 80 %AMI)
Very Low Income Household (Up to 50 %AMI)
Estimated Annual Income: $53,050 - $84,900
ffff
Dad works as an office building janitor, mom
works as a childcare provider; they have two
children.
Very Low Income Household (Up to 50 %AMI)
Sources: California 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 E provides details the calculations for the maximum affordable sales price.
Home sales data for Cupertino between June 1, 2007 and June 1, 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 1, 2007 and June 1, 2008 fall within this price range. This analysis
indicates that for all but above moderate - income households, current market prices present a
Page 30 of 136
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: California 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 E provides details the calculations for the maximum affordable sales price.
Home sales data for Cupertino between June 1, 2007 and June 1, 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 1, 2007 and June 1, 2008 fall within this price range. This analysis
indicates that for all but above moderate - income households, current market prices present a
Page 30 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFuarzy March 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 o:"$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 :;or a three bedroom unit in Cupertino in the first
quarter of 2008 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 current market without some form 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.
Page 31 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
Table 3.15. Affordability of Market Rate Housing in Cupertino (a)
Percent of SFRs
Percent of Condos
Max. Affordable
on Market within
on Market within
For Sale
Sale Price (b)
Price Range (c)
Price Range (c)
Very Low - Income (Up to 50% AMI)
$219,000
0.6%
0.0%
Low - Income (Up to 80% AM[)
$350,500
1.1%
0.0%
Moderate - Income (Up to 120% AMI)
$484,700
0.0%
0.0%
Single - Family
Residence (c)
Condominiums (c)
Median Sale Price
$1,081,300
$885,800
Max. Affordable Average Market
Rental Monthly Rent (d) 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) 6.6% Freddie Mac, ten -year average.
Term of mortgage (Years) 30
Percent of sale price as down payment 20%
Initial property tax (annual) 1.10%
Mortgage insurance as percent of loan amount 0.00% Assumes 20% down payment.
Annual homeowner's insurance rate as percent of sale price 0.04% CA Dept. of Insurance, average, assuming $150K coverage.
Percent of household income available for PITI 30%
PIT[ = 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.
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
Page 32 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
homes in Cupertino.
Figure 3.74: Household Income of Select Occupations, Santa Clara County, 20 (a)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
■Above Moderate Income Moderate Income Median Income
� Low Income Very Low Income ■ Extremely Low Income
_Overpayment
According to Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) standards, a household is
considered to be "cost- burdened" (i.e. overpaying for housing) if it spends more than 30 percent of
gross income on housing- related costs. Households are "severely cost burdened" if they pay more
than 50 percent of their income on housing cost. The 2000 Census reports that 31 percent of
renters and 28 percent of homeowners were overpaying for housing in Cupertino in 2000. In Santa
Clara County, 36 percent of renters and 28 percent of homeowners were cost - burdened in 2000.
The housing cost burden is particularly pronounced for extremely low- and very low- income
households. In 2000, 61 percent of Cupertino's extremely low - income renters and 72 percent of
very low- income renters were severely cost burdened. This finding is consistent with the analysis
of the local housing market, which revealed a significant gap between prices and rents and the
ability of lower- income households to afford adequate housing.
Page 33 of 136
Teachers (b) Firefighters (c) Police Officers (d) Nurses (e)
HCD DRAFT February 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%
--
Extremeley Low Very Low Low
--
Extremeley Low Very Low
Low Median and All Households
No cost burden ■ Cost burden 30 -50%
Above
No cost burden N Cost burden 30 -50% Severe burden > 50%
Homeowners
100% — - -- - - - -
- -- —
90% -- -- -- -
- --
80% — - -- -
--
70% — - --
—
60%
-
50% - - -
-- - - -- -
40% — --� --
— —
30% — --
20% —
10% -- - -- - -�
--
0%
--
Extremeley Low Very Low Low
Median and All Households
Above
No cost burden ■ Cost burden 30 -50%
Severe burden > 50%
3.6. _Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion
State Law requires local Housing Elements to include an inventory of affordable housing
developments that could be at risk of conversion to market 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
Page 34 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebFwary 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.
Page 35 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFUay March 2009
Table 3.16: Inventory of Affordable Rental Housing Units
Source: City of Cupertino, 2008; BAE, 2008
_Units At Risk of Conversion During Next Ten Years
The affordable housing developments 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
Page 36 of 136
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
6/30/2035
19140 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Le Beaulieu Apartments
27
27
0
9/12/2015
10092 Bianchi Way
WVCS Transitional Housing
4
4
0
7/14/2026
10311 -10321 Greenwood Ct.
Beardon Drive
8
8
0
11/22/2024
10192 -10194 Beardon Dr.
Vista Village
24
24
0
11/29/2056
10114 Vista Drive
TOTAL
203
203
0
Group Homes
Adult Toward Independent Living
8 persons
N/A
19147 Anne Ln.
Pacific Autism Center for Education
12 persons
6/25/2025
19681 Drake Dr.
7576 Kirwin Ln
Below Market Rate (BMR) Rental Units
Biltmore Apartments
2
2
0
6/30/2029
10159 South Blaney Ave.
City Center Apartments
4
4
0
7/8/2026
20380 Stevens Creek Blvd.
The Hamptons
34
34
0
10/20/2027
19500 Pruneridge Ave.
Arioso Apartments
20
20
0
1/29/2028
19608 Pruneridge Ave.
Forge - Homestead Apartments
15
15
0
1/16/2027
20691 Forge Way
Aviare Apartments
22
22
0
7/8/2026
20415 Via Paviso
Chateau Cupertino
10
10
0
3/1/2010
10150 Torre Ave.
TOTAL
107
107
0
Source: City of Cupertino, 2008; BAE, 2008
_Units At Risk of Conversion During Next Ten Years
The affordable housing developments 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
Page 36 of 136
HCD DRAFT February 2009
affordability restrictions for the Le Beaulieu project will expire in 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). The Le Beaulieu development is considered
to have a low -risk of converting to market rate because Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition is
committed to maintaining the property as affordable.
While the Le Beaulieu project is the only subsidized development that is at -risk of converting to
market rate, there are also 10 below market rate (BMR) units in the Chateau Cupertino
development with affordability requirements expiring in March of 2010. These 10 BMR units will
likely convert to market rate when the affordability requirements expire. However, the City of
Cupertino is committed to maintaining long -term affordability of its BMR units. As such, in 2005,
the City increased the minimum affordability term for BMR units in new developments to 99 years.
If Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition is unsuccessful in renewing funding for the Le Beaulieu
project, there are several other options for retaining this affordable housing resource in the
community. These include preserving the units as affordable or replacing them. A cost 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 i5 $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.
Page 37 of 136
HCD DRAFT FelaFia- March 2009
Table 3.17: At -Risk Housing Preservation Analysis
Unit Type # Units FMR (a) Market Rents (b) Per Unit Gap (c) Total Gap (d)
1 BR 21 $1,113 $1,727 $614 $12,894
2 BR 6 $1,338 $1,844 $506 $3,036
Total 27 $15,930
Yearly Cost to Preserve 27 Units (e)
Total Cost to Replace Units (f)
$191,160
$2,278,271
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
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 mortgage 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 $2.28 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
Page 38 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebFuary 2009
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 effort 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 find 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
affordable housing providers as Mercy Housing, Inc., and EAH, 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 necessary to as semble a team to preserve an affordable
housing project whose conversion to market rate hcusing 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 of large 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
Page 39 of 136
HCD DRAFT €e r-y- 2009
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.
Table 3.18: Household Size by Tenure, 2000
Owner
Cupertino Number Percent
1 -4 persons 10,309 89.3%
5+ persons 1,231 10.7%
Total 11,540 100.0%
Renter Total
Number Percent Number _
6,152 92.1% 16,461
525 7.9% 1,756
Percent
90.4%
9.6%
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.
Page 40 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
Table 3.19: Existing Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms, 2000
Sources: US Census, SF3 -1142, 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.
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.
Page 41 of 136
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%
2; 27,227
100.0%
565,863
100.0%
Sources: US Census, SF3 -1142, 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.
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.
Page 41 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ems - March 2009
Table 3.20: Family Characteristics, Cupertino, 2000
Number
Percent
Maried - couple Family
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.
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 defined as households earning less than 30 percent of area
median income. These households may require specific housing solutions such as deeper income
Page 42 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
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 ofhomeowners paid more than 50 percent of their
gross income on housing.
Table 3.22: Housing Needs, Extremely Low - Income Households, Cupertino
Ren ters
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)
6'.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.
_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 fixes. 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.
Page 43 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFuar-y - March 2009
Table 3.23: Elderly Households by Tenure and Age, 2000
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.
Table 3.24: Household Income of Elderly Households by Tenure, Cupertino, 2000 (a)
Elderlv Renter Households
30% MFI
>30% to 50% MFI
>50% to 80% MFI
80% MFI
Total
Elderly Owner Households
30% MFI
>30% to 50% MFI
>50% to 80% MFI
80% MFI
Total
Number
Cupertino
Santa Clara county
15-64 years
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Owner
8,805
58.6%
268,358
56.6%
Renter
6,222
41.4%
205,742
43.4%
Total
15,027
100.0%
474,100
100.0%
65 plus years
Owner
2,735
85.7%
70,278
76.6%
Renter
455
14.3%
21,485
23.4%
Total
3,190
100.0%
91,763
100.0%
Total Householders
18,217
565,863
Percent Householders 65 plus years
17.5%
16.2%
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.
Table 3.24: Household Income of Elderly Households by Tenure, Cupertino, 2000 (a)
Elderlv Renter Households
30% MFI
>30% to 50% MFI
>50% to 80% MFI
80% MFI
Total
Elderly Owner Households
30% MFI
>30% to 50% MFI
>50% to 80% MFI
80% MFI
Total
Number
Percent
190
39.2%
65
13.4%
60
12.4%
170
35.1%
485 100.0%
Number
Percent
294
10.7%
395
14.4%
297
10.8%
1,765
64.2%
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
Page 44 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFuary 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 el&,-ly 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 thE.n 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)
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 grass 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 3.26, 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 3.2 6, 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 currently takes approximately 5
years for individuals to get a unit.
Page 45 of 136
All Elderly
Extr. Low
Very Lo v i_
Low
Median +
Households
Elderly Renter Households
190
6:i
60
170
485
% with any housing problems
71.1%
69.2 0 /3
58.3%
50.0%
61.9%
• Cost Burden >30%
71.1%
69.2 0 n
58.3%
50.0%
61.9%
• Cost Burden >50%
71.1%
69.2 0 n
58.3%
11.8%
48.5%
Elderly Owner Households
294
395
297
1,765
2,751
% with any housing problems
54.1%
32.9 0 /)
12.8%
16.1%
22.2%
• Cost Burden >30%
50.7%
32.9 0 /)
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 grass 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 3.26, 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 3.2 6, 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 currently takes approximately 5
years for individuals to get a unit.
Page 45 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFuary March 2009
Table 3.26: Housing Resources for the Elderly
Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly
Location
Capacity
The Forum at Rancho San Antonio
23500 Cristo Rey Drive
741
Paradise Manor 4
19161 Muriel Lane
6
Pleasant Manor of Cupertino
10718 Nathanson Avenue
6
Purglen of Cupertino
10366 Miller Avenue
12
Sunnyview Manor (a)
22445 Cupertino Road
115
Zen's Care Home
20351 Bollinger Road
6
Total
886
Skilled Nursing Facilities
Health Care Center at Forum at Rancho San Antonio
23500 Cristo Rey Drive
48
Pleasant View Convalescent Hospital
22590 Voss Avenue
170
Sunnyview Manor
22445 Cupertino Road
47
Total
265
Subsidized Independent Senior Rental Housin
Chateau Cupertino 10150 Torre Avenue 10
Park Circle 20651 -20653 Park Circle East 8
Sunnyview West 22449 Cupertino Road 99
Total 107
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;
Avenidas, 2008; City of Cupertino, 2008; BAE, 2008
_Persons with Disability
A disability is a physical or mental impairment 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.
Page 46 of 136
HCD DRAFT F^h y March 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 +)
Cupertino
Santa Clara County
33.3%
Percent of
27.6%
Percent of
Santa Clara County
Total
20,564
Total
Number
Population
Number
Population
2,149
4.6%
114,389
7.4%
1,429
3.0%
79,730
5.1%
1,504
3.2%
60,610
3.9%
5,082
10.8%
254,729
16.4%
47,102
100.0%
1,552,217
100.0%
Sources: U.S. Census, SF3 -P42, 2000; BAE 2008.
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
2,823
33.3%
121,693
27.6%
Cupertino
Santa Clara County
6.6%
20,564
Percent of
Physical disability
Percent of
11.4%
39,508
Total
Mental disability
Total
3.6%
N umber
Cisabilities
Number
Disabilities
Total Disabilities for Ages 5 -64
5,647
66.7%
319,867
72.4%
Sensory Disability
376
4.4%
18,284
4.1%
Physical disability
647
7.6%
41,897
9.5%
Mental disability
617
7.3%
34,919
7.9%
Self -care disability
201
2.4%
14,885
3.4%
Go- outside -home disability
1,453
17.2%
79,636
18.0%
Employment disability
2,353
27.8%
130,246
29.5%
Total Disabilities for Ages 65 and Over
2,823
33.3%
121,693
27.6%
Sensory Disability
556
6.6%
20,564
4.7%
Physical disability
962
11.4%
39,508
8.9%
Mental disability
303
3.6%
18,128
4.1%
Self -care disability
280
3.3%
12,897
2.9%
Go- outside -home disability
722
8.5%
30,596
6.9%
Total Disabilities Tallied
8,470
100.0%
441,560
100.0%
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
Page 47 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFuar-y 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 wit?t
chronic disabilities, provide 24 hour care by trained professionals.
Table 3.29: Community Care Facilities in Cupertino
Adult Residential Facilities Location Capaci
Paradise Manor 2 19133 Muriel Lane 6
Paradise Manor 3 19147 Muriel Lane 6
Total 12
Group Homes
Pace - Morehouse 7576 Kirwin Lane 6
Pacific Autism Center for Education Miracle House 19681 Drake Drive 6
Total 12
Source: California Department of Social Services, 2008; California Healthcare Foundation,
2008; BAE, 2008
- Farmworkers
As shown in Table 3.30, the USDA Census of Agriculture reported that there were approximately
5,500 farmworkers in Santa Clara County in 2002. A majority of farmworkers (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)
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 of homelessness. Generally, episodes of homelessness among families or
Page 48 of 136
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 of homelessness. Generally, episodes of homelessness among families or
Page 48 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFua+ -y March 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 Fam ilies
Population
%Total
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
1257
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 f•om 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 a transitional housing facility for
homeless individuals.
Page 49 of 136
HCD DRAFT €t-hr—a — March 2009
Table 3.32: Homeless Facilities in Cupertino
Organization/Agency Facility Address Total Beds
Emergency Shelters
West Valley Community Services Rotating Shelter 11 churches and one synagogue 15
in Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and
Saratoga
Transitional Housing
West Valley Community Services Transitional 10311 -10321 Greenwood Ct.
Total 19
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE 2009
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 of 20 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 four 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.
Page 50 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFuary March 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 of large
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, ve:.y 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.
Page 51 of 136
HCD DRAFT Febr-i aa+� March 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 Area jurisdictions 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 January 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 -2
Projected Percent
Income Category
Need
of Total
Very Low (0 -50% of AMI)
341
29.1%
Low (51 -80% AMI)
229
19.6%
Moderate (81 -120% of AMI)
243
20.8%
Above Moderate (over 120% of AMI)
357
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 January 1,
2007 toward satisfying its RHNA goals for this planning period. As shown in Table 4.2, 547 units
have been constructed or approved within this planning period. The City has already met its
RHNA for above moderate - income units, but has a remaining allocation of 717 very low -, low -,
and moderate - income units.
Page 52 of 136
HCD DRAFT February - March 2009
Table 4.2: Units Constructed or Approved, 111/07 - present
Vallco Park South
Sandhill Main Street Senior Housing 316- 20 -C78, 79, 85 0 0 24 136 160
10123/10150 N. Wolfe Rd. Rose Bowl 316- 20 -C37 0 0 31 173 204
2800 Homestead Road Villa Serra 326 -09 -C 56 9 8 0 99 116
10630 Linnet Lane 316 - 47-017 0 0 0 3 3
, Other .. ...
Affordability
Address Project Name
APN
Very Low
Low Moderate
Above
Total
0
3
19
22
Monta Vista
10056 Orange Ave.
357- 17 -058
0
0 0
2
2
10217 Pasadena Ave.
357- 18 -C25
0
0 0
1
1
21871 Delores Ave.
357- 14 -C26
0
0 0
1
1
10121 Pasadena Ave.
357- 17 -C45
0
0 0
1
1
Vallco Park South
Sandhill Main Street Senior Housing 316- 20 -C78, 79, 85 0 0 24 136 160
10123/10150 N. Wolfe Rd. Rose Bowl 316- 20 -C37 0 0 31 173 204
2800 Homestead Road Villa Serra 326 -09 -C 56 9 8 0 99 116
10630 Linnet Lane 316 - 47-017 0 0 0 3 3
, Other .. ...
10424 Alicia Ct.
10855 N. Stelling Rd.
Las Palmas
326 -07 -037
0
0
3
19
22
22823 San Juan Road
0
342 -22 -C78
0
0
0
1
1
21947 Lindy Lane
0
356 -25 -029
0
0
0
1
1
19935 Price St.
Senior Housing Solutions
369 -05 -035
5
0
0
0
5
19489 Rosemarie Place
Maitri Transitional Housing
375 -01 -008
8
8
0
0
16
Second Dwelling Units
10424 Alicia Ct.
Second dwelling unit
34245 -026
0
0
0
1 1
10826 Bubb Rd.
Second dwelling unit
362 -02 -028
0
0
0
1 1
10562 Culbertson Dr.
Second dwelling unit
375 -34 -037
0
0
0
1 1
20896 Elenda Dr.
SF home w/ 2nd unit
326 -30 -023
0
0
0
2 2
20874 Garden Gate Dr.
Second dwelling unit
326 -30 -033
0
0
0
1 1
6676 John Dr.
Second dwelling unit
369 -23 -008
0
0
0
1 1
10164/10166 Mann Dr.
SF home w/ 2nd unit
326 -19 -008
0
0
0
2 2
10591 Wunderlich Dr.
SF home w/ 2nd unit
375 -33 -053
0
0
0
2 2
18760 Tilson Avenue
Second dwelling unit
375 -17 -040
0
0
0
1 1
19110 Tilson Avenue
Second dwelling unit
375 -09 -001
0
0
0
1 1
10400 Mann Dr.
Second dwelling unit
326 -45 -010
0
0
0
1 1
Total Credits
2007 -2014 RHNA
Balance of RHNA (a)
22 16 58 451 547
341 229 243 357 1,170
319 213 185 n/a 717
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 soc ial security insurance (SSI) or disability
Page 53 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebFuayf March 2009
insurance.
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
low- income households.
Extremely low- income households often rely on supportive housing as a means of transitioning
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.
Page 54 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 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 financing constraints, and public opinion. Recent court
rulings have removed some of the mechanisms local government traditionally has used to require
developers to provide affordable housing, thus exacerbating the difficulty of meeting the number of
units determined necessary b the regional housing needs assessment.
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 defined 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 provides the policy and program direction necessary to guide the City's land use decisions
in the first two decades of the 21 st 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 terrain, applies one of four
Page 55 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebFuaFy March 2009
slope - density formulas 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
"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 "Commercial/Residential" and "Neighborhood Commercial/Residential"
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
Page 56 of 136
HCD DRAFT �:: March 2009
requirements. These standards are summarized in Appendix F.
As required by state law, the Cupertino's Zoning Map is consistent with the General Plan. The
City's residential zoning districts and their respective permitted densities and development
standards are summarized below.
R -1 Single Family Residential. The R -1 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 of 28 feet
allows for a wide range of single family housing types on flat terrain. Structures in R -1 Districts
with an "i" designation at the end are limited to one story (18 feet).
Two -story structures in the R -1 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).
The development standards for the R -2 District do not constrain the development of duplexes. The
thirty foot height limit is appropriate because many R -2 zoned areas abut single - family residential
development. Furthermore 30 feet in height is sufficient for duplex development. The 40 percent
maximum lot coverage has also not constrained the development of duplexes in Cupertino. It
should be noted that none of the residential opportunity sites included in this Housing Element fall
within the R -2 zone.
R -3 Multi -Family Residential. The R -3 District permits multi - family residential development in
Cupertino. This District requires a minimum lot area of 9,300 square feet for a development with 3
Page 57 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebF March 2009
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. The
City uses the parcels' gross acreage to calculate lot coverage. or 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. This height
limit is used because many R -3 districts abut single - family residential neighborhoods. The City
does not count submerged or partially submerged levels as part of the height limit. As a result,
developers can develop a half story of parking (partially- submerged) and two full stories of
residential units and conform to the height limits. For these reasons, the height standards in the R -3
district are not considered a constraint to housing production.
The development standards for the R -3 District do not unreasonably constrain the development of
multifamily housing. Multifamily residential uses are permitted uses by default in the R -3 District
without the need for a Use Permit. Developments are able to achieve close to the maximum
allowable densities under existing development standards, including the height limit and maximum
lot coverage. An indicator of this is the expansion of two existing garden apartment complexes.
The Villa Serra and Biltmore developments, located in R -3 districts, which increased the densities
of the projects by adding new units to surplus open space and parking lots. The details for these
projects are provided below:
Example 1
Project Name: Villa Serra
Site Area (acres): X=Y,25.4 acres
Maximum Density: XX20 -35 QUA
Maximum Developable Units: XX889 units
Actual Units Developed: 506 units
Actual Units/ Maximum Units: XX57 percent
This Housing Element Update includes a program to monitor the R -3 District development
standards to ensure that the requirements do not constrain new housing production.
Page 58 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
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
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 -1C Residential Single Family Cluster. The purpose of the R -1C 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. Alternatively, the
Planning Commission and/or the City Council may initiate a public hearing to rezone specific
properties to the R -1C 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 -1C
District also regulates site design and private streets within the cluster.
P Planned Development. The P district is intended to provide a means for guiding land development
that is uniquely suited for planned coordination of land uses and to provide for a greater flexibility
of land use intensity and design because of accessibility, ownership patterns, topographical
considerations, and community design objectives. All P districts are identified on the zoning map
with the letter P followed by a specific reference to the type of use allowed in the particular
planned development district. For example, a P(Res) district allows for residential uses.
Developments within a P district are generally required to comply with the height and density
regulations associated with the underlying use. Beyond density and height regulations, the P
district allows for a greater degree of flexibility around other development standards. The increased
flexibility in the P zones allow a project to be designed to the special characteristics of a site (such
as corner parcels, proximity to a creek or open space, etc) without requiring variances or
exceptions. Such sites can include a combination of multiple housing types, open space and a mix
of uses in a single area. Examples include Civic Park and Metropolitan. A majority of the sites
proposed in the Housing Element are located in the P district. The majority of the P districts are
governed by a Specific or Conceptual Plan which provides additional guidance to facilitate
development review and provide more certainty regarding community expectations. For example,
the Heart of the City Specific Plan provides detailed guidelines for residential and mixed -use
developments (including orientation, design, setbacks, landscaping, buffers, and transitions to
neighboring properties).
Page 59 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebF aFy March 2009
Prior to development within a P district, applicants must submit a definitive development plan and
obtain a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission or City Council. Upon
recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council approves or denies larger
developments, including those with eight or more residential units. Multi - family residential
developments within a P district typically take between two to four months to obtain approvals.
Regulations associated with the P district are not considered a constraint to development. The
Zoning Ordinance will be amended to remove the requirement for conditional use permits in the P
district and to clarify that the development plan will only require a regular development permit.
A Agricultural. Agricultural zones are intended to preserve agriculture and forestry and to
provide corridors of agriculture and forestry between cities or neighborhoods. Single - family
dwellings are permitted in the Agricultural District. The minimum lot size for this District 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 -1 Agricultural - Residential. The A -1 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 -1 District. The minimum size of lots
with incidental residential uses in the A -1 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.
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.
Page 60 of 136
HCD DRAFT € ayF March 2009
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 cor straint of housing development by increasing
development costs and reducing the amount of land 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 Parkina Ratio
Single - Family 11-1, RHS, A -1, P 4 / DU (2 garage, 2 open)
Small Lot Single - Family, Townhouse P 2.8 / DU (2 garage, 0.8 open)
Duplex R -2 3 / DU (1.5 enclosed, 1.5 open)
High Density Multi - Family R -3, P 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 of land 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.
The City's zoning ordinance allows for shared parking in mixed -use developments. For example,
residential projects with a retail or commercial component will have a lower parking requirement
because residential users may use some retail parking spaces in the evening. The zoning ordinance
provides a formula for calculating the parking reduction in mixed -use developments. In addition,
the Planning Commission or City Council may allow further reduction in the parking requirement
as part of a use permit development plan or parking exception based on shared parking
arrangements, parking surveys, and parking demand management measures. Implementation
Program 14 of the current General Plan allows the City to provide regulatory incentives for
affordable housing developments. These incentive, include the waiving of certain fees as well as
allowing reduced parking standards.
Page 61 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
_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 any one
year span at a single location.
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 permitted by
right in all residential districts (including A, A -1, R -1, R -2. R -3, RHS, R -1C). 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 permitted use in Agricultural (A) and Agricultural Residential (A -1)
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 farmworker housing. However, the high cost of land, absence of seasonal
agriculture, and lack of significant farmworker population in the City makes it unlikely that
proposals for farmworker 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 permits second dwelling units on
lots in Single- Family Residential (R -1), Residential Hillside (RHS), Agricultural (A), and
Agricultural Residential (A -1) 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
Page 62 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
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
f6r 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
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 constructing road, water, sewer, and storm drainage
improvements on new housing sites. Where a project has off -site impacts, such as increased runoff
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 runoff be
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. &.11 utilities within the subdivision and along
peripheral streets must be placed underground.
Common residential street widths in Cupertino range from 20 feet (for streets with no street
parking) to 36 feet (for those with parking on both sides). The City works with the developer to
explore various street design options to meet their needs and satisfy public safety requirements.
Developers are typically required to install curb, gutters, and sidewalks, however, there is a process
where the City Council can waive the requirement. The City prefers detached sidewalks with a
landscaped buffer in between the street and the pedestrian walk to enhance community aesthetics
and improve pedestrian safety. However, the City does work with developers to explore various
frontage improvement options depending on the project objectives, taking into consideration
factors such as tree preservation, land/design constraints, pedestrian safety, and neighborhood
pattern/compatibility. This is especially true in Pla:zned Development projects, where the City
works with the developer to achieve creative and flexible street and sidewalk designs to maximize
the project as well as community benefits.
The Subdivision Ordinance also includes land dedication and fee standards for parkland. The
formula for dedication of park land for residential c evelopment is based on a standard of three
Page 63 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebmar -y March 2009
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 final 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 incurred
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.
The City of Cupertino's site improvement requirements for new subdivisions are consistent with
those in surrounding jurisdictions and do not pose a significant constraint to new housing
development.
_Building 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
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 roofing, 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.
Page 64 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
_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 snake a reasonable accommodations request. Rather, cities provide disabled residents relief from
the strict terms of their zoning ordinances through ,-xisting variance or conditional use permit
processes. Cupertino is one of these jurisdictions. 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 regardi:lg 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
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
variances 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 :-equired 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 -1) District are subject to siting restrictions that are not present in
other residential zones.
Page 65 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebFUary 2009
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 a mitigation fee, which is placed in the City's Affordable Housing
Trust Fund. The Housing Mitigation plan is based on a nexus study prepared by the City that
demonstrated that all new developments, including market -rate residential developments, create a
need for affordable housing. Under this program, developers of for -sale housing where units may
be sold individually must sell at least 15 percent of units at a price affordable to median- and
moderate - 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 the Housing Mitigation fee. To be
consistent with recent court decisions and the State Costa - Hawkins Act regarding rent control, the
City is modifying the Housing Mitigation Program so that developers of market -rate rental units,
where the units cannot be sold individually, must pay the Housing Mitigation fee to the Affordable
4
Housing Trust Fund. Currently, the Housing Mitigation fee is $2.58 per square foot.
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
5
any other development fee "will always be split between all players in the development process."
4
The housing mitigation fee is updated periodically. Developers should check with the Community Development
Department for the most current fee amount.
S
W.A. Watkins. "Impact of Land Development Charges." Land Economics 75(3). 1999.
Page 66 of 136
HCD DRAFT €tea+ - March 2009
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 of loca:_ inclusionary housing ordinances in cities as
diverse as San Diego, Carlsbad, and Sacramento.
Recognizing the need for a financially feasible pro; -ram that does not constrain production, some
jurisdictions allow developers to pay a fee for all units, regardless of project size. As discussed
previously, Cupertino's Housing Mitigation program requires large for -sale 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 a fee for large projects
would provide more flexibility.
_Park Impact Fees
The City of Cupertino assesses park impact fees fa- 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 of a 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
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.
6
David Rosen. "Inclusionary Housing and Its Impact on Hous ng and Land Markets." NHC Affordable Housing Policy
Review 1(3).2004
Page 67 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
-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
erection 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.
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
$926 / acre + $70 / 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 dua)
$9,000
High Density (20+ dua)
$8,100
Housing Mitigation In -Lieu Fee
$2.58 / Sq. Ft.
$5,160
$4,130
$4,050
Cupertino Union School District Fee
$1.782 / Sq. Ft.
$3,564
$2,851
$2,495
Fremont Union High School District Fee
$1.19 / 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
$0.08 / Sq. Ft.
Multifamily
$0.07 / Sq. Ft.
Electric
$160
$128
$98
Single- Family and Duplexes
$0.08 / Sq. Ft.
Multifamily
$0.07 / Sq. Ft.
Plumbing
$160
$128
$98
Single - Family and Duplexes
$0.08 / Sq. Ft.
Multifamily
$0.07 / 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
Page 68 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
requirements. As such, additional units could be built on these two properties. This type of
expansion of garden apartment complexes was recently approved and completed in Cupertino at
the Villa Serra and Biltmore developments. At the Biltmore, carports were demolished and new
units were constructed above ground -floor parking. New units and additional parking were added
to the Villa Serra complex in surplus open space and recreational areas. The Biltmore project
added 29 units for a total project size of 179 units, while the Villa Serra development added 117
units to achieve a total of 506 units. In both cases, existing units were not destroyed by the
construction of the new expansion.
The trend of adding new units to existing garden apartment complexes is expected to continue in
Cupertino due to the limited supply of vacant land and the high demand for residential units in the
City. Site 11 and Site 12 share many of these characteristics and present opportunities to provide
relatively affordable rental housing units in the City. In addition, both sites have older structures
and low vacancy rates. Often, when property owners of older projects decide to upgrade units, they
may choose to do additional expansion work at the same time. The realistic yield for Sites 11 and
12 are 92 units and 64 units, respectively, which falls within the range of other expansion projects
that have been successfully completed in the past. The financial feasibility of additional units at
Site 11 and Site 12 is particularly strong because both properties have long -time landowners who
purchased the land when prices were more affordable.
• Site 11. Site 11 contains the Glenbrook Apartments. Spanning across 31.3 acres, the site
could accommodate 626 units under existing zoning, which allows for a density of 20
dwelling units to the acre. However, the Glenbrook Apartments only contains 517 units,
resulting in additional potential for up to 109 residential units. Assuming Glenbrook
Apartments is able to achieve 85 percent of the site's remaining capacity, the realistic yield
for Site 11 is 92 new units. Similar to the Biltmore Apartments, Glenbrook Apartments
has large areas of land dedicated to carports. As was done in the Biltmore development,
the carport areas can be converted to ground floor parking with new units above.
Additional units could be constructed without affecting existing residential units at the site.
This site was recommended by members of the public and the community supports the
expansion of the Glenbrook Apartments,
• Site 12. Similar to the Glenbrook Apartments site, the Villages of Cupertino is not built to
the maximum allowable density. The 27.1 acre property could accommodate a total of 542
units under existing zoning. Currently the development contains 468 units, allowing for up
to 74 additional units to be built. Assuming the Villages of Cupertino is able to achieve 85
percent of the site's remaining capacity, the realistic yield for Site 12 is 62 new units. The
Villages of Cupertino have large green spaces that exceed the City's open space
requirements that can be developed with new units. The Villa Serra development
Page 98 of 136
HCD DRAFT €e r-y March 2009
Table 6.3: Vacant and Under utilized Land in the Vallco Park North
Notes:
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DataQuick Information Systems, 2009; DC &E, 2009; BAE, 2009
Figure 6.3: Potential Housing Sites in the
Vallco Park North District
W
Vasm PW* "Wth
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009; DC &E, 2009
-Non-Designated Areas
There are two sites 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.
Both sites contain existing garden apartment complexes that are not built to the maximum allowed
density. These apartment complexes have large open spaces that exceed the City's open space
Page 97 of 136
i 2 'Nk,
Allowed under Current Zoning
Max.
Max.
Realistic
Size
Density
Yield
Yield
ID APN Site Address Existing Use Acres
DUA
Units
(Units) (a)
10 316 06 050 10500 Pruneridge Morley Bros. / Industrial 2.80
25
70
59
316 06 051 10400 Pruneridge Morley Bros. / Industrial 5.69
25
142
120
Total Units
212
179
Notes:
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DataQuick Information Systems, 2009; DC &E, 2009; BAE, 2009
Figure 6.3: Potential Housing Sites in the
Vallco Park North District
W
Vasm PW* "Wth
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009; DC &E, 2009
-Non-Designated Areas
There are two sites 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.
Both sites contain existing garden apartment complexes that are not built to the maximum allowed
density. These apartment complexes have large open spaces that exceed the City's open space
Page 97 of 136
i 2 'Nk,
HCD DRAFT 1= efa�March 2009
Figure 6.2: Potential Housing Sites in the Heart of the City District
7
4*.RW to :. M3 QQR tYMt r
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009; DC &E, 2009
_Vallco Park North District
Vallco Park North is an employment area of predominantly office and light industrial activities
with neighborhood commercial uses. The Vallco Park North District allows for residential
densities up to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. The total residential buildout for the Vallco Park
North District is 851 units, with a remaining residential allocation of 300 units as of January 1,
2007.
As shown in Table 6.3, there is one site in the Vallco Park North District with potential for
residential development. The site is comprised of two parcels totally 8.5 acres. In 2005, the site
was rezoned to allow for residential development at a density of up to 25 dwelling units per acre.
• Site 10. The site is comprised of two parcels totally 8.5 acres. In 2005, the City Council
approved a general plan amendment and zoning change to allow for residential
development at a density of up to 25 dwelling units per acre at this site. The site contains
two office buildings, one of which is partially occupied, and large surface parking lots.
The site is held in common ownership and lot consolidation would not be necessary for
redevelopment. While the building remains in relatively good condition, the site is
appropriate for residential development because a residential project was previously
approved for this location. Although the approvals for the residential project have expired,
the property owner has requested that the residential zoning remain on the property.
Page 96 of 136
HCD DRAFT €fir - March 2009
cannot meet code requirements, rehabilitation is not feasible. Redevelopment of the site
would be necessary to meet all code requirements. Site 9 is also located across the street
from a major new redevelopment that will likely create additional redevelopment pressure
at the Loree Center. The site is held in common ownership and lot consolidation would not
be necessary for redevelopment.
Table 6.2: Vacant and Underutilized Land in the Heart of the City District
Notes:
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DataQuick Information Systems, 2009; DC&E, 2009; BAE, 2009
Page 95 of 136
Allowed under Current Zoning
Max.
Max.
Realistic
Size
Density
Yield
Yield
ID
APN
Site Address
Existing Use
Acres
(DUA)
Units
(Units) (a)
1
31621 031
19875 Stevens Creek Bluff
Furniture 2000
1.78
25
44
37
31621 032
19855 Stevens Creek Blvd
Yoshinoya
0.24
25
6
5
2
316 23 093
20007 Stevens Creek Blvd
I- Restaurant
1.35
25
33
28
3
326 32 041
10073 Saich Way
7 -11 site behind Bombay Oven
0.77
25
19
16
4
369 03 004
20030 Stevens Creek Blvd
Grand Buffet/Boas
1.16
25
29
24
369 03 005
20010 Stevens Creek Bluff
Corner of Stevens Creek & Blaney
0.47
25
11
9
369 03 006
10071 S Blaney Ave
Lackey Prop. (Stevens Creek & Blaney)
0.37
25
9
7
369 03 007
10031 S Blaney Ave
Lackey Prop. (Stevens Creek & Blaney)
1.36
25
34
28
5
369 05 009
19930 Stevens Creek Blvd
Arya
0.44
25
11
9
369 05 010
19936 Stevens Creek Bluff
Arya Parking Lot
0.52
25
12
10
6
369 05 038
19900 Stevens Creek Blvd
SD Furniture
1.92
25
48
40
7
369 06 002
10025 E Estates Dr
United Furniture Site
0.92
25
23
19
369 06 003
10075 E Estates Dr
United Furniture Site
0.53
25
13
11
369 06 004
10075 E Estates Dr
United Furniture Site
0.86
25
21
17
8
375 07 001
19160 Stevens Creek Blvd
Barry Swenson Property
0.55
25
13
11
9
375 07 045
10029 Judy Ave
Loree Center
0.43
25
10
8
375 07 046
19060 Stevens Creek Blvd
Loree Center
0.86
25
21
17
Total Units
357
296
Notes:
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DataQuick Information Systems, 2009; DC&E, 2009; BAE, 2009
Page 95 of 136
HCD DRAFT €a March 2009
Site 8. Site 8 is a vacant property on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Although the site is
relatively small (approximately half an acre;) its location on Stevens Creek Boulevard and
in the Heart of the City District supports relatively dense multifamily residential
development. The site is located along one of the major corridors in Cupertino, in close
proximity to services and public transportation. The owner of the property has expressed
interest in developing for a residential use, including affordable products.
• Site 9. Site 9 consists of two
parcels at the corner of Stevens
Creek Boulevard and Judy Avenue.
The site has an old, dilapidated
strip mall, built in 1952, with a mix
of occupied and vacant retail
spaces. Portions of the Center are
currently boarded up. The existing
spaces that are occupied at the
Loree Shopping Center are
marginal. Overall, the shopping
center is blighted and has multiple
code enforcement problems. Under
the current site configuration, it is difficult, if not impossible, to bring the property up to
code without redevelopment. The Shopping Center does not and cannot meet the City's
minimum parking requirements under the current configuration. Because the property
Page 94 of 136
HCD DRAFT 1ce+a March 2009
building and an adjoining surface parking lot. The two parcels are in common ownership;
lot consolidation would not be necessary for redevelopment of Site 5. The improvement to
land value ratio for the two parcels are less than 0.35. There has also been substantial
turnover of businesses at this site, indicating the unviable nature of the site for commercial
use in its existing form. The site is located along one of the major corridors in Cupertino,
in close proximity to services and public transportation.
Although Site 5 is relatively small, at slightly less than one acre, its location on Stevens
Creek Boulevard and in the Heart of the City District makes high density multifamily
residential development feasible at the Site. There is a relatively high density mixed -use,
residential project down the street from Site 5 on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Furthermore,
high density multifamily development has been built on parcels of less than one acre in
Cupertino recently, including the previously discussed Adobe Terrace project.
• Site 6. The 1.9 acre site currently houses a furniture store in a single -story building built in
1975 with surface parking. The building is setback from Stevens Creek Boulevard and is
configured specifically for a furniture store. Due to the unique configuration of the site and
building, future re- tenanting for commercial uses other than a furniture store would be
difficult. The structure is bordering on economically unviable and has high potential for
turnover. As such, redevelopment of the site would be a viable option at this location.
• Site 7. Site 7 contains three parcels at
the comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Estates Drive. The site has an old
strip mall with a mix of occupied and
vacant retail spaces. The strip mall was
built in 1960 and the improvement to
land value ratio of the three parcels
ranges from 0.01 to 0.28. The three
parcels are held in common ownership
and lot consolidation would not be
necessary. The Site is one of the top
redevelopment opportunities in the city
due to its prime location on Stevens
Creek Boulevard. Site 7 is located
across the street from the city's largest shopping center, enjoys easy freeway access, and is
located in the area that is best served by public transportation in the City. The Site is also
located next to existing residential neighborhoods. Developers have consistently expressed
interest in redeveloping this Site.
Page 93 of 136
HCD DRAFT c °� March 2009
Existing uses include the Shan restaurant and a strip mall that contains a small food market
and a laundry establishment. The site is located along one of the major corridors in
Cupertino, in close proximity to services and public transportation.
Site 4 is expected to redevelop into a mixed -use multifamily residential development at a
density of about 25 du/acre. Development of this type is common in the area along
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue. Across the street from Site 4 is a recently
completed mixed -use, multi - family residential development. The City has received
residential focused proposals for redevelopment of this site in the recent past.
Site 4b. Site 4b is located at
the Corner of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Blaney
Avenue. The parcel is
approximately half an acre in
size and has a stand -alone
restaurant on the site. The
building was constructed in
1955 and the site has an
improvement to land value
ratio of 0.17. A number of
businesses have been located
at this site in the past. The
turnover of businesses
indicates the limited viability of the site for commercial use in its current state. Although
the parcel is relatively small, there have be -n multifamily residential developments on
parcels of similar size in Cupertino in the past. The property owner has expressed interest
in redeveloping the site. The site is located along one of the major corridors in Cupertino,
in close proximity to services and public transportation.
The City will encourage Site 4b to be redeveloped in conjunction with Site 4a. Site 4a and
Site 4b collectively form a corner site that would logically be developed as a single project.
Even if the two sites are not consolidated, the City will require that proposals for
redevelopment of parcel in Site 4a or 4b be undertaken within a larger master plan that
takes all four parcels into consideration. The City would require that a coordinated access
and circulation plan would be developed for the site, even if it Site 4a and Site 4b were
developed separately.
• Site 5. Site 5 contains two parcels on Stev .-ns Creek Boulevard with a 1955 restaurant
Page 92 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ek---ary-March 2009
the market will encourage lot consolidation.
Site 2. Site 2, a 1.35 acre site on Stevens Creek Boulevard, has a restaurant and a large
surface parking lot. The building was constructed in 1978 and the parcel has an I/L ratio of
0.66, indicating that the value of the land exceeds the value of the buildings on the site.
Over the last few years, a number of businesses have unsuccessfully operated at the site.
The land to improvement ratio and the relatively high business turnover at the site further
supports redevelopment of the site for mixed -use residential development. The site is
located along one of the major corridors in Cupertino, in close proximity to services and
public transportation.
• Site 3. This site, located at the
corner of Saich Way and Stevens
Creek Boulevard, contains a strip
mall built in 1969 with a 7 -11 store
that burned down. The fire
destroyed the strip mall; the
buildings are currently vacant and
boarded up. There are no existing
uses that would prevent
redevelopment for residential use.
The property owner has expressed
interest in redeveloping the site.
The site is located along one of the
major corridors in Cupertino, in
close proximity to services and public transportation.
Although Site 3 is a small site, at slightly less than one acre, redevelopment for housing is
feasible here due to its location in the Heart of the City District. Located just off of
Steven's Creek Boulevard, one of the main corridors through Cupertino, the Site would be
expected to develop with relatively dense multifamily development. High - density
multifamily developments have been built in Cupertino on small parcels. For example, the
Adobe Terrace project developed 23 units on a 0.96 -acre site, just one unit short of the
maximum yield of 24 units.
Site 4a. Site 4a consists of three parcels held in common ownership on Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Blaney Avenue. One of the three parcels (APN 369 03 007) is currently
vacant and undeveloped. The remaining two parcels have old, single -story buildings with
large surface parking lots. The three structures were constructed in 1956, and 1965.
Page 91 of 136
HCD DRAFT 1=ebFUaF!y March 2009
-Heart of the City District
The Heart of the City District encompasses one of the most important commercial corridors in
Cupertino. The Heart of the City Specific Plan, originally adopted by the City Council in 1995,
provides development guidelines for the approximately 250 -acre Stevens Creek Boulevard
Corridor. This Specific Plan was recently updated and is currently under review by the City's
Planning Commission. The revised Specific Plan encourages the development of pedestrian-
oriented activity centers and mixed use developments with commercial and residential uses.
Under the General Plan and existing adopted Specific Plan, the total residential buildout for the
Heart 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 to
accommodate an increased residential capacity of 296 new units. This would increase the total
residential buildout for the Heart of the City neighborhood from 570 units to 650 units.
As displayed in Table 6.2 and Figure 6.2 below, there are nine sites that can accommodate 296
units in the Heart of the City area that have the appropriate General Plan and zoning designations.
The sites in the Heart of the City area are underutilized infill sites. In many cases, the year the
structures were constructed and the parcels' improvement to land value (I/L) ratio suggests the sites
are prime opportunities for redevelopment.
Site 1. Site 1 consists of two parcels on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The first parcel has a
single -story commercial building occupied by a furniture store built in 1964. The
commercial building has had a number of different tenants in recent years, with several
tenants going out of business. The building changed ownership two years ago in a 1031
exchange. Since that time, the new owners have attempted to release the space to higher
paying tenants without success. The historical turnover and lack of tenant interest
indicates the limited viability of the property as a successful commercial site in its current
state. The second parcel contains an old, outdated building constructed in 1969 that houses
the Yoshinoya restaurant. There is a large amount of surface parking on the site. The site
is located along one of the major corridors in Cupertino, in close proximity to services and
public transportation.
The two parcels which comprise Site 1 are not currently held in common ownership. As
such, lot consolidation would be necessary for redevelopment. The City routinely
encourages adjacent property owners to work together on sites such as this one to create a
single redevelopment master plan for the site providing shared access, open space and
connections. Furthermore, market conditions will encourage lot consolidation at this site.
The two parcels form a corner site at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue. In
addition, development potential is greater for a larger, corner site than a mid -block site, and
Page 90 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
Figure 6.1: Potential Units by Planning Area
Page " of 136
— . , „i...n.. to vwj. • .0�^W n .'tom &A* ,•tr , A.►1 : �. TaW PowntW HowWt s U"k* 6 T"
HCD DRAFT Febr-ua March 2009
Overview of Capacity
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 629 total units, all
of which are zoned at a minimum density of 20 /DUA. In order to meet the remaining need of 717
units during the remaining five years of the current planning period, the City proposes to adopt
policies and programs to allow for residential development at appropriate 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 G.
Table 6.1 and Figure 6.1 below displays the total potential residential capacity in Cupertino on sites
that can accommodate residential development of 20 dwelling units to the acre or more. These 13
sites can accommodate up to a total of 798 residential units. As shown, a large proportion of the
City's near -term development falls in the Heart of the City, Vallco Park North, and North De Anza
areas. The remainder of the units are scattered throughout other areas of 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 of the
general plan land use allocations.
Table 6.1: Potential Units by Planning Area
Units on Sites
Units on
Number
with Existing
Sites to be
Number
Percent
Planning District
of Sites
Res. Zoning
Rezoned
of Units
of Total
Heart of the City
9
296
296
37.1%
Vallco Park North
1
179
-
179
22.4%
North De Anza
1
-
169
169
21.2%
Non - Designated Areas
2
154
-
154
19.3%
Total
13
629
169
798
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009
Page 88 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
Actual Units Developed: 23 units
Actual Units / Maximum Units: 92 percent
Commercial Sq. Ft. as Percent of Total Sq. Ft.: 8 percent
Example 3
Project Name: Metropolitan
Site Area (acres): 3.3 acres
Maximum Density: 35 DUA
Maximum Developable Units: 116 units
Actual Units Developed: 107 units
Actual Units / Maximum Units: 92 percent
Commercial Sq. Ft. as Percent of Total Sq. Ft.: 4 percent
Because of the desirability and high value of residential property in Cupertino, developers are
reluctant to include ground floor commercial space in residential buildings, even when land is
zoned for mixed -use development. The City must often encourage or request that ground -floor
commercial space be included in projects and commercial space typically represents a small
proportion of the total development. The City of Cupertino anticipates that this trend will continue
and land zoned for mixed -use will achieve residential densities at or above 85% of the maximum
with ground floor commercial space along the street frontage.
This trend is evident in the two mixed -use project examples that contained ground floor
commercial development. The Metropolitan and Adobe Terraces projects are of typical mixed -use,
multi - family developments in Cupertino. In both cases, the commercial component represented a
small portion of the total square footage (less than 10 percent) in all cases. Even with the provision
of ground floor commercial space, the Metropolitan and Adobe Terraces developments were able
to achieve 92 percent of the maximum allowable residential units. Based on the development
experiences at the three recently completed projects described above, the density assumptions for
mixed -use residential projects at 85 e� rcent of the maximum allowed is realistic.
The assumption that sites will achieve 85 percent of the maximum allowable density is also
realistic for sites that allow for a variety of uses, including 100 percent commercial development, in
addition to residential development and mixed -use development. This is because the highest and
best use of land in Cupertino is residential development. As discussed above, the desirability and
high value of residential propeM in Cupertino encourages residential or mixed -use development
over exclusively commercial development. All three projects were developed in a zone that allows
a mix of uses including exclusively commercial and office development.
Page 87 of 136
HCD DRAFT mar - March 2009
add or remove sites were based on realistic expectations for sites to be redeveloped within the
planning period. While residential development may occur on other sites not included in this
inventory, the sites ultimately included in this Housing Element are those the community believes
have the most realistic chance of redeveloping into housing within the next five years. As a result
of the community engagement process, the sites inventory presented in the Housing Element
represents a list of residential opportunity sites that the community has vetted and supports.
In addition to consultation with various community stakeholders, the City reached out to individual
owners whose properties were identified as housing; opportunity sites. Each affected owner
received a letter informing them that their property had been identified by the City to be included in
its Housing Element as a housing opportunity site. The letter provided them with information
about the process and provided them with an opportunity to provide feedback or express concerns.
Many property owners contacted the City to discuss inclusions, but none objected to the inclusion
of their property in the Housing Element sites inventory.
Determination of Realistic Capacity. Development standards such as building height restrictions,
minimum set backs, and maximum lot coverage requirements may make it difficult for developers
to build to the maximum density allowed by the General Plan and Zoning Code on a particular site.
Furthermore, sites that are zoned for mixed -use development may have commercial space that may
reduce the number of residential units on the site. As such, this Sites Inventory provides a
"realistic yield" for each site, which reduces the maximum developable units by 15 percent. This
15 percent reduction is based on recent experience in the City of Cupertino for mixed -use
developments. As shown below, recent multi- family residential projects have built to between 82
percent and 92 percent of the maximum allowable density.
Example 1
Project Name: Oak Park
Site Area (acres): 1.6 acres
Maximum Density: 35 DUA
Maximum Developable Units: 56 units
Actual Units Developed: 46 units
Actual Units / Maximum Units: 82 percent
Commercial Sq. Ft. as Percent of Total Sq. Ft.: N/A
Example 2
Project Name: Adobe Terrace
Site Area (acres): 1.0 acres
Maximum Density: 25 DUA
Maximum Developable Units: 25 units
Page 86 of 136
HCD DRAFT €e�ary� March 2009
Methodology
For the purposes of this analysis, housing sites in Cupertino have been grouped into four
geographic areas. Each of these 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.
Cupertino is a mostly built -out City like many cities in the Bay Area. As a result, opportunities for
residential units will be realized through redevelopment of sites with existing buildings and uses on
them. The City went through a careful site selection process to ensure that future residential
development on the sites would: (1) Have community support (see description of community
process below), (2) achieve community goals of affordability and walkability, and (3) create a
liveable environment for new residents and neighbors. To ensure this, sites were selected with the
following criteria in mind:
• Proximity to transportation corridors
• Proximity (preferably within walking distance) to amenities such as schools, neighborhood
services, restaurants and retail
• Ability to provide smaller, more affordable units - sites were selected in higher density areas to
achieve this
• Create a liveable community with the least impact on neighborhoods — sites that had the most
in common with successfully developed sites were selected.
Vacant or underutilized sites that did not share the above critiera were excluded from the inventory.
Community Involvement. To ensure that both community members and property owners were in
support of the City's Housing Element and sites inventory, in particular, the City of Cupertino
engaged in a lengthy community involvement process. The City's inventory of residential
opportunity sites was developed in consultation with the Housing Commission, Planning
Commission, City Council, and members of the public. The Housing Element and sites inventory
was presented at one meeting of the Housing Commission, two Planning Commission meetings,
and two City Council meetings. At each meeting, commissioners and council members, as well as
members of the public, discussed the inventory. During these discussions, several sites were
removed and new sites were added based on input from these various stakeholders. Decisions to
Page 85 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 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 of land to accommodate its fair share of the region's housing needs during the
planning period (January 1, 2007 — June 30, 2014). 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)). It further
requires that the Element analyze zoning and infraE:tructure on these sites to ensure housing
development is feasible during the planning period.
Demonstrating an adequate land supply, however, .s 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 Government Code Section
65583.2(c)(3)(B), local governments 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
numerical density standard for local governments, - esulting in greater certainty in the housing
element review process. Specifically, if a local government 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 Cupertino 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 -term housing, economic and civic needs of the Cupertino community,
the City's General Plan adopted in 2005 provided en overall "allocation" of commercial and
residential uses by planning district and for the City overall. Taking into account the residential
projects already developed or permitted since 2007 (see Table 4.2), an analysis of sites with
residential potential in Cupertino indicates the potential to develop approximately 798 units of new
housing within the context of the current General Plan land use allocations. This figure represents
units that can realistically be accommodated on sites with allowable densities of 20 DUA or more.
6.3. _Residential Capacity Analysis
Page 84 of 136
HCD DRAFT F a March 2009
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.
• 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. Over the past several
years, projects have been subject to citizen initiatives and referenda opposition the
developments.
Page 83 of 136
HCD DRAFT a March 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 ipto new developments that are planned within
Cupertino.
The City's Housing Element contains several programs to promote energy conservation. For
example, the City will evaluate and implement the potential to provide incentives, such as waiving
or reducing certification fees, for energy conservation improvements to new or existing residential
units.
5.5. _Summary
Cupertino's General Plan and Zoning Ordniance are not development constraints to new
housing production. The Land Use /Community Design element of the General Plan
identifies five categories 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 wAh state law, this Housing Element outlines a
program to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow a permanent homeless shelter by -right in
Page 82 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 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 jurisdiction, 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 financial losses. This threat of a referendum 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
Page 81 of 136
HCD DRAFT Febf - March 2009
Figure 5.3: Enrollment Projections, 2008 -2013, CUSD and FUHSD
20,000
18,000
V) 16,000
14,000
12,000
0 10,000
8,000
M
E 6,000
Z 4,000
S
- -- CUSD
FUHSD
The 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.
Page 80 of 136
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2017
HCD DRAFT February March 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
Civic Park
FUHSD REVENUE
Assessed Value of Dev't
$117,855,778
$38,068,014 $23,638,365
$63,024,913
$90,538,152
Property Tax Revenue (a)
$196,952
$63,617 $39,503
$105,323
$151,301
FUHSD COSTS
Number of Students in Dev't
11
5 3
11
10
Cost to Serve Students (b)
$101,545
$46,157 $27,694
$101,545
$92,314
NET SURPLUS /(DEFICIT)
$95,407
$17,460 $11,809
$3,777
$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 (see 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.
Page 79 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
Figure 5.2: CUSD Historic Revenue Limit per Average Daily Attendance (ADA)
$6,000
Q $5,000
a
$4,000
G.
.
$3,000
J
_ $2,000
m
a�
$1,000
$0
Local Property Taxes and Fees
Sources: Education Data Partnership, 2008; BAE, 2008
2005 -2006
■ State Aid
2006 -2007
In contrast, FUHSD relies exclusively on property taxes for most of its revenue. FUHSD receives
property taxes in excess its Revenue Limit. The District keeps these additional revenues for
operations. As a result, the State does not provide annual per -ADA funding to the District.
Therefore, FUHSD counts on a growing property tax base to keep up with costs and maintain per -
student funding. New development helps promote a healthy tax base over time. As shown in
Table 5.2, multifamily development can be particularly beneficial to the tax base, generating higher
revenues per acre than single - family homes. This translates into more revenue for FUHSD.
2002 -2003 2003 -2004 2004 -2005
Page 78 of 136
HCD DRAFT F ebFi March 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 Cupertino and parts of San
Jose, Sunnyvale, Saratoga, Santa Clara, and Los Altos at 20 elementary schools and 5 middle
schools. Approximately 55 percent of CUSD's students reside in 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 of FUHSD'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 percent of CUSD 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.
Page 77 of 136
HCD DRAFT Fe - March 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 of I -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 financial 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 storm drainage system has been designed to
accommodate a 10 -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 of 9.8 acres
of new park land. The General Plan identified an additional 49 acres of potential neighborhood and
Page 76 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
Figure 5.1: Producer Price Index for Key Construction Costs
300
250
d
E_ 200
d
�L
a 150
L
V
c 100
L
a
50
i
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 amount of traffic or congestion on a roadway is measured in terms of Level of Service (LOS)
ranging from A to F, with A representing intersections which experience little or no congestion and
F representing intersections with long and unacceptable delays. Cupertino'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 improvements to adjacent roads and intersections, but
may also include changes to the number of units in the project, or to site design and layout.
Page 75 of 136
O M M O O — r r N N M M NT ' LO U) (O (O (D ti r` W W M
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
L L L
'7 Z Q (n L L ) Q O Q - Z Q In LL Q 2 O Q
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
- 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 finishes. Parking structures for
multifamily developments represent another major variable in the development cost. In general,
below -grade parking raises costs significantly. Soil 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 confirmed that construction costs,
including labor, have fallen by approximately 10 percent in tandem with the weak housing market.
However, it is important 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.
Page 74 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebru-- 2009
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.
- 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 of local, 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 financing 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 funds, as well as in -lieu fees generated by the Housing Mitigation
Program, it has not accumulated a significant amount of redevelopment agency (RDA) funds 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 downturn.
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.
Page 73 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
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 final building permit inspection for two -store additions and new two -story homes, applicants
must submit a privacy protection plan, which illustrates how views into neighboring yards second
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. Cupertino'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 certain 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 Western 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 of permit
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.
Page 72 of 136
HCD DRAFT 1= ebaf 2009
• Submittal and review of pre - submittal materials and final plans
Table 5.4 provides a summary of the typical approvals required for various housing types. One -
story single - family homes in properly zoned areas do not require approvals from the Community
Development Department. However, two -story single - family homes require a two -story permit,
which are approved by the Director of the Community Development Department and take two to
three months to process. Residential subdivisions require a tentative map or parcel map, depending
on the number of units in the development, and take two to four months to receive approvals.
Multifamily residential developments in R3 or Planned Development (PD) zones are typically
approved in two to four months.
Table 5.4: Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type
Multi- Family - R3
No re- zoning
Typical Approvals Required
Time Frame
Single- Family
No- re- zpning
Architectural Site Approval 3-4 months
One-Story
N/A
N/A
Two -Story
Two -Story Permit
2 -3 months
Subdivision
ASA
Less than 5 units
Tentative Map
2 -3 months
5 units or more
Parcel Map
3-4 months
Multi- Family - R3
No re- zoning
Architectural Site Approal 2 -3 months
( <8 units and <5 parcels)
Tentative Map
No- re- zpning
Architectural Site Approval 3-4 months
(8+ units and/or 5+ parcels)
Parcel Map
Re- zoning
Zoning change 4S months
CUP
ASA
Tentative or Parcel Map
Multi- Family - PD
No re- zoning CUP 3-4 months
Architectural Site Approval
Tentative or Parcel Map
Re- zoning Zoning change 4-6 months
CUP
Architectural Site Approval
Tentative or Parcel Map
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Page 71 of 136
HCD DRAFT r-p-hr—a- -March 2009
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.
Processing Time. Table 5.3 presents the typical permit processing time for various approvals in
the City of Cupertino. As shown, actions requiring; ministerial review are usually approved within
two to four weeks. Other approvals have longer processing time frames. It should be noted that
developments requiring multiple approvals submit a joint application and permits are processed
concurrently. All approvals for a particular project are reviewed in a single Planning Commission
and/or City Council meeting. The typical permit processing times in Cupertino are similar to or
lower than those in other jurisdictions and do not pose a major constraint to new development in
the City.
Table 5.3: Typical Permit Processing Time (a)
Type of Approval Typical Processing Time
ime
Ministerial Review
2-4 weeks
Conditional Use Permit
2-4 months
Zoning Change
4-6 months
General Plan Amendment
4-6 months
Architectural and Site Review
2-4 months
Design Review
2 -3 months
Tentative or Parcel Map
2-4 months
Initial Environmental Study
2 months
Environmental Impact Report
6 months
Two -Story Permit
2 -3 months
Notes:
(a) Processing time does not account for tiem involved in the preliminary
consultation and/or conceptual review phase. Represents the time from
when the application is deemed complete through securing the approval.
Applications for multiple approval types may be processed concurrently.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009
Cupertino is able to process applications in a timely manner because City staff works closely with
applicants during a pre - application process. The pre- application is free of charge and its duration
may vary depending on the completeness and/or the complexity of the project. Typical pre -
application process may consist of the following:
Initial preliminary consultation with property owners /developers to go over project
objectives and City development standards
Submittal and review of conceptual development plans
Preliminary consultations with relevant City departments (i.e., Fire, Building, Public
Works) as deemed necessary
Page 70 of 136
HCD DRAFT €eaa
y - March 2009
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
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 roofing. 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
Page 69 of 136
HCD DRAFT Fnhr rv�arua4y - March 2009
expanded in this way by constructing units on surplus open space and recreation areas.
This site was recommended by members of the public and the community supports the
expansion of the Villages of Cupertino,
Table 6.4: Vacant and Underutilized Land in Non - Designated Areas
ID APN Site Address
11 326 27 036 10160 Parkwood
326 27 037 21297 Parkwood
12 326 09 040
326 09 041
326 09 053
326 09 054
326 09 064
20800 Valley Green Dr
20975 Valley Green Dr
20990 Valley Green Dr
20800 Valley Green Dr
20875 Valley Green Dr
Notes:
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DataQuick Information Systems, 2009; DCBE, 2009; BAE, 2009
Page 99 of 136
Allowed under Current Zoning
Max.
Max.
Realistic
Size Density
Yield
Yield
Existing Use
Acres ) (DUA)
(Units
(Units) (a)
Glenbrook Apartments
11.62 20
Glenbrook Apartments
19_72 20
31.34 20
626
Less Existing Units
`17
Remaining Units to be Built
109
92
The Villages at Cupertino
5.35 20
The Villages at Cupertino
5.49 20
The Villages at Cupertino
6.78 20
The Villages at Cupertino
2.69 20
The Villages at Cupertino
6.7 20
27.10 20
542
Less Existing Units
-468
Remaining Units to be Built
74
62
Total Units
183
154
Notes:
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DataQuick Information Systems, 2009; DCBE, 2009; BAE, 2009
Page 99 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
Figure 6.4: Potential Housing Sites in the Non - Designated Areas
_North De Anza Boulevard District
The North De Anza Boulevard District is intended to be a regional employment center with
supporting commercial 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 development uses. The total residential buildout for the North De Anza Boulevard
District is 146 units, with a remaining residential allocation of 97 units as of January 1, 2007.
Site13. Site 13, which was built on in 1975, currently has light industrial (research and
office) uses with a large amount of surface parking. Residential development is currently
allowed at Site 13, though at lower densities. Site 13 is currently zoned P(CG, ML, Res 4-
10), which allows general commercial, light industrial, and residential development at
densities of four to 10 dwelling units per acre. The City will rezone the property to P(CG,
ML, Res) and allow for residential densities of 25 dwelling units per acre. The higher
residential density at the site will make redevelopment of the site for residential use more
economically viable than leasing the existing building for office use. The general
commercial and light industrial land uses will remain as permitted uses in addition to
higher density residential use. In addition, the remaining residential allocation for the area
allowed in the General Plan should be increased from 97 to 169 units. This would increase
the total residential allocation from 146 units to 218 units. Site 13 is ideal for housing
because it is adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, including a new multifamily
Page 100 of 136
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009; DC &E, 2009
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
residential development across the street. Additionally, the site is accessible to
neighborhood amenities, including an elementary school and restaurant and retail uses.
Table 6.5: Vacant and Underutilized Land in the North De Anza Boulevard District
Current Proposed Rezoning
Max. Max.
Max.
Realistic
Size Density Density
Yield
Yield
ID APN Site Address Existing Use
Acres (DUA) (DUA)
Units
(Units) (a)
13 326 10 046 20705 Valley Green Drive Light Industrial
7.98 10 25
199
169
Total Units
199
169
Notes:
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; DataQuick Information Systems, 2009; DC &E, 2009; BAE, 2009
Figure 6.5: Potential Housing Sites in the North De
Anza Boulevard District
GARDENA D.R
Z ;x
1J
U- T� ^__
6.4. Zoning for Emergency Shelters and Transitional
.Housing
Emergency Shelters. 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 period of rotating shelters cannot exceed two months in any one year span at a single
location. However, Cupertino's zoning ordinance does not permit or conditionally permit
permanent homeless shelters in any zone. To comply with state law, Program -4�31 of this
Housing Element con - units the City to amend its zoning ordinance to allow emergency shelters by
Page 101 of 136
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009; DC &E. 2009
HCD DRAFT €ebFuaFy March 2009
right in the BQ Quasi- Public zone.
The BQ zone is suitable to include permanent emergency shelters as a permitted use, particularly
because it already allows for rotating emergency shelters. Other uses currently permitted in the BQ
zone with a conditional use permit include religious, civic, and comparable organizations, public
utility companies, lodges, country clubs, child care facilities, residential care facilities, congregate
residences, hospitals, and vocational and specialized schools.
As discussed in the Needs Assessment, the 2007 Santa Clara County Homeless Survey identified
53 homeless individuals/ on the streets and in emergency shelters, transitional housing, and
domestic violence shelters in the city of Cupertino. The homeless facilities in Cupertino have a
capacity to house 19 individuals. As a result, there is a need to accommodate at least 34 more
homeless individuals in the City.
There are several underutilized parcels within the BQ zone that could accommodate a permanent
emergency shelter that serves 34 or more individuals. In particular, a number of churches in BQ
zones own more land than they currently use. Surplus lands owned by churches include large
parking lots and recreational spaces like fields and tennis courts. There are at least five parcels
with approximately 154,000 square feet of vacant land in the BQ zone that could accommodate a
permanent emergency shelter. These sites range from 19,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet,
with an average lot size of 31,000 square feet. Parcels of this size would be able to accommodate a
permanent emergency shelter that meets the needs of Cupertino.
Vacant parcels in the BQ zone are primarily located on or near Cupertino's main arterial corridors,
providing for easy access to public transportation and essential services. In total, 11 bus lines and
131 bus stops serve the City of Cupertino. Numerous bus lines run along Stevens Creek
Boulevard, providing connections to many destinations throughout Silicon Valley. West Valley
Community Services, a nonprofit organization that provides homeless services, is located within
1.5 miles of these vacant parcels. In addition, the Kaiser Santa Clara Medical Center is located
within 2.5 miles of the parcels. Many of the City's retail and personal services are concentrated
along Cupertino's major corridors. As such, the vacant BQ parcels are appropriate locations for
future emergency shelters.
Opportunities for the conversion of existing buildings in the BQ zone into permanent emergency
shelters is more limited because there are currently no vacant buildings in the zone. However, if
vacancies arise within the BQ zones, rehabilitation and reuse for emergency shelters could be
explored.
Transitional Housing. Transitional housing is defined as rental housing for stays of at least six
Page 102 of 136
HCD DRAFT Febmary 2009
months but where the units are re- circulated to another program recipient after a set period.
Supportive housing has no limit on the length of stay, and is linked to onsite or offsite services.
SB2 clarifies that transitional housing and supportive housing constitute residential uses. Zoning
ordinances must treat transitional and supportive housing as a proposed residential use and subject
only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
In Cupertino, transitional and supportive housing developments are treated as residential land uses
subject to the same approval process and developer ent standards as other residential uses.
However, transitional housing and supportive housing are currently not explicitly listed as
permitted uses in the zoning ordinance. To comply with the requirements of SB2, the City will
amend its zoning ordinance to specifically list transitional housing and supportive housing as
permitted uses in residential zones. This zoning amendment will formalize the City's current
practice of treating transitional and supportive housing as any other residential use.
6.5. Financial Resources for Housing
The City of Cupertino has access to a variety of ex:.sting 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.
During 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 during 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 Vallco Fashion Park Shopping Center and the adjacent "Rose Bowl" site at
Vallco Parkway and Wolfe Road. The RDA must Set aside 25 percent of its annual tax increment
funds for the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of low- and moderate - income housing
Page 103 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
within the Project Area and in other Cupertino neighborhoods. Five percent of the 25 percent set -
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 ( LIHTC)
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 Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program was created by the federal government, but the
program is locally administered by the County of Santa Clara to assist first -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 current 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 Cupertino has an Affordable Housing Fund that provides financial assistance to
affordable housing developments. As a second and third priority, the Affordable Housing Fund
7
The California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) requires that 20 percent of the tax increment into a
housing fund. The Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project Five Year Implementation Plan, 2006 -2010,
establishes the higher 25 percent requirement.
Page 104 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFuar-y 2009
can also be used to establish a down payment assislunce plan or a rental subsidy program to make
market rate units more affordable. The City requires payment of an Office and Industrial
Mitigation fee, which is assessed on developers of Dffice and industrial space and a Housing
Mitigation fee, which is assessed on developers of market -rate rental housing to mitigate the need
for affordable housing created by new development. Developers of for -sale housing with six or
fewer units are required to pay the Housing Mitigation fee. Developers of market -rate rental units,
where the units cannot be sold individually, must pay the Housing Mitigation fee to the Affordable
Housing Trust Fund to be consistent with recent court decisions and the State Costa - Hawkins Act
regarding rent control. All affordable housing mitigation fees are deposited into the Affordable
Housing Fund.
Page 105 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFuary March 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 timeline 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
Income Category Approved Construction
Rehabilitation (a)
Preservation
Total
Very Low 22
319
0
0
341
Low 16
213
0
0
229
Moderate 58
185
0
0
243
Above Moderate 437
0
0
0
357
Total 533 717 0 0 1,170
Notes:
(a) The City has approved CDBG funds for a rehabilitation project that will provide transitional
housing for 16 very low- and low- income victims of domestic violence.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009
7.2. _Goal A: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for All
Page 106 of 136
HCD DRAFT PebFuafy March 2009
Economic Segments
_.Policy 1: Sufficiently Residentially Zoned land 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.
Program 1: Zoning and Land Use Designations. In order to accommodate the City's remaining
RHNA, sen3e -pafe 4s parcel of land will need a change in land use a°si�_%a*i6fi afia ning.
The City will change zoning to permit residential development at
a hiaher density than what is currently allowed
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: 2-009 -2010
Funding Source: N/A
Quantified Objective: 798
r-esideatial densities ef 25 DUA en the sites identified in Append41 G ef t
Eleffient.-Site to be rezoned:
APN: 326 -10 -046 (Site 13 in Appendix G)
Size: 7.98 acres
Current Density: 10 DUA
Density under Rezoning: 25 DUA
Residential Capacity following Rezoning: Up to 199 units
Program 2: Second Dwelling 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
Program 3: Encourage Lot Consolidation. The City will continue to encourage lot consolidation
when smaller, underutilized parcels adjacent to each other are redeveloped. The City encourages
master plans for such sites with coordinated access and circulation and City staff will provide
technical assistance to property owners of adjacent parcels to facilitate coordinated redevelopment
where appropriate. Staff from all City Departments and related agencies work with applicants on a
preliminary basis for no cost prior to application submittal.
Page 107 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebF1 2009
Responsible Parry: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: N/A
Quantified Objective: N/A
7.3. _Goal B: Housing is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino
Households
- Policy 2: Housing Mitigation Plan
The Housing Mitigation plan is based on a nexus study prepared by the City that demonstrated that
all new developments, including market -rate residential developments, create a need for affordable
housing.
Program 4: Housing Mitigation Plan — Office and Industrial Mitigation. 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 Parry: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: N/A
Quantified Objective: N/A
Program 5: Housing Mitigation Program — Residential Mitigation
The City will continue to implement the "Housing Mitigation" program to mitigate the need for
affordable housing created by new market -rate residential development. This program applies to
all new residential development of one unit or greater. Mitigation includes either the payment of
the "Housing Mitigation" fee or the provision of a Below Market Rate (BMR) unit or units.
Projects of seven or more for -sale units must provide on -site BMR units. Projects of six units or
fewer for -sale units can either build one BMR unit or pay the Housing Mitigation fee. Developers
of market -rate rental units, where the units cannot be sold individually, must pay the Housing
Mitigation fee to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to be consistent with recent court decisions
and the State Costa - Hawkins Act regarding rent control. The City provides incentives for BMR
units as described in Program 12. Implementation of the program shall include:
a) Priority. Priority for occupancy to households who reside, work, attend school or have
family in Cupertino for BMR units produced through the plan or affordable housing units
built with mitigation fees;
Page 108 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebFIIa� March 2009
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;
c) For -Sale Residential Developments. Require 15% for -sale BMR units in all residential
developments where the units can be sold individually (including single- family homes,
common interest developments, and condominium conversions).
d) Market -Rate Rental Developments. Require payment of the Housing Mitigation fee in
all market -rate rental development where the units cannot be sold individually.
e) Rental Alternative. Allow rental BMR units in for -sale residential developments, and
allow developers of market -rate rental developments to provide on -site rental BMR units,
if the developer: 1) enters into an agreement limiting rents in exchange for regulatory latory or
financial incentives .; ^* ^ ° * ° ^* A i*" the Cest -A ^ et and 2)
provides very low income and low income BMR rental units.
f) Affordable Prices and Rents. Establish guidelines for affordable sales prices and
affordable rents for new affordable housing and update the guidelines each year as new
income guidelines are received;
g) Land for Affordable Housing. Allow developers to meet all or a portion of their BMR or
mitigation fee requirement by making land available for the City or a nonprofit housing
developer to construct affordable housing;
h) BMR Term. Require BMR units to remain affordable for a minimum of 99 years; and
enforce the City's first right of refusal for BMR units and other means to ensure that BMR
units remain affordable..
Responsible Parry: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: N/A
Quantified Objective: N/A
Program 6: Affordable Housing 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
Page 109 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebFuar-y March 2009
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: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: Housing Mitigation Plan Fees
Quantified Objective: N/A
_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.)
Program 7: Mortgage Credit Certificate Program
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.
Responsible Party: Santa Clara County Mortgage Credit Certificate Program
Time Frame: 2009 -2014
Funding Source: Santa Clara County Mortgage Credit Certificate Program
Quantified Objective: 1 -2 households assisted annually
Program 8: Move -In for Less Program
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.
Responsible Party: Tri-County Apartment Association and City of Cupertino
Time Frame: 2009 -2014
Program 9: Surplus Property for Housing
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
Page 110 of 136
HCD DRAFT Febr-iie— 2009
churches, school districts corporations for construction of affordable units shall be encouraged.
Further, 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 rcviewed for applicability in Cupertino.
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: 2009 -2014
Program 10: Jobs/Housing Balance Program
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: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: 2009 -2014
_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 un its.
Program 11: Affordable Housing 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 #12) 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: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: 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.
Page 111 of 136
HCD DRAFT Febr March 2009
Program 12: Density Bonus Program.
The City's Density Bonus Program pr-avid allows for a density bonus and additional concessions
for development of 6 or more units that provide affordable housing for families and seniors.
4nel,.a °a 41 *'' °-Possible concessions afe include 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 Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Program 13: Regulatory Incentives for Affordable Housing
The City may choose to waive park dedication and construction tax fees for affordable units. For
affordable. 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 Parry: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: 2009 -2014
Program 14: Extremely Low - Income Housing The City will encourage the development of
adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low - income households by providing assistance
and funding for affordable housing developments. Assistance can include gap financing for single -
room occupancy projects, affordable rental housing, senior housing, and other housing
developments and programs targeting extremely low- income households.
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG and HOME funds
Quantified Objective: N/A
Program 15: Residential and Mixed Use Opportunities in or Near Employment 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 opportunities
for housing.
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: 2009 -2014
Page 112 of 136
HCD DRAFT March 2009
Program 16• Expedited Permit Procedures
The City will expedite permit processing for housing; developments that contain at least 20 percent
of units for lower- income households, or 10 percent of units for very low- income households, or 50
percent of units for senior citizens.
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
_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.
Program 17• Redevelopment Housing Set Aside Fund
The City has established a Redevelopment Project Area, from which tax increment funds are
collected. A minimum of 25% 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. The Low- and
Moderate - Income Housing Fund will be utilized for site acquisition, rehabilitation, and
development gap financing for affordable housing projects. Currently the City has a limited
amount of funds in the Low- and Moderate - Income Housing Fund. However, when substantial
redevelopment in the RDA commences, availability of funds will increase.
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: Redevelopment tax Increment Funds
Quantified Objective: $518,000 over the planning period
_Policy 7: Housing Densities
Provide a full range of ownership and rental housing unit densities, including apartments and other
high- density housing.
Program 18• 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.
Page 113 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebr-u-n- March 2009
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Program 19: 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 hurt neighborhood
character.
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Program 20: Monitor R -3 Development Standards
The City will monitor the R -3 development standards on a regular basis to ensure that the
requirements do not constrain new housing production As part of this Program the City will
review recent development applications in the District and assess the achieved proiect densi
relative to the maximum densiU allowed If R -3 District development standards are found to
unreasonably constrain development the City will consider amendments to the standards
Responsible Parn•• City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Time Frame: Even • two nears
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.
Program 281: Apartment Acquisition and Rehabilitation
This program provides financial assistance to eligible very low and low- income homeowners to
rehabilitate their housing units.
Responsible Party:
City of Cupertino
Time Frame:
Ongoing
Funding Source:
Affordable Housing Fund and CDBG funds
Quantified Objective:
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.
Page 114 of 136
HCD DRAFT Fe k— 2009
Program 2422: 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 owners of at -risk projects on an ongoing basis to determine
their interest in selling, prepaying, terminating or continuing participation in a subsidy program.
The City will also work with owners, tenants, and nonprofit organizations to assist in the nonprofit
acquisition of at -risk projects to ensure long -term affordability of developments where appropriate.
Assistance may include support in funding applications or the provision of rehabilitation grants.
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: 2009 -2014
Program 2223: 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: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Program 2424: Rental Housing Preservation Program
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 BN1R 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. Further, the
preservation program will include a requirement for a tenant relocation plan with
provisions for relocation of tenants on site as much as possible.
Page 115 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebrmsar-y - March 2009
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Program 3425: Conservation and Maintenance of Affordable HousinL
Develop a program to encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of residential structures to
preserve the older, more affordable housing stock.
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: 2009 -2014
I Program 3526: Neighborhood and Community Clean Up Campaigns
Continue to encourage and sponsor neighborhood and community clean up campaigns for both
public and private properties.
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
_Policy 10: Energy Conservation
Encourage energy conservation in all existing and new residential development.
Program 3627: Energy 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: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: 2009 -2014
Program 228: Fee Waivers or Reduction for Energy 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: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Program 3829: Energy Efficiency Audits. The City will offer free energy efficiency audits for
residential units under a contract with Acterra. During the house call, trained volunteers will visit
the residence, performing simple energy- saving upgrades and showing residents how to reduce
their energy usage. Residents receive three free compact fluorescent light bulbs, an installed
retractable clothesline (if desired), adjustments to the water heater and refrigerator temperatures,
installed low -flow showerhead and faucet aerators, a folder of local green resources a customized
Page 116 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebFuar-y - March 2009
energy- saving plan for their home.
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: Department of Energy ARRA Grant
Quantified Objective: N/A
Program 2930: Energy Conservation in Residential Development. The City will continue to
encourage energy efficient residential development and provide technical assistance to developers
who are interested in incorporating energy efficient design elements into their program. The City
has a Sustainability Coordinator who encourages energy conservation and assists developers.
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: Department of Energy ARRA Grant
Quantified Objective: N/A
7.5. _Goal D: 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.
Program 3831: Emergency Shelters.
The City will continue to support the rotating emergency shelter operated by West Valley
Community Services. In order to comply with SB 2. and to facilitate any future emergency shelter
needs, the City will revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow pennanent emergency shelter facilities in
"BQ" Quasi - Public zoning districts as a permitted use. The zoning ordinance will include
development and management standards that will subject permanent emergency shelters to the
same standards that apply to other permitted uses in the BQ zone. No discretionary permits will be
required for approval of a permanent emergency shc-lter.
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
Page 117 of 136
HCD DRAFT FelFuar-y March 2009
Program 3132: Rotating Homeless Shelter
Responsible Party: West Valley Community Services
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG and McKinney Act Funding
Quantified Objective: N/A
Program 3333: Transitional and Supportive Housing
The City will amend its zoning ordinance to comply with the requirements of SB2. Transitional
and supportive housing will be treated as residential uses and be subject to the same development
standards and restrictions that apply to similar housing types in the same zone. Per the Health and
Safety Code 50801(e), transitional housing will be defined as rental housing operated under
program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted
unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall
be no less than six months. Supportive housing will be defined as housing with no limit on length
of stay that is occupied by the target population and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that
assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status,
and maximizing his or her ability to live, and where possible, work in the community.
Responsible Parry: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: 2009 -20010 Revise Zoning Ordinance to define transitional and
supportive housing and list them as permitted uses in residential zones.
Funding Source: N/A
Quantified Objective: N/A
Program 3334: Catholic Social Services (Single 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: Catholic Social Services
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: County of Santa Clara Urban County Funds
Program 3435: Flexible Parking Standards
The City may grant reductions in off - street parking on a case -by -case basis for senior housing,
group homes, affordable housing, transit- oriented developments, and other appropriate projects.
Applicants must demonstrate that project characteristics justify a reduction and that the reduction
would not generate a parking deficiency or adversely impact neighboring properties. City staff will
work with applicants to provide justification for parking reductions. Appropriate justification for
parking reductions may include examples of parking ratios used at other similar projects, parking
Page 118 of 136
HCD DRAFT March 2009
studies prepared for the project, parking studies prepared for other similar project in Cupertino,
shared parking arrangements, or the implementation of transportation management measures.
Responsible Parry: City of Cupertino, Director of Community Development, Design
Review Committee, and Planning Commission
Time Frame: Ongoing
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, marita:, or familial status, ethnic background, medical
condition, or other arbitrary factors, so that all persons can obtain decent housing.
Program 3536• Santa Clara County Fair Housing 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 concerns. The Santa Clara County Fair Housing
Consortium, which includes the Asian Law Alliance (ALA), ECHO Housing, Project Sentinel, and
the Mental Health Advocacy Project will continue to provide resources for Santa Clara County
residents with tenant/landlord, housing discrimination, and fair housing concerns. According to an
agreement between members of the consortium, each agency serves a "territory" in the county.
Cupertino falls in ECHO Housing's territory and is served under an agreement between the City
and the agency. They provide fair housing counseling services, answer questions and investigate
cases of fair housing abuse. ECHO provides pamphlets in all public facilities throughout the City
and also has a booth at public events to distribute :materials. Furthermore, the agency runs public
service announcements on local radio stations throughout the year.
Responsible Party: Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: County of Santa Clara Urban County Funds
Program 3637: Fair Housing Outreach
The City will continue to contract with ECHO Hcusing to provide fair housing outreach services.
ECHO distributes pamphlets at community events and pays for public service announcements. In
addition, the ECHO Housing will continue to distribute fair housing materials at public venues
throughout Cupertino, including the library, City Hall, and Senior Center.
Page 119 of 136
HCD DRAFT FebFuary March 2009
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department, ECHO
Fair Housing
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding Source: CDBG
Program 3 -738: Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance
The City will adopt a written reasonable accommodation ordinance to provide persons with
disabilities exceptions in zoning and land -use for housing. The procedure will be an administrative
process, with minimal or no processing fee and subject to approval by the Community
Development Director. Applications for reasonable accommodation may be submitted by
individuals with a disability protected under fair housing laws. The requested accommodation
must be necessary to make housing available to a person with a disability and must not impose
undue financial or administrative burden on the City.
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Adopt Ordinance by December 2010
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 District ( FUHSD)
Program 3539: 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.
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Community Development Department Staff and
Staff from CUSD and FUHSD
Time Frame: 2009 -2014
Page 120 of 136
HCD DRAFT March 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.
When amendments are made to the safety, conservation, land use, or other elements of the City's
General Plan, the housing element will be reviewed for internal consistency.
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
_Supporting Housing Element Policies
Policy 1, Policy 8
_Supporting Housing Element Programs
Program 1, Program 9, Program 13
8.2. _Circulation
_Goals
• Regional transportation planning decisions that support and complement the needs of
Cupertino
• Increased use of public transit, carpools, bicycling, walking and telecommuting
Page 121 of 136
HCD DRAFT Feh.-tmtar - March 2009
• A comprehensive network of pedestrian and bicycle routes and facilities
• Increased use of existing public transit service and the development of new rapid transit
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
_Supporting Housing Element Policies
N/A
_Supporting Housing Element Programs
N/A
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
_Supporting Housing Element Policies
Policy 10
_Supporting Housing Element Programs
Program 2-324, Program -2425
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
Page 122 of 136
HCD DRAFT � - March 2009
associated with wild and urban fires
• Fire preventive measures that minimize the loss of life and property
• An all weather emergency road system to s .-rve the rural areas
• Available water service in the hillside and canyon areas
• High quality police services that maintain tie 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 freeways on Cupertino residents
• Residential areas protected as much as possible from intrusive non - traffic noise
• Buildings designed to minimize noise
_Supporting Housing Element Policies
Policy 8
- Supporting Housing Element Programs
Program 19
Page 123 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
9. Appendix A:
Participants
Focus Group
The following organizations were represented at the focus group meetings:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Advocates for a Better Cupertino
Asian American Business Council
Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission
CARe (Cupertino Against Rezoning)
Chinese American Realtors Association
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
Cupertino Citizens for Fair Government (CCFG)
Cupertino City Council
Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Housing Commission
Cupertino Union School District
Cupertino- Fremont Council of PTA
De Anza College
Fine Arts Commission
Fremont Union High School District
HBANC
Housing Choics Coalition
League of Women Voters
Library Commission
Organization of Special Needs Families
Parks and Recreation Commission
Planning Commission
Public Safety Commission
Santa Clara County Council of Churches
Senior Commission
Silicon Valley Association of Realtors
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Technology, Info. & Com. Comission
West Valley Community Services
Page 124 of 136
HCD DRAFT €er-y March 2009
10. Appendix B: Review of Previous
Housing Element
Page 125 of 136
HCD DRAFT March 2009
Table B.1: Achievements of Previous Housing Element
reside Goa I A: An dequate supply of
Policy 3 -1: Sufficient residentially zoned land for new construction
Program 1: Housing by planning disrict. Encourage residential development at a density of 15 -35+ units per acre.
Monta Vista - 142 units
Neighborhood Other Areas - 400 units
Vallco Park South - 711 units
Heart of the City - 332 units
Homestead Road - 300 units
Commercial Other Areas - 300 units
City Center - 437 units
North De Anza - 146 units
Vallco 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
57 units
200 units
311 units
116 units
0 units
0 units
337 units
49 units
0 units
0 units
0 units
1,070 units permitted (a)
See Table A.2. The City had enough residentially zoned land
to meet its RHNA. Rezonings were not necessary.
Program 3: Residential potential outside of planning districts. Include existing inventory of residentially zoned The City continues to include residential potential outside
parcels with residential potential that are outside of the planning districts in addressing RHNA. planning districts to address its RHNA.
Program 4: Second dwelling unit ordinance. Assure that Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance encourages production The City issues approximately five building permits per year
of more second units on residential parcels. for second dwelling units.
Goal B: Housing that is affordable for a diversity of Cupertino households I
Policy 3 -2: Housing Mitigation Plan
Program 5: Office and Industrial Mitigation. Continue to implement "office and industrial mitigation" fee; deposit Complete. An updated nexus study was completed and the
fees into Affordable Housing Fund. Conduct updated "nexus study." City Council adopted fees in June 2007.
Program 6: Residential Mitigation. Continue to implement "Housing Mitigation" program. Require payment of in-
lieu fee or provision of BMR units. Provde:
159 Very Low Income Units
159 Low Income Units
53 Median Income Units
53 Moderate Income Units
Program 7: Affordable Housing Fund. Finance 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
The City continues to implement the Housing Mitigation
Program by collectomg 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 - income 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.
Page "6 of 136
HCD DRAFT Februany March 2009
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 underutilized 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 newjob production
to housing production. Require major new office /industrial development to build housing as part of new development
projects. Reduce jobs /housing ratio from 2.4 jobs to every household.
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 office /industrial development.
Policy 3-4: Housing Rehabilitation
Program 12: Affordable Housing Information and Support. City will provide information, resources and support to
The City continues to provide information and support to
developers who can produce affordable housing
affordable housing developers.
Policy 3 -5: Development of Affordable Housing
Program 13: Density Bonus Program. Continue to implement density bonus program. Change the ordinance
The City continues to implement the density bonus program.
definition of affordable unit to housing costs affordable at 30% of household income for very low and low income
The City Council amended the density bonus ordinance
households.
definition of affordable housing.
Program 14: Regulatory Incentives. Continue to waive park dedication and construction tax fees for affordable units.
The Citv continues to orovide rea_ulatorv_ incentives for
Parking standards will be discounted for affordable developments.
affordable housing developers.
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.
Policy 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, 5% of which directed to extremely low income households. Develop policies and
objectives for use of those funds.
Policy 3 -7: Housing Densities
The City has not yet considered permitting residential
development above parking in employment centers.
The City sets aside 25% of tax increment funds for affordable
housing.
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, particularly for higher density and attached housing. standards.
Program 18: Residential Development Exceeding Maximums. Allow residential developments to exceed planned Ongoing.
density maximums if they provide special needs housing.
Page 127 of 136
HCD DRAFT _ - March 2009
'Goal C: Enhanced Residential Neigh borhood s
Policy 3-6: 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 that provides volunteer based
rehabilitation assistance to qualified homeowners.
Program 20: Home Access 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. HOME /CDBG funds available on competitive basis to The City continues to make HOME /CDBG 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 Sunnyview West development (only at -risk building). The Sunnyview development has been preserved. The owner
has no intention of converting the project to market -rate
housing.
Program 24: Condominium Conversions. No condo conversions if rental vacancy rate is less than 5% at the time of The City continues to enforce restrictions on condominium
application and has been less than 5% over the past six months.
conversions.
Program 25: Rental Housing Preservation Program. Proposed developments that will cause a loss of multi - family
Ongoing. Developers are requested to provide 20% BMR units
rental housing will be approved only if at least two of the following exist: (1) Comply with BMR program based on actual
plus relocation plan.
number of new units constructed, not net number of units (2) Number of rental units provided is at least equal to the
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
The City has not yet developed a conservation and
maintenance and rehabilitation of residential structures to preserve the older, more affordable stock.
maintennace program for affordable housing.
Program 27: Neighborhood and Community Cleanup Campaigns. Continue to encourage and sponsor
The City continues to sponosr neighborhood cleanup
neighborhood and community cleanup campaigns for public and private properties.
campaigns.
Policy 3 -10: Energy Conservation
Program 26: Energy Conservation Opportunities. Enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation and The City enforces Title 24 requirements as part of its
evaluate utilization of new alternatives. Sustainability Program.
Program 29: Fee Waivers or Reduction for Energy Conservation. Evaluate and implement potential to provide Under auspices of sustainability program
incentives, such as fee waiving or reducing fees, for energy conservation improvements to new or existing residential
units.
Page "'S of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebr-uar-y March 2009
Goal D: Services for special needs households
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 permanent shelters in allow permanent emergency shelters in the BQ 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.
opp ortunities Goal E: Equal access to housing
Policy 3 -12: Housing Discrimination
Program 33: Santa Clara County Fair Housing Constortium. Constortium provides resources for residents with The Fair Housing Consortium continues to provide housing
tenant/landlord mediation, housing discrimination, and fair housing concerns. 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 1999 to 2006.
Suwcea. Ciiy ui CuNeiiinu, 2006, BAE, 2006
Page 129 of 136
HCD DRAFT March 2009
Table 13.2: Residential Zoninq to Meet 2001 -2006 RHNA
Comments
Astoria Project built at 12 d.u. /acre
Las Palmas has been constructed. Sufficient zoning exists at three
apartment complexes which are constructed far below the max. density
and are older. These property owners have inquired in the past about
increasing the density at these complexes.
18 acres for Main Street site plus Metropolitan and Rose Bowl site had
sufficient zoning to develop at 35 d.u. /acre.
Heart of the City has sufficient zoning for all the sites.
Villa Serra Project developed 160 units. Furthermore, there is more than
8.6 acres with sufficient zoning for 35 d.u. /acre.
Not Rezoned
Sufficient zoning for 12.5 acres at 35 /units acre.
Oak Park Project built at 35 d.u. /acre, the rest at 10 d.u. /acre
Morley Bros. Site has sufficient zoning.
Not Rezoned
Not Rezoned
Notes:
(a) The City of Cupertino General Plan controls development growth under through an "allocation" system that designates
the number of new residential units and commercial and office square footage to be built by Planning Area.
(b) The number of residential units allowed under existing zoning exceeds the City's RHNA for 2001 -2006.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Page 9 of 136
General Plan
Number of Units
Residential
allowed under
Planning Area
Allocation (a)
Existing Zoning (b)
Monta Vista
142
62
Neighborhood Other Areas
400
400
Vallco Park South
711
711
Heart of the City
332
332
Homestead Road
300
300
Commercial Other Areas
300
0
City Center
437
437
North De Anza
146
146
Vallco Park North
300
135
Bubb Road
94
0
Employment Other Areas
100
0
Total
3,262
2,523
Comments
Astoria Project built at 12 d.u. /acre
Las Palmas has been constructed. Sufficient zoning exists at three
apartment complexes which are constructed far below the max. density
and are older. These property owners have inquired in the past about
increasing the density at these complexes.
18 acres for Main Street site plus Metropolitan and Rose Bowl site had
sufficient zoning to develop at 35 d.u. /acre.
Heart of the City has sufficient zoning for all the sites.
Villa Serra Project developed 160 units. Furthermore, there is more than
8.6 acres with sufficient zoning for 35 d.u. /acre.
Not Rezoned
Sufficient zoning for 12.5 acres at 35 /units acre.
Oak Park Project built at 35 d.u. /acre, the rest at 10 d.u. /acre
Morley Bros. Site has sufficient zoning.
Not Rezoned
Not Rezoned
Notes:
(a) The City of Cupertino General Plan controls development growth under through an "allocation" system that designates
the number of new residential units and commercial and office square footage to be built by Planning Area.
(b) The number of residential units allowed under existing zoning exceeds the City's RHNA for 2001 -2006.
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Page 9 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ehFuayF March 2009
11 .Appendix C: 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
Page 131 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebFuary March 2009
12. _Appendix D: Windshield Survey
Windshield Survey Instrument
Address:
Vacancy:
Construction Type:
Frontage Improvements if Applicable:
Curbs
Paved Street
Gutters
Sidewalks
Driveway
Adequate Site Drainage
Building Conditions:
Sound:
7 or less
# 1 - Foundation:
# 3 - Siding /Stucco:
8-12
0
Existing foundation in good condition
0
Does not need repair
10
Repairs needed
1
Needs re- painting
15
Needs a partial foundation
2
Needs to be patched and re- painted
25
No foundation or needs a complete foundatio
10
Needs replacement and painting
# 2 - Roofing:
# 4 - Windows:
0
Does not need repair
0
Does not need repair
5
Shingles missing
1
Broken window panes
5
Chimney needs repair
5
In need of repair
10
Needs re- roofing
10
In need of replacement
25
Roof structure needs replacement and re- roofing
Points based on criteria above: Structural Scoring Criteria:
Yes
No
Partial (for multi family)
Wood Frame
Masonry
Mobile
Modular
Other:
# 1 - Foundation
Sound:
7 or less
# 2 - Roofing
Minor:
8-12
# 3 - Siding /Stucco:
Moderate:
13-30
# 4 - Windows:
Substantial:
31 -43
TOTAL
Dilapidated:
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.
Mixed Use Bldg? Yes / No
For Sale:
Yes
No
Structure Type:
Single Family w/ Detached Garage
Single Family w/ Attached Garage
Duplex
Multi Family # Units:
Other:
Page 132 of 136
HCD DRAFT February March 2009
13. Appendix E. Maximum Affordable
Sales Price Calculations
Page 133 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebrulay March 2009
Table E.1: Maximum Affordable Sales Price Calculator
Page " 1 of 136
Monthly
Total
Household Sale
Down
Total
Monthly
Property
Mortgage
Homeowner's
Monthly
Income (a) Price
Payment (b)
Mortgage (b)
Payment
Tax c
Insurance (d)
Insurance (e)
PITI (�
Extremely Low Income (30% AMI)
4 Person HH $31,850 $131,485
$26,297
$105,188
$671.79
$120.53
$0.00
$3.93
$796.25
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
4 Person HH $53,050 $219,005
$43,801
$175,204
$1,118.95
$200.75
$0.00
$6.54
$1,326.25
Low Income (80% AMI)
4 Person HH $84,900 $350,490
$70,098
$280,392
$1,790.75
$321.28
$0.00
$10.47
$2,122.50
Median Income (100% AMI)
4 Person HH $97,800 $403,745
$80,749
$322,996
$2,062.84
$370.10
$0.00
$12.06
$2,445.00
Moderate (120% AM[)
4 Person HH $117,400 $484,659
$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.
Income limits for Santa
Clara County
(b) Mortgage terms:
Annual Interest Rate (Fixed)
6.60%
Freddie Mac historical
monthly Primary Mortgage Market Survey data tables. Ten -year average.
Term of mortgage (Years)
30
Percent of sale price as down payment
20.0%
(c) Initial property tax (annual)
1.10%
(d) Mortgage Insurance as percent of loan amount
0.00%
Assumes 20%
down payment.
(e) Annual homeowner's insurance rate as percent of sale price
0.04%
CA Dept. of Insurance website, based on average of all quotes, assuming $150K covergae
(f) PITI = Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance
Percent of household income available for PIT]
30.0%
Sources: CA HCD 2008; Freddie Mac 2008; CA Department of Insurance, 2008; BAE 2008.
Page " 1 of 136
HCD DRAFT Februa March 2009
14. _Appendix F: Summary of City
Zoning Standards
Table F.1: Summary of City Zoning Standards
Sources: Cupertino Municipal Code, 2009; BAE, 2009
Page 135 of 136
Min. Lot
Minimum
Bldg. Ht.
Width
Minimum Yard Setback
Min. Lot
Site
Parking
Zone District
(ft)
(ft.)
Front
Side
Rear
Area (sq. ft.)
Coverage
per DU
A
18 -28
50 -60
30
20
25
215,000
NA
4.0
A -1
20 -28
200
30
20
20 -25
43,000- 215,000
40%
4.0
R -1
28
60
20 -25
10 -15
20 -40
5,000- 20,000
45%
4.0
R -2
15 -30
60 -70
20
6 -12
'0-20
8500 - 15,000
40%
2.3
R -3
30
70
20
6 -18
20
9,300
40%
2.0
RHS
30
70
20 -25
10 -15
25
20,000 - 400,000
45%
2.0
R -1C
30
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.0
Sources: Cupertino Municipal Code, 2009; BAE, 2009
Page 135 of 136
HCD DRAFT €ebF1 ay, March 2009
15. _Appendix G: Residential Site
Inventory
Page 136 of 136
Table F.1: Tier 1 Sites Inventory
20010 Stevens Creek Blvd Comer of Stevens Creek & Blaney
0.47
25
11
Sites .. Not Require Rezoning General
Heart of City SP
Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan,
369 03 006
10071 S Blaney Ave Lackey Prop. (Stevens Creek & Blaney)
6
or Plan Amendment
9
Allowed under Current Zoning
Heart of City SP
Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan.
369 03 007
10031 S Blaney Ave Lackey Prop. (Stevens Creek & Blaney)
Size
max. max. Reams
34
28 Commercial / Office / Residential
Heart of City SP
Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan
(Acres
Density Yield Yield
0.44
25
ID APN
Site Address Existing Use
_1
(DUA) Units Units a Current General Plan Land Use
Overlay
Current Zoning Recommend GP and Zoning Action
Heart of the City
25
12
10 Commercial /Office /Residential
Heart of City SP
Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan
316 21 031
19875 Stevens Creek Blvd Furniture 2000
1.78
25 44 37 Commercial / Office / Residential
Heart of City SP
Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan.
316 21 032
19855 Stevens Creek Blvd Yoshinoya
0 .24
25 6 5 Commercial /Office/Residential
Heart of City SP
Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan.
369 03 005
20010 Stevens Creek Blvd Comer of Stevens Creek & Blaney
0.47
25
11
9 Commercial / Office / Residential
Heart of City SP
Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan,
369 03 006
10071 S Blaney Ave Lackey Prop. (Stevens Creek & Blaney)
0.37
25
9
7 Commercial /Office /Residential
Heart of City SP
Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan.
369 03 007
10031 S Blaney Ave Lackey Prop. (Stevens Creek & Blaney)
1.36
25
34
28 Commercial / Office / Residential
Heart of City SP
Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan
369 05 009
19930 Stevens Creek Blvd Arya
0.44
25
11
9 Commercial /Office /Residential
Heart of City SP
Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan.
369 05 010
19936 Stevens Creek Blvd Arya Parking Lot
0.52
25
12
10 Commercial /Office /Residential
Heart of City SP
Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan
369 05 038
19900 Stevens Creek Blvd SD Furniture
1.92
25
48
40 Commercial / Office / Residential
Heart of City SP
Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan
369 06 002
10025 E Estates Dr United Furniture Site
0.92
25
23
19 Commercial /Office/Residential
Heart of City SP
Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan.
369 06 003
10075 E Estates Dr United Furniture Site
0.53
25
13
11 Commercial /Office/Residential
Heart of City SP
Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan.
369 06 004
10075 E Estates Dr United Furniture Site
_ 0 .86
25
21
17 Commercial /Office /Residential
Heart of City SP
Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan.
375 07 046 19060 Stevens Creek Blvd Loree Center 0 .86 25 _ 21 17 Commercial /Office /Residential Heart of City SP Planned Development (P) Ensure consistency with Heart of the City Specific Plan.
Vallco Park North
31606 050
10500 Pruneridge
Morley Bros. / Industrial
2.80 25
70
59 Industrial
Residential Oveda, P (Residential)
None
31606 051
10400 Prunerdge
Morley Bros. / Industrial
5.69 25
142
120 Industrial
Residential Overla, P (Residential)
None
_Non Designated Areas
- Existing Garden Apartments with Capacity for Additional Units (b)
326 27 036
10160 Parkwood
Glenbrook Apartments
11.62 20
Res MH 10-20
R3
None
326 27 037
21297 Parkwood
Glenbrook Apartments
19_72 20
z1 3n
Res MH 10 -20
R3
None
Less Existing Units
-517
Remaining Units to be Built
109
92
326 09 040
20800 Valley Green Dr
The Villages at Cupertino
5.35 20
Res MH 10-20
R3
None
326 09 041
20975 Valley Green Dr
The Villages at Cupertino
5.49 20
Res MH 10-20
R3
None
326 09 053
20990 Valley Green Dr
The Villages at Cupertino
6.78 20
Res MH 10-20
R3
None
326 09 054
20800 Valley Green Dr
The Villages at Cupertino
2.69 20
Res MH 10 -20
R3
None
326 09 064
20875 Valley Green Dr
The Villages at Cupertino
6.79 20
Res MH 10-20
R3
None
27.10 20
542
Less Existing Units
-468
Remaining Units to be Built
74
62
Subtotal Units 752 629
Current Pressed Rezoning
Size max. Ivf3ic. �Tt€313LE
(Acres Density Density Yield Yield
ID APN Site Address Existing Use ) (DUA) DUA Units (Units) (a) Current General Plan Land Use Overlay Current Zoning Recommend GP and Zoning Action
North De Anza Boulevard
326 10 046 20705 Valley Green Drive Light Industrial 7.98 10 25 199 169 Office/ Industrial /Commercial /Residential P(CG, ML, Res 4 -10) Amend zoning to P(CG, ML, Res).
Subtotal Units 199 169
TOTAL UNITS 951 798
(a) Realistic Capacity reduces the maximum capacity by 15 percent.
(b) These garden apartment complexes are not built to the maximum density allowed and have large open spaces that exceed the City's open space requirement. Additional units could be built on the properties.
This type of expansion of garden apartment complexes was recently approved and completed at the Villa Serra and Biltmore developments.
Sources. City of Cupertino, 2009, DataQuick Information Systems, 2009; DC &E, 2009, BAE, 2009
l 3-1
EXHIBIT B
CUPER - nNO COMMUNJTY FOR?d 2 -5
Community Form
High Density Residential and Vallco Regional Vallco
Neighborhood Commercial Commercial, Light
North De Anza Entertainment Industrial
Light Industrial and Residential Mixed Use and Residential R &D
} Mixed Use
Al
Crossroads Area * s
Heart E .
C �mmercial - - sn:� i t•
c' of the
City
C e- Anza
RQonta � a F°
Vista College,
Stevens Creek Blvd. Neighborhood
Commercial, Office and Residential
-- - 1 =
Bubb Road -
Licht Industrial
and Residential
---
Mixed Use �•.
Mixed Use civic,
Office, Commercial
and RESIdentlal
— r-
- — -- - - `'`' •� — South De Anza
= @ • Neighborhood Commercial /
--- - --- QiT!ce Co a Resinr�
arial
- L -T- C - D -
uMceilndust
i A i. �Isiue ifdil Sill Ulf
Def:Slnr ric�iucfiic
� U�j',°.v•lnG�rj
Edt cational
— — — vri�on �cr riC° LrcB oOUnna n
fdei :hborhr.. -,d — — sphere of Influ_nce
-- Conmerc:�l Cvrfiuuis
ay.�gr =eme�t
ScLleci ,u nccll of lh- - -ilv ��
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2-19
Oak Valley North De Anza Boulevard
Bubb Road De Anza College
Monta Vista Homestead Road
-4 Altos
Las HOMESTEAD ROAD
4
<
C . . . .
Special Centers
Vallco Park North
Vallco Park South
,CLELL4N RD
f
L — — —
Ij I
L
St�Ln•vale
BDLLINGEP RD
San Jose Fairgrove
City Center Heart cf the Citly
Cpeciflic Pfan
South De Anza Bouf and
PROSPER RD
LEGEND
NeiahborhonH F�ntp,
igno-e 2-E. Speci.
Heart rf The Civ Boundary
S c E E! B Oun d a ry
CG I'-; cfc C. f in F1 ucnC
0 1 I
roflcy2-23: CL
of LotSlze-r
Ensure hat 7
size c, E 1 ot d e n, 1 G E 1 c i cc -1 Iv
it the proposed
ui for t
7-
i bdi! en art
- ye r1 -
L L'aL M LME P, C i7l
T
P,
i_
-=
jr
Cupertino, provides community amenities
and is pedestrian- oriented. Land uses
between the activity centers should help
focus and support activity in the centers.
See Policy 2 -29 for development activities
in these areas.
Development Intensity: Belo «7 is the devel-
opment allocation for the entire Heart of the
City area. See Policies 2 -28 and 2 -29 for
development intensity in the Heart of the
City sub - areas.
Residential Buildout: Table 211
Commercial (sq. ft.)
2000 Built
of"
_
L idea t12 J Dt-' j
-
�.L!l_1,i11L
1 1
3i1U
J _
- C.
i
C01 DEVELOPMENT
Building Heights: See sub - areas.
Strategies
1. Traffic Calming. Evaluate options on
Stevens Creek Boulevard to improve
the pedestrian environment by proac-
tively managing speed limits, their man -
ual and automated enforcement, and
traffic signal synchrony.
Crossroads Area
Policy 2 -28: Crossroads Area
Create an active, pedestrian- oriented
shopping district along Stevens Creek
Boulevard, between De Anza
Boulevard and Stelling Road.
DCv elopm ent Al LiViL.:. _ __ C
retai.] uses with store"-r rn t
Level Ccmn1PTCIa'
1f1, - _
a'ed on t11C ;; �;_ i i
n
�.IICiaL liS/'_S arP_ 2!Pjti -r1 =!.
'
L'ltenSit'i' Sn2il b..
2 -23
2 -24 LANs) UsE/COMM - . DESIGN
Design Elements: Primary ground -floor
entrances shall face the street. The
streetscape shall consist of wide pedestrian
sidewalks with inviting street furniture, street
trees, pedestrian- scaled lights with banners,
small plazas, art /water features, pedestrian
crosswalks with special paving, and other ele-
ments identified in the Crossroads Area
Streetscape Plan. Designs should include
entry features at the Stelling Road./Stevens
Creek Boulevard and De Anza /Stevens
Creek Boulevard intersections to mark the
Crossroads area. A landmark feature shall be
provided at City Center Park at the Stevens
Creek and De Anza Boulevard intersection
to mark the center of the city. r
Building Heights: lviaximum of 45 feet.
Strategies:
1. Crossroads area Streetscape Plan.
Prepare a specific r1`-, for Stevens Creek
Boulevard between De Anza Boulevard
and Stelling Road, with the objective of
creating a unique streetscape and shop-
'. -�: -
ping distri -cr_ _° l _U�JiU v a ea %rts'
ents a u..ic�` r.- cs i i:- oriented activi-
ty center, positive and
_r = ace _
�_ ' _ — _ — 1
A t C LT.
LI -1 L L! J IiULC [ L -1 1� a!A0 1 -U.�I-
h_ —•
C A I .
rj,or r'rn \'1i]l'.:� I r,r
2. Shared Parking. Require shared park-
ing agreements throughout the area,
with overall parking standards reduced
to reflect shared parking. Parking areas
may be located below- grade, in above -
grade structures or behind the buildings.
Above grade structures shall not be
located along street frontages and shall
be lined with active uses on the ground
floor.
3. Commercial- office Uses. Allow com-
mercial- office uses above ground level
retail to be drawn from the commercial
allocation for the area.
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Policy 2-29: Stevens Creek Boulevard
Retain and enhance Stevens Creek
Boulevard as a mixed Commercial,
office and residential corridor conriect-
ing De Anza College, Crossroads, Cit} 7
Center and Vallco Fashion Mall, '-___-
orridor extends from Hi
C .
the eastern city limits and iS _
u`W e r.,
_r t segm nts: -
Last_" The Crossroads Plan_:: _'
c i ;'cen the Wesrern pinri i F ,
OTIS of the Stevens
P Area.
L �n-elopment Activities:
-- 1• r � �„ Z_nn area .ncl 2t
- - - -
�:_ i0p117ci'!t PLC:'_
i ZcSiC-1 -rip! c) nTiir rir„_ CO , r: n
r - --
t
i .'•�� CDnslQere ir'i .'. -, _
nea - -- -- --- -1 -.,1 --
o r
Development Intensity: Development
intensity shall be determined in coni unction
with specific developmenr re.- e-, ;'. lvlixe,
commercial and residential de ele _r_ent
may be allowed if 0 resid nt ;ai a��it� �'ro
- id e an incentive to ae _- -
development
Ler_eficial to
Ly amenities a :d
Residential; l _ ., - • - -, -.
Design Elerne __.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2 -25
1. West Stevens Creek Boulevard (from
Bu lding Heights: Maxi- _ - - - -- - --
Highway 85 to Stelling Road): This
area includes the Oaks Shopping
mu - n height of 45 feet. -
at -a r _
Center and the De Anza Community
Vallco Park South
College campus. New development in
-
this area should incorporate mixed
' Poliey2 -30:
commercial /residential uses.
Vallco Park South —
2. Central Stevens Creek Boulevard (from
Retain and enhance Vallco -
De Anza Boulevard east to Portal
Park South as a large -scale
Avenue): New development shall consist
commercial area that is a
of commercial /commercial office uses or,
regional commercial (including hotel),
the first floor. Office uses are permitted on
office and entertainment center with
the second floor. Residential and resider
tial mixed uses are allowed.
supporting residential development.
3. East Stevens Creek Boulevard (from
Strategies
Portal Avenue to eastern City limits):
1. Vallco Parkway. Continue the Vallco
New development shall consist of com-
mercial /commercial offices uses on the
Parkway streetscape, which ,vas approved
first floor. Office uses are permitted ol;
as P of the Vallco Rosebowl mL >>ed -use
the second floor. Residential and resi"
development, along the entire Park„ ay.
dential mixed uses are allov,
Development Intensity: Development
intensity shall be determined in coni unction
with specific developmenr re.- e-, ;'. lvlixe,
commercial and residential de ele _r_ent
may be allowed if 0 resid nt ;ai a��it� �'ro
- id e an incentive to ae _- -
development
Ler_eficial to
Ly amenities a :d
Residential; l _ ., - • - -, -.
Design Elerne __.
front setback
or the Cite �i,C��r ;�.r1 ... i,�
� -�� �_.�__- k � C ;, -,.
at -a r _
i
1_ t
LI�Q to L11C J111C U1
_ •t t
?C.,
- !a rK Cr
De, elopment Activities: A regional she; -ping
ma_; and office and industrial buildin'_ are e
main features of this area. Hotels are aiso
a1lc'���ed in the Vallco Park area. i�ae .e 2
ni--+ttime regional entertainment activirie
L1cL as a mo'�7ie theatre complex, arm n;_i
.ped in the ma area. ;;
:L lner�t agreement, ofii�_C _
- e also allot�7ed. The prec
,se,• s oe determined viaa- �__c --
ed use pennit.
T he City 1has formed a rede� °`ic ,lent -'-c
ccr area encompassing tlfc
ernes. The redeve!c_ -i'
Lam
CITY OF CUPERTINO M D ' P EC_
10300 Torre Avenue (3
Cupertino, Catiforma 95014
MODEL ORDINANCE NO.10 -�S_1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE C UPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
RE- ZONING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING R:E- ZONING OF:
REZONING APPROXIMATELY 59.1.3 ACRES, CONSISTING OF 27 PARCELS
LOCATED IN THE NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD CONCEPTUAL PLAN AREA
GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD, NORTH OF
LAZANEO DRIVE AND SOUTH OF THE 280 FREEWAY FROM PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT (CG, ML, RES 4 -10) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CG, ML, RES)
REZONING APPROXIMATELY 3.15 ACRES LOCATED IN THE NORTH DE ANZA
BOULEVARD CONCEPTUAL PLAN AREA WEST OF BANDLEY DRIVE, FROM
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CG, ML, BQ, RES 4 -10) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
(CG, NIL, BQ, RES)
REZONING APPROXIMATELY 6.21 ACRES, CONSISTING OF 25 RESIDENTIAL
PARCELS LOCATED ON ARCADIA COURT AND ALONG THE NORTH SIDE NEAR
THE TERMINUS OF GREENLEAF DRIVE, FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CG,
ML, RES 4 -10) TO R1 -7
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received an application for the
rezoning of property, as described in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary- public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the subject rezoning meets the following
requirements:
1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino.
2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the ne .{.
zoning designation.
3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land.
4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
subject parcels.
5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city.
WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit A, as a proposed
amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino.
WHEREAS, a zoning plat description of the property is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit A & B are hereby rezoned and that
Exhibit A attached hereto is made part of the Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino; and
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage.
INTRODUCED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the
6th day of April, 2010 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino the day of , 2010, by the following vote:
Vote: Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Mayor, City of Cupertino
G:1 Planning 1 PDREPORT \ ORD 1. Z- 2010 -02 ord.doc
,STATE OF CAU ORNIA - BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD ;CHWARZFNFGGFR Mverm
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1800 Third Street, Suite 430 Attachment A o °�,,�;,
'. O. Box 952053
Sacramento, CA 94252 -2053
(916) 323 -3177 / FAX (916) 327 -2643
www.hcd.ca.gov
August 25, 2009
Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Director jtgM
Community Development Department AUG ri " 2009
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Ms. Shrivastava.
RE: Review of the City of Cupertino's Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of Cupertino's draft housing element received for
review on June 24, 2009, along with revisions on August 12, 2009. The Department is
required to review draft housing elements and report the findings to the locality pursuant
to Government Code Section 65585(b). A telephone conversation on August 11, 2009
with you, Ms. Vera Gil, Senior Planner, and Mr. Paul Peninger, the City's consultant,
facilitated the review.
The Department applauds the City's success in facilitating the construction of
1,070 units in the prior planning period. The draft element addresses many statutory
requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State housing
element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). For example, the element must
include a complete analysis of non - vacant sites and potential governmental constraints.
The enclosed Appendix describes these and Dther revisions needed to comply with
State housing element law.
The Department appreciates the cooperation and assistance provided by you, Ms. Gil,
and Mr. Peninger, throughout the course of the review and is committed to assist
Cupertino in addressing all statutory requirements of housing element law. If you have
any questions or need any additional technical assistance, please contact
Paul McDougall, of our staff, at (916) 322 -796.
Sincerely,
;/
Cathy E. &eswwell
Deputy Director
Enclosure
APPENDIX
CITY OF CUPERTINO
The following changes would bring Cupertino's housing element into compliance with
Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the
supporting section of the Government Code.
Housing element technical assistance information is available on the Department's website at
www.hcd.ca.gov /hpd Refer to the Division of Housing Policy Development and the section
pertaining to State Housing Planning. Among other resources, the Housing Element section
contains the Department's latest technical assistance tool Building Blocks for Effective Housing
Elements (Building Blocks) available at www.hcd.ca.gov /hpd /housing element2 /index.php the
Government Code addressing State housing element law and other resources.
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites
and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of
zoning and public facilities and services to these sites (Section 65583(x)(3)). The
inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites that
can be developed for housing within the planning period (Section 65583.2).
Cupertino has a regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 1,170 housing units, of
which 570 are for lower- income households. To address this need, the element relies on
vacant and non - vacant sites, including sites in the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area,
Vallco Park North and North De Anza areas. However, to demonstrate the adequacy of
these sites and strategies to accommodate the City's RHNA, the element must include
analyses, as follows:
Sites Inventory Table G.1 lists many sites comprised of multiple parcels. For example,
Site 4 is made up of four individual parcels. While the inventory may aggregate parcels,
it must describe the potential for lot consolidation on sites comprised of multiple parcels.
For example, the element could evaluate conditions rendering parcels suitable and ready
for redevelopment, circumstances similar to recent trends, information on the number of
owners and indicate where sites have been assembled. The element should also include
policies and programs as appropriate to facilitate lot consolidation. This is particularly
itii po taiit given the necessary economies of scale to facilitate develop)nleiIt of dousing
affordable to lower- income households. For example, most assisted housing
developments utilizing State or federal financial resources typically include at least 50 to
80 units.
Non - Vacant Sites To demonstrate the potential for redevelopment on non - vacant sites,
the element should be revised as follows:
Heart of the City and North De Anza Boulevard Districts: While the element includes
general information on the structure's age and the large amount of surface parking
space, it must evaluate the extent to which existing uses may impede additional
residential development. For example, the element could also describe the condition of
the structure, whether the use is operating, marginal or discontinued, expressed interest
in redevelopment, any recent development trends or other circumstances demonstrating
the potential for redevelopment.
-2-
Non - Designated Areas: The element notE!s that the Glenbrook Apartments and The
Villages of Cupertino are not built to maximum capacity (e.g., Glenbrook contains
517 units while the zone would allow 626) and additional units could be added on the site
without razing structures. The element should include an analysis of the potential of
additional units in these developments. For example, while the element notes the recent
expansion of Villa Serra and Biltmore, it should describe these expansions and how they
are similar to identified sites or describe expressed interest in redevelopment.
Realistic Capacity For non - residential or mixed -use sites, the calculation of residential
capacity should specifically account for the extent to which uses other than residential are
allowed. Projected residential development capacity should not, for example, assume
residential -only development on non - residentially zoned sites. For non - vacant sites, the
element should also estimate potential residential capacity considering not all non - vacant
sites will redevelop within the housing element planning period. For example, the
element could base estimated capacity or those sites determined to have the greatest
potential for redevelopment.
Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
Emergency Shelters: While the element includes a program to amend the BQ
(Quasi - Public) zone to permit emergency shelters without discretionary action, pursuant
to Chapter 633, Statutes 2007 (SB 2), it must demonstrate sufficient capacity to
accommodate the need for emergency shelters. The element should also describe the
characteristics and suitability of the zone(s) for emergency shelters. See the
Department's SB 2 technical assistance memo at
http: / /www.hcd.ca.gov /hpd /sb2 memo05C)708.pdf
Transitional and Supportive Housing: ThE: element does not address this requirement.
Pursuant to SB 2, transitional and supportive housing must be permitted as a residential
use and only subject to those restrictions :hat apply to other residential uses of the same
type in the same zone. The element muse demonstrate consistency with this requirement
or include a program to amend zoning for transitional and supportive housing as
appropriate. Refer to the Building Blocks' website at
http: / /www.hcd.ca.gov /hpd /housing element2 /SHN sheiters.php
2. Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of
housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as
identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building
codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of
developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also
demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from
meeting its share of the regional housing geed in accordance with Section 65584 and
from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing,
transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7)
(Section 65583(x)(5)).
Land -Use Controls The element identifies various residential development standards;
however, it must include a complete analysis of their potential impacts on the cost and
supply of housing and ability to achieve maximum densities. In particular, the analysis
-3-
must address development standards which appear to be constraints (two -story height
limit, height limits of 30 feet and maximum lot coverage of 40 percent in the R -2 and
R -3 districts). For assistance, refer to the Building Blocks' website at
http: / /www.hcd.ca.gov /hpd /housing element2 /CON landuse.php
Local Processing and Permit Procedures While the element includes some information
regarding rezoning and tentative map applications (page 62), it must specifically describe
and analyze the City's permit processing and approval procedures by zone and housing
type. The element should discuss and analyze processing procedures and time for
typical single- and multi - family projects, including type of permit, approval body and
decision - making criteria such as approval findings for impacts on costs and approval
certainty.
Given the reliance on the Planned Development (PD) process to approve housing to
accommodate the regional housing need, particularly for housing affordable to lower -
income households, the element must include a description of the process and specific
analysis to demonstrate how the PD process impacts certainty, predictability, timing and
cost of development. For example, the element could indicate if the City utilizes tools
such as default development standards providing a minimal threshold for approvable
heights and parking to promote approval certainty and could describe timing, approval
rates and the impacts of any conditions on approval.
For assistance with permit procedure analysis, refer to the Building Blocks' website at
http: / /www.hcd.ca.gov /hpd /housing element2 /CON permits.php
On /Off -Site Improvements The element did not address this requirement. The element
must identify subdivision level improvement requirements such as minimum street widths
and analyze their potential impact on the cost and supply of housing. For assistance,
refer to the Building Blocks' website at
http: / /wvvrw.hcd.ca.gov /hpd /housing element2 /CON offsite.php
3. Analyze the opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development
(Section 65583(x)(8)).
While the element describes Title 24 of the State Code and indicates the land -use
element provides for higher density housing close to jobs and transportation corridors
(pages 73 and 74), it does not describe any other specific strategies or programs the City
implements or will adopt. Given the importance of addressing climate change and
energy conservation, the analysis should facilitate policies and programs promoting
energy conservation in the housing element. For example, a program could be added to
promote energy conservation programs available through the State and utility providers.
The City could evaluate other incentives to promote more compact development or
incentives for green building. Additional information on potential programs to address
energy conservation objectives is available on the Building Blocks' website at
http: / /www.hcd.ca.gov /hpd /housing element2 /SIA conservation. php and the
Department's Green Building and Sustainability Resources bibliography at
http: / /www.hcd.ca._gov /hpd /green build.pdf
-4-
B. Housing Programs
Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and
development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and
encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels,
including emergency shelters and transitional housing. Where the inventory of sites,
pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (9), does not identify adequate sites to
accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section
65584, the program shall provide for sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner -
occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right, including density and
development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing
for very low- and low- income households (Section 65583(c)(1)).
As noted in Finding A -1, the element does not include a complete site analysis and the
adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete
sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a
shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. Programs to
address a shortfall of sites must meet requirements pursuant to Government Code
Sections 65583(a)(3) and 65583.2 (h) and (i) to ep rmit owner - occupied and rental
multifamily uses by right Sites must be allowed without a conditional use permit (CUP),
planned unit development or other discretionary review or approval and allow a minimum
of 16 units per site. In addition, at least 50 percent of the regional housing need for
lower- income households must be accommodated on sites designated for residential use
only. In addition:
Emergency Shelters (Development Standards): Program 25 (page 96) proposes to
amend the zoning code to allow emergency shelters as a permitted use in the BQ zone,
however, the Program must commit to establish development standards will encourage
and facilitate the use and only subject shelters to the same development and
management standards that apply to other allowed uses within the identified zone.
Transitional and Supportive Housing: As noted in Finding A -1, the element does not
address transitional and supportive housing, therefore, the element may need to add or
revise programs to comply with SB 2. See the Department's SB 2 technical assistance
memo at http / /www.hcd.ca.gov /hpd /sb2 _ - nemo05O7O8.pdf
2. Describe the amount and uses of fund in the redevelopment agency's Low and Moderate
Income Housing Fund (Section 65583(c)).
The element does not address this requirement. The element must include an estimate
of the amounts of funds in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund over the
planning period, and describe planned uses (i.e., new construction and development
assistance), by amount, if possible. In addition, Section 33413(b)(4) requires a
redevelopment implementation plan to be consistent with a community's housing
element. The integration of applicable information from the redevelopment agency's
current housing implementation plan into the housing element will assist in the
development of an effective housing element. For sample analyses and links, refer to the
Building Blocks' website at http: / /\rtww.hcd.t,a.gov /hpd /housing element2 /01R lowmod.nhp
-5—
3. The housing element shall contain programs which "assist in the development of
adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low -, low- and moderate - income
households (Section 65583(c) (2)).
Pursuant to Chapter 891, Statutes of 2006 (AB 2634), existing programs should either be
expanded or new programs added to specifically assist in the development of a variety of
housing types to meet the housing needs of extremely low- income households (ELI). To
address this requirement, the element could revise programs to prioritize some funding
for the development of housing affordable to ELI households, and /or offer financial
incentives or regulatory concessions to encourage the development of housing types,
such as single -room occupancy (SRO) units, which address the needs of this income
group.
4. The housing element shall contain programs which "address, and where appropriate and
legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing" (Section 65583(c)(3)).
As noted in Finding A -3, the element requires a complete analysis of potential
governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may
need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified
constraints.
Parking As noted in the element (page 55), a program should be included to allow
flexible parking standards for different housing types. For additional information, see the
Building Blocks' website at http: / /www.hcd.ca.gov /hpd /housing element2 /CON landuse.php
Design Review As noted in the element (page 63), a program should be included to
address design review procedures as a constraint. For additional information, see the
Building Blocks' website on design review constraints at
http: / /www.hcd.ca.gov /hpd /housing element2 /CON permits.php
Reasonable Accommodation As noted in the element (page 58), Cupertino does not
have a reasonable accommodation process. The element should include a. program to
develop specific procedures for requesting a reasonable accommodation. The process
should not be limited to the installation of accessibility improvements and should provide
exception to broader zoning and land -use for maintenance improvement and
development of housing for persons with disabilities. Please see model and sample
ordinances from the Building Blocks' website at
http: / /www.hcd.ca.gov /hpd /housing element2 /PRO mitigate.php
S M.
5. The housing program shall preserve for low- income households the assisted housing
developments identified pursuant to paragraph (8) of subdivision (a). The program for
preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary,
all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs identified in
paragraph (8) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other urgent needs for
which alternative funding sources are not available. The program may include strategies
that involve local regulation and technical assistance (Section 65583(c)(6)).
The element identifies 37 housing units at -risk of converting to market -rate. Therefore,
Program 18 (Preservation of "At Risk Units ") must be revised to include specific actions
to preserve at -risk units. For example, the; Program could ensure compliance with
noticing requirements, include a tenant education component and consider funding or
assisting.
6. The housing program shall promote equaj' housing opportunities for all persons
regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin or color (Section
65583(c)(5)).
While Program 28 lists various activities under the Santa Clara County Fair Housing
Consortium, it should also describe the City's role in implementation, including how the
City supports the Consortium. The City should also commit to disseminate fair housing
information, including how to access services of the Consortium, throughout the City in a
variety of public locations.
C. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic
segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the element
shall describe this effort (Section 65583(c)(7)).
While the element describes outreach efforts such as focus group meetings, it should also
generally describe comments received and how comments were considered in the
development of the element. For further information, please see the Building Blocks' website
at "ttp: l Y - .d.ca.ycv; hpd,'housinq eleme IL2 /GS cub;i;,carticioaticn.phN
D. General Plan Consistency
As you are aware, Government Code Sectior 65302 requires cities and counties in
California to amend the safety and conservation elements of their general plan to include
analysis and polices regarding flood hazard and flood management information upon the
next revision of the housing element on, or after, January 1, 2009. Government Code
Section 65302 also requires cities and counties in California, effective January 1, 2008, to
annually review the land -use element for those areas subject to flooding identified by flood
plain prepared by the Federal Management Agency or the State Department of Water
Resources (DWR).
Any amendments to the safety, conservation, and land -use elements, based on the
requirements of Government Code Section 6:3302, will require a review of the housing
element for internal consistency, which may in turn, require amendments to the housing
element. Local jurisdictions should contact DWR's Department of Flood NAMnGgernent for
assistance in obtaining the most current floodplain mapping information needed for the
analysis. Contact information is available at h ttr): //'www.dwr.water.ca.. ov /floodm��mf%Irafmolfmb /
Attachment B
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Project Title: City of Cupertino Housing Element Update
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Cupertino, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA
95014
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Vera Gil, Senior Planner (408)- 777 -3251
4. Project Location: The regional location of Cupertino is shown on Figure 1. The proposed
project applies to all lands within the City of Cupertino ( "Cupertino "), which is also referred
to as the Project Area throughout this document. There are approximately 7,000 acres of land
within the Cupertino city limit, as shown in Figure 2.
The 2008 population of Cupertino was approximately 55,600 persons, with 20,270 house-
holds and an average household size of 2.8 people.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
6. General Plan Designation: The project area consists of various land use designations be-
cause the project encompasses multiple Planning Areas, and areas outside of City - identified
Planning Areas. Figure 3 shows the City's existing General Plan land use designations.
7. Zoning: The project area consists of various zoning districts which are shown in Figure 4.
tn
8. Description of Project: The City of Cupertino proposes to adopt an update to the General
Plan Housing Element. The Housing Element Update does not consist of one or more actual
projects involving the physical construction of dwelling units, but rather provides the policy
program under which individual housing projects are allowed. Development applications for
these projects will be separately submitted to the City for review. This IS /.\4ND discusses de-
velopment of the housing sites and adoption of related policies and programs on a program-
matic level, but does not cover potential project -level siting issues of housing site develop-
ment or housing development on other sites, such as the possible construction of secondary
dwelling units. Detailed site - specific projects will be analyzed as part of the City's project
review process.
The amount of residential development included in the Housing Elernent Update was assumed
in the buildout assumptions analyzed in the General Plan FIR. As stated on page II -1 of the
General Plan FIR, the maximum buildout (through 2020) for Cupertino is approximately
22,369 new dwelling units. The Housing Element Update would allow up to 798 new dwell-
ing units which is -,veil within the residential development envelope analyzed in the General
Plan FIR. Therefore, this Initial Study draws on analysis and conclusions from the General
Plan FIR, in accordance with CEQ1 i Guidelines Section 15150 Incorpioraiion by Reki -ence
xvine-h- states that a pi— ious CEQ: u:, u:r:� :.t tea:: i,e refere:,c�ci 1 ur;.
C I T Y OF C U P E R T I N O
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IS /MND
Napa Sacr ento
lb Sacramento
Napa
.
l Solano
Fairfield
Marin
San
Francisco ,
Contra Costa Stockton
San
kland Joaquin ,
Tracy
Alameda
Sta - i siaus
Cupertino
f .
r.
! 0 - '-Iles
kan Jose
.�
,
REGIO14AL LOC ATION
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IS/MND
VFl IS LA GR;�IJN a
( 1 LOR NEd
A
77
77
I 1I IJOE 1 D I 1 _ 1 -_ O
G. a / - i� .\ ; pPQ: C? a l - J E € r i kl-fz FORGE
0
0
ROFN R V( ARL SEE
HAS
L
Y �4 11,
SV, 11' �LL Y GREEN
U
4� D
le4ld _E N
i; IA S5
GRErL_, MARIA D.. -
EmBAR Z I R 11 D 151.
ARGO
I N
Vf
'01,01w coa
IrOlto Z E S051
Z iAURE I TA z
FC1 IRIS I rt T t NDA VALLC( i, _A, _E
tl• a 1C . ; �. I ? f r ul ' ;, � ) ` , ` (rl .. IV_�E ! SRI, ssla I FOR[ z
C
' 4,
"N �' -'I ���� _�
I Iva (IRFEK �. ��[ I �� �\
ALI T . ♦O Z "OFFE
10
r AN I D ANr F
6 (L MZE TE
"R
_-Z
- AINRISE
U FERRER E z
I - AS ONDA
[
Eu-,.
RUN
S_ - --q -
S? RODRFG,�I
IN GRE U z
L JE7 A TWI 3 0
0111i MR
Z
Al C /11J) pu of.
IIERYL 1ACIFIN PAC Z Lj MEDI
D! J Al A PHIL 0
rye ■gnnN ■rN■erp••e■1 �' �.' I
f-ILLELLAN __I�_
SARN14A
RT
i5i Zl_.L�l SS Sft�VEAADO U I S_1UN
C)r I : - ) 0-f
CLNf PE _RG
f, 0 x SF DYGROV
0 TO Q
M 1�i(
Q :1
&
E r
L�t Is
�.- - - --� L IjEA R es, mo sam■ WIN ■ FA
1 11' 1 ILAI I 11111YOOD 001ma■ms
III won IWARL. 1`100M RK C ASTANO O W
0 F TANA 0 77 am
T I I P T�E Z_ ■
T , - - , " I ANA LA 4
ii iTO �� 1. ()
:A L
'OtM -
A'
MICH z
__ 11 1 _ I - 0
TERRACE ' c'
77 T _ [ -
LUE HILL
ZI _YLLIS
pI 11
-T 0 E V_ 0 -PI _..� K
QLKNAp S __B,
L
E LL Eli
PJ N�qIA CO ONAD
Ll "AIJ,A l O� ;A I
mlowrl 1 arm 40 srw,w, Iwo R1 __LL __ RAINBO
RAINS
_t2l
_!!L 1 __
11 FILOSSO
W LOF R
n (< � � _L f � {`f -� V,'� -- rwcnsrL � — Z� \�� z �
11 _AR)N
0
ire KETT
pe;
f Sa City Boundary
EEN
mN_
sourcf� C4, )I CLOC-ChI10, 2 1009: '200"
FIGURE 2
PROJECT AREA
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IS/MND
4 —�JWL
. L
i J Ar
11
7—
71 17 1
��:. I 11 U li 11 ��� �� _,_i+ t —_
i L
ling �
' E
Jf
F
III _II 1
>
l o ,
J ,
J
its
u�j 1� ��
Fil
�Lfl _ ��_] -- -- -�I_I� i'
71 F �
*=plot
City Boundary
Commercial /Residential
Commercial /Residential /Office /Industrial
Riparian Corridor
Industrial
Parks and Open Space
Public Facilities
Very Low Density (0.5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU /Gr. Ac.)
Medium/High Density (1 0-20 DU/Gr. Ac.)
High Density (20-35 DU/Gr. Ac.)
County
S ow
J&
FIGURE 3
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IS /MND
�ourc GI; of Cupertino, 20X)'„ DC: &I 200"
FIGURE 4
ZONING
The General Plan EIR referenced in this Initial Study is available at the City offices for re-
view. The General Plan EIR found that no significant impacts would result from development
from buildout of the Plan. As summarized in Chapter 3 of the General Plan EIR, all poten-
tially significant impacts would be reduced to a less- than - significant level through the imple-
mentation of mitigating General Plan policies and one, stand -alone mitigation measure.
As discussed in Section B) below, the Housing Element Update also includes policies and
programs to promote its overall objectives. Some of the programs may facilitate the construc-
tion of facilities outside of the 13 identified housing sites during the course of the Housing
Element planning period (2007- 2014). Th(:se facilities, intended to support the City's growth
and protect public health and safety, may include emergency shelters or second units on ap-
propriately zoned residential parcels. BecE.use these additional units would be constructed on
parcels already designated for development in the General Plan, the potential impacts from
their construction have already been evaluated at a programmatic level in the General Plan
EIR. As discussed throughout the checklist below, the General Plan includes a series of poli-
cies and strategies that prevent or mitigat,. common environmental impacts associated with
new development, and the General Plan EIR includes additional mitigation measure to ad-
dress potential impact from allowed development. Based on the framework of policies dis-
cussed and the project- specific mitigation measures identified throughout the checklist, the
possible construction and operation of emergency shelters, second units or other housing out-
side of the 13 housing sites would not result in significant impacts.
As required by State law, the proposed Housing Element Update has been prepared to ensure
that the City fairly accommodates its share of regional projected housing needs. Cupertino
has analyzed local housing needs and resources, identified specific sites for potential devel-
opment, and developed policies and implementation programs to meet the housing needs of
existing and future residents of all income levels.
Housing Element law requires that each jurisdiction update its Housing Element every five to
seven years. Cupertino's existing Housing, Element was updateid and adopted in 2001. This
Housing Element Update addresses the 2007 -2014 planning period.
Pursuant to State law, the Housing Element is required to:
• Outline a community's housing production objectives.
• List policies and implementation programs to achieve local housing goals.
• Examine the need for housing resource; in a community, focusing on special needs popu-
lations.
• Identify adequate sites for the production of ne«- housing serving various income levels.
• Analyze potential constraints to production.
• Evaluate the i lousing Element for consistency with other co mponeuits of the General Plan.
As part of these general requirements, Cupertino's Housing Element Update must demon-
strate that the City has made available adequate sites for housing to accommodate its Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as established by the Association of Bay Area Govern-
ments (ABAG). The RHNA represents th minimum additional housing units needed to ac-
commodate projected household growth of all income levels by the end of the Housing Ele-
ment's planning period (June 30, 2014). As shown in Table 1. C h�
upei7ino's RA for the
planning period January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2014 is 1,170 total units.
TABLE 1 ReLzional HousinLy Needs Allocation for Cupertino
Income Category Projected Percent of
Need Total
Very Low (0 -50 % of AMI 341 29.1%
Low (51 -80 % of AMI) 229 19.6%
Moderate (81 -120 % of AMI) 243 20.8%
Above Moderate (over 120 % of AMI) 357 30.5%
Total Units 1,170 100%
The Area Median Income (AMI) is used by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) and is updated annually to measure incomes in a region.
As described in Chapter 4 of the Housing Element Update, the City of Cupertino may count
housing units constructed, approved, or proposed since January 1, 2007 toward satisfying its
RHNA goals for the 2007 -2014 planning period. Table 2 shows that 547 units have already
been constructed or approved within this planning period. The City has already met its RHNA
of 357 units for above moderate - income units, with the construction of 451 such units. The
RHNA allocation of 813 very low -, low -, and moderate- income units has not yet been ful-
filled, with a remainder of 717 units still to be constructed.
TABLE 2 Units Constructed, Approved, or Planned, 1/1/07
— present, to Comply with RHNA Requirement
Very Above
Low Low Moderate Moderate Total
Planning Areas
Monta Vista 0 0 0 5 5
Vallco Park South 0 0 55 309 364
Homestead 9 8 0 102 119
Non - Designated Planning Areas 13 8 3 21 45
Second Dwelling Units 0 0 0 14 14
Total Credits 22 16 58 451 547
2007 -2014 RHNA 341 229 243 357 !.1 0
Balance of RHAA 319 213 135 n/a r ;17-
(`) Balance of RHNA is equal to sum of very low. low. and moderate - income units. Cite has satisfied its above moderate ine�me RHII � A
Source: BAE, City of Cupertino Housing Element Update 2007 -2014.
Based on the current General P Ilan Land Use designations and zoning, the City"s lane; tn-
tory indicates sufficient land zoned at resid ,-ntial densities to accommodate 629 total dwelling
units at a minimum density of 20 dwelling znits per acre. In order to meet the total remaining
need for 717 units, the City proposes a rezoning on one of the 13 housing sites: Site 13. Site
13 is a light industrial property located in the North De Anza Boulevard zoning district. The
entire North De Anza Boulevard zoning district will be amended from P (CG, Res 4 -10) to P
(CG, ML, Res).
The housing sites identified in the Housing Element Update could accommodate a total of 798
residential units, not including the 547 units already constructed. These sites would be lo-
cated within three City- designated Planning Area: Heart of the City, Vallco Park North, and
North De Anza Boulevard, as shown on Figure 5. The remaining units would be scattered
throughout the Non - Designated Area, areas of Cupertino that are not designated as a Planning
Area. The locations of specific parcels identified for housing are shown in Figure 6. Table 3
describes the residential potential in Cupertino, organized by Planning Areas and Non -
Designated Area.
TABLE 3 Residential Potential, Cupertin
Potential
Dwelling Units
Planning Areas
Heart of the City
296
Vallco Park North
179
North De Anza Boulevard
169
Non - Designated Area
154
Total Units
798
Source: BAE, City of Cupertino Housing Element Update 2007--'014
The Housing Element Update demonstrates that the City of Cupertino has a sufficient supply
of land to accommodate its fair share of he region's housing needs during the 2007 -2014
planning period. Table 4 shows how Cupertino would meet its RHNA, using a mix of units
that have been constructed, approved, or planned since January 1, 2007; existing residentially
zoned land; and land proposed for residential zoning under the Housing Element I'pdate.
TABLE 4 RHNA Compliance, Cupertin
Total Units
Units Constricted. Approved, or Planned since J,,ruar 1, 2007 547
Existing Residentialiv L_oued Land 6,
Land Proposed ii r under the Housing Element update 76y
Tutul Units
2007 -2014 RI III a
Surplus G'rrits 175
Source: BAE, City ui Cupertirnu Housing Element Update 2007 - =0i4.
Table 5 below shows the change in development allocations after subtracting the housing sites
identified in the Housing Element Update from the General Plan buildout.
TABLE 5 REMAINING RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION AS OF JUNE 2, 2009
Planning District
Buildout
Remaining
Allocation as of
June 2, 2009
Housing Element
Potential
Remaining
Allocation,
2014
Monta Vista
902
80
80
Other Neighborhood
Areas
18,174
179
154
25
Vallco Park South
711
240
240
Heart of the City
570
216
296
(80)
Homestead Road
784
184
184
Other Commercial
Areas *
306
300
300
City Center
656
100
100
North De Anza
146
97
169
(72)
Vallco Park North
851
297
179
118
Bubb Road
94
94
94
Other Employment
Area
100
100
100
Total
23,294
1,887
798
1,089
( *) Includes the South De Anza Plannin Dist=ct.
Source: BAE, City of Cupertino Housing Element Update 2007 -2014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IS/MND
N
'A
Ll
q:
L
S
1 1I - _ ' d' -6 < 2
I L I
r
_ �° ` / v, ��I rl �� r,� rrrE Y h j I
A "A, UL
z
_j LORNE
- T —
A1.11G1
ZP,,. wz 0 units ILKIA
N-1
Eil z
V D
T I I ly un i ts ts
,�I ��'+ 1/ � _ �N wuRlpl - '• `:... - � / � LMA�
169 units RA 110 BEE jk
0
GREENLEAF
FORD FL
ni- X -
154 units Iw. — �� r z X
�' _ I,�•il i J( ' - \�. IF, j RUMFORD a AANF,
M
Z NCOC
U c
CHRISTENSF
C JLENDA
_3 , ) —
q
L E E < 0
0 units
z
<
�F! T Irl
1, l �'4 1 units
1.
Vh[ 4
T_
1 � I a
SU RI CqZE TE
Z
AL
IE11EITf,
ROD IG
0 units t I'S ONDAS 4
SHELLY GR �URI :L RUNG
L A FIAR
P RI
J� F- DE BARCI LONA
TILSON z
11CUIL,
Z
,,Df 1EMLI
. .. . .. . .. . ...
"Ali HART
ou... t O r __j RE DERG
z SHADYGROV LE
,4- 0 GG
�7 7 1 _I C Z,
P�� q A ST
ERN
0 units
ULAC
\ 7 L -- , I -
I __ -2 z • "o. ;, I v F. FO Pul Z B I IL4��E_R 1WS,
0 units
V LJF� FARC
"d "6A
0
HEM HER' D VE 4TLArA 0 7 0
CAR! 1,67
�j O Z COWARIL WIQDL�� I A� U CA — ti
1 ROSAR10
' T ,
S FALL
T IPTO E A
)IJ T51 - I R E RZICII Boundary - - = Heart of the City
0—
I
UVRACE ,V�
F1 j City ry
txx un Potential number of units Homestead Road
KNAP B R
V 9
SQUIRE1 _LTZ co to Planning Areas North DeAnza Boulevard
— °— i 1A A l+ NR n N V SHAD
W VLL NBOW .. . u:A ? ARIA
MontaVista South DeAnza Boulevard
I
0 units Bubb Road Vallco Park North
City Center
Vallco Park South
\4 % Area outside of Planning Areas
1AP T
A,
(,I I y ()I Cup )0) D I I I Qu :( I I riroln I", t 1 206 [W 100); 1 1, 200'
FIGURE 5
DESIGNATED PLANNING AREAS AND TOTAL POTENTIAL NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IS/MND
E U
--JUNWERU-SE-WtA -FVVY-
I - W
13
th De 'An
W
lit
J
V
;L
ji _T J
r t
.7
J
_ T T
City Boundary
i �, <- r' _I Housing Sites
No Rezoning or General Plan Amendment Required
Rezoning and/or General Plan Amendment Required
SOLM Cllr (); CUDET11110, 2069� [MI.iQwck Information Systems. 2009; BAE, 2009; DC&E, 2009. Total Potential Housing Units = 798
FIGURE 6
POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES IN AND OUTSIDE OF DESIGNATED PLANNING AREAS
A. Housing Sites
Below is a summary of the housing sites, identified by numbers 1 through 12, that would ac-
commodate Cupertino's housing need.
Site Y is a 2.02 -acre site that consists of two parcels on Stevens Creek Boulevard, located
within the Heart of the City Planning Area. This site is currently designated Commer-
cial/Office /Residential, with up to 25 dwelling units per acre, and is zoned for Planned Devel-
opment. The site contains a single -story commercial building occupied by a furniture store
built in 1964. A second building, constricted in 1969, contains the Yoshinoya restaurant.
There is a large amount of surface parking on the site.
Site 2 is a 1.35 -acre site on Stevens Cree:c Boulevard, located within the Heart of the City
Planning Area. This site is currently designated Connmercial/Office/Residential, with up to 25
dwelling units per acre, and is zoned for Planned Development. The site contains a restaurant
and a large surface parking lot constructed -n 1978.
Site 3 is a 0.77 -acre site located at the corner of Saich Way and Stevens Creek Boulevard,
within the Heart of the City Planning Area. This site is currently designated Commer-
cial/Office /Residential, with up to 25 dwelling units per acre, and is zoned for Planned Devel-
opment. The site contains a strip mall built in 1969.
Sites 4a and 4b cover a 3.36 -acre site comprised of four parcels, located at the corner of
Blaney Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard, within the Heart of the City Planning Area.
This site is currently designated Commercial /Office /Residential, with up to 25 dwelling units
per acre, and is zoned for Planned Development. These parcels currently have older single -
story buildings built in the mid -1950s and 1960s with large surface parking lots.
Site 4a consists of three parcels held in common ownership on Stevens Creek Boulevard and
Blaney Avenue. One of the three parcels ( NPN 369 03 007) is currently vacant and undevel-
oped. The remaining two parcels have old, single -story buildings with large surface parking,
lots. The three structures were constructed in 1956, and 1965. Existing uses include the Shan
restaurant and a strip mall that contains a small food market and a laundry establishment.
The site is located along one of the major corridors in Cupertino, in close proximity to ser-
vices and public transportation.
Site 4b is located at the Corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue. The parcel
is approximately half an acre in size and hay a stand -alone restaurant on the site. The building,
was constructed in 1915 and the site has an improvement to land value ratio of 0.17.
The City will encourage Situ 417) «; be reds veloped in conjunction with Site 4a. Site 4a and
Site 4b collectively form a comer site that would logically be developed as a single project.
Even if the two sites are not consolidated, the City will require that proposals for redevelop-
ment of parcel in Site 4a or 4b be undertaken within a larger master plan that takes all four
parcels into consideration. The City would require that a coordinated access and circulation
plan would be developed for the site even if Site 4a and Site 4b were developed separately.
:F1 S V :"l vii;
� i 0 .96 - acre that COnrailc ;vr0 par on Creek Boulevard, 1G!�at.d tliiliiii
the Heart of the City Planning Area. This site is currently designated Commer-
cial/Office/Residential, with up to 25 dwelling units per acre, and is zoned for Planned Devel-
opment. The existing uses include a 1955 restaurant building and a second structure built in
1946 with commercial uses. The parcels both have large surface parking lots.
Site 6 is 1.92 -acre site that consists of one parcel on Stevens Creek Boulevard, located within
the Heart of the City Planning Area. This site is currently designated Commer-
cial/Office /Residential, with up to 25 dwelling units per acre, and is zoned for Planned Devel-
opment. The current use on the site is a single -story building constructed in 1975 that cur-
rently houses a furniture store. The site includes surface parking.
Site 7 is a 2.31 -acre site that contains three parcels at the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Estates Drive, located within the Heart of the City Planning Area. This site is currently
designated Commercial/Office /Residential, with up to 25 dwelling units per acre, and is zoned
for Planned Development. The strip mall on this site was built in 1960 and is currently a mix
of occupied and vacant retail spaces.
Site 8 is a 0.55 -acre site on Stevens Creek Boulevard, located within the Heart of the City
Planning Area. This site is currently designated Commercial/Office/Residential, with up to 25
dwelling units per acre, and is zoned for Planned Development. The site is currently vacant.
Site 9 is 1.29 -acre site that consists of two parcels at the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Judy Avenue, located within the Heart of the City Planning Area. This site is currently
designated Commercial/Office /Residential, with up to 25 dwelling units per acre, and is zoned
for Planned Development. The site has an old, dilapidated strip mall, built in 1952, with a
mix of occupied and vacant retail spaces.
Site 10 consists of two parcels located in the Vallco Park North Planning Area, totaling 8.5
acres. This site is currently designated for Industrial /Residential, and is zoned for Planned
Development (Residential). In 2005, Site 10 was rezoned to allow for residential develop-
ment at a density of up to 25 dwelling units per acre The site contains two office buildings,
one of which is partially occupied, and large surface parking lots. This site will be rezoned
P(MP, Res) and will allow a maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre. The rezoning
will make the site consistent with the General Plan land use designation.
Site 11 contains the Glenbrook Apartments, a two- parcel site spanning 31.3 acres. This site is
currently designated for Medium/High Density Residential uses, which allows for 10 to 20
units per acre. This site could potentially accommodate 626 units under its existing R3 zon-
ing, which allows for a density of 20 dwelling units to the acre. Ho« -ever, there are only 517
units currently existing on the site, which means this site has potential for additional residen-
tial units. This site currently accommodates residential development and would not be re-
zoned under the General Plan Housing Element Update.
Site I?. contains the Villages of Cupertino. This five- parcel site is on a 27.1 -acre property
currently designated for Medium/High Density Residential uses. which allows 10 to 20 units
per acre. Site 12 could accommodate a total of 542 units under existing R3 zoning. Currently
the development contains only 468 units. and presents potential for additional residential
units. This site currently accommodates residential development and would not be rezoned
under the General Plan Housing Element Update.
13
Site 13, built in 1975, currently has light industrial uses with a large amount of surface park-
ing. This parcel is currently designated for Office/ Industrial/ Commercial/ Residential and is
zoned P(CG, ML, Res 4 -10), for planned development of general commercial, light industrial,
and/or low density residential. The City will rezone the North De Anza Planning Area (west
of North De Anza Boulevard), including this property from P(CG, ML, Res 4 -10) to P(CG,
ML, Res) to be consistent with the General Plan residential density of 25 dwelling units per
acre.
None of the sites need a rezoning or General Plan amendment except for Site 13/North
De Anza Boulevard area (west of North De Anza Boulevard) that will be rezoned from
P(CG,ML Res 4 -10) to P(CG, ML, Res) to have a residential density consistent with the
2005 General Plan at 25du /acre. Therefore, the assumptions in the 2005 General Plan
EIR for densities are valid for the purpo! >e of this MND.
The Morely Brothers site on Pruneridge Avenue was rezoned in 2004 and counted in the
Housing Element as part of the actions already taken, and is not included as one of the 13
sites. It will be rezoned from P(Res) to P(MP, Res) to be consistent with the General Plan.
The rezoning will continue to support the residential use at 25 dwelling units per acre consis-
tent with the General Plan. The addition of the MP (Light Industrial) zoning designation does
not increase office allocation beyond what vas analyzed in the 2005 General Plan. Therefore,
the 2005 General Plan EIR assumptions wi'..l continue to be relevant.
B. Policies and Programs
Below is a summary of Housing Element Update policies and programs.
Housing Element Policy 1: Sufficient R?sidentially Zoned Land 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.
Housing Element Program 2: Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance
The City shall continue to implement the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance and encourage the
production of more second units on residential parcels.
Dousing Element Program b: Surplus Property for Housing
In conjunction with local public agencies, school districts and churches. the City will develop
a list of surplus property or underuiilized property that has the potential for residential devel-
opment, compatible with surroundiflig densities. Additionally lonL. term land leases of prop-
erty from churches, school districts, or corporations for construction of affordable units shall
be encouraged. Furthermore, 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 rc-
vielved `or applicability in Cupertino.
At
Housing Element Program 11; Density Bonus Program
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."
Housing Element Program 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 den-
sity and attached housing developments.
Housing Element Program 16: Residential Development Exceeding Maximums
Allow residential developments to exceed planned density maximums if they provide special
needs housing and if the increase in density will not overburden neighborhood streets or ad-
versely affect neighborhood character.
Housing Element Program 25: Emergency Shelters
The City will continue to support the rotating emergency shelter operated by West Valley
Community Services. In order to comply with SB 2 and to facilitate any future emergency
shelter needs, the City will revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow permanent emergency shel-
ter facilities in "BQ" Quasi- Public zoning districts. The BQ zoning district will be amended
to encourage the development of permanent emergency shelters as a permitted use. The zon-
ing ordinance will include development and management standards that will subject perma-
nent emergency shelters to the same standards that apply to other permitted uses in the BQ
zone. No discretionaiy pernuts will be required for approval of a permanent emergency shel-
ter.
Housing Element Program X: Energy Conservation in Residential Development
The Cite will continue to encourage energy efficient residential development and provide
technical assistance to developers who are interested in incorporating energy efficient design
elements into their program. The City has a Sustainability Coordinator who encourages en-
ergy conservation and assists developers.
Housing Element Program X : Extremely Low- Income Housin(I
The City will encourage the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely
IuNv- income households by providing assistance and funding for affordable housing develop-
ments, Assistance can include gap financing for single -room occupancy projects, affordable
rental housing, senior housing, and other housing developments and programs targeting ex-
tremely low - income households.
Housing Element Program X: Flexible Parkinu Standards
Tiit ( Ity rilav ?rant n in (A!- Street parkin, nTi ;� �a:e -k}�,' -Gasp bas fnr cP *1inr lin„cincr
J
group homes, affordable housing, transit - oriented developments, and other appropriate pro-
jects. Applicants must demonstrate that project characteristics justify a reduction and that the
reduction would not generate a parking deficiency or adversely impact neighboring proper-
ties. City staff will work with applicants to provide justification for parking reductions. Ap-
propriate justification for parking reductions may include examples of parking ratios used at
other similar projects, parking studies prepared for the project, parking studies prepared for
other similar project in Cupertino, shared parking arrangements, or the implementation of
transportation management measures. Where possible, City staff will applicants with parking
studies prepared for similar projects.
Housing Element Program X: Expedited Permit Procedures
The City will expedite permit processing for housing developments that contain at least 20
percent of units for lower- income households, or 10 percent of units for very low - income
households, or 50 percent of units for senior citizens.
Housing Element Program X: Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance
The City will adopt a written reasonable E.cconimodation ordinance to provide persons with
disabilities exceptions in zoning and land -use for housing. The procedure will be an adminis-
trative process, with minimal or no processing fee and subject to approval by the Community
Development Director. Applications for reasonable accommodation may be submitted by in-
dividuals with a disability protected under fair housing laws. The requested accommodation
must be necessary to make housing available to a person with a disability and must not im-
pose undue financial or administrative burden on the City.
Program X: Fair Housing Outreach
The City will continue to contract with ECHO Housing to provide fair housing outreach ser-
vices. ECHO distributes pamphlets at community events and pays for public service an-
nouncements. In addition, the ECHO Housing will continue to distribute fair housing materi-
als at public venues throughout Cupertino, neluding the library, City Hall, and Senior Center.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Cupertino is located in the San Francisco Bay Area
south of the San Francisco Bay and in western Santa Clara County. The city is to the west of
the major metropolitan City of San Jose. Ind immediately south of the intersection of U.S.
280 and State Route 85. Cupertino is located centrally in the region known as Silicon Valley,
between the Santa Cruz Mountains and Diablo Range.
Other Agencies Whose Approval is Required: Development projects in Cupertino consis-
tent with the Housing Element will require City approval of all necessary permits. Projects
nay also require approval from other reaulztoty agencies, such as the Reaional Water Quality
Control Board, depending on specific site conditions and project location.
I h
INCORPORATED SOURCE DOCUMENTS:
City Cupertino General Plan and Associated EIR
City of Cupertino Zoning Code
17
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be
potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Im-
pact, as indicated by the checklist on the following; pages.
_ Aesthetics
_ Biological Resources
Hazards/ Hazardous Materials
_ Mineral Resources
_ Public Services
Utilities /Service Systems
_ Agricultural Resources
_ Cultural Resources
Hydrology/Water Quality
Noise
~_ Recreation
_ Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Air Quality
_ Geology /Soils
Land Use and Planning
_ Population and Housing
— Transportation/Traffic
Determination: (Lead Agency to Complete) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment
and the proposed project is exempt under Categorical/Statutory Exemption
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the enviromlent, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially sig-
nificant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been ade-
quately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only
the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, includ-
ing revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing fur-
ther is required.
� I
Sigil'ature Date
ISSUES
I. AESTHETICS Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
With
Mitigation
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
X
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qual-
X
ity of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that
X
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
DISCUSSION:
a) The City of Cupertino General Plan identifies the surrounding hillsides, open space areas, creeks,
and the City's built skyline as scenic resources that contribute to Cupertino's visual setting.
Eleven of the 13 sites identified in the Housing Element Update would be located within three City -
designated Planning Areas, including Heart of the City, Vallco Park North, and North De Anza Boule-
vard. Two of the sites would be located outside, but immediately adjacent to these Planning Areas. The
City's General Plan designates these areas for new development, such as the residential development that
would occur under this Housing Element Update. At a density of 20 units per acre or more, the housing
sites are generally located amongst the densest land uses in the city.
Construction of new homes in the more developed portions of the city would serve to maintain scenic
vistas of the surrounding hillsides, especially those to the west, because it would direct development to
already urbanized areas. Rather than being developed, the hillsides would be preserved in their existing
condition and would continue to contribute to scenic vistas. Similarly, because new housing would gen-
erally be constructed on urbanized, infill sites, it would not eliminate or have a substantial adverse effect
on visual access to Cupertino's open spaces or creeks. Lastly, development of the housing sites would
potentially result in the construction of buildings three to five stories tall depending on location. Build-
ings at this height are best suited for central Cupertino neighborhoods, where buildings of a similar
height already exist. New buildings in areas of the city already defined by medium- to high- density de-
velopment would be consistent with existing visual character of those areas. therefore reducing the po-
tential for adverse visual effects on the city`s skyline.
Overall, impacts to scenic vistas resulting from implementation of the Housing Element Update would be
considered Iess ri;un 1:iL1;ifica�;t.
b) There are currently no State- designated scenic highways located within the jurisdictional boundaries
of Cupertino_ The poi of 1 -280 that traverses northern Cupertino is an Eligible State Scenic High-
way. Howveve_r, it is not officially designated.' As a result, no iMpUct to such resources would occur.
t a;iioTT,Ia iJI��iarment of T r nsportation . Ltt��:,; � .ti���w.dot.ca.govrLq;�i_ard, ",r ;lrscc;liC 1�iFlr�,ays,'indea.htm. ao-
c) As discussed in response to criteria a), development under this Housing Element would generally be
consistent with the existing visual character of central Cupertino neighborhoods. As described in the
General Plan, the existing visual character and quality of these neighborhoods is defined by a mix of
uses, including residential buildings at up to 25 dwelling units per acre. Development of the housing
sites would also include residential buildings at a density of up to 25 units per acre and would therefore
be of a comparable intensity to the development already in place. Comparable development intensity
would reduce the potential for adverse effects visual effects that could otherwise be caused by out -of-
scale development.
Cupertino has not adopted citywide residential design guidelines, however, new residential construction
in the Heart of the City Planning Area and the North De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan Area would be
subject to the design guidelines applicable in those areas. In addition, the development review process
requires design review. Design guidelines set standards pertaining to architectural and landscape fea-
tures, colors, outdoor lighting, and building materials. The purpose of the design guidelines and design
review is to ensure that new development is cons=istent with the existing character of the neighborhood
and does not substantially degrade the visual qua'ity of Cupertino or its surroundings. Approximately
465 of the 798 units that could be constructed under this Housing Element would be built in these Plan-
ning Areas. For those developments not in a Planning Area, design review will help ensure compatibility
with the surrounding areas and neighborhoods. Construction of these units would adhere to all manda-
tory design guidelines, thereby reducing the potential for adverse impacts to visual quality in these areas
to a less- tha77- sig77ificallt level.
In addition, the General Plan contains policies and supporting strategies to protect visual quality through-
out the city as new development is constructed. These polices include. but are not limited to, Policy 2 -13
and 2 -14, which focus on urban form and attractiveness of building and site design. There are several
strategies in support of these two policies that are intended to ensure visual cohesiveness among existing
and new buildings, prevent an excessive degree of --ontrast in scale, and avoid monolithic building fonns.
Additional policies and strategies related to the visual quality and effect of new development are identi-
fied in Section 2 of the General Plan.
Through these policies and the aforementioned design guidelines, potential impacts to the existing visual
character or quality in Cupertino would be less than significant.
d) Section 19.100.050 of the City's Municipal Code includes provisions related to light and glare.
These are separately discussed below.
Lighting - The Municipal Code requires that nev lighting fixtures for any new site construction shall
meet specific requirements, including but not limited to, the follo�� in��:
B. I light Fixtures shall be oriented and designed to hrc�(udc anv light and direct glare to adjacent
residential properties. No direct off -site glare from a light source shall be visible above 3 feet at a
public right- of -vvay.
C. Parking lots, sidewalks and other areas accessible to pedestrians and automobiles shall be illumi-
nated with a uniform and adequate intensity. Typical standards to achieve uniform and adequate in-
tensity are:
1. The average horizontal maintained illumination should be between one and three foot - candles;
2. The average maximum to minimum ratio should be generally between six and ten to one.
3. A minimum of three- foot - candles vertically above the parking lot surface shall be maintained.
Glare —The potential for glare from building surfaces, such as glass or other exterior materials would be
evaluated through the City's project design review process. Some of the key elements considered in this
process are highlighted in General Plan Policy 2 -14, which is identified above in response to criteria c).
During design review, City staff would examine architecture, materials, landscaping, screening, and re-
lated design considerations. Through consideration of these factors, the potential for the creation of an
adverse level of glare would be identified. If necessary, potential impacts could be mitigated through
modifications to building design or material selection.
Through the City's design review process and based on compliance with the City's code provisions for
exterior lighting potential impacts associated with light and glare would be less than si ni r.cant.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environment ef-
Significant
Significant
with
Significant
Impact
fects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Mitigation
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a William-
X
son Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing enviromnent that due to
their location or nature could result in conversion of farmland to
X
non - agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
a) Maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Prograrn of the California Resources
Agency categorize land v�, the City of Cupertino as Urban and Built -Up Land.' There are no agri-
cultural lands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance,
within the Cupertino city limit. Therefore, there would be no impact from projects occurring under the
Housing Element.
b) As discussed in response to criteria a), there is no agricultural land within the Cupertino city limit,
and therefore projects occurs - ing under this Housing Element would not conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. Consequently, there would be no impact.
e) For the reasons i response to criteria a) and b), there would be no impact in relation to the
conversion of farmland to non agricultural use.
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
established by the a„ licabl_c air quality management or air ollu-
significant
Si�nific�nt
Si; �iticant
Impact
2 LalI C Pesotlrce, Aven(: •% Farmland Mappin4 and Monitorin2 PI'oaraam. .tuly 2009. Sal CLra COi(i La' nil ii;•017aiii
- 1
tion control district may be relied upon to make the following de-
with
terminations. Would the project:
Mitigation
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
X
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
X
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any crite-
X
ria pollutant for which the project region is non- attairment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (includ-
ing releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentra-
X
tions?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
X
people?
DISCUSSION:
a) The Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD) is the regional agency responsible for
overseeing compliance with federal and State air quality standards in the San Francisco Bay Area.
BAAQMD administers the 2005 Ozone Strategy as the primary air quality plan for the region. For a
project to be consistent with the Clean Air Plan under CEQA, BAAQMD states that the project must be
consistent with the population and VMT assumptions in the Clean Air Plan, must be consistent with the
traffic control measures in the Clean Air Plan and must not produce significant new odors and emis-
sions. Each of these issues is discussed separately )elow.
At the time when the General Plan EIR was completed, the adopted Clean Air Plan was the Bay Area
'97 Clean Air Plan. Because the regional Clean Air Plan has been updated since adoption of the Gen-
eral Plan, this discussion examines whether the Housing Element Update would be consistent with the
current Clean Air Plan (the 2005 OZ017e Strategy).
Population Growth
The growth projections in the 2005 Ozone Strategy are based on ABAG Projections 2003. As docu-
mented on page 213 of ABAG Projections 2003 avid shown in Table 5. the estimate and current projec-
tions for Cupertino and its Sphere of Influence (SOI) are as follows:
TABLE 5 POPULATION PROJECTIONS, CITY OF CUPE
l'eai• Population
7.600
2010 60200
2015 60.600
1 020 60.600
2025 61,000
2030 61,900
Source: ABAG Projections, 2003.
The ABAG projections assumed in the current Clean Air Plan therefore indicate that the City's popula-
tion will increase by approximately 4,300 residents between 2005 and 2030. As stated in the Project
Description, as many as 798 dwelling units could be constructed on the identified housing sites over the
2007 -2014 planning period. In Cupertino, the average household size in 2008 was 2.8 people. There-
fore, buildout of all 798 new units between 2009 and 2014 would result in an increase of approximately
2,234 residents in the City. This is less than the projections assumed in the regional Clean Air Plan, as
shown in Table 5.
Vehicles Miles Traveled
Additionally, for a project or plan to be consistent with the Clean Air Plan, the rate of increase in VMT
for the jurisdiction must be equal to or lower than the rate of increase in population. The travel data
provided in the Draft General Plan EIR is Daily Vehicle Trips (DVT). Based on consultation with the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD), a comparison of projected DVT increase to
population increase is a valid method of comparison.' Table 2 -4 on Page VI -9 of the General Plan EIR
estimates that between 2000 and 2020, daily vehicle trips will increase from 395,000 in 2000 to
462,000 in 2020, which is a 17 percent total increase, or an average of 0.8 percent per year.
According to Department of Finance (DOF) estimates, the City's estimated population in 2000 was
50,600. The estimated population for 2008 is 55,600. This represents an increase of 5,000 people (or
almost 10 percent) over an eight -year period and equates to an annual increase of approximately 625
people. Assuming a similar rate of growth for the period 2010 -2020 and based on a conservative esti-
mate, the City's population can be expected to grow by another approximately 6,000 people. There-
fore, between 2000 and 2020, it is estimated that the City's population will increase by 12,500 people,
or 25 percent over 2000 levels. As a result, the projected rate of increase in DVT between 2000 and
2020 (0.85 percent a year) is, on average, lower than the projected rate of increase for population (1.25
percent a year).
Transportation Control Measures
The General Plan contains goals and policies that are consistent with transportation control measures
(TCMs) identified in the 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. For example, Goal 2 of the Circulation
Element encourages increased use of public transit, carpools, bicycling, walking and telecommunicating.
Goal C of the Circulation Element supports a comprehensive network of pedestrian and bicycle routes
and facilities, and contains Policy 4 -3, regarding Citywide bicycle and pedestrian transportation plans.'
Additionally, the following Gencral Plan Policies, identified on page 2 -42 of the General Plan Final EIR
are in alignment with the intent of BAAQMD TC_N4s: Policy 4 -3, 4 -4, 4 -8, 2 -1, and 2 -7. Taken together,
these policies demonstrate that projects occurring under this Housing Element would make a reasonable
effort to implement BAAQ TCNIS.
Personal conununi —tion v, th Grp Tholen.. Senior Planner. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, May 29. 2009.
° Based on a review of actual population estimates compiled by the Department of Finance (DOF). the ABAG Projections
2003 population estimates are hil-1her tha -i the DOF csiimates. For example. the City's population in 2005 NNas ap-
proximately 52,900 according to DOF and the ABAG projected population for that year was 57.600. Similarly. The DOF reported
population for Cupertino i 71000 iz >s.R?i_i and ABAG pmiected that the -1 1110 population would be 60.200. According rn ti,e i i
Census bureau, in the event that an estimate and a projection for a jurisdiction are mutually available. the estimate is the preferred
source of data. Population estimates are considered to be more accurate than projections because estimates use existing symptomatic
data to detcnnine population. City data collected for estirnatcs from the DOF have a margin of error of approyin7mc ;v_ �.6 percent.
city cif c upen!!! L _ _ r -....._ _,.. _. _.. _ ."" =li:il na ' 11 -u,1 h ``
i 5
Policy 5 -4 of the General Plan is to minimize the air quality impacts of new development projects and
the impacts affecting new development from existing uses. The General Plan also includes supporting
environmental review strategy to evaluate the relationship of sensitive receptors, such as convalescent
hospitals and residential uses, to pollution source, through the environmental assessment of new devel-
opment. Another adopted General Plan strategy is to review projects for potential generation of toxic air
contaminants at the time of approval and confer with BAAQMD on controls needed if impacts are uncer-
tain. This policy and the two strategies would address potential impacts stemming from emissions of of-
fensive odors and toxic air contaminants.
Based on the factors discussed above, impacts are considered to be less than significant in relation to
consistency with the regional air quality plan.
b) Development under the Housing Element would produce emissions resulting from construction ac-
tivities and additional vehicle trips generated from new residents. Construction activities such as earth -
moving and grading would generate exhaust and airborne pollutants, including, but not limited to, Par-
ticulate Matter 10 (PMio). In addition, solvents from paint, adhesives, non -water based paints, thinners,
etc. evaporate into the atmosphere and create urban ozone. Operation of construction vehicles and ve-
hicle trips generated by new residents will produce, ozone precursors and carbon monoxide at intersec-
tions where vehicle queuing may occur. Taken together, these factors constitute a potentially signifi-
cant impact in that air quality standards may be exceeded without proper controls and planting.
As stated in Chapter 5 of the City's General Plar,, compliance with applicable air quality regulations
and support of regional, clean air quality plans is one of the City's priorities. Policy 5 -4 in the General
Plan is to minimize the air quality impacts of new development projects and existing air quality impacts
on new development. The General Plan's strategy in support of this policy is to assess the potential for
air pollution effects of future land use and transportation planning, and ensure that planning decisions
support regional goals of improving air quality. Imother standard condition of approval for all devel-
opment projects relates to dust control and requires water application during demolition and the dura-
tion of the construction periods.
Through adherence to Policy 5 -4 supporting strategies and required conditions of approval, the poten-
tial air quality impacts of specific projects occurring under this Housing Element would be evaluated
for consistency with applicable air quality standards. Through this process, potential impacts are con-
sidered less tha77 significant.
c) The General Plan EIR did not identify any potentially significant impacts related to cumulatively
considerable increases in criteria pollutants for t��hich the Bay Area Air Basin is in non - attainment.
Furthen through implementation of Policy 5 -4, discussed in response to criteria a) and b). projects
under the Housing Element would be considered on a case -by -case basis to best nunirnize the air qual-
ity impacts and ensure that plaining decisions sup Sort regional Goals for improving air quality, includ-
ing goals set forth in the 2005 Ozone Strategy. A less - than - significant impact would occur due to the
City's ongoing efforts to minimize air quality impacts associated with specific projects, including those
that would occur undo this Housing Element.
d) As indicated in response to criteria b above, construction of new housing units has the potential
to generate emissions that could impact adjacent sensitive receptors. These impacts could occur, for
example, through the generation of airborne dust or diesel emission created daring site. preparation ac-
tivities (e.g. grading and excavation). Due to The corninon uses and activities associated with residen-
tial developments it is not erected that ne ,, ho constructed under the Housin`a Element Undate
_+
would result in long -term generation of substantial pollutant concentrations. However, this issue is
addressed through the General Plan, as discussed below.
There are several policies in the General Plan, including Policy 5 -4, that would address potential expo-
sure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. A strategy in support of Policy 5 -4 is
to evaluate the relationship of sensitive receptors, such as residential uses, to pollution sources through
the environmental assessment of new development. Through implementation of this policy and the
supporting strategy, the construction and operation of new development is not anticipated to expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. A less- than - significant impact would occur.
e) Aside from the possible emission of some temporary, intermittent odors during construction proc-
esses, it is not expected that new housing constructed under this Housing Element would result in the
generation of objectionable odors to the degree that impacts to adjacent uses would occur. A less -than-
significant impact would occur.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Significant
SigW a nt
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or re-
X
gional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified ill local or re-
X
gional plans, policies, regulations or by the California De-
partment of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Seri -ice?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to marsh, venial pool, coastal,
X
etc.) through direct removal, filline, hydrological interrup-
tion, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially Nvith the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with estab-
X
lisped native resident or migratory Nvildlife corridors. or im-
pede the use of native wildlife nursery situ?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a true preservation policy or
� X
ordinance?
f) Conflict with provisions of.an adoptzd Habitat Conserva-
tion Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
X
approved focal, regional, or state habitat conservation plan`.
DISCUSSION:
a) The 2005 City of Cupertino General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) concludes that the
urbanized portions of Cupertino are ill- suited to host and support wildlife or native plants.' The EIR
does not identify any candidate, sensitive, or special status species known to occur within Cupertino.
As a result, implementation of the Housing Element Update would not adversely affect candidate, sen-
sitive, or special status species. Consequently, no ` mpact would result from this project.
b) As discussed in section IV (a), the majority of the City of Cupertino consists of existing urbanized
areas that are not suitable for sensitive natural communities. Although the EIR identifies existing ripar-
ian habitat and natural communities within Cupertino, the majority of these areas are limited to the
western, non - urbanized portions of the city. The northern portion of Calabazas Creek runs within the
Valleo Park North Planning Area, however, the two parcels proposed for construction within the Plan-
ning Area are more than one mile west of the Calabazas Creek.''' The one mile between the proposed
housing site number 10 and Calabazas Creek is urbanized and does not support any riparian vegetation
or sensitive natural communities as a result of its proximity to Calabazas Creek. No riparian corridors
or other sensitive natural communities would be affected by implementation of the Housing Element
Update. Therefore, no impact would result from tLis project.
c) As discussed in response to criteria (a) and (b). the majority of the City of Cupertino is an existing
urbanized area. No wetlands are identified by the EIR, and no wetlands are known to exist on sites
where new housing would be constructed. Moreover, these are all infill sites that have already been
disturbed by previous development. As a result, implementation of the Housing Element Update would
not adversely affect wetlands. Consequently, no impact would result from this project.
d) As explained in response to criteria (c), new housing constructed under this Housing Element would
take place on infill sites that have already been developed with other uses. Due to the disturbed nature
of the sites within the urbanized portions of the C1 y, the addition of new housing to the sites would not
interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with estab-
lished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Furthermore, due to the developed nature of all
the sites and the level of human activity either on them or adjacent to them, native wildlife nursery sites
are not expected to be affected. Therefore, no imp,Wt would result from this project.
e) The General Plan EIR concluded that potentia. impacts on wildlife and vegetation could occur in the
western, foothill portions of the City where such resources would be most likely to occur. As stated in
the response to criteria a), the urbanized portions of Cupertino where new housing would be constructed
under the Housing Element are ill - suited to host End support wildlife and native plants. Due to the de-
veloped nature of sites where new housing would be constructed, implementation of the Housing Ele-
ment Update would not conflict with any local p Dlicies or ordinances protecting those resources. The
City maintains a Protected Tree Ordinance to protect heritaue trees offering unique environmental or aes-
thetic benefits. project occurring under the llousinQ Element that would potentially impact a heri-
tage tree would need to comply % ith the provisions of the Ordinance. Consequently, no impact �� ould
result from this project due to conflicts Nvith local policies or ordinances.
t) No local. ico-i nai. or state llaElttat conSCrVation (Mails apply to the CI['. vI ��ix�) itlil�). Ti7eI'CtOr
implementation of the Housing Element Update would not conflict with anv such plans. Therefore. no
impacts would result from this project.
-
C�t✓ ot'L'upertnw. fan�iarv'it0�. Er.�.,o..t,i",nt3i .nIpact Kcpo1; u` the Task F,) e [rc _:r�! r',du ut 111 _ t_'it.� of Cu]7cII no.
page V1 -28.
pry of Cuperuno. Cite of Cupcnmo General Plan. Nov ember 2005, Figanrn -A. 1e-clarion. page 5 -I 1.
Google Incorporated. 2009, Google Earth sol'v are.
:J.S. Fish and \'V 1 Se_r�;� ebsiie, Cor,serrutiai Plares mcl A-1 Da'�5u
!at ' 1C.
'il�ly
i;
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
with
Mitigation
a) Cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a
X
historical resource as defined in Sec 15064.5?
b) Cause substantial adverse change in the significance of an
X
archaeological resource pursuant to Sec 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological re-
X
source or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred out-
X
side of formal cemeteries?
DISCUSSION:
a) Known historic architectural sites in the City are identified in Table 6, below and illustrated on Fig-
ure 2 -G of the General Plan, Cupertino's Historic Resources. Based on a review of Figure 2 -G in rela-
tion to the proposed housing sites, none of the historic resource locations overlap with the identified
housing sites. Due to the absence of any historic, architectural resources on or immediately adjacent
to proposed housing sites, development under this Housing Element Update would not result in a sub-
stantial adverse change to any such resource. No impact would occur.
T ABLE 6 Known Historic Sites in Cupertino
Site
Number Site Description
Local Perrone Ranch Stone Cellar (now part of Ridge Vineyards)
P364 Montebello School, 1892.
N774 Picchetti Brothers Winery and ranch
Local Maryknoll Seminary
Local De La Vega Tack House
P253 Enoch J. Parrish Tank House
Local Replica Baer Blacksmith Shop
Local Doyle Winery Site (foundation only)
Local Louis Stocklnieir Home
P253 Site of Elisha P. Stephens home, 1850, now part of Blackberry Farm
Local Nathan Hall Tank House
page V1 -28.
pry of Cuperuno. Cite of Cupcnmo General Plan. Nov ember 2005, Figanrn -A. 1e-clarion. page 5 -I 1.
Google Incorporated. 2009, Google Earth sol'v are.
:J.S. Fish and \'V 1 Se_r�;� ebsiie, Cor,serrutiai Plares mcl A-1 Da'�5u
!at ' 1C.
'il�ly
i;
N191
Le Petit Trianon
Local
Union Church of Cupertino
Local
Cupertino De Oro Club
800
St. Joseph's Church
Local Snyder - Hammond House
Local De Anza Knoll Monument
Local Woelffel Cannery (former site)
Local Gazebo gingerbread trim, Memorial Park
Source: City of Cupertino General Plan, page 2 -43, 2005.
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA guidelines also pertains to the protection of archaeological resources.
The potential effects on said resources are discussed in response to criteria b) below.
b) Although Cupertino and surrounding watershed areas were historically inhabited by indigenous
Ohlone peoples, there are no known archaeological resources identified in either the City's General
Plan or in General Plan EIR. None of the housing, sites are located immediately adjacent to creeks or
streams where said resources are more likely to be embedded in the soils, and all sites have been dis-
turbed by prior development. Nonetheless, unknown sub - surface resources may be accidentally en-
countered during construction activities, such as ;trading and excavation. The following Mitigation
Measure would reduce potential impacts to a less -t ian- significant level:
Mitigation Measure CUL -l : If archaeological remains are uncovered, work at the place of discov-
ery should be halted immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the finds and deter-
mine the significance of the resource. Construction activities should not commence until the ex-
pert has issued an opinion about the resource and appropriate mitigation has been detennined.
Significance After ',%1itigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL - would reduce poten-
tial impacts to unknown archaeological resources to a less - than - significant level.
c) No unique geological features or paleontological resources have been identified on any of the hous-
ing sites in either the City's General Plan or General plan EIR. Therefore, it is not expected that any
new development on the sites would adversely aff_ct such resources. However, it is possible that un-
known sub - surface resources could be encountered durinv- construction activities.
Mitigation Measure CUL If paleonto logic E..l remains are uncovered, work at file place of dis-
covery should be halted immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the finds and de-
termine the significance of the resource. Comtruction activities should not recommence until the
expert has issued in opinloil about the resO and appropriate mitigation haS bceil determine d.
Si�niflcance After 1 \4itigation Irnplernentatlon of 1V41tigation Measure CUL -2 :would reduce poten-
tial impacts to unknown paleontological resources to a less- than- sianif cant level.
d) For reasons discussed a bov%. In rUS onSe to cI _ite -ria b) ails c). It is not expected t hat c onstruction on
any of the identified housing sites would result in an encounter and possibly adverse effects on human
remains. However, in the event of such an encounter, Policy 2 -64 in the General Plan would mitigate
impacts to Native American burial sites. The supporting strategy is that upon discovery of such buri-
als during construction, actions should be taken as prescribed by State law, including stoppage of work
in surrounding area, notification of appropriate authorities and reburial of remains in an appropriate
manner. The relevant State laws include the following:
Health and Safety Code, Section 7052 and 7050.5
Section 7052 of the Health and Safety Code states that the disturbance of Native American ceme-
teries is a felony. Section 7050.5 requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity
of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a
Native American. If determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the California
Native Heritage Commission (NAHC).
California Native American Historical, Cultural and Sacred Sites Act
The California Native American Historical, Cultural and Sacred Sites Act applies to both State and
private lands. The Act requires that upon discovery of human remains, construction or excavation
activity cease and that the county coroner be notified. If the remains are of a Native American, the
coroner must notify the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
The Native American Heritage Commission will identify the person or persons believed to be most
likely descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent will make rec-
ommendations regarding the treatment of the remains with appropriate dignity.
Through adherence to General Plan policy and State Law, the development of new housing under
this Housing Element would result in a less - than - significant impact on human remains.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With Mitiga-
tion
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ad-
verse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death in-
volving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
X
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Divi-
sion of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides?
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
X
Cafficmria American Heritage Connn,,s,on. Stag Prr�senution La Lttp :: %ww do-
cc-�ccd on Noc „ocr,,. (;i °,
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and poten-
tially result in on -or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, sub- X
sidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? X
DISCUSSION:
a)
i. The most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map shows three fault systems within the
Cupertino region. The San Andreas fault crosses the western portion of the City of Cupertino, and the
Sargent- Berrocal and the Monta Vista - Shannon faults cross the central portion of the City. According
to the 2005 City of Cupertino General Plan, there is potential for surface fault rupture hazard within
600 feet of the San Andreas fault, and within 300 feet east and 600 feet west of the Monta Vista and
Berrocal faults.
Of the three faults that cross Cupertino, the Morita Vista fault is closest to the housing sites. The
Monta Vista fault intersects the City of Cupertino ,vest of Foothill Boulevard and continues in a south-
easterly direction toward Bubb Road, exiting the c.t limit near Stelling Road. The housing sites pro-
posed in the Housing Element Update are all located northwest of the Monta Vista fault. Based on a
review of General Plan Figure 6 -13 Geologic and Seismic Hazards, the housing sites are not located
within the potential surface fault rupture hazard zone of the Monta Vista or any other fault. In addi-
tion, construction of these units would need to comply with the California Uniform Building Code. As
a result, impacts would be less than significant.
ii. As discussed in Section I (a.i), there is a potential risk of strong seismic ground shaking throughout
the Cupertino region, due to the City's proximity -o three seismic faults. The new housing units con-
structed under this Housing Element would be at risk of strong seismic ground shaking. However,
General Plan Policy 6 -1 is followed by Strategy _ >, which encourages the use of earthquake resistant
design and structural engineering of buildings. In addition, construction of these units would take
place in accordance with the California Uniform Building Code. While this would not eliminate all
potential risk associated with seismic - induced grcund shaking, it would reduce those risks to a less -
than- significant level.
iii. In Cupertino., alluvial deposits associated vvitl. Permancrnte Crcek, Stevens Creek. and Calabazas
Creek are known to be susceptible to liquefaction. Based on a review of General Plan i inure 6 -B.
Geologic and Seismic Hazards. housing sites 8 and 9 are within a quarter of a mile of the liquefaction
zone associated with Calabazas Creek. The prox mitt'• of the housing sites to these alluvial deposits
prescrnts potential risk for liquefaction and oilier seismic- related ground failures. To reduce tlic of
seisnnic- related ground failures, the City of Cupertino General Plan Policy 6 -1 requires evaluations of
soils, geology, and structural assessments. According to classifications presented on Figure 6 -13, the
fh -T
ii Cllr' Cf Cup °ltlri0, 200- Cl.`i of CllpCrTl,;C G eneral Plan. �:C��CiiuCi 200 �iaurC 6 -B. C7Cvi0EiC and sCisliiiC iJ3Zaiui. ��3?C
:1
J J
housing sites would be required to undergo a soils and foundation investigation to determine the abil-
ity of local soil conditions to support structures. In addition, all new construction in Cupertino is re-
quired to comply with the latest City- adopted edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The soils
and foundation evaluation and adherence to the UBC would reduce the risk for liquefaction and seis-
mic- related ground failures to a less - than - significant level.
iv. Based on a review of General Plan Figure 6 -B, Geologic and Seismic Hazards and related discus-
sion with Section 6, the potential for landslides in Cupertino is limited to the Stevens Creek canyon
area in central - western Cupertino, and the hillside area in the southwest portion of the City. These ar-
eas experience moderate to high potential for landslides under static or seismic conditions. The hous-
ing sites, however, are located in the north- central portions of Cupertino and none are located within a
landslide potential zone. In addition, the locations of the housing sites are generally flat and do not
include areas that are susceptible to landslides. Therefore, there would be no impact on housing con-
structed under this Housing Element in relation to landslides.
b) Development associated with the Housing Element Update could result in soil erosion. The Envi-
ronmental Resources /Sustainability Element of the Cupertino General Plan contains policies aimed at
erosion control. Policy 5 -19: Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems, intends to reduce erosion
by requiring site design that respects the natural topography of the land and minimizes grading of the
site. Policy 5 -20 encourages the use of non - impervious surfaces in site development to reduce erosion
potential. Additionally, the California Water Resources Control Board requires the use of Best Man-
agement Practices (BMPs) to control erosion during all permitted construction activities, particularly
during the process of grading. Adherence to these erosion control measures would reduce the poten-
tial for erosion from implementation of the Housing Element Update to a less- than - significant level.
New housing projects could also result in the loss of topsoil during site preparation, especially excava-
tion. However, because all of the sites have already been developed with urban uses, the topsoil has
already been affected and in most cases covered through previous construction. Soil removed during
new development or redevelopment of the sites would therefore not be considered a substantial loss.
Therefore, impacts related to the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
c) As noted in sections I (a.iii and a.iv) above, the housing site locations would be susceptible to lique-
faction, but not to landslides. Based on a review of General Plan Figure 6 -13, Geologic and Seismic Haz-
ards, the housing sites are located in the "Valley" area. where there is a relatively low level of geological
hazard risk. All development located in the Valley area of Cupertino is required to undergo a soils and
foundation investigation to determine the ability of local soil conditions to support structures as required
by General Plan Policy 6 -1, which requires evaluations of soils, geology, and structural assessments. In
addition, all new construction in Cupertino must comply with the provisions of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC). The soils and foundation evaluation prior to construction and adherence to the UBC during
new construction would reduce the risk related to liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse
to a less - than - significant level.
d) There is a potential risk of expansive soils ii C upertino. P)Ls previously discussed in Section (c), all
development located in the Valley area of Cupertino is required to undergo a soils and foundation inves-
tigation to determine the ability of local soil conditions to support structures as required by General Plan
Policy 6 -1. In addition, all new construction in Cupertino must comply with the latest City - adopted edi-
tion of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The soils and foundation evaluation and adherence to the
UBC would reduce the risk related to expansive sails to a less -than- significant level.
e) The identified housing sites are located in an are:: ;-.�irere Citz v,.astev ater utility is available. Septic
and/or alternative waste disposal systems would not be necessary for any new housing constructed under
this Housing Element Update. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact
With
Mitigation
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indi-
rectly, that may have a significant impact on tLe environ- X
ment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of
an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of X
greenhouse gases."
Overview
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with General Plan buildout were not analyzed in the 2005
General Plan EIR. However, since the General Plan was adopted and the EIR certified, the issue of
GHGs and their relationship to climate change has gained substantial importance in the context of
CEQA. The following analysis provides an oven7iew of the regulatory environment relating to GHGs,
pertinent baseline information, an assessment of impact, and policies enacted by the City that will help
reduce the generation of GHGs as projects are constructed under this Housing Element.
Regulatory Setting
Air quality in the United States is regulated at local, regional and federal levels. The following is an
overview of regulations and initiatives relating to GHGs at the federal, State and regional level.
Federal
The United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA) enforces national air quality standards through
its authority of the Federal Clean Air Act and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
jurisdiction of the EPA includes emission sources which are under the exclusive control of the federal
government such as aircraft and ships. At this point in time, there are no specific federal policies related
to GHG emissions. Though it is not a member of the Kyoto Protocol, in 2002 the United States declared
a strategy to reduce the GHG intensity of the American economy by 18 percent over a 10 -year period
from 2002 to 2012. Most recently, President Obama announced that he intends to adopt new federal
fuel economy standards to reduce GHG vehicle emissions. Stringent standards have already been set for
in -state automobiles by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
State
In June 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S -3 -05, which established ag-
gressive emissions reduction goals. By 2010, GHG emissions must be reduced to 2000 levels; by 2020,
GHG emissions must be reduced to 1990 Ievels; and by 2050, GHG emissions must be reduced to 80
percent below 1990 levels. A multi - agency group of State agencies, the "Climate Action Team," ;vas
set up to implement this executive order. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), passed in 2006, further strength-
ened the GHG emissions cap and required the CARB to establish a program for monitoring and rcrort-
ing on air quality related to GHGs. _host recently . California enacted SB 375 to expand the efforts of
AB 32 by controlling indirect GHG emissions caused by different types of urban development patterns.
most specifically sprawl. As a result of the new Iegislation, local governments and developers are incen-
tivized to implement new growth patterns that create compact, walkable and sustainable cotnmualties.
T hose iliCSssw S - ,Were devcloped by the vt_lcc of Piat ailu RG',1Zt]_) - l; h, 8i - lrc SclliZd lil the P) CEnt1 GUidrilllr
.a liltssds__ __iS 1 _i iJ: C2i ui0il cZ v35 �l?li5 i(111 aF��li _�I �I'7.
_�c
and revitalize existing towns and city cores.
Regional
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for enforcing the State and
federal standards in the nine - county Bay Area. To accomplish this, it inspects and issues permits for
stationary sources of air pollutants, and monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions. In
2005, the agency initiated a Climate Action Program to integrate additional climate protection activities
such as comments on CEQA documents, grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, and public education
campaigns. In 2007, BAAQMD produced a regional inventory of GHG emissions which provided an
overview of emission sources in the Bay Area. The agency is currently in the process of developing ef-
fective models for identifying numerical thresholds for GHG emissions as they relate to new develop-
ment and CEQA analysis.
Local
Cupertino does not have a City -wide GHG reduction strategy, such as a Climate Action Plan. However,
its General Plan does contain several policies that will serve to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associ-
ated with General Plan buildout, including the amount of residential development allowed under the
Housing Element Update. Many of these polices are identified in the impact discussion below.
Environmental Setting
Overview
According to recent projections from the California Climate Change Center, temperatures in California
are expected to rise between 3.0 °F and 10.5 °F by the end of the century. This warming trend will
likely have an adverse effect on naturally- occurring resources within California. Increased precipitation
and sea level rise could increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion (a particular concern in the low -
lying Sacramento —San Joaquin Delta, where potable water delivery pumps could be threatened) and deg-
radation of wetlands. Mass migration and loss of plant and animal species could also occur. Potential
effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat
waves and heat - related stress; an increase in climate - sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natu-
ral disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air pollution.
To date, the primary impact of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric
temperature of 0.2 °C per decade, determined from meteorological measurements worldwide between
1990 and 2005. Climate change modeling using 2000 emission rates shows that further warming could
occur, which would cause additional changes in the global climate system during the 21 st century.
State Wide Inventory
California GHG or CO2e emissions were estimated at 484 million metric tons of CO2- equivalent
(NIA - ITCO24' which is about six percent of the emissions from the entire United States. Transporta-
tion is the largest source of GHG emissions in California. contributing about 40 percent of the total
California Urinate Change Center, Our Changing Climate .9sscs1;77 " „e ;asks 70 Cali 2006. pagc 3.
The troposphere is the zone of the atmosphere characterized by water vapor. weather, winds.. and decreasing temperature
tll incrreasinti ahiiude.
"Carbon dioxide equivalent. The CO,e is a quantity that describes the amount of carbon dioxide that would have the same
global warming potential \Oltn measured over a specified period, generafiv HAJ vrar> The carbon dioxide equivalenc_” for a gas is
obtained by multiplying the mass and the G of the gas.
"All information vi this section is based on Source Inventor�� of Bad Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Bay Area Air Qualitti
Management District, December 200X.
Residential and Nonresidential Compliance Manuals for California' 7005 Energy Efficiency Standards can be found at
l til): i"v. 'i `. energy. ca, go
htip: 'www.calc „ ca: .. _ LI...S..eets ,.ailproposal.pu.
t S
emissions. Electricity generation is second, at over 20 percent, but California also imports electricity
during the summer, which brings energy sources up to about 25 percent. Industrial activities account for
about 20 percent of the State's emissions. On a per- person basis, GHG emissions are lower in Califor-
nia than in most other states; however, California. is a populous state and the second largest emitter of
GHGs in the United States and one of the largest emitters in the world.
Under a "business as usual" scenario, GHG emissions in California are estimated to increase to ap-
proximately 600 million tones of CO2e by 2020. CARB staff has estimated the 1990 statewide emis-
sions level to be 427 million tons of CO2e, therefore requiring a reduction of almost 30 percent in emis-
sions by 2020 to meet the AB 32 goal.
Regional Inventory
In 2007, 102.6 million metric tons of CO2e GHG;; were emitted by the San Francisco Bay Area. 16 The
transportation sector accounted for over 40.6 percent of the total, which includes on -road motor vehi-
cles, locomotives, ships, boats, and aircraft. The industrial and commercial sector was the second larg-
est contributor with 34 percent, followed by energy production activities with 14.8 percent, and residen-
tial fuel combustion with 6.6 percent. Of the nir e counties that comprise the BAAQMD, Santa Clara
ranked second in terms of its share of GHG emissions to the total area. This equated to 18.3 percent of
total GHG emissions in the Bay Area.
Impact Discussion
Projected greenhouse gas emissions from projects completed under this Housing Element Update, com-
bined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases, when taken together, could
contribute to global climate change impacts. Construction and operation of the new dwelling units
would directly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions due to energy use associated with the manufac-
ture and transport of construction materials and on -site construction activities. Development of homes
may also directly result in increases in energy consumption associated with buildings and motor vehicle
use.
The City has included several policies in its Gen oral Plan that will help address the amount of green-
house gas created by the construction and operation of the new residences. These include Policies 5 -2
and 5 -3. which are intended to reduce energy consumption of new construction through the conservation
and efficient use of energy resources and stricter green building design standards. Policies 5 -4 and 5 -5
address the air pollution effects of new and existing development. Mitigation strategies include envi-
ronmental reviews, public education programs, tr ;i. planting, and allowance for additional home occupa-
tions in residential neighborhoods so that people can work from home instead of commuting. The City
has also adopted policies to increase walking and bicycling amongst its residents, and discourage the use
of high - polluting fireplaces.
The City adopted a number of key strategics to swrport these policies. These include:
a Reduction of energy consumption.
• Reduction of fossil fuel usage.
Use of renetivable energy resources whenever possible.
installation lighting and/or retrofirted ener.-y efficient lights for all street hglits.
* Retrofits of all overhead lights in City Offices.
a Reducing lighting and equipment use where possible in all City facilities
a Acquiring several electric vehicles.
Alternating energy sources.
Developing a comprehensive Energy Manage,nc °nt Plain.
,4
• Establishing solar access standards.
• Developing a "Green Building" program.
• Conducting building energy audits.
In addition to these policies, regulatory changes and technological advances outside of the City of Cu-
pertino would help further reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the development of the new
residences. These include the following:
• In 2005, the State implemented Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, which require implementation
of energy efficient technologies that result in lower average energy consumption across residential,
commercial and industrial sectors. The largest percentage reduction from Title 24 Standards will oc-
cur in residential sector energy consumption. Title 24 is estimated to reduce overall household elec-
tricity consumption by 20.4 percent and natural gas consumption by 8.3 percent."
• AB 1493 directed CARB to adopt regulations that would decrease GHG emissions from new passen-
ger vehicles by 30 percent by 2016. This is estimated to result in an 18 percent overall GHG emis-
sions reduction from the passenger fleet.
This combination of policies and mitigating factors would reduce the emission of greenhouse gas emis-
sions over time and the potential contribution to climate change. A less -than- significant impact would
occur.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
the project:
with
Mitigation
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
X
ment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of haz-
ardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
X
ment throu reasonably foreseeable upset and accident con-
ditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
V
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazard-
x
ous materials sites compiled pursuant to Goverrunent Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result. would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan. or.
X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
public airport or public use airport. would the project result
in a safery hazard for people residing or working in the pro-
ject area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
X
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
I
i
N
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, incluc.ing where X
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized area or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
DISCUSSION:
a) No significant new use of hazardous materials is being considered under the proposed Housing Ele-
ment Update. New development would be limitec to residential units and supporting infrastructure, and
would not involve the routine transport, use, or c.isposal of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials
used during construction are typically gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, grease, hydraulic fluid, sol-
vents, caulking, and paint. Hazardous materials involved in the long -term occupation of residential units
would be limited to common household materials, such as gasoline, car batteries, and household clean-
ing solutions. Therefore, construction and subsequent occupation of residential units would not produce
hazardous emissions or require the handling of hazardous materials to the degree that significant impacts
would occur.
Furthermore, development under the proposed Housing Element Update would be required to comply
with all federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the handling, transport, disposal, and clean -up
of hazardous materials. Locally, the use of hazardous materials is regulated by General Plan Policy 6-
28, which requires proper storage and disposal cf hazardous materials to prevent leakage, explosion,
fire, or harmful fumes, related to their release. Additionally, the City of Cupertino has adopted a Haz-
ardous Material Ordinance and a Toxic Gas Ordinance to regulate the storage of hazardous materials.
The disposal of such materials is regulated by Santa Clara County's Hazardous Waste Management
Plan. Adherence to applicable regulations would reduce potential impacts to a less -than- significant
level.
b) Hazardous materials used in the construction of new housing units may expose the public to the re-
lease of hazardous materials due to accidental spills. However, construction activities would be regu-
lated by applicable federal, State, regional, Count,- and local agencies. Regulations would substantially
reduce the possibility of accidental releases and ensure safe handling procedures. This impact is consid-
ered to be less than significant.
c) There are no schools located on any of the housing sites identified in the proposed Housing Element
Update. I- lousing, Site 1 is located within a onc quarter -mile proximity of L.P. Collins Elementary
School at 10�00 ��orth Blaney Avenue, as well as !William Faria Elementary School ��hich is located at
10 155 Barbara Lane. However, the only hazardous materials associated with the housing sites would be
coninion construction and household substances as described in responsee to criteria a) above. None of
these substances would create emissions that Would pose a substantial risk to schools. This impact is
considered to be less than signs ficunt.
d) There are no known hazardous material sites located within the identified housing sites. It is possi-
ble that unknown contaminants could be detected, however, there is no data to support their existence.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e) The closest public use airport to Cupertino is the Mineta San Jose International Airport, which is lo-
cated approximately seven miles northeast of the City. As a result, none of the housing sites are within
the airport's land use plan and no impact would occur.
f) There are no private airstrips within or in immediate proximity to the City. Therefore, there would
be no impact on any new housing constructed under this Housing Element Update.
g) The Cupertino Emergency Plan establishes policy direction for emergency planning, mitigation, re-
sponse, and recovery activities within the city. The Plan addresses interagency coordination, procedures
to maintain communications with county and State emergency response teams, methods to assess the
extent of damage and management of volunteers. Santa Clara County has also adopted an Emergency
Plan and a Hazardous Waste Management Plan, which identifies emergency response programs related
to hazardous waste incidents. Development under the Housing Element Update would not conflict with
any of these adopted plans. Therefore, no impact to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan would occur.
h) Wildland fires are a threat to Cupertino residents living in the rural foothills of the Santa Cruz Moun-
tains, in the southwestern portions of the city. Wildland fires, however, are not a threat to the urbanized,
central Cupertino area, including the locations of the housing sites proposed in the Housing Element
Update. If a wildland fire, or an urban fire, were to threaten the central Cupertino area, fire fighting and
emergency medical services would be provided by the Santa Clara County Fire Department ( SCCFD).
The SCCFD has three fire stations located within the Cupertino city limit. Each of the proposed housing
sites are located within the 1.5 -mile service ratio of the Cupertino Fire Station, located at 20215 Stevens
Creek Boulevard at Vista Drive. In addition, the County has mutual aid agreements with neighboring
jurisdictions to augment their fire response capabilities in case additional services are necessary. Since
wildland fire is not an immediate threat to the central Cupertino area and based on the current fire -
response capability. implementation of the Housing Element Update Nvould not expose people or struc-
tures to a significant loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefo no impact would occur.
Potentialh Less Than Less Than No
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the Significant significant significant Impact
With
proj ect: Miti gation
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge Y
requirements?
b) Substantially- deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local g round\vater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells \Nlould drop to a level which would not
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Lir, irostor ac-
cessed Aueust 14. 2009.
C al : iVOrnia .A.iimom wild Hotc s 1- v Location. llttp:.' \' \'d1 .allSia�'J.C011l �peCial `ii rts-I_3i1fe 3C,1' JCZ� .y;l` i
1 l . 2ii09.
M
support existing land uses or planned uses for wh:.ch permits
have been anted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
X
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a way that would result in substantial ero-
sion or siltation on- or off -site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
X
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding
on- or off -site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
X
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional source of polluted runoff?
f) Substantially increase the amount of impervious surface
X
coverage?
g) Result in discharge, directly or through a storm drain sys-
X
tem, into surface waters?
h) Introduce storm water pollutants into the ground or sur-
X
face water that would have an impact on the beneficial uses
of the surrounding water bodies?
i) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, as
X
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood In-
surance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
j} Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area stnictures that
X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
k) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss.
X
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
l) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
DISCUSSION:
a�) The General Plan: a stand -alone disco. ;lion of runoff pollution. As explained in this
discussion, the Cite of Cupertino has prepared a Urban Runoff Management Plan that includes strate-
es, tasks. and schedules to implement a variety of pollution control measures. Cupertino is also among
15 cities .within the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP),
- rich .vorks with participating cities and the Re Tonal '\Vater Quality Control Board on solutions for
controlling runoff quality. The SCVURPPP was formed to comply with a National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Storm Water permit. Cupertino's Urban Runoff Man -
a Plan and its participation in the Pollutior_ Prevention Program «ould help reduce the potential
for irnpacts from implementation of the Housing Element Update.
j
In addition, General Plan Policy 5 -32 calls for participation in the SCVURPPP and collaboration with
other cities to improve the quality of stormwater discharge to San Francisco Bay. Policy 5 -36 requires
mitigation measures for potential storm water pollutant impacts for projects subject to environmental
review. General Plan Policy 5 -19 protects water quality from sediment inputs by limiting alterations to
the natural topography of project sites and minimizing grading. Policy 5 -21 aims to prevent surface and
groundwater quality impacts by requiring an estimation of pollutant loads and flows resulting from pro-
jected future development. In addition, the strategy associated with Policy 5 -21 prevents the discharge
of sediments and urban pollutants into waterways by requiring the incorporation of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to mitigate increases in pollutant loads and flows.
Moreover, any project physically affecting more than one acre of land will be required to obtain a Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) General Permit for construction activity. The
permit is required to mitigate construction and post - construction impacts related to erosion, siltation and
flooding. The permit also requires preparation of a site - specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) containing BMPs. The appropriate BMPs vary depending on the nature of the project, roads
affected, soils, topography, proximity to waterways and other factors.
Through the City's direct involvement in regional water quality protection programs, adherence to the
General Plan policies specified above, and compliance with NPDES requirements, projects occurring
under this Housing Element would not exceed water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
A less - than - significant impact would occur.
b) Based on the developed nature of the identified housing sites, the addition of housing on them is not
likely to result in the loss of important groundwater recharge areas. Conversely, as redevelopment of
several of the sites occurs, existing impermeable surface areas, such as asphalt parking lots, may be re-
placed with semi - permeable or pen surfaces in accordance with General Plan Policy.
According to the General Plan, Cupertino receives approximately 1.7 million gallons a day from under-
ground sources. New housing would likely increase demand on groundwater supplies available to the
City. To reduce the potential for adverse impacts to groundwater supplies, the 2005 City of Cupertino
General Plan includes Policy 5 -19, which encourages the use of natural drainage systems as a way to
preserve and enhance the natural features of a site, including groundwater recharge areas. Policy 5 -20
encourages a reduction of impervious surfaces. Policy 5 -24 calls for support of the Santa Clara Valley
Water District to find and develop groundwater recharge sites within Cupertino's planning area and pro-
vide for public recreation at the sites where possible. Furthermore, as stated in the General Plan E1R,
the Santa Clara Valley Water District has indicated that it has sufficient long -tern supply, which in-
cludes the use of groundwater, to meet the needs of Cupertino's water providers, The District's Water
Master Plan has planned for growth based on the City's maximum growth potential." Through imple-
mentation of these policies and due to long -tern capacity indicated by the SCN'V'VD. potential impacts
on groundwater supply would be less- !hail- siunijivanl.
c) None of the identified housing sites contain a natural stream or river course that would be altered due
to the construction of new homes. Nonetheless, development of housing could result in alterations to
existing site drainage patterns. Increases in impervious surface area or grade alterations could result in
an increase in the rate or amount of runoff, and thus could result in erosion. silraTinn or flooding on- or
off -site if not properly addressed, In addition, development would likely involve earth moving and other
actions during construction that could lead to similar significant impacts.
(' nit i icri i 21O : Cwincrrii Plan E.IK. p.i r � --
j i
General Plan Policy 5 -19 encourages minimal gracing of development sites so as to minimize the altera-
tion of natural drainage ways to the greatest possible extent. Policy 5 -34 encourages the reduction of
impervious surface, and encourages the City to investigate opportunities to control storm water runoff of
new development. In addition, as stated above in response to criteria a), any project disturbing more
than an acre of land would be required to complete a SWPPP in accordance with NPDES permit condi-
tions. The SWPPP would identify BMPs to reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation on- and
off -site.
Through adherence to General Plan policy and NPDES permit provisions, potential impacts would be
reduced to a less - than - significant level.
d) As stated in response to criteria c) above, none of the foreseen development under the Housing Ele-
ment Update would occur on sites requiring the alteration of a stream or river. In the case of some sites,
an increase in impervious surface area is expected, however on or off -site flooding is not expected as a
result. As stated above in response to criteria b), General Plan Policies 5 -20 and 5 -34 encourage a re-
duction of impervious surfaces to minimize storm water flow resulting from development and retention
and detention of stormwater runoff from new development. The three supporting strategies for Policy 5-
20 are to minimize the amount of impervious surface area where new development is occurring, promote
the use of semi - permeable surfaces, and maximize on -site infiltration and retaining facilities, such as
detention basins that allow for gradual release of collected stormwater. Through these policies and
strategies, potential impacts related to on- and off site flooding from increased stormwater flow would
be less than significant.
e) As stated in preceding responses, new development on the housing sites could increase the amount of
stormwater runoff, thereby increasing volumes transferred to the storm sewer. However, it is not ex-
pected that increases would be substantial because all sites are already developed and defined mostly by
impermeable surfaces. In some cases, permeable surface area would be increased where surface parking
lots are replaced by semi- or fully penneable surfaces. In addition, the General Plan contains policy and
guiding strategies to minimize the hydrologic effect of additional stonnwater generated by new devel-
opment. As such, it is not anticipated that new housing projects would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems. In addition, C3 permit requirements require new developments to
reduce storm drain runoff.
New housing projects �� ould not result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. New housing
could increase different kinds of pollutants in waters on and off site. Residential development tends to
add pollutants. such soap from car washing and nutrients from landscaping. Pollutant concentrations in
runoff from identified housing sites would vary based on land use conditions, the implementation of
post - constriction BMPs, site drainage conditions, the intensity and duration of rainfall and the climatic
conditions preceding the rainfall cN-ent. As discussed in response to criteria a), the General Plan includes
policies to limit storm water runoff from new development. .Additionally. NPDES- pemlit compliance
would mitigate construction and post - construction impacts related to erosion and polluted runoff.
Through " - nplullcntation of Genei - al Plan policies. adherence to the NPDES prop isions, and adherence
to C3 permit requirements. potential impacts would be less tha77 si,Zl7frcal7t.
Beyond the potential impacts to �yat quality explained in the responses to criteria a), c) and e
-- C1" of Cupertino. 2005 City of Cupertino General PIa;i. No cniber 2005. Figure 6 -H. Ea tent of Flooding �zc a ��suli of a
" 1nn -i 'prn ' Flond. page. 6 -11.
-- _ C, CunCrlii.o 'l)ii� �iCd O? ;_L�:�CrtiiiO hciicr 3l Plan. "t 0�'i.iliLi.r 2lJ!1l_ ±gc'
T`
above, the construction and occupation of new housing under the Housing Element Update would not
otherwise adversely affect water quality. A less - than - significant impact would occur.
g) The City of Cupertino experiences minimal flooding. The extent of flooding as a result of a 100 -
Year flood is limited to creek corridors, specifically the Permanente, Stevens, and Calabazas Creeks.
The proposed housing sites are not located within the General Plan's identified flood limit lines for a
100 -year flood event.' Therefore, no impact would occur.
h) Due to the location of the housing sites outside 100 -year flood hazard areas within the City, no im-
pediment to or redirection of flood flows would take place. No impact would occur.
1) As indicated on General Plan Figure 6 -G, failure of the Stevens Creek Reservoir Dam could poten-
tially flood central portions of the City, including housing sites 12 and 13. However, the Dam meets
current dam safety standards and the probability of its failure is minimal . 21 Furthermore, to reduce the
potential risks of flooding from Stevens Creek Dam, the 2005 City of Cupertino General Plan includes
Policy 6 -44, which ensures that the City would provide adequate response to a potential darn failure.
The strategies associated with Policy 6 -44 include maintaining a dam emergency and evacuation plan, as
well as coordination of dam - related evacuation plans with the neighboring City of Sunnyvale. There are
no levees in proximity to the City of Cupertino. As such, there would be no impact resulting from the
project.
1) The risk associated with a tsunami is considered minimal due to the distance between Cupertino and
the two closest bodies of open water; the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay. Risks associated with
mud flow are also considered minimal because such events typically occur in hillside areas and none of
the identified housing sites are located in the western portion of the City, where such areas exist. In re-
gards to a seiche, there are no large, enclosed bodies of water in close proximity to the identified hous-
ing sites. Stevens Creek Reservoir is over three miles away from the closest housing site. As such,
there would be no impact associated with tsunami, mudflow, or seiche events.
Potentially
Less Than
Less nian
No
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
Significant
Sig'With icant
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
a) Physically divide an established community?
X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
X
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (in-
cluding but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, lo-
cal coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
X
natural community conservation plan'?
DISCUSSION:
a) The housing sites proposed in the Housing Element Update are infill sites, located in already urbanized
portions of the City. New residential development on these sites would be contiguous with existing de-
veloplllelit, and would not divide establlsilcd communitics. Therefore, 770 777pacl - ,vould occur.
b) The majority of the proposed housing sites in the 11CUSing Element Update .vould be consistent «-ith
the General Plan in terms of type and density of land use. However, in order to meet the City's remaining
RHNA of 717 units, site 13 will be rezoned. "he site is currently zoned P(CG, ML, Res 4 -10), for
planned development of general commercial, light industrial, and/or low density residential. The City
will rezone the North De Anza Boulevard Planning Area properties to P(CG, ML, Res) to allow for the
General Plan density of 25 dwelling units per acre. This rezoning and permitted uses would not conflict
with surrounding land uses and zoning designations. The Morely Brothers site on Pruneridge Avenue
will be rezoned from P(Res) to P(MP, Res) to be consistent with the General Plan. The rezoning will con-
tinue to support the residential use at 25 dwelling units per acre. The addition of the MP (Light Indus-
trial) zoning designation does not increase office allocation beyond what was analyzed in the 2005 Gen-
eral Plan. Therefore, the 2005 General Plan EIR assumptions will continue to be relevant.
This rezoning is supported by Housing Element Policy 1, which calls for the City to change land use des-
ignations and zoning to permit residential development at appropriate densities where proposed by the
Housing Element Update. The residential units proposed in the Housing Element Update would not be
constructed until the necessary General Plan amendments and zoning changes are adopted. Therefore, no
impact would occur.
c) No Habitat Conservation plan or similar plan exists for the City of Cupertino." No impact would occur
and no mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Significant
Significant
with miti-
Significant
Impact
gation
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral re-
X
source that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
X
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a to --al general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
DISCUSSION:
a) Within the Cupertino city limits are areas designated by the California Resources Agency, Depart-
ment of Conservation. as Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs). The of the central portion of Cu-
pertino is designated MRZ -3, which includes areas containing mineral deposits of undetermined signifi-
cance.`' The significance of mineral deposits in Cupertino's MRZ -3 is u-ndetermined because residential
development in these areas precludes mining and mineral extraction. ,ks an already urbanized area, the
MRZ -3 area in central Cupertino would not benefit from conservation, and therefore, infill development
on the identified liousini sites vv ould not result in the loss of a� ailability of a known mineral resource.
Therefore, no biq)aut would occur as a result of rew homes being under this Housing Ele-
ment.
b) There are two quarries within the Cupertino boundary agreement area: Hanson Pennanente and Ste-
vens Creek. These quarries have been designated by the State as having mineral deposits of regional of
I'.S. Fish and wildlife Sera ice vvch;ite. Con.YeI-I-Xinr; P1 and aC7- ense;;re Da;ahcrcr.
http;// eons .fwc accessed August_ 1 1 2009.
�� (� l P T- 10Oi c:. .. U ae: u i
L.upei' _ _ _ ✓�l_ �ilti' c•t ilperziii0 �7Clierci la: �0�'CI.l�ei _ _ :�iri "i _ -u. .�i:l;r) "u( e�. •_�i %?'�•_'.5.. 1 =c _-14.
state significance. As stated in the General Plan, these quarries are located outside the City boundary in
unincorporated Santa Clara County. 26 Conversely, all of the housing sites identified under this Housing
Element are within the City's boundaries. As a result, there would be no affect on the availability of
mineral resource recovery from either the Hanson Permanente or Stevens Creek quarries. No impact
would occur.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ex-
cess of standards established in the local general plan or
X
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-
X
borne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above level existing without the pro-
X
ject?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing with-
X
out the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project ex-
X
pose people residing or working in the project area to exces-
sive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip. would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
X
area to excessive noise levels?
DISCUSSION:
a) The primary source of noise in Cupertino is vehicle traffic on roadways. Roadways that generate the
Qreatest amount of noise include Highway 280, Highway 85, De Anza Boulevard, and Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
Housing constructed under this 1- 4ousii.2 Element would expose new residents to existing sources of
noise, primarily that of vehicle traffic. However, it is not anticipated that future noise levels Xould be in
excess of City standards,. The City's Geiieral Plan contains a number of policies requiring thsl new de-
velopment meet exterior noise level standards and mitigate noise impacts. General Plan Policy 6 -50
(Land Use Decision Evaluation) requires that in snaking land use decisions, City staff use the Land Use
Compatibility for Community Noise Environments chart on page 6 -36 of the General Plan. This chart
establishes acceptable, quantitative noise exposure levels for varying types of land uses including sepa-
rate levels for low density and multi - family residential uses. The su2portirig strategy for this policy is
City of Cupertino, 200 i_.lty of-C upertino G3(:nviaf Pail,
n 3
-r �
that City staff review the location of new or significantly remodeled housing in relation to the 2020
noise contour map (Figure 6 -K in the General Plan) and the City's noise standards to determine if the
standards can be met through conventional constriction practices. If there is not enough information to
make a conclusive determination, staff may request that the developer provide an acoustical analysis to
document noise exposure and confirm whether or not mitigation is required. Through implementation
of Policy 6 -50 and supporting strategies, a less - than - significant noise impact would occur.
b) Construction of housing under the Housing Element would require minor excavation and earthwork
activities, and pile driving might be necessary to install foundation supports. Although these activities
could result in infrequent periods of ground borne vibration, the activities would not be sustained and
would occur only during temporary construction periods. Therefore, potential impacts relating to
groundborne vibration would be less than significant.
The aforementioned construction activities also have the potential to cause groundborne noise levels that
would exceed ambient noise levels and local thresholds. Section 10.48.053 (Grading, Construction and
Demolition) of the City's Municipal Code includ,:s regulations to control noise, such as specific time -
frames and days on which construction work can occur. Policy 6 -61 (Hours of Construction Work) of
the General Plan reinforces Code provisions in that it restricts non - emergency building construction
work near homes during evening, early morning, and weekends. Similarly, Policy 6 -62 (Construction
and Maintenance Activities) is to establish and - nforce allowable periods of the day, for weekdays,
weekends and holidays for construction activiti .-s and require construction contractors to use only
equipment that incorporates best available noise control technology. Through proper enforcement of
municipal code regulations and implementation of General Plan policies, potential impacts related to
groundbome noise would be less than significant.
c) New housing developed under the Housing Element would result in an increase in vehicle trips com-
pared to existing conditions, which would be a source of increased noise. In addition, the operation of
homes following construction would generate noise from sources such as HVAC, landscape mainte-
nance, and other exterior equipment. In the General Plan, Figure 6 -K illustrates noise contours projected
for the year 2020. Figure 6 -.1 shows noise contours in 2000. A comparison of these figures demonstrates
that while there would be a slight increase in the �.mbient noise levels as a result of General Plan imple-
mentation, the increase would not represent a significant impact. This Housing Element Update does
not provide for additional housing beyond that approved under the General Plan. Therefore, the Hous-
ing Element Update Nvould not result in any nevv noise impacts or increase the severit; of previously
identified and analyzed impacts. Potential impacts related to a permanent increase in ambient noise are
therefore considered less than sig17ifCal7t.
d) New housing developed under this Housing Element may result in the demolition or modification of
existing buildings, and constnictlon of new bulldl -igs. Construction activities can generate considerable
amounts of noise especially \N hen nuimerous pieces of heavy equipment are used concurrently on a pro-
ject site. The most common construction activitie; would include site preparation, installation of drain-
age facilities and utilities, construction of building foundations, cores and shells, and exterior landscap-
ing. As discussed in section (b) above, the City of Cupertino Municipal Code contains regulations and
the General Pl n ('«nf a111 1'rollC1c< t0 IeStl ICt al 1C� 1llltlgate constrLlCtlOn- IYlated l7olsc. Tl]1 "QUgh ihese
policies and code restrictions, potential impacts f periodic or temporary noise would less than si-
J
711fCC1711.
'7 ,:: n :�� .7 , , , i I'C , .1 n.. �.....
Ca,,,or ilia Aimorts ai,u Hotels uV_ Location: ,1Tiii \� " \ti',v.a!IStays.corn, Saeci ai�ainports-c a,] ion i a -m, an Ant , . acccsscu _-�u`u�t
] 1, _OOU.
e) As stated in the project description, the closest public use airport to Cupertino is the Mineta San Jose
International Airport, which is located approximately seven miles northeast of the City. As a result,
none of the housing sites are within the airport's land use plan and no impact would occur.
f) There is no private airstrip within or in immediate proximity to the City.'' -' Therefore, there would be
no impact on any new housing constructed under this Housing Element Update.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
X
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indi-
rectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastruc-
ture)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
X
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the con-
struction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
DISCUSSION:
a) As explained in the Project Description, the identified housing sites can accommodate as many as
798 dwelling units over the 2009 -2014 planning period. Assuming an average household size of 2.8
persons per households, 798 new units would generate 2,234 additional residents during this planning
period.
As stated in the General Plan Project Description, it is anticipated that an additional 22,369 dwelling
units will be built out over the course of the General Plan (between 2000 and 2020). The expected
maximum number of new units that would be constructed under the Housing Element Update is there-
fore 3.5 percent of the City's total expected increase in the number of dwelling units. As a result. this
Housing Element would not result in substantial population growth in an area for which such growth is
not already envisioned. In terns of indirect arov, it is anticipated that all new housing development
would take place on infill sites that are already served by roads and infrastructure. While utility im-
provements may be required to accommodate new residential development, it is not expected that these
improvements would lead to new, unexpected growth in areas not already developed. As a result, a less -
than- significant impact would occur in relation to population growth.
L None of the 13 housing sites in the Project Description contain existing residential units
that would be displaced due to implementation of the Housing Element Update. Sites 11 and 12 contain
existing dwelling units that would ren.ain alongside ne» development to achieve maxirnur. de.'eiop-
ment potential permitted under current zoning. However. none of the existing units would be temporar-
ily or permanently displaced as a result of the additional units. !V0 impact would occur.
c) As indicated in response to criteria b) above, implementation of the Housing Element Update would
not result in the displacement of any existing residential units. As a result, construction of housing pro-
f jects under the update would not displace any existing residents. Nn irrrpact would occur.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Significant
Significant
With
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
a) Would the project result in the need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response timers or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
X
ii) Police protection?
X
iii) Schools?
X
iv) Parks?
X
v) Other public facilities?
X
DISCUSSION:
A (i) -(v) The primary purpose of a public services impact analysis is to examine the impacts associated
with physical improvements to public service facilities. The Housing Element Update itself does not
include the construction of any new public service facilities or the expansion of existing facilities.
While the need for new or expanded facilities is anticipated to meet the service demands of new housing
constructed under the Housing Element, the specific location and scope of facility improvements cannot
be accurately predicted and effectively evaluated at this stage. Individual development projects occur-
ring under the Housing Element will be subject to the CEQA process to assess their effect on public ser-
vices and whether physical improvements are necessary to ensure adequate service levels. Furthermore,
project- specific review would determine whether such improvements could have a significant, physical
effect on the environment based on their location and scope.
Therefore, the effect of the Housing Element due to the construction or expansion of public service fa-
cilities is considered less than signu.ficunt. Subsequent improvements required to adequately service pro-
jects occurring under the Update may have significant physical effects, but those would be identified and
mitigated through project- specific review.
Another set of issues commonly covered in a public services analysis is how a project population would
affect service ratios, response times, and facility capacity goals. Although this is not a requirement un-
der CEQA, which focuses on impacts from physical improvements, these concerns are often examined
in cases where secondary impacts to service prodders could occur. As stated in the Population and
Housing section of this analysis, it is possible that mpleimentation of the Housing Element Update could
increase the population of Cupertino by 2.234 resicents due to the addition of 798 new units. This repre-
sents the maximum expected increase and would only occur if all new units were rented or purchased by
residents cuiTently liy11112 outide the City of Cupertino. This is not expected to bo the case. It can be
reasonably foreseen that tonne of the residents who would occupy new units already reside in Cupertino
and rely upon the public- services examined in this section.
in its General Plan, the City recounizes that as 1 growth occurs, expansions to public services may
V
toot 1' 1 f 1,, ,.
i be necessar✓ to pro tect nub,lc hea and safet��� an maintain a high quality of li�c in + �1�� co�mmuni �
The existing General Plan EIR has analyzed this growth and determined that it could be accommodated.
Moreover, the General Plan includes specific policies to involve key service providers, such as the Santa
Clara County Fire Protection District and the Santa Clara County Sherriff's Department, early in project
review processes. Review by these service providers would allow them, on a project by project basis, to
determine where facility or personnel shortfalls may exist and identify means of addressing them.
As noted in the Housing Element Update, both the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and Fre-
mont Union High School District ( FUHSD) collect impact fees from new residential development.
CUSD receives $1.78 /square foot in fees from residential development. FUHSD receives $0.95 to
$1.19 /square foot. These fees would be used by the respective districts to finance facility expansions,
which may include the construction of new classroom space. These fees would be augmented by devel-
oper fees collected for commercial /industrial projects and annual, residential property taxes.
Regarding park space, the City'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 cur-
rent RHNA of 1,170 new housing units for 2007 to 2014 would produce an estimated need of 6.6 acres
of new park land . The General Plan identified an additional 49 acres of potential neighborhood and
community parks, which would be more than enough to maintain the standard of three acres for every
1,000 residents. In addition, (per unit) park impact fees would be collected by the City and generate
revenue to purchase new parkland and maintain existing recreational resources.
For the reasons discussed above, it is not expected that growth occurring under the Housing Element
would adversely affect the City's ability to maintain the quality of its existing public services.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
Significant
Significant
with
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
X
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accel-
erated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction
X
of expansion of recreational facilities that might have an ad-
verse physical effect on the environment?
DISCUSSION:
a) As explained above in the Population and Housing analysis, development under this Housing Ele-
ment could result in approximately 798 nev,- units and approximately 2,234 residents. It is anticipated
that these residents would use existing local -End recreational facilities throughout the City and regional
parks both in Cupertino, other cities, and in unincorporated portions of the County. However, for sev-
eral reasons, it is not expected that increased usage wOUld occur to the degree that substantial physical
deterioration of these facilities would occur or be accelerated.
First, the sites on which new residential development would occur are physically dispersed throughout
the City. Therefore, it is anticipated that an increase in the usage of parks would also be dispersed and
focused oii parks closest to where new units are constructed. Second, it is reasonable to assume that
'� : ' = 6.6 acres.
some of the residents that would occupy new dwelling units already reside within Cupertino or nearby
jurisdictions and currently use the City's park and recreational facilities or nearby regional parks. Con-
tinued use of such facilities by these people would therefore not necessarily represent an increase in
use. Third, additional parks and recreational facilities would be provided as part of new development,
through dedications and the collection and expenditure of developer fees, as required by adopted Gen-
eral Plan policies. These include Policy 2 -81, which supports the acquisition of surplus school proper-
ties with developer fees; Policy 2 -83, which calls for the dedication of parklands in Rancho Rinconada
and Vallco Park areas; and Policy 2 -85, which calls for the collection of fees to provide recreational
space in the urban core.
For the reasons discussed above and through these General Plan polices, potential impacts to existing
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities would be less than significant.
b) The Housing Element Update does not identifi any specific locations for new parks or recreational
facilities. As sites are developed with new housing, projects may include new or expanded parks and
recreational facilities to serve new residents. Individual development projects would be subject to the
CEQA process to determine whether the construction or expansion of park or recreational facilities
would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, there is no impact under this
Housing Element update.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Significant
Significant
with
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
X
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on road, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ser-
vice standard established by the county congestioi manage-
X
nlent agency for designated road or high« ays?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that re-
sults in substantial safety risks'?
-
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a desi.7n feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or ncompati-
ble uses (e.g,., fanu equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (
X
t) Result in inadequate parking capacity'?
X
Q Conflict with adopted policies, Mans or proaralTiS Su o
prt-
p p � I I � pi-
ing alter transportation (c.g., buS iurnuuts, bicycle
X
racks)?
OiSC
j (a and b) Potential circulation impacts associated ,pith General Plan buildout, v0iich includes the amount ,
of development that would occur under this Housing Element, have been previously analyzed under the
2005 General Plan EIR. Although buildout of the General Plan would result in an unacceptable Level of
Service (LOS) at two intersections within the City; De Anza Boulevard at Homestead Road and Stelling
Road at McClellan Road, implementation of General Plan Policies 4 -1, 4 -2, 4 -3, 4 -4, 4 -5, 4 -6, 4 -7, 4 -8,
4 -9, 4 -10, 4 -11, 4 -12, and 4 -14 would ensure that the two aforementioned intersections operate at LOS
D or better under buildout condition . The County Congestion Management Agency's (CMA) LOS
standard for intersections is LOS E so the future operating condition at the two specified intersections
would meet the CMA standard.
Because the existing General Plan EIR's intersection LOS standard and assumptions for the number of
trips are much more conservative than the current LOS standard and number of trips, and the existing
General Plan EIR determined that there would not be a significant impact associated with the more con-
servative LOS and number of trips resulting from the previous Housing Element, no new analysis is re-
quired for this Housing Element Update and a less - than - significant circulation impact would occur.
(c) The Mineta San Jose International Airport, which is the closest airport facility to Cupertino, is lo-
cated approximately seven miles northeast of the City. The housing site closest to the airport is Site 10
in the Vallco Park North Planning Area. Due to their separating distances from airport facilities, none of
the development that would occur under this Housing Element Update would result in a change in air
traffic patterns. No impact would occur.
(d) Development of housing under this Housing Element Update will be reviewed on a case -by -case ba-
sis to ensure that hazards are not increased due to design features or incompatible uses. City staff and
the appropriate emergency response providers (e.g. the Fire Department) will review projects as part of
the Site Plan and Design Review process to ensure appropriate driveway configuration, emergency ac-
cess, pedestrian crossing and turning radii. In addition, there are two General Plan policies, in particu-
lar, that would minimize the potential for design hazards.
Policv 4 -8- Roadwq� , Plans that Complement the :'Feeds of Adjacent Land Use - Design roadways based
on efficient alignments, appropriate number and widths of traffic lanes, inclusion of medians, parking
and bicycle lanes and the suitable width and location of sidewalks as needed to support the adjacent
properties
Police 4 -10.' Sti °eet hnprovement Planning - Plan street improvements as an integral part of a project to
ensure an enhanced streetscape and the safe movement of people and vehicles.
Compliance with the Site Plan and Design Review process and these General Plan policies would reduce
impacts associated with design hazards to a less- than- significant level.
(e) As part of the Site Plan and Design Review process. development of housing under this Housing
Element would be reviewed on a case -by -case basis to ensure that projects do not result in inadequate
emergency access. General Plan Policy 6 -7 (Early Project Review) would also help ensure that new de-
velopment does not result in inadequate emergency access. Policy 6 -7 calls for the involvement of the
Fire Department in the early design stage of all projects requiring public revie «T to assure Fire Depal L-
mcnt input and modifications as needed. The Fire Department would review new development applica-
tions for the adequacy of emergency access, street widths and turning radii, fire hydrant locations, fire -
flow requirements and water storage and pressure needs. Compliancc� with the Site Plan and Design Re-
h r ;- , c � c , , � ,'
_._ C:.y e. C pt:r iu een.,iders i_itersrctiun_ �:� i.l: LO of L yr F v L_ unacceptaUe.
l
='y
view process and adherence to Policy 6 -7 would reduce impacts associated with emergency access to a
less - than - significant level.
(f) Table 19.100.040 -A in the City's Municipal Code defines the minimum and maximum required num-
ber of parking spaces by size and type for specific: zoning districts. Parking will be provided in accor-
dance with these standards. Proposed reductions would be reviewed and may be approved by the Plan-
ning Commission during the Preliminary Plan revi --w. No impacts are anticipated.
(g) The Countywide Transportation Plan for San Clara County includes goals and policies, funding
priorities and implementation measures to support alternative transportation. The Cupertino General
Plan also includes numerous policies to expand opportunities for Cupertino residents, visitors and em-
ployees to circulate throughout the City by means other than the automobile. These policies include, but
are not limited to, the following:
Policy 4 -1: City Participation in Regional Transportation Planning - Participate actively in developing
regional approaches to meeting the transportation heeds of the residents.
Policy 4 -2: Reduced Reliance on the Use of Singi'e- Occupant Vehicles - Promote a general decrease in
reliance on single - occupant vehicles (SOV) by encouraging attractive alternatives.
Policy 4 -3: Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines and the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation
Plan - Implement the programs and projects recommended in the Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation
Guidelines and in the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan.
There are several specific strategies set forth in Section 4 of the General Plan to support these policies.
Through these polices and strategies, new housing constructed under this Housing Element Update
would not conflict with the Countywide Plan's effort to promote alternative transportation. Therefore,
there would be no impact.
XVL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
Potentiall
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significau
No
Impact
project:
with
Mitigation
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of tie applica-
X
ble Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of neh water or
X
wastewater treatment facilities or expansions of existing fa-
cilities, the construction of which could cause significant en-
Vironmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new s orm rater
I
X
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the con-
�
struction of which could cause siunilicaiit environmental ef-
1 �tS?
I
dj HaN /e sufficient water supplies ay %allablu to ser /e the pro -
X
ject from existing entitlements and resources. or ire new or
expanded cntitlements needed?
0 Result in a determination by the , aste , , , ,'atci treatment
=u
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has X
adequate capacity to serve the project's projects demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity X
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regula- X
tions related to solid waste?
DISCUSSION:
a) The Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) provides wastewater collection and treatment services for the
majority of Cupertino. Wastewater from a small portion of the Cupertino Urban Service Area— the San
Jose Rancho Rinconada neighborhood on the east side of the City —is collected and treated by the City
of Sunnyvale. Both CSD and City of Sunnyvale treatment plants are required to comply with regula-
tions governed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) relating to the treatment and
disposal of wastewater. As explained in response to criteria b), new housing constructed under the
Housing Element Update would not cause an exceedance of plant treatment capacity. As a result, there
would be no impact related to inconsistency with wastewater treatment requirements.
b) According to the City of Cupertino General Plan EIR, both the Cupertino Sanitary District and City of
Sunnyvale have sufficient wastewater treatment plant capacity to accommodate future growth in the Cu-
pertino service area. This would include growth occurring under the Housing Element.
Although there is sufficient capacity at the waste water treatment plants, the carrying capacity of sewer
lines in the Town Center, Wolfe Road, south of Wolfe Road, Stelling Road and Foothill Boulevard areas
may not be able to accommodate additional volumes of effluent associated with new development; a ca-
pacity constraint identified in the General Plan EIR. Although there are sites identified in the Housing
Element Update that are located in or near these areas, incorporation of the mitigation measure identified
in the General Plan EIR would reduce this potential impact. According to the measure, lines running at
or near capacity would have to be upgraded as new development occurs, and improvements would need
to be financed by individual developers.
In addition General Plan policies 5 -45 to 5 -47 call for ongoing coordination with the Cupertino Sanitary
District (CSD), consideration of impacts to the Sumryvale Treatment Plant and the calculation of devel-
oper cost estimates for upgrading sewer lines in the Vallco Parkway area. With adherence to these poli-
cies and the above mitigation measure, impacts are considered Iess than significant.
c) Ne�v development under the Housing Element Update «lould require the construction of new storm
Water drainage facilities. «khile the specifics of improvements, including exact location and type, are
plot known at this time, it is reasonably foreseeable that inost upgrades to existing facilities or construc-
tion of facilities_ such as surface drains or detention basins. ��, take place within areas that have
already been disturbed due to existing development on the sires. The primary issues of concern are po-
i���tial construction- period impacts related to air qualit } noise_ - water qualit�7, and cultural resources be-
cause some of the facilities would need to be constructed below grade. As discussed in the related sec-
tions of this checklist, the General Plan sets forth policies to ensure that adverse effects would not occur
if physical improvements are required. For example, as explained in the air quality and noise sections of
this checklist, the General Plan includes policies and the City's Municipal Code includes provisions that
,vould. minimize adverse effects on sensitive. receptors durin= the construction of required drainage fa-
cilities. Based on existing General Plan policies; and relevant requirements in the City's Municipal
Code, potential impacts would be less than significant.
d) Cupertino's water is supplied by the California. Water Company and the San Jose Water Company,
both of which obtain water from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The two main
sources from which City water is drawn are groundwater wells and imported water that is treated at and
conveyed from the Rinconada Treatment Plant. According to the 2005 General Plan EIR, SCVWD's
Water Supply Master Plan planned for a degree of growth equal to the maximum growth potential of all
municipalities in the District, including Cupertino. Therefore, it can be assumed that development under
the Housing Element Update, which is included in this planned maximum growth, would not require
new or expanded water supply entitlements.
Policies in the General Plan further ensure that the water demands of new development would be ac-
commodated by the existing groundwater supply. Policies 5 -24 to 5 -27 call for developing new ground-
water recharge sites, encouraging water reclamation and supporting the manufacturing and pooling of
industrial water supplies. Additionally, Policies -28 to 5 -31 target water conservation through inter-
agency and local/regional policy coordination, pu )lic information campaigns and the establishment of
official water conservation programs. As a result of these policies and the adequacy of existing water
supply, the impact would be less than significant.
e) This criteria is addressed in the response to criteria b) of this section. As concluded in response to
criteria b) impacts to waste water treatment capacity are less - than - significant.
f) The City's current landfill capacity is sufficient `o serve new housing under the Housing Element. As
noted in the General Plan, Cupertino had reduced its total waste to landfills by 50 percent by 2000, to
38,000 tons of garbage annually, in response to California Assembly Bill 939. The City also executed a
contractual landfill agreement with Brown Ferris Industries, Inc. (BFI) in order to meet future waste dis-
posal needs. This agreement provides sufficient capacity at Newby Island Landfill in Milpitas until
2023, or until the City's allocated 2.05 million tons of waste is reached.
In addition, the Cupertino General Plan contains a number of policies to reduce waste to landfills.
Policies 5 -38 and 5 -39 call for the expansion of commercial/industrial and residential recycling pro-
grams, including e -waste and yard waste recyclin .. Policy 5 -40 calls for the revision of on -site �Nliaste
ordinances to require the recycling of at least 50 "o of all waste. Finally, Policies 5 -43 and 5 -44 contain
strategies to increase the City's reuse of materiak, including informational campaigns and recyclable
building materials programs.
As a result of the City's landfill agreement, continued compliance with AB939 and General Plan poli-
cies, the impact would be less than significant.
g) New development associated with the Housing Element would comply N ith all federal, State and lo-
cal statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, 770 impact would occur.
XVIL AIANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNiFICAV7 -E.
potendaliv Less Than Less Than I do
Significanu Significant Significant f Impact
With
Mitigation
a) Does the. project 11ave the potential to degrade t_le quality X
of the environn.,ent, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or ,viidlife sr`ecies, cause a fish or ;', populati to drop t
5Z
below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or pre-
history?
b) Does the project have impacts that individually limited,
X
but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of a project are consider-
able when viewed in connection with the effects of past pro-
jects, the effects of current projects, and the effects of prob-
able future projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will
X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either di-
rectly or indirectly?
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re-
duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or re-
strict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
No. As discussed and concluded in Sections IV (Biological Resources) and V (Cultural Resources) of
the checklist above, new residential development occurring under the Housing Element Update is not
expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the resources specified in the question.
b) Does the project have impacts that individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumu-
latively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)
Project impacts would be less than significant and would not snake a substantial contribution to any sig-
nificant cumulative impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
c No. Igo such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
❑
Aesthetics
❑
Agriculture Resources
❑
Air Quality
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology /Soils
❑
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
❑
Hydrology / Water
Quality
❑
Land Use / Planning
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑
Population / Housing
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation
❑
Transportation/Traffic
❑
Utilities / Service
Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that:
❑
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will bo prepared.
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have
been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLAR will be prepared.
❑
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. i
❑
The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal i
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyz only - :he effects that remain to be addressed.
❑
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated puic --cant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is r cquired.
1 1 L l
Iq
Stag' €vaa - uator
� r -
I
Chairperson
i�
l
t
Date
Dat6 '
r�
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE I S/ M N D
C I T Y OF C U P E R T I N O
(MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Party Agency
Responsible for Implementation Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring
Mit iga t i o n Measures Implementation Trigger /Timing Monitoring Action Frequency
Mitigation Measure CUL -1: if archaeological remains are Applicant Discovery of City Halt work; Ongoing
uncovered, work at the place of discovery should be halted Archaeological evaluation by during
immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the Remains qualified construction
finds and determine the significance of the resource. archaeologist
Construction activities should not commence until the expert
has issued an opinion about the resource and appropriate
m i t igation has been determined.
Mitigation Measure CUL -2: If paleontological remains are Applicant Discovery of City Halt work; Ongoing
uncovered, work at the place of discovery should be halted Paleontological evaluation by during
immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the Remains qualified construction
finds and determine the significance of the resource. archaeologist
Construction activities should not recommence until the
expert has issued an opinion about the resource and
appropriate mitigation has been determined.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Attachment C
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
November 5, 2009
As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council
of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project
was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on
November 5, 2009.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATIO
Application No.: GPA- 2008 -01 (EA- 2009 -05)
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: citywide
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
General Plan Amendment for revisions to the Housing Element
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and
has no si environmental impacts.
Aarti Shrivastava
Director of Community Development
g/crc/REC EA- 2009 -05
a
Attachment D
MODEL ORDINANCE NO.10 -2XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE
CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF
THE CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that
the sections of the Cupertino Municipal Code identified in the Table of Contents below
shall be amended as follows:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO ALLOWING EMERGENCY SHELTERS IN QUASI- PUBLIC BUILDING
(BQ) ZONES .................................................................................................... ............................... 1
19.08 Definitions ..................................................................................... ..............................1
19.08.030 Definitions .......................................................................... ..............................1
19.64 Public Building (BA), Quasi Public Building (BQ) and Transportation (T)
Zones........................................................................................................ ..............................1
19.64.040 Permitted Uses in a BQ Zone .......................................... ..............................1
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO TRANSITIONAL HQ USING AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING ............
3
19.08 Definitions ........................................................................................ ...............................
3
19.08.030 Definitions ...............................,.......................................... ..............................3
19.16 Agricultural (A) Zones .....................,......................................... ...............................
3
19.16.030 Permitted Uses ..................................................................... ...............................
3
19.20 Agricultural- Residential (A -1) Zones ...................................... ...............................
5
19.20.030 Permitted Uses .................................................................... ...............................
5
19.28 Single Family (R1) Zones ............................................................... ...............................
6
19.28.030 Permitted Uses .................................................................... ...............................
6
19.32 Residential Duplex (R2) Zones ..................................................... ...............................
7
19.32.030 Permitted Uses .................................................................... ...............................
7
19.36 Multiple Family Residential (R3) Zones ...................................... ...............................
7
19.36.030 Permitted Uses .................................................................... ...............................
7
19.40 Residential Hillside (RHS) Zones ................................................ ...............................
8
19.44 Residential Single - Family Cluster (R1.':) Zones .......................... .............................10
-i -
Page 1 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
19.44.040 Permitted Uses ..................................................................... .............................10
AMENDMENTS CLARIFYING THE PARKING ORDINANCE .......................... ............................... 11
19.100 Parking Ordinance .................................................................. .............................11
19.100.040 Regulations for Off - Street Parking ................................ .............................11
19.100.060 Exceptions ......................................................................... .............................14
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS .............. .............................16
2.08 City Council - Rules and Conduct ............................................... .............................16
2.08.095 Reconsideration ................................................................ .............................16
2.48 Departmental Organization .......................................................... .............................16
2.48.020 Departments and Divisions ............................................... .............................16
9.20 Off -site Hazardous Waste Facilities ............................................ .............................17
9.20.030 Definitions ............................................................................ .............................17
14.04 Street Improvements .................................................................. .............................17
14.04.010 Definitions ......................................................................... .............................17
14.04.040 Requirements- General .................................................... .............................17
14.04.110 Improvements Installed Prior to Permit - Imposition of Street
Improvement Reimbursement Charges, Cost of Land and Interest ...........................18
14.04.130 Dedication - Requirements .............................................. .............................18
14.04.160 Preceding Permit - Conditions ........................................ .............................19
14.04.175 Reimbursement Agreement ........................................... .............................19
14.04.240 Appeals .............................................................................. .............................19
14.05 Park Maintenance Fees .............................................................. .............................19
14.05.010 Definitions ......................................................................... .............................19
14.05.040 Requirements - General .................................................... .............................20
14.05.070 Determination of Fee ..................................................... ............................... 20
14.05.090 Appeals .............................................................................. .............................20
14.18 Protected Trees .............................................................................. ............................... 20
14.18.020 Definitions ......................................................................... .............................20
14.24 Underground Utilities - New Developments ..................... ............................... 20
14.24.070 Use Permit Exceptions ...................................................... ............................... 20
16.04 Building Code Adopted ........................................................... ............................... 21
16.04.050 Address Posting ............................................................. ............................... 21
16.32 Swimming Pools ....................................................................... ............................... 21
-ii -
Page 2 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
16.32.040 Safety Requirements ...................................................... ...............................
21
18.28 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps ..................................... ...............................
22
18.28.050 Filing and Processing .................................................... ...............................
22
19.08 Definitions .................................................................................... .............................22
19.08.030 Definitions ......................................................................... .............................22
19.24 Open Space (OS) Zones ............................................................ ...............................
23
19.24.020 Applicability of Regulations ........................................ ...............................
23
19.36 Multiple Family Residential (R-3).' .............................. ...............................
23
19.36.050 Conceptual Plan ............................................................. ...............................
23
19.36.080 Architectural and Site Review ..................................... ...............................
24
19.56 General Commercial (CG) Zones ........................................... ...............................
24
Section................................................................................................... ...............................
24
19.56.060 Permit for New Development ...................................... ...............................
24
19.56.07 Land Use Activity and Site Development Regulations ..............................
25
19.64 Public Building (BA), Quasi Public Building (BQ) and Transportation (T)
Zones 25
19.64.070 Requirement of a Development Plan .......................... ...............................
25
19.64.090 Site Development Regulatioizs ..................................... ...............................
25
19.82 Beverage Container Redemption and Recycling Centers ... ...............................
26
19.82.060 Criteria and Standards ................................................. ...............................
26
19.116 Development Agreements .................................................. ...............................
27
19.116.120 Review - Standard ............................................................ .............................27
19.116.310 Separate Procedure ........................................................ ...............................
28
19.118 Required Artwork in Public and Private Developments ...............................
28
19.118.020 Applicability of Regulations ....................................... ...............................
28
19.124 Planned Development Permits, Con ditional Use Permits and Variances .........
28
Section................................................................................................... ...............................
28
19.124.010 Authority of the Director of Community Development .........................
29
19.124.020 Application for Planned Deg elopment Permit, Conditional Use Permit
or Variance. 29
19.124.030 Action by the Director ................................................... ...............................
30
19.124.070 Planned Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit - Findings and
Conditions............................................................................................. ...............................
30
-iii -
Page 3 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
19.124.090 Effective Date ................................................................. ............................... 31
19.124.100 Expiration, Extension and Revocation ........................ ............................... 31
19.124.110 Expansion of Planned Development or Conditional Uses ..................... 32
19.124.120 Reports .............................................................................. .............................32
19.124.130 Concurrent Applications .............................................. ............................... 32
19.134 Architectural and Site Review ............................................. ............................... 33
19.134.030 Authority of the Planning Commission ..................... ............................... 33
19.134.090 Findings and Conditions .............................................. ............................... 33
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION ............... ............................... 34
19.50 Reasonable Accommodation ................................................... ............................... 34
19.50.010 Purpose .............................................................................. .............................34
19.50.020 Applicability ..................................................................... .............................34
19.50.030 Application Requirements ............................................ ............................... 34
19.50.040 Approval Authority, Procedure and Decision .......... ............................... 35
19.50.050 Findings ............................................................................ .............................35
19.50.060 Appeals .............................................................................. .............................36
19.16 Agricultural (A) Zones ................................................................. ...............................
36
19.16.020 Applicability of Regulations ............................................ ...............................
36
19.20 Agricultural - Residential (A -1) Zones .................................... ...............................
36
19.20.020 Applicability of Regulations ................................................ ...............................
36
19.28 Single Family Residential (R1) Zones ......................................... ...............................
36
19.28.110 Exceptions ............................................................................. .............................36
19.28.130 Development Regulations-( R1- a) ................................... ...............................
38
19.32 Residential Duplex (R -2) Zones ................................................... ...............................
42
19.32.020 Applicability of Regulations ............................................ ...............................
42
19.36 Multiple - Family Residential (R -3) Zones ................................... ...............................
42
19.36.020 Applicability of Regulations ............................................ ...............................
42
19.40 Residential Hillside (RHS) Zones ............................................... ...............................
42
19.40.140 Exception for Development of Certain Individual Hillside Lots ..............
42
19.44 Residential Single - Family Cluster (R1 -C) Zones ...................... ...............................
44
19.44.020 Applicability of Regulations ............................................ ...............................
44
-iv -
Page 4 of 49
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO ALLOWING EMERGENCY SHELTERS IN
QUASI- PUBLIC BUILDING (BQ) ZONES
19.08 Definitions
19.08.030 Definitions
" Rotating homeless Emerbencv shelter rotati means a sheltef lae ted iri an existing
liour-s of apeFatien not to exeeed six P.m. 4-&- - even a. facility that provides temporary
housing with minimal supportive services. S uch shelters shall be limited to a time
period of two months in a twelve -month period at anv single location and shall meet
criteria in Section 19.64.040(A)
"Emergency shelter, permanent" means a facility that provides temporary housing with
minimal supportive services that is limited t occupancy of six months or less. Such
shelters may be permanerntly operated and s:1all meet criteria in Section 19.64.040(B).
19.64 Public Building (BA), Quasi Public Building (BQ) and
Transportation (T) Zones
19.64.040 Permitted Uses in a BQ Zone.
Building and other uses on land owned or utilized by the following types of
organizations, for the purposes enumerated herein, are permitted in a BQ zone:
A. Rotating liefneless emergenc` shelter provided that the following conditions
are met:
Shelter is located within an existing church structure;
2. The number of occupants does not exceed twenty -five;
3. The hours of operation do not exceed six p.m. to seven a.m.;
4. Adequate supervision is provided;
5. Fiore safety regulations are met; and
6. Operation period does not exceed two months in any twelve -month period at
any single location.
- 1 -
Page 5 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
B. Permanent emergency shelter provided the following conditions are met:
1. Section 19.64.040(A) 1 -5; and
2. OccupancN limited to six months or less.
Application for a rotating or permanent homeless shelter shall be made to the
Director of Community Development. The Director shall approve the application if it
meets the above standards.
-2-
Page 6 of 49
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
19.08 Definitions
19.08.030 Definitions
"Transitional housing" and "transitional howling development" (per CA Health and
Safety Code 50675.2 (h)) means buildings co as rental housing developments,
but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and
recirculation of the assisted unit to another e. igible program recipient at some
predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months.
"Supportive housing" (per CA Health and Safety Code 50675.14(b)) means housing with
no limit on length of stay, that is occupied b�, the target population, and that is linked to
onsite or offsite services that assist the s sportive housing resident in retaining the
housing, improving his or her health status, rind maximizing his or her ability to live
and, when possible, work in the community.
"Target population" (per CA Health and Safety Code 53260(d)) means adults with low
incomes having one or more disabilities, incl .iding mental illness, HIV or AIDS,
substance abuse, or other chronic health con or individuals eligible for services
provided under the Lanterman Developmen'_al Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5
(commencing with Section 4500) of the Welfare and Institutions Code) may, among
other populations, include families with chil elderly persons, young adults aging
out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, or
homeless neonle.
19.16 Agricultural (A) Zones
19.16.030 Permitted Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in the A zoning district:
A. Agriculture, horticulture, viticulture ,and forestry, including the following and
similar uses:
1. Field and truck crops, including drying and storage,
2. Orchards and vineyards, including bottling and storage,
Tree farms, botanical conservatories and arboreta,
4. Barns and sheds,
5. Keeping of draft animals, animals providing products used on the property, and
household pets,
-3-
Page 7 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
6. Livestock ranches and dairy farms depending mainly on grazing on the
property,
7. Processing of dairy products produced on the property,
8. Poultry raising and hatcheries,
9. Apiaries,
10. Nurseries, greenhouses and landscaping gardens,
11. Boarding kennels,
12. Animal breeding;
B. Single- family dwelling unit;
C. Residences of farm workers and their families whose primary employment is
incidental and necessary to agricultural operations conducted on the same parcel of
land on which such residences are located;
D. A second dwelling unit which conforms to the procedures, standards and
requirements of Chapter 19.64 except for a second dwelling unit requiring a conditional
use permit;
E. Noncommercial stables, and the keeping of riding horses; the number of horses
on each lot at any time shall be limited to three except that additional foals may be
retained for a period of six months;
F. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses and
otherwise conforming with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title;
G. Home occupations, when accessory to permitted use and otherwise conforming
to the provisions of Chapter 19.92 of this title and subject to any conditional use permit
requirements of that chapter;
H. Small- family day care home;
I. Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate State, County agency
or department with six or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or
staff;
J. Congregate residence with ten or less residents.
K. Transitional and Supportive Housing
W
Page 8 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
19.20 Agricultural- Residential (A -1) Zones
19.20.030 Permitted Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in ari A -1 district:
A. Agriculture, horticulture, viticulture and forestry, including but not limited to,
the following uses:
1. Field and truck crops, including drying and storage,
2. Orchards and vineyards, including bottling and storage,
3. Tree farms, botanical conservatories and arboreta,
4. Barns and sheds,
5. Keeping of draft animals and animals providing products used on the property,
and household pets;
B. Single - family dwelling unit;
C. Residences of farm workers and their families whose primary employment is
incidental and necessary to agricultural operations conducted on the same parcel of
land on which such residences are located;
D. A second dwelling unit conforming to the provisions, standards, and
procedures of Chapter 19.84 of this title, except for a second dwelling unit requiring a
conditional use permit;
E. Noncommercial stables, and the keeping of no more than three riding horses,
except that additional foals may be retained for a period of six months after birth;
F. Accessory facilities and uses, customarily incidental to permitted uses and
otherwise conforming with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title;
G. Home occupations, when accessory to other permitted uses and otherwise
conforming to the provisions of Chapter 19.92 of this title, and subject to any
conditional use permit requirements continued in that chapter;
H. Small- family day care home;
I. Large - family day care home, which meets the parking criteria contained in
Chapter 19.100, and which is at least three hundred feet from any other large- family
day care home. The Director of Community Development or his/her designee shall
administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking
and proximity requirements;
-5-
Page 9 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
J. Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate State, County agency
or department with not more than six residents, not including the provider, provider
family or staff;
K. Congregate residence with ten or less residents.
L. Transitional and Supportive Housing
19.28 Single Family (R1) Zones
19.28.030 Permitted Uses.
The following uses are permitted in the R -1 single - family residence district:
A. Single - family use;
B. A second dwelling unit conforming to the provisions, standards and procedures
described in Chapter 19.82, except for those second dwelling units requiring a
conditional use permit;
C. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses and
otherwise conforming with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title;
D. Home occupations in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.92;
E. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products.
F. Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate State, County agency
or department with six or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or
staff;
G. Small- family day care home;
H. The keeping of a maximum of four adult household pets, provided that no
more than two adult dogs or cats may be kept on the site;
I. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood but
excluding business offices, construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or
corporation yards;
J. Large - family day care homes, which meet the parking criteria contained in
Chapter 19.100 and which are at least three hundred feet from any other large - family
day care home. The Director of Community Development or his /her designee shall
administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking
and proximity requirements;
K. Congregate residence with ten or less residents.
L. Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing.
Page 10 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
19.32 Residential Duplex (R2) Zones
19.32.030 Permitted Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in the R -2 residential duplex district:
A. Two - family use under one ownership;
B. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses and
otherwise conforming with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title;
C. Home occupations in each unit of a residential duplex dwelling subject, when
accessory to permitted residential use as provided in Chapter 19.92 of this title, and
subject to any use permit requirements contained in that chapter;
D. The keeping in each dwelling unit of a maximum of four adult household pets;
provided that no more than two adult dogs and two adult cats may be kept in each unit;
E. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood, but
excluding business offices, construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or
corporation yard;
F. Small- family day care home, in each unit;
G. Large - family day care home, which meets the parking criteria contained in
Chapter 19.100, and which is at least three hundred feet from any other large - family
day care home. The Director of Community Development or his /her designee shall
administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking
and proximity requirements;
H. Residential care facility with six or less residents not including the provider,
provider family or staff, in each unit, that has a license from the appropriate State,
County agency or department;
I. Congregate residence with ten or less residents, in each unit.
1. Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing.
19.36 Multiple Family Residential (R. Zones
19.36.030 Permitted Uses.
The following shall be permitted in an R -3 zoning district:
A. Multiple- family residential dwellings;
B. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses and
otherwise conforming with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title;
7-
Page 11 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
C. Home occupations, when accessory to permitted residential use, as provided in
Chapter 19.84 of this title, and subject to any conditional use permit requirements
contained in that chapter;
D. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products for consumption by
occupants of the site and limited to a maximum of ten percent of the lot area.
E. The keeping of a maximum of four adult household pets per dwelling unit,
provided that no more than two adult dogs may be kept therein;
E- Temporary buildings for construction purposes (including trailers) for a period
not to exceed the duration of such construction;
FG. Small- family day care home;
GH. Residential care facility with six or less residents not including the provider,
provider family or staff, that has a license from the appropriate State, County agency or
department;
HI. Congregate residence with ten or less residents.
J. Transitional Housing, and Supportive Housing
19.40 Residential Hillside (RHS) Zones
19.40.030 Permitted Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in an RHS zoning district:
A. Single - family dwelling units with not more than one dwelling unit per lot;
B. A second dwelling unit which conforms to the procedure, standards and
requirements of Chapter 19.84 of this code;
C. Home occupations which conform to the procedure, standards and
requirements of Chapter 19.92 of this code;
D. Accessory buildings which conform to the procedures, standards and
requirements of Chapter 19.80 of this code;
E. Small- family day care home;
F. Residential care facility with six or less residents not including the provider,
provider family or staff, that has a license from the appropriate State, County agency or
department;
G. The keeping of animals as follows:
Page 12 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
4
1. Household pets limited to one animal per three thousand square feet of lot area
except:
a. Adult dogs are limited to a maximum of two for lots less than one acre and four
for lots greater than one acre,
b. The number of geese, ducks, chickens, rabbits and other farm animals are not
limited on a site greater than one acre,
2. Small household pets,
3. Large animals, such as horses, cows, sheep, and goats, limited as follows:
a. Two large animals for the first forty thousand square feet of land area, except
mules and donkeys which require eighty thousand square feet for the first animal,
b. One additional large animal for each twenty thousand square feet of land area,
c. One additional large animal if said animal is raised for a 4H project, a project
sponsored by recognized agricultural organization or a school project,
4. The required lot area for a large animal shall not be included in the required lot
area for a household pet or vice versa, except that a maximum of two household pets
may be kept with large animals,
5. All animals must be kept and maintained in accordance with other Cupertino or
Santa Clara County codes and ordinances,
6. No animals kept and maintained in an RHS zoning district may be raised for
commercial purposes,
7. Crop, tree or horticultural farming for personal use. Produce grown on the site
may be sold if the business activity is conducted in a manner consistent with the home
occupation ordinance;
H. Large family day care home which meets the parking criteria contained in
Chapter 19.100, and which is at least three hundred feet from any other large - family
day care home. The Director of Community Development or his /her designee shall
administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking
and proximity requirements;
I. Congregate residence with ten or less residents.
1. Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing.
Page 13 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
19.44 Residential Single - Family Cluster (R1C) Zones
19.44.040 Permitted Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in a single - family residential cluster zone
without the requirement of a use permit:
A. Single - family dwelling units with not more than one dwelling unit per lot, or in
the case of a condominium, not more than one dwelling unit within a defined air space;
B. Home occupations subject to approval pursuant to the Home Occupation
Ordinance (No. 321) of the City of Cupertino, as it now exists or may be hereafter
amended;
C. Small- family day care home;
D. The keeping of not to exceed two dogs and two cats over four months of age, or
other small household pets not to exceed four adults four months of age or more;
E. Residential care facility with six or less residents not including the provider,
provider family or staff, that has a license from the appropriate State, County agency or
department;
F. Congregate residence with ten or less residents.
G. Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing.
-10-
Page 14 of 49
AMENDMENTS CLARIFYING THE PARKING ORDINANCE
19.100 Parking Ordinance
19.100.040 Regulations for Off - Street Parking.
A. Parking Ratio and Dimension. Table 19.100.040 -A defines the minimum and
maximum required number of parking spacE s by size and type for specific zoning
districts and use within zoning districts. r (1;+„
appr-eve a development plan of g El EP tivn +h,+ deviates f, T 4 a 4 nn non
g , . v-t1- at stippeFts saiEl deviafieii.
B. Aisle Dimensions. Aisle dimension shall be as required by standard details
adopted by the City Engineer and shown in Table 19.100.040 -B.
C. Loading Areas. Loading areas, track parking spaces, and parking spaces for
vehicles other than automobiles shall have ample dimensions for the particular use and
type of operation, and be designed or requirE�d by the City Engineer.
D. Planned Development Districts. The parking requirement contained in Table
19.100.040 -A functions as guidelines for projects in planned development zoning
districts.
E. Mixed -Use and Shared Parking.
The minimum parking requirement for mixed -use developments or developments with
shared parking facilities being used by one o:- more properties shall be determined
using Table 19.100.040C.
parkin The Fninimum itTCTTr�i� th ZAE)Fe than one land u e,
paFiL; Facilities b ec l h,. sh be Eleten us ing Tab
49. n - -0 C-. Th Planning C; _ 4 y r,,,, c il „ allow f +h Fe ti ;
the b r-e as p aft s F3 °_ b exceptien
■ ■
- a
Alternative Parking Standards
- 11 -
Page 15 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
For all projects not meeting parking requirements in Table 19.100.040.A, B or C, the
Plarmina Commission or Council may approve alternative parking standards per
Section 19.100.060C. F. Sh, n,
1. F-of land
less than equal
to five thousand feet
propesed uses wliiEh
are of
square
p lan N-alid
enh as a
a shared b
speEial b
foota
b
is ,,a o manag Jay a s i n gle ent;tv
sin
„1 afe e b af ki g F- ;l;t<
e. T1 4 pfopos s4 aF ed F inn plan be arnp ed i eenjun itl,
The
is
� . all ases net meeting,
e.
shafed par-kin
p lan N-alid
enh as a
a shared b
b s
foota
` for- festaurarits) is tile same
b
_
'
Fef land
� . all ases net meeting,
-
,
the Planning Cofn:FlqiSSiE)fl of City
C-euncil may appreve
a shared b
b
a. The land _ b s ts o f a s l oo p - ing e nter r e f fiee of industrial developm�, >�
which is owned mana sin r
TI,,. a ,.,I:, - 1. as s..1.,«:aa,..l a ,J..a d p «.. s t..,l.. .. I.: c L. ,J.......... -tr .- that
the pr-epesed use is c-empafible with the pfepesed par-king, stippl�-.
. The proposed
com�44iomal use pefinit application in a plani-led development zone of via an e)(Eeption
fof a :project w4ieI4 is fiet loc-ated in a planned development zone.
-12-
Page 16 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
G. Tandem, Valet and Other Special Parking Arrangements. Tandem, valet, and
other special forms of parking may be approved ii*; c ' 11 relit e al use
development � ^.per Section 19.100.0600.
H. Minimum Stall Dimension in Parkin; Structure. The minimum stall dimension
for a uni -size space located in a parking garage or other enclosed parking structure and
intended for nonresidential uses is eight and one -half (8.5) feet by eighteen (18)
feet. The space width shall be increased by one -half (1/2) of a foot to nine (9) feet if
adjacent on one side to a wall or structure; and by one (1) foot to nine and one -half (9.5)
feet if adjacent on both side to a wall or structure.
I. Handicapped Parking. The handicapped parking requirement embodied in
Section 1129 B of the California Building Code, as amended, is hereby incorporated into
this chapter by reference.
Other regulations shall be as outlined in Title 11 of the Municipal Code.
K. Residential Lots Fronting on Public or Private Streets. If no on- street parking is
available, two additional off - street spaces are required.
L. Farm Equipment. For tractors or farm equipment that are regularly parked on-
site within two hundred feet of a public street or road, such parking places shall be
screened from sight of the street.
M. Large - Family Day Care Home. A minimum of one parking space per
nonresident employee is required. This parking requirement shall be in addition to the
minimum requirements of the zoning district. The parking space may be on- street, in
front of the provider's residence. A minimurn of one parking space shall be available
for child drop -off. The space shall provide direct access to the unit, not crossing a street.
If the provider is relying on on- street parking and the roadway prohibits on- street
parking, a semi - circular driveway may be provided, subject to other provisions of the
Municipal Code.
N. Landscape Requirements. All new centers and centers with a twenty -five
percent or greater increase in floor area or a twenty -five percent or greater change in
floor area resulting from 44_ development
permits within twelve months shall be required to meet the following minimum
landscape requirements; however, the Planning Commission and /or City Council may
recommend additional landscaping.
-13-
Page 17 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
19.100.060 Exceptions.
Exceptions to this chapter may be granted as provided in this section.
A. Issued by the Director of Community Development. With respect to a request
for substandard sized parking spaces in an enclosed garage in the R -1 Single - Family
Zoning District, the Community Development Director may grant an exception if the
request meets all of the following criteria:
1. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification and
the minimum variance to accomplish the purpose.
2. The exception to be granted will not preclude the garage from being used to
park two standard -sized vehicles.
B. Issued by the Design Review Committee. The Design Review Committee may
grant exceptions to this chapter for properties located in the R -1 Single - Family Zoning
District or the R -2 Duplex Zoning District at a public hearing subject to Section
19.28.110. The following findings must be made to grant an exception:
1. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with
the spirit and intent of this chapter.
2. The granting of the exception will not be injurious to property or improvements
in the area nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare.
3. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification and
the minimum variance toaccomplish the purpose.
4. The proposed exception will not result in significant impacts to neighboring
properties.
C. Iss7W by the Planning Commission or Citv Council Requests for parking
exceptions or variation from parking requirements as Bart of a plaiuled development
permit not subject to Section 19.100.050(A) and (B) may be granted by the Planning
Commission or City Council at a public hearing subject to Section 19.120.060.
1. The following findings must be made to grant the exception:
A. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent
with the spirit and intent of this chapter.
b 2. The granting of the exception will not be injurious to property or
improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare.
-14-
Page 18 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
c -3. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification and
the minimum variance to accomplish the purpose.
d 4. The proposed exception will not result in significant impacts to neighboring
properties.
2. Projects proposing Alternative Parking Standards shall a-lsa -meet the
following conditions in addition to 19.100.060C(1)a -d:
a. The applicant submits a detailed parking study which demonstrates that
the proposed use is compatible with the proposed harking supple.
Adjacent on- street parking max be included in the parking su
b. The project is owned or managE-d bN7 a single entity.
c. If adjacent properties are used tD share parking, they are in close
proximity to each other, and reciprocal parking and access easements and
maintenance agreements are recorded on the applicable properties to run
with the land.
-15-
Page 19 of 49
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
2.08 City Council - Rules and Conduct
2.08.095 Reconsideration.
B. If a motion for reconsideration prevails, the Council is then free to reconsider
the item either at the same council meeting or at any other council meeting established
by the Council; provided, however, that the Council shall not reconsider an item at the
same council meeting, in the following instances:
Any action involving a public hearing which has been closed;
2. Any action, including appeals, regarding a zoning matter, planned development
permit, use permit, subdivision map approval, variance, architectural and site approval
or sign exception;
3. Any action involving the granting, modification or revocation of any permit
issued by the City;
4. Any action which is quasi - judicial in nature.
2.48 Departmental Organization
2.48.020 Departments and Divisions.
B. Department of Community Development.
This department shall have the following divisions:
a. Planning Division. This division shall be responsible for current and long -range
planning, the development and maintenance of the general plan and specific plans, and
the processing of applications for plaiuzed development permits, use permits, variances,
and changes of zoning, and the sign ordinance.
b. Building Division. This division shall be responsible for the enforcement of the
building codes, the sign ordinance and other similar regulatory ordinances.
2. The Director of Community Development shall be the head of this department,
with the Building Official being responsible for activities within the Building Division.
-16-
Page 20 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
9.20 Off -site Hazardous Waste Facilities
9.20.030 Definitions
J. "Land use decision" means a discretionary decision given by the City concerning a
specific hazardous waste facility including the approval of a change of zone, planned
development permit, use permit, variance or subdivision.
14.04 Street Improvements
14.04.010 Definitions
E. "Permit" means any building permit, p] anned development permit, use permit, or
site and architectural approval issued by the City under and pursuant to the provision
of its oirdinances.
F. " Permittee" means any individual, copartnership, association, corporation,
governmental body or unit or agency (other than the City), or any other entity owning
or occupying land adjacent to any unimproved street, or unimproved streets, in the City
who is required to have a building permit from the City in order to erect, construct, add
to, alter, or repair any building or structure upon said land, or who is required to have a
planned development permit, use permit, or site and architectural approval.
H. "Reimbursement agreement" means a written agreement with the City
whereby in order to receive reimbursement cf certain street improvement costs, and as
a condition precedent to obtaining a building permit, planned development permit, use
permit or site and architectural approval; the permittee shall enter into.
14.04.040 Requirements- General.
A. Any person who proposes to erect, construct, add to, alter or repair any
building or structure for which a building permit is required by the City on or upon any
land adjacent to an unimproved street, or who seeks a planned development permit,
use permit or architectural and site approval from the City for land adjacent to an
unimproved street must improve, or agree to improve by installation agreement, said
street as herein required by the installation of' such of the following improvements as
the City Engineer, under the provisions of this chapter, deems necessary: underground
utilities, curbs and gutters, driveways, sidewalk, street paving and overlay, street lights,
storm sewers, sanitary sewers, street trees, street signs, water lines, fire hydrants, and
retaining walls, and, where necessary, the dedications and improvements of service
roads, facilities for off - street parking, alleys, Easements for public utilities, drainage,
sewers, walkways, watercourses, planting strips and nonaccess facilities, and the
payment of park and recreation facilities acquisition and maintenance fees in
accordance with Chapter 14.05 of the City's Ordinance Code. Said improvements or
17-
Page 21 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
installation agreements shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of any required
building permit, planned development, use permit, or architectural approval.
14.04.110 Improvements Installed Prior to Permit - Imposition of Street
Improvement Reimbursement Charges, Cost of Land and Interest.
A. In some instances, the public welfare, safety and economy can be best served by
the installation of improvements on unimproved streets prior to the time that an
adjoining property owner seeks a permit. Since such adjoining property benefits from
the street improvements, the owners of such property are required to contribute their
share of the cost of those street improvements (just as permittees who seek a permit
prior to the installation of improvements are required to do) when they seek a building
permit unless it is exempt pursuant to Section 14.04.230(D) of this chapter, a lazed
development permit, use permit, or a site and architectural approval.
14.04.130 Dedication - Requirements.
A. Dedication and improvement shall be for the full length of the property line (of the
parcel for which the permit is sought) abutting the street for which dedication and
improvement is required. Dedication and improvement shall be made for the full
length of the property line of each lot or lots to which said building permit, lai
development permit, use permit, or site and architectural approval applies. In case of
flag lots whose building site is accessible only via a strip providing connection to a
public street, the extent of street improvement required shall consist of not less than
one -half the projected width of such lots measured along the adjacent street for which
improvements are required;
F. The permittee shall grant easements not less than ten feet in width for public
utility and drainage purposes along the rear lot lines, along side lot lines and along
front lot lines, wherever necessary. Easements of lesser widths may be allowed after ten
days' written notice to the affected utility company or companies, when, at the
determination of the City Engineer, the purpose of the easement may be accomplished
by easements of lesser width, and provided that, in such determination, the City
Engineer shall prescribe the width of such easement. Upon receipt of notice, the
affected utility may present its objections or recommendations to the City Engineer,
which shall hear and rule upon the objections or recommendations. Dedication of
easements shall be for the purpose of installing utilities and for other public purposes,
as may be ordered or directed by the City Engineer. Underground utilities shall be
required in accordance with Chapter 14.24, except where the requirement is waived by
the planning commission pursuant to an approved planned development permit
and or use permit excepting or conditioning the requirement.
Page 22 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
14.04.160 Preceding Permit - Conditions.
A. As a condition precedent to obtaining; a building permit, planned development
permit, use permit, or site and architectural approval from the City under and pursuant
to the provisions of its ordinances, a permittee shall, in addition to meeting the other
requirements of this chapter:
14.04.175 Reimbursement Agreement.
A. As a condition precedent to obtaining; a building permit, plaruzed development
permit, use permit, or site and architectural approval, the permittee shall enter into a
reimbursement agreement with the City in order to receive reimbursement for the
portion of street improvement costs, including interest where applicable, in excess of
the installation costs incurred for the permittee's property, or for the cost of the land,
upon which such improvements were installed, including interest where
applicable. Any reimbursement to the permittee shall be paid out of the revenues
received by the City from the land reimbursement or street improvement
reimbursement charges and interest, if any, assessed in the manner provided in Section
14.04.110.
C. If the permittee cannot purchase or o acquire land necessary or the
installation of the street improvements, prior to issuance of a building permit, planned
development permit, use permit or site and architectural approval, the City shall
acquire the necessary land either by negotiation or pursuant to its eminent domain
powers.
14.04.240 Appeals.
A. Any person aggrieved by any decision of any officer, department or
commission of the City under the provisions of this chapter may appeal said decision to
the City Council by filing written notice of the appeal with the City Clerk within thirty
days after the date of the decision, except that, when an application for exception by
filing for a plaruled development permit and /or use permit is made, no appeal will be
accepted or necessary, since the City Council will hear the matter in due course.
14.05 Park Maintenance Fees
14.05.010 Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
A. "Single lot development" means the erection or construction of any building or
structure within all zones, permitting residential uses for which a building permit,
plaru development permit, use permit or architectural and site approval is required
by the City, but which development is not a subdivision as defined by the Subdivision
Map Act of the State of California.
-19-
Page 23 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
14.05.040 Requirements - General.
Any person who proposes to erect or construct any building or structure for which a
building permit is required by the City, or who seeks a use permit or architectural and
site approval from the City, must pay a fee, as determined under the provisions of this
chapter, for the establishment, maintenance and rehabilitation of parks and recreation
facilities within the City. Said fee shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of any
required building permit, plaimed development permit, use permit, or architectural
approval.
14.05.070 Determination of Fee.
When a fee is required to be paid under the provisions of this chapter, the amount of
the fee shall be determined by the Director of Public Works, pursuant to Section
14.05.060. The "value per acre" portion of the fee shall be based upon the fair market
value of the subject property determined by reference to comparable land within the
general subject property. As used herein, the term "comparable" means land of similar
size and development potential as the subject property. The date of the valuation of the
property shall be the date that the owner of the subject property or his agent submits an
application for issuance of a building permit, planned development permit, use permit
or architectural and site approval, whichever event occurs first.
14.05.090 Appeals.
A. Any person aggrieved by a decision of any officer, department or commission
of the City under the provisions of this chapter may appeal the decision to the City
Council by filing written notice of the appeal with the City Clerk within thirty days
after the date of the decision; except that, when an application for exception by filing for
a planned development and /or use permit is made, no appeal will be accepted or
necessary, since the City Council will hear the matter in due course.
14.18 Protected Trees
14.18.020 Definitions.
C. "Development application" means an application for land alteration or
development, including but not limited to subdivision of property, rezoning,
architectural and site approval, two -story residential permit, minor residential permit,
planned tiiziit development permit , variance, and use permit
14.24 Underground Utilities - New Developments
14.24.070 Use Permit Exceptions.
A. The Planning Commission may, through the granting of a planned
development and/or use permit, waive requirements for underground utilities, in
whole or in part, where an applicant shows, to the satisfaction of the Commission:
-20-
Page 24 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
16.04 Building Code Adopted
16.04.050 Address Posting.
No Certificate of Occupancy or final building approval for new construction or
alterations shall be granted until the building; or residence has a street address number
posted on the building in a visible location. The size of the numbers shall be a
minimum of five inches high for commercial or industrial buildings. Residences
designated R3 shall have number sizes of three inches minimum. R1 and Planned wit
Developments shall submit a numbering schedule for approval by the Building
Department and the Fire Department. All ccmmercial buildings having a single
address assigned with multi -suite arrangements shall have the suite - numbering system
approved or assigned by the Building Department with an approved copy to the Fire
Department for emergency use.
16.32 Swimming Pools
16.32.040 Safety Requirements.
A. Every person who owns or is in possession of any premises, whether as
purchaser under contract, lessee, tenant or licensee, on which there is now situated or at
any time hereafter may be situated a swimming pool, fish pond, wading pool or any
other body of water regulated by this chapter, any portion of which is sixteen inches or
more in depth, shall maintain on the lot or premises upon which such swimming pool,
fish pond, wading pool or other artificial body of water is located, and completely
surrounding such body of water, fence, wall or other structure not less than five feet in
height, nor more than six feet in height; provided however, that except for doors or
gates, the horizontal dimension of any opening, holes or gaps in the fence, wall or other
structure shall not exceed three inches and that no offset perpendicular to the horizontal
dimension shall exceed one -half inch; and provided further, that an apartment house,
dwelling house or accessory building may bE used as a part of such enclosure. All gates
or doors opening through such enclosure shall be equipped with a self - closing and self -
latching device designed to keep, and being capable of keeping, such door or gate
securely closed at all times when not in actual use, with such latching either placed five
feet above ground level, or otherwise made inaccessible from the outside to children;
provided however, that the door of any dwelling unit occupied by human beings and
forming any part of the enclosure hereinabove required need not be so equipped. All
such gates or doors shall be kept closed or latched when the pool or body of water is not
under the constant supervision of a qualified adult guard.
B. Manmade decorative pools of water located within a commercial or industrial
development or within a planned - development project where the pool will be
owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association may be maintained at a depth in
-21-
Page 25 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
excess of sixteen inches provided that the design of the pool has all of the following
safety features:
18.28 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps
18.28.050 Filing and Processing.
A vesting tentative map shall be filed in the same form and have the same contents,
accompanying data and reports and shall be processed in the same manner as set forth
in the other provisions of this title for a tentative map except as follows:
A. At the time a vesting tentative map is filed it shall have printed conspicuously
on its face the words "Vesting Tentative Map."
B. A conceptual zoning plan must be adopted and in effect and a use
pe. -rit planned development permit must be approved and in force prior to the filing of
a vesting tentative map for property located in a planned development zone.
C. A development zoning plan or conceptual zoning plan must be adopted as in
effect prior to the filing of a vested tentative map for the subject property.
D. At the time a vesting tentative map is filed, a subdivider shall also file these
other applications, complete with required fees, plans, and other documentation that
would otherwise be required for the recordation of a final map and issuance of building
permits.
19.08 Definitions
19.08.030 Definitions
"Development Permit" means a permit issued by the City Council, Planning,
Commission, Desip1 Review Committee, Director of Community Development, or any
other decision body as empowered by the Cupertino Municipal Code, approving
architecture, site improvements, buildirngs, structures, land and /or uses. Development
Permits maN include but shall not be limited to Administrative Approvals, T-tvo -story
Permits, Minor Residential Permits, Architectural and Site Approvals, Planned
M Permits, Condition v n
Conditional Use Permits, Exceptions, Variances or Subdiisio
1` s. 1
- 22 -
Page 26 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
19.24 Open Space (OS) Zones
19.24.020 Applicability of Regulations.
A. Prohibition. No structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure
shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered, or enlarged in an open space (OS) zone,
otherwise than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter.
B. Limitations to Applicability of Regulations. The open space zoning district may
only be designated on land within the City o.F Cupertino under one, or more, of the
following circumstances:
1. The property owner of the subject property either makes application with the
City for such designation to apply to his or her property, or otherwise gives his or her
written consent to the application of this chapter to his or her property;
2. The subject property is encumbered Ly any recorded open space easement or
written dedication of the development rights granted to the City;
3. The subject property is to remain open space under the terms of any
development agreement entered into pursuant to the City's Ordinance Code, or under
the terms of any written and recorded private agreement, a copy of which is provided
to the City prior to any designation under this chapter;
4. The subject property is to remain open space under any condition of approval to
any implemented entitlement of use, including, but not limited to, planned
development permits, conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps, exceptions,
or building permits issued by the City or any other public agency.
19.36 Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zones
19.36.050 Conceptual Plan.
A. A property owner initiated rezoning in R -3 zones shall be accompanied by a
conceptual development plan.
B. A City- initiated rezoning need not be accompanied by a conceptual
development plan. Prior to development and use of the property, the owner shall
submit a conceptual development plan. 144e-
C. No building permit may be issued for development proposal of a vacant
property presently zoned multiple - family residential until a conceptual development
-23-
Page 27 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
plan is approved +', n' "" G emm i ss ieiz i for the Qt" of Cope in conjunction
with a public hearing for a ^ " ' ^development permit.
19.36.080 Architectural and Site Review.
Signs, landscaping or parking plans and minor modifications to buildings may not
be erected, structurally altered, enlarged or modified without design ev ., b t h e
n ^s g" Review Committee Architectural and Site Approval pursuant to Chapters 2.90
and 19.13 tional use permit is required. the nl nn C„ri,r i
sl4all decide on the action.
19.56 General Commercial (CG) Zones
Section
19.56.010 Purpose.
19.56.020 Applicability of regulation.
19.56.030 Permitted uses.
19.56.040 Conditional uses.
19.56.050 Excluded uses.
19.56.060 Cond;f;e a use Ppermit for new development.
19.56.070 Land use activity and site development regulations.
19.56.080 Interpretation by the Planning Director.
19.56.060 Conditional Use Permit for New Development.
A. Prior to the erection of a new building or structure in a CG zoning district, or
prior to the enlargement or modification of an existing building, structure, or site
(including landscaping and lighting) in a CG zoning district, the applicant for a
building permit must obtain a-use development permits from the Planning Commission
unless the building square footage is five thousand square feet or greater, in which case
the conditien,' ^development permits may only be issued by the City Council upon
recommendation of the Planning Commission.
-24-
Page 28 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
19.56.07 Land Use Activity and Site Development Regulations.
G. Landscaping. The application for u-, , e- clevelopment permits to construct a building
in a general commercial zone shall be accomplished by a concept landscaping plan
which provides an effective year -round landscaping screen in the setback area adjoining
a residential property. The intent of the plan is to screen the building from the rear yard
of a residence. The affected residents will be given notice of hearings and may give
testimony advocating an increase in planting, to provide more screening or reduction in
landscape material to preserve views and /or permit more sun to enter their
property. The intent of the planning requirement is to provide screening within five
years.
19.64 Public Building (BA), Quasi Public Building (BQ) and
Transportation (T) Zones
19.64.070 Requirement of a Development Plan.
Prior to the issuance of a eenditi re development permits or any amendment
thereto, a development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission. The plan
shall include:
A. Types and heights of buildings/ structures and location of areas where
buildings are to be placed;
B. A proposed system of public and private streets, including cross - sections for all
types of streets;
C. Landscape plans;
D. Parking and loading plans as required by this title;
E. Any other information, which the Director of Community Development
requires in order to evaluate the effects of thE' proposed facilities on the surrounding
areas.
19.64.090 Site Development Regulations.
B. Setbacks and Screening.
1. There are no minimum setbacks in BA, BQ or T zoning districts; provided,
however, that the Planning Commission may establish minimum setbacks with respect
to each individual application for a planned d evelopment permit or a conditional use
permit in order to provide adequate light, air and visibility at intersections, and to
-25-
Page 29 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
provide general conformity with adjacent and nearby zones and lots, or to promote the
general excellence of the development;
19.82 Beverage Container Redemption and Recycling Centers
19.82.060 Criteria and Standards.
a't' a1 use per-fp s 4 all et a ll of tlea er it e „a �-t +�- li ,1 in
this 1.111L11U a JlU U J
erection. The criteria and standards for recycling facilities are as follows:
A. Reverse Vending Machines. Reverse vending machines located within a
commercial structure do not require discretionary permits. Reverse vending machines
located outside of a structure shall be regulated by the following standards:
1. Shall be established in conjunction with a commercial use which is in
compliance with the zoning, building and fire codes of the City;
2. Shall be located within a reasonable proximity to the entrance to the commercial
structure and shall not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular circulation;
3. Shall not occupy parking spaces required by the primary use and shall be placed
on the apron of the host facility when possible;
4. Shall occupy no more than fifty square feet of floor space per installation,
including any protective enclosure, and shall be not more than eight feet in height;
5. Shall be constructed and maintained with durable waterproof and rustproof
material;
6. Shall be clearly marked to identify the type of material to be deposited,
operating instructions, and the identity and phone number of the operator or
responsible person to call if the machine is inoperative;
7. Shall have a sign area of a maximum of four square feet per machine, exclusive
of operating instructions;
8. Shall be maintained in a litter -free, dust free condition on a daily basis;
9. Operating hours shall be at least the operating hours of the host use;
10. Shall be illuminated to ensure comfortable and safe operation if operating
hours are between dusk and dawn;
-26-
Page 30 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
11. Shall comply with City's noise ordinance;
12. Sanitation control and practices shall be installed and used to maintain each
site in a manner free of rodents, insects and cther vectors.
19.116 Development Agreements
19.116.120 Review - Standard.
The Planning Commission may recommend use of a development agreement as a
method of implementing or providing standards and criteria for any approval of the
Planning Commission or permits or approvals issued or made by any other City
agency, including:
A. Rezoning;
B. Issuance of a conditional use permit o a planned development permit;
C. Conditions imposed upon approval of a permit after discretionary review;
D. Conditions imposed in connection with the adoption of any General Plan
amendment or specific plan;
E. Conditions imposed in any planned tH4t-development district;
F. Site - specific conditions imposed in any other district;
G. Approval of and /or conditions imposed upon approval of a subdivision or
parcel map or maps;
H. The formation of any assessment district, benefit district, maintenance district
or special benefit district or any other procedure, for the installation of required or
necessary on -site or off -site improvements or infrastructure; and /or
I. Mitigation measures imposed upon a development project after approval of an
environmental impact report in which such mitigation measures have been proposed as
a mechanism for eliminating or reducing environmental impacts, or the criteria for
development of the project without such mitigation measures where specific economic,
social or other considerations make such mitigation measures infeasible or the benefits
of the project outweigh the unavoidable advE-rse environmental effects.
-27-
Page 31 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
19.116.310 Separate Procedure.
All development agreements entail and consist of a separate procedure from other
land use planning procedures and shall not take the place of the zoning ordinances, the
General Plan, planned development permits, conditional use permits, subdivision
approvals, building permits or any other City planning functions. If so specified in the
development agreement, it shall constitute an approval pursuant to such planning
procedures as if separately enacted under other City planning ordinances. To the extent
practicable, public hearings on a proposed development agreement shall be held
concurrently with the public hearings on all related land use approvals and all such
approvals shall be made concurrently with the approval of the development
agreement.
19.118 Required Artwork in Public and Private Developments
19.118.020 Applicability of Regulations.
A. Any development of 50,000 sq. ft. or larger involving construction of new
buildings and /or the expansion of existing buildings shall be subject to the
requirements of this chapter.
B. Additional artwork not mentioned in this chapter by means of specific plan, use
peffflit, planned development eU rmits or other discretionary review may be required
when deemed appropriate by the City Council.
19.124 Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and
Variances
Section
19.124.010 Authority of the Director of Community Development.
19.124.020 Application for planned development permit, conditional use permit or
variance.
19.124.030 Action by the Director.
19.124.040 Notice of public hearing.
19.124.050 Decision after hearing.
19.124.060 Action by the City Council.
ENE
Page 32 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
19.124.070 Planned development perm 'A and c Conditional use permit- Findings
and conditions.
19.124.080 Variance - Findings and concitions.
19.124.090 Effective date.
19.124.100 Expiration, extension and revocation.
19.124.110 Expansion of planned development and conditional uses.
19.124.120 Reports.
19.124.130 Concurrent applications.
19.124.010 Authority of the Director of Community Development.
Subject to the provisions of this chapter and general purpose and intent of this title,
the Director of Community Development may grant the following:
A. A ,. . development - permits which-i75 authorized to be issued by
the Director pursuant to any provision of this title. All other planned development
permits and conditional use permits shall be issued by either the Planning Commission
or the City Council, as provided by this title;
B. A variance from the site development regulations and parking and loading
regulations (except those handicapped parking regulations mandated by State law)
applicable within any district established by this title;
C. A variance from the special conditions that apply to site development and
parking and loading regulations (including conditions attached to planned
developments) applicable within any district established by this title.
D. A request for reasonable accommodation made by aiiy person with a disabilitv,
when the strict application of the provisions within residential districts, act as a barrier
to fair housing opportunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50.
19.124.020 Application for Planned Deve Permit, Conditional Use Permit
or Variance.
A. An application for a plaruzed development permit, conditional use permit or
variance may be made by the owner of record, or his agent, of property for which the
planned development, conditional use permit or variance is sought.
- 29 -
Page 33 of 49
M ARCH 9, 2010
B. Application shall be made to the Director, on a form provided by the City, and
shall contain the following:
1. A description and map showing the location of the property for which the
permit or variance is sought;
2. If the application is for a planned development permit and /or a conditional use
permit, plans and/or descriptions of existing and proposed uses of the property, and
describing in detail the nature of the use proposal to be conducted on the property;
3. If the application is for a variance, plans and /or descriptions of existing and
proposed construction on the property involved, together with a statement of the
circumstances which justify the various applications;
4. Such additional information as the Director may deem pertinent and essential to
the application.
C. Application for planned development permit, conditional use permit or
variance shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed by City Council resolution, no part
of which shall be returnable to the applicant.
19.124.030 Action by the Director.
Unless otherwise provided by Section 19.04.090 regarding combined applications,
the following actions shall be taken by the Director to process an application for a
varianc developmennt permit of conditional use permit or variance
Upon receipt of a complete application for a c ifi ,' �plaiu�ed development
permit conditional use permit or variance, the Director shall, within thirty days from
the date the application is deemed by him to be complete, set a date for a public hearing
upon the matter either before or at a regular or special meeting of the Planning
Commission, as the case may be, unless the application is diverted for administrative
approval, pursuant to Section 19.132.030. The public hearing shall commence within
sixty days of the date it is set.
19.124.070 Planned Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit - Findings and
Conditions.
A. The decisionmaker may grant a planned development permit or a conditional
use permit only if all of the following findings are made:
1. The proposed development and /or use, at the proposed location, will not be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
-30-
Page 34 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
2. The proposed development and/or u 3e will be located and conducted in a
manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of
this title.
B. The decisionmaker may impose with reasonable conditions or restrictions as he
deems necessary to secure the purpose of this title and to assure operation of the
development and /or use in a manner compatible with existing and potential uses on
adjoining properties and in the general vicinity.
C. use P permits are approved for a two. -year period or a longer period of time to
be determined by the decision - making body.
19.124.090 Effective Date.
A anditi a' � planned development permit conditional use or variance shall take
effect ten working days following the mailing of the notice of decision, unless an appeal
is filed as provided in Chapter 19.132.
19.124.100 Expiration, Extension and Revocation.
A. Expiration.
1. A plaru development permit, conditional use permit or variance which has
not been used within two years following its issuance, shall become null and void and
of no effect, unless a shorter or longer time period is specifically prescribed in the
conditions of such permit or variance. A permit or variance shall be deemed to be
"used" when actual substantial and continuous activity has taken place upon the land
subject to the permit or variance or, in the event of the erection of a structure or
structures, when sufficient building activity Eas occurred and continues to occur in a
diligent manner.
2. Notwithstanding subsection 1 of this section, if the use for which a conditional
use permit was granted and utilized has ceased or has been suspended for one year or
more, said permit becomes null and void.
3. Unless a variance has expired pursuant to subsection 1 of this section, it shall
continue to exist for the life of the existing structure or such structure as may be
constructed pursuant to the variance approval unless a different time period is specified
in its issuance. A variance from the parking <<nd loading regulations shall be valid only
during the period of continuous operations of the use and/or structure for which the
variance was issued.
B. Extensions. The decisionmaker grant.ng the original planned development
permit, conditional use permit or variance may, without public hearing, extend the time
-31-
Page 35 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
for the use of such permit or variance for a maximum of one year only, upon
application filed by the applicant with the Director prior to expiration. Upon timely
filing of an extension request with the Director, the time for which a permit or variance
must be used shall be automatically extended until the request is heard by the
decisionmaker.
C. Revocation. In any case where, in the judgment of the Director, substantial
evidence indicates that the conditions of a planned development permit, conditional use
permit or variance have not been implemented, or where the permit or variance is being
conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, the
Director shall set a date for a public hearing before the decisions-maker granting the
original permit or variance, and notice a public hearing in accordance with Section
19.124.040 of this code.
19.124.110 Expansion of Planned Development or Conditional Uses.
A. Any significant expansion in building size on site area of a planned
development or conditional use shall necessitate the issuance of a new lap ruled
development permit or conditional use permit for the expansion in accord with the
provisions of this chapter.
B. No applications for a planned development permit or conditional use permit
shall be necessary for existing uses which were lawful conforming permitted uses and
which were rendered conditional by reason of rezoning or change to this title, provided
that any expansion in the building site or site area of such use shall be subject to the
issuance of a planned development permit or conditional use permit in accord with this
chapter.
19.124.120 Reports.
The Director of Community Development shall make written reports to the City
Council and Planning Commission of the action he/she has taken on each application
for planned development permit, conditional use permits and variances. A written
report describing Planning Commission decisions shall be forwarded to the City
Council within five calendar days from the date of the decision.
19.124.130 Concurrent Applications.
Notwithstanding any provision in this title to the contrary, any application for a
plaiuled development permit, conditional use permit or variance which would
normally be issued by the Director of Community Development or the Planning
Commission may, at the discretion of the Director, be processed concurrently with
applications for General Plan amendments, zoning changes, subdivision maps or other
approvals which require City Council approval.
-32-
Page 36 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
19.134 Architectural and Site Review
19.134.030 Authority of the Planning Commission.
Subject to the provisions of this chapter and to the general purpose and intent of this
title, the Planning Commission shall decide on the architectural and site design in such
zones where such review is required or when required by a condition to a planned
development permit, use permit, variance, or any other entitlement of use.
19.134.090 Findings and Conditions.
A. The Design Review Committee or the Planning Commission may approve an
application only if all of the following findings are made:
1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan,
any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable planned development permit,
conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other entitlements to use which
regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following
specific criteria.
-33-
Page 37 of 49
r , dM .
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
19.50 Reasonable Accommodation
Section
19.50.010 Purpose
19.50.020 Applicability
19.50.030 Application Requirements
19.50.040 Approval Authority, Procedure and Decision
19.50.050 Findings
19.50.060 Appeals
19.50.010 Purpose.
This chapter provides a procedure to request reasonable accommodation for persons
with disabilities seeking equal access to housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act,
the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, and the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act the Acts) in the application of development or land use regulations.
19.50.020 Applicability.
A request for reasonable accommodation may:
A. Be made only for existing residential dwellings or second dwellin units.
B. Be made by any person who is defined as disabled under the Acts, when the
application of development or land use regulations act as a barrier to fair housing
opportunities.
C. Include a variance to the development or land use regulations that would eliminate
regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to
housing of their choice.
19.50.030 Application Requirements.
w
A. Application shall be made to the Director of Community Development, on a form
provided by the City, and shall contain the following_
1. A description and neap showing the location of the property for vyhich the request
for reasonable accommodation is sought;
2. Plans or descriptions of existing and proposed construction on the property
involved together Nvith a statement of the circumstances which justifies the request
for reasonable accommodation;
-34-
Page 38 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
3. Such additional information as the Director may deem pertinent and essential to the
application, including, but not limited to:
a. why the individual is considered disabled under t h` -
b. the development or land use regulations from which r� ai o fable accommodation
is being requested; and
C. why the reasonable accommodation i necessary to make the specific property
accessible to the individual.
B. Application for a request for reasonable accommodation shall be accompanied by
the fee prescribed by Cite Council resolu no part of which shall be returnable to
the applicant.
19.50.040 Approval Authority, Procedure and Decision.
A. Approval Authority.
1. Director of Community Development. Requests for reasonable accommodation
shall be reviewed by the Director of C ommunitv Development Director), or his
designee.
2. Other Approval Authority. Requests for reasonable accommodation submitted
for concurrent reviexn Nvith other applications shall be approved by the body
having final decision - making authority over the combined application.
B. Procedure. No public noticing or hearin+; is required.
C. Decision. A written determination of the final decision shall be mailed to the
applicant.
19.50.050 Findings.
A. The approval body may grant a request f reasonable accommodation only if all of
the follo findings are made:
1. The proposed improvements are necessary to provide housing access for persons
disabled under the Acts;
2. The reasonable accommodation
g ranted is one that will accomplish the purpose
with the least modification to the development or land use regulations from v��hich
reasonable accommodation is being requested;
c
3. The granting of the reasonable accommodation will not be detrimental or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose
of the title; and
4. The requested reasonable accommodatio Avould not impose an undue financial or
administrative burden on the Citv.
-35-
Page 39 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
B. Conditions of Approval. In branting_a request for reasonable accommodation, the
approval body may impose any conditions of approval deemed reasonable and
necessar�7 to ensure that the reasonable accommodation complies with the findings in
Section 19.50.050(A).
19.50.060 Appeals.
A decision by the approval body regarding the Ze request for reasonable accommodation
may be appealed pursuant to Chapter 19.136.
19.16 Agricultural (A) Zones
19.16.020 Applicability of Regulations.
No building or structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be
hereafter erected, structurally altered, or enlarged in an (A) agricultural zone, otherwise
than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter. Notwithstanding the above,
request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a disability,
when the strict application of the provisions in this chapter, act as - a barrier to fair
housing opportunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50.
19.20 Agricultural- Residential (A -1) Zones
19.20.020 Applicability of Regulations.
No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be
hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an agricultural- residential (A -1)
district other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other
applicable provisions of this title. Notwithstanding the above, request for reasonable
accommodation max be made by any person with a disability, when the strict
application of the provisions in this chapter, act as a barrier to fair housing
opportunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50.
19.28 Single Family Residential (R1) Zones
19.28.110 Exceptions.
A. Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from
the strict application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to section 19.28.060, 19.28.070
and 19.28.120 may be granted as provided in this section.
A Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Community
Development Department shall set a time and place for a public hearing before the
Design Review Committee and send a notice by first class mail to all owners of record
of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred
feet of the subject property. Properties that are adjacent to the subject site, including
those across a public or private street, shall receive a reduced scale copy of the plan set
with the public notice.
-36-
Page 40 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
-9 Decision. After closing the public hearing, the decision -maker shall approve,
conditionally approve, or deny the application based on the findings in this section.
Any interested party can appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter 19.136.
C Expiration of an Exception. Unless EL building permit is filed and accepted by
the City (fees paid and control number issued) within one year of the Exception
approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a longer time period was
specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building
permit expires for any reason, the Exception shall become null and void. The Director of
Community Development may grant a one -year extension, without a public notice, if an
application for a Minor Modification to the Exception is filed before the expiration date
and substantive justification for the extension is provided.
D4. Findings for Approval.
47 Issued by the Director of Community Development. The Director of
Community Development may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulation
described in Section 19.28.060 G(4) upon making all of the following findings:
ai. The project fulfills the intent of the visible second -story wall height regulation
in that the number of two -story wall planes and the amount of visible second story wall
area is reduced to the maximum extent possible.
-b The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the
prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish the
purpose.
e The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed
from abutting properties.
? Issued by the Design Review Committee. The Design Review Committee may
grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulations described in Section 19.28.060,
except 19.28.060 G(4) and Section 19.28.130 upon making all of the following findings:
al. The literal enforcement of this chaptE-r will result in restrictions inconsistent
with the spirit and intent of this chapter.
b The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements
in the area, nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare.
e The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification of
the prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish the
purpose. b
d The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed
from abutting properties.
-37-
Page 41 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
B. Notwithstanding the above, a request for reasonable accommodation may be made
by any person with a disability, when the strict application of the provisions in this
chapter, act as a barrier to fair housing_ opportunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50.
19.28.130 Development Regulations- (R1 -a).
R1 -a districts are intended to reinforce the semi -rural setting in neighborhoods with
large lots. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to
properties zoned R1 -a. In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this
chapter and this section, this section shall prevail.
A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. The minimum lot size is ten thousand square
feet.
B. Lot Width. The mini's lot width is seventy -five feet measured at the front -
yard setback line.
C. Second Story Area. A second floor shall be no more than forty percent of the
first floor, except as follows:
1. A second floor may be at least seven hundred square feet in area.
2. In no case shall a second floor be more than one thousand one hundred square
feet in area.
D. Setback - First Story.
1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is thirty feet.
2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is ten feet.
3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet.
E. Setback - Second Story.
1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is thirty feet.
2. Side Yard. The combined side yard setbacks shall be thirty -five feet, with a
minimum of fifteen feet.
3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is forty feet.
4. The setback surcharge in Section 19.28.060 E(3) does not apply in this di9ttict.
F. Second -story Regulations.
1. Second story decks shall conform to the second -story building setbacks, and
may be located on the front and rear only.
2. The second -story shall not cantilever over a first -story wall plane.
Page 42 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
3. The front - facing wall plane(s) of the second -story must be offset a minimum of
three feet from the first -story wall plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid a
two -story wall plane on the front elevation.
G. Front Yard Paving. No more than fifty percent of the front yard setback area
may be covered with a combination of impervious or semi- pervious surfaces. No more
than forty percent of the front yard setback area may be covered with an impervious
surface such as concrete or asphalt.
H. Heights. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single -story
structures and single -story sections of two - story structures must fit into a building
envelope defined by:
1. A twelve -foot high vertical line measured from natural grade and located ten
feet from property lines;
2. A twenty -five degree roof line angle projected inward at the twelve -foot high
line referenced in subsection H(2)(1) of this section.
I. Variation from the R1 and R1 -a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to
Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code in the R1 -a district. Notwithstandin
the above, a request for reasonable accommodation map be made by any person with a
disability, when the strict application of the provisions in this section, act as a barrier to
fair housingOlportunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50.
J. Design Review. All two -story develoFment shall require discretionary review
based on Section 19.28.100, except that the Design Review Committee shall approve or
deny the project at a public hearing based on the findings in subsection N(1) of this
section.
K. Design Guidelines. The guidelines in this section shall be used in conjunction
with the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines. In cases where there may
be conflict between the two sets of guidelines, this Section shall take precedence.
Nonconformance with the guidelines shall be considered acceptable only if the
applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project.
1. Second -story windows. Windows on - :he side elevations should be fixed and
obscured to a height of six feet above the second floor, should have permanent exterior
louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor or should have sill heights of five
feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor's privacy.
2. All second story wall heights greater than six feet, as measured from the second
story finished floor, should have building wall offsets at least every twenty -four feet,
with a minimum four -foot depth and ten -foot width.
The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane.
-39-
Page 43 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
3. Section 19.28.060 G(4) is considered a guideline in the R1 -a district.
4. Garages. The maximum width of a garage on the front elevation should be
twenty -five feet, which will accommodate a two -car garage. Additional garage spaces
should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a detached accessory
structure at the rear of the property.
L. Permitted Yard Encroachments.
1. Where a principal building legally constructed according to existing yard and
setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches, upon present required yards,
one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its existing building line.
a. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback
and the height of the existing non- conforming wall and the extended wall may not be
increased.
b. In no case shall any wall plane of a first -story addition be placed closer than
three feet to any property line.
c. This section does not apply to attached accessory structures such as attached
carports.
d. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to allow the
further extension of an encroachment by any building, which is the result of the
granting of a variance or exception, either before or after such property become part of
the City.
2. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required
yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or
combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend
closer than three feet to any property line.
3. Front Porch. Traditional, open porches are encouraged in this zone. When
viewed from the street, a porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in
height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a proportionately greater
height than its width. Use of this yard encroachment provision shall require the
approval of the Director of Community Development.
a. Posts. Vertical structural supports, such as posts, for porches are allowed to
encroach two feet into the required front setback. Structural supports must be designed
such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive.
b. Columns. The use of large columns or pillars is discouraged.
c. Fencing. Low, open fencing for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the
required front setback area.
-40-
Page 44 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
d. Eave Height. The eave height for a front porch should not be significantly taller
than the eave height of typical single -story elements in the neighborhood.
e. Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and
caps for posts and fence elements.
f. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required
front setback.
M. Landscaping.
1. Landscaping plans are required for all additions or new homes. The purpose of
the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building
forms from the street and adjacent properties. Specific measures are not prescribed.
Generally, the landscaping may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines
on fences.
2. Landscaping plans for two -story development shall include specific mitigations
for impacts from mass, bulk and privacy intrusion as required in Section 19.28.070 of
the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that:
a. Privacy planting shall have a minimum setback from the property line
equivalent to one - quarter of the spread noted on the City list.
b. Privacy trees shalt have a minimum height of twelve feet at the time of planting.
c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views from second -story
windows across the street to neighboring homes are partially mitigated.
d. The Director may waive the front yard tree based on a report from an
internationally certified arborist citing conflict with existing mature trees.
N. Design Review Findings.
1. Findings. The Design Review Committee may approve a design review
application for two -story development only upon making all of the findings below:
a. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and Title 19 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code.
b. The granting 6# ermit will not result in detrimental or injurious conditions
to property or improvements in the vicinity, or to the public health, safety or welfare.
c. The project is generally compatible with the established pattern of building
forms, building materials and designs of homes in the neighborhood.
-41-
Page 45 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
d. The project is consistent with the City's single - family residential design
guidelines and the guidelines in this chapter and any inconsistencies have been found
to not result in impacts on neighbors.
e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from adjoining
properties have been mitigated to the maximum extent possible.
19.32 Residential Duplex (R -2) Zones
19.32.020 Applicability of Regulations.
No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be
hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R -2 residential duplex district
other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable
provisions of this title. Notwithstanding the above, request for reasonable
accommodation max be made by any person with a disability, when the strict
application of the provisions in this chapter, act as a barrier to fair housing,
opportunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50.
19.36 Multiple - Family Residential (R -3) Zones
19.36.020 Applicability of Regulations.
No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be
hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in a multiple- family residential (R -3)
zoning district, otherwise than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and
other applicable provisions of this title. Notwithstanding the above, request for
reasonable accommodation may be made by any person -,vith a disability, when the
strict application of the provisions in this chapter, act as a barrier to fair housing
opportunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50.
19.40 Residential Hillside (RHS) Zones
19.40.140 Exception for Development of Certain Individual Hillside Lots.
A. With respect to a request for development of a legally created individual
hillside lot which does not meet the development requirements contained in Sections
19.40.050D through M and 19.40.060 through 19.40.090 and 19.40.110 through 19.42.120
of this chapter, the Planning Commission shall grant an exception to allow
development if the subject property cannot be merged with adjacent property pursuant
to Government Code Sections 66451.10 -- 66451.21 and if the commission, based upon
substantial evidence, makes all of the following findings:
1. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in
the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety.
-42-
Page 46 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
2. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian
or vehicular traffic.
3. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services
are available to serve the development.
4. The proposed development requires an exception which involves the least
modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this
chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonablE' use of the parcel.
5. All alternative locations for development on the parcel have been considered
and have been found to create greater environmental impacts than the location of the
proposed development.
6. The proposed development does not consist of structures on or near known
geological or environmental hazards which have been determined by expert testimony
to be unsafe or hazardous to structures or persons residing therein. (See General Plan
Policies 2 -49.)
7. The proposed development includes grading and drainage plans which will
ensure that erosion and scarring of the hillsides caused by necessary construction of
roads, housing sites, and improvements will be minimized. (See General Plan Policies
2 -53, 2 -54 and 2 -57.)
S. The proposed development does not consist of structures which would disrupt
the natural silhouette of ridgelines as viewed from established vantage points on the
valley floor unless either:
a. The location of a structure on a ridgeLne is necessary to avoid greater negative
environmental impacts; or
b. The structure could not otherwise be physically located on the parcel and the
size of the structure is the minimum which is necessary to allow for a reasonable use of
the parcel. (See General Plan Policies 2 -46, 2 -47 and 2 -48.)
9. The proposed development consists of structures incorporating designs, colors,
materials, and outdoor lighting which blend with the natural hillside environment and
which are designed in such a manner as to reduce the effective visible mass, including
building height, as much as possible without creating other negative environmental
impacts. (See General Plan Policies 2 -46, 2 -50, 2 -51 and 2 -52.)
10. The proposed development is located on the parcel as far as possible from
public open space preserves or parks (if visible therefrom), riparian corridors, and
wildlife habitats unless such location will create other, more negative environmental
impacts. (See General Plan Policies 2 -55, 5 -14 and 5 -28.)
-43-
Page 47 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
11. The proposed development includes a landscape plan which retains as many
specimen trees as possible, which utilizes drought - tolerant native plants and ground
covers consistent with nearby vegetation, and which minimizes lawn areas. (See
General Plan Policies 2 -54, 5 -15 and 5 -16.)
12. The proposed development confines solid fencing to the areas near a structure
rather than around the entire site. (See General Plan Policy 5 -17.)
13. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan
and with the purposes of this chapter as described in Section 19.40.010.
B. An application for exception must be submitted on a form as prescribed by the
Director of Community Development. The application shall be accompanied by a fee
prescribed by City Council resolution, no part of which shall be refundable, to the
applicant. Upon receipt of an application for an exception, the Director shall issue a
Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission for an exception under this
chapter in the same manner as provided in Section 19.120.060 (relating to zoning
changes). After a public hearing, and consideration of the application in conjunction
with the mandatory findings contained in subsection A above, the Planning
Commission shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application for an
exception. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City
Council as provided in Section 19.136.060.
C. An exception which has not been used within two years following the effective
date thereof, shall become null and void and of no effect unless a shorter time period
shall specifically be prescribed by the conditions of such permit or variance. An
exception permit shall be deemed to have been "used" in the event of the erection of a
structure or structures when sufficient building activity has occurred and continues to
occur in a diligent manner.
D. In addition to any other remedies, the City Attorney is authorized to commence
and maintain a civil action to enforce the provisions of this chapter or any conditions
attached to the granting of any permit or exception granted under this chapter.
E. Notwithstanding the above, a request for reasonable accommodation may be
made by any person with a disability, when the strict application of the provisions in
this chapter, act as a barrier to fair housing opportunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50.
19.44 Residential Single - Family Cluster (R1 -C) Zones
19.44.020 Applicability of Regulations.
A. The requirements of this chapter, unless waived or modified, must be met with
respect to all real properties intended to be developed as, or converted to, a single -
family residential cluster development as described in this chapter, including the
conversion of existing apartment houses to condominiums.
-44-
Page 48 of 49
MARCH 9, 2010
B. The requirements of this chapter can be waived or modified if the Planning
Commission and City Council make any one of the following findings:
1. Although one or more specific standards cannot be complied with because of
property size constraints, existing building morphology, topographical problems, or
other conditions beyond the control of the property owner/ developer, the proposed
project substantially complies with the general standards contained within this chapter;
2. That the proposal provides for low - moderate income and senior citizen housing
in a manner consistent with the housing element of the General Plan.
C. Compliance with the requirements of this chapter does not relieve the owner or
developer of property intended to be included in a single- family residential cluster zone
from complying with all other applicable City ordinances or conforming to the
provisions of the City's General Plan.
D. No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall
be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in a residential cluster zone,
otherwise than in conformance with the following provisions; except that uses,
buildings and structures lawfully in existence at the time this chapter takes effect may
remain as long as no alterations take place (except those alterations permitted by Santa
Clara Ordinance NS -1200, Section 30, as it existed on October 10, 1955, which has been
adopted by the City of Cupertino).
E. Notwithstanding the above, a request for reasonable accommodation may be
made by any person with a disability, when the strict application of the provisions in
this chapter, act as a barrier to fair housing o�)portunities, pursuant to Chapter 19.50.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council this 6th day of
April, 2010, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council this
day of . 2010, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
-45-
Page 49 of 49
Attachment E
ARE 1
ZONING PLAT DESCRIPTION
27 PARCELS IN THE NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD PLANNING AREA
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Area to be rezoned from P (CG, ML, Res 4 -10) to 3 (CG, ML, Res)
All of that certain real property, situated in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of
California, being more particularly described as follows;
Being the portion of land bounded within the below cescribed public rights of way and property lines as
follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Lazaneo Drive, and the centerline of North De Anza
Boulevard, and proceeding westerly, along the centerline of Lazaneo Drive, to the intersection of the
centerline of Lazaneo Drive, and the centerline of Bandley Drive;
Thence, proceeding northerly, along the centerline of Bandley Drive, to the intersection of the centerline
of Bandley Drive, and the centerline of Valley Green Drive;
Thence, proceeding westerly, along the centerline of `,/alley Green Drive, to the intersection of the
centerline of Valley Green Drive, and the centerline o1= Beardon Drive;
Thence, proceeding northerly, along the centerline of Beardon Drive, to the end of said centerline of
Beardon Drive;
Thence, continuing along the projection of the centerline of Beardon Drive, said projection being also
the common property line between Lot 1, located on westerly side of said projection, as said lot is
shown on Tract No. 4776, which was filed for record in Book 260 of Maps at pages 52 and 53, and
Parcels 3 and 4, located on the easterly side of said projection, as said parcels are shown on that certain
Parcel Map, which was filed for record in Book 344 of Maps at Page 10, and proceeding northerly, along
said common property line to the southerly right of way line of Interstate 280;
Thence, proceeding easterly, along the southerly right of way line of Interstate 280, to the northwest
corner of Parcel 1, as said parcel is shown on that certain Parcel Map, which was filed for record in Book
344 of Maps at Page 10;
Thence, proceeding southerly, along the westerly property line of said Parcel 1, to the southwesterly
corner of said Parcel 1;
Thence, proceeding easterly, along the southerly property line of said Parcel 1, to the southeasterly
corner of said Parcel 1;
Thence, continuing along the projection of said southerly line of said Parcel 1, to the centerline of North
De Anza Boulevard;
Thence, proceeding southerly, along the centerline of North De Anza Boulevard, to the intersection of
the centerline of North De Anza Boulevard, and the centerline of Lazaneo Drive, said point, being the
Point of Beginning;
In addition thereto, the following properties, and those portions of land located within the right of way,
from the property line to the centerline of the street, along the frontage of said properties, are included
in this description;
1) Being all of Parcel 'A', as said parcel is shown an that certain Parcel Map, which was filed for
record on June 11, 1975, in Book 357 of Maps at Page 16, Santa Clara County Official Records.
2) Being all of Lots 1 through 5, as said lots are shown on Tract No. 9748, which was filed for record
on December 14, 2005, in Book 484 of Maps at Pages 48 & 49, Santa Clara County Official
Records.
3) Being all of Parcel B, as said parcel is shown o that certain Parcel Map, which was filed for
record on July 29, 1980, in Book 468 of Maps at Page 9, Santa Clara County Official Records.
4) Being all of Parcel A, as said parcel is shown on that certain Parcel Map, which was filed for
record on December 22, 1980, in Book 477 of Maps at Pages 28 & 29, Santa Clara County Official
Records.
5) Being that portion of Lot 19, located west of'isuture Bandley Drive', as said lot is shown on that
certain Record of Survey, which was filed for record on August 24, 1972, in Book 307 of Maps at
page 29, Santa Clara County Official Records.
The areas described herein containing approximately 59.13 +/- acres.
End of Description.
ARE 2
ZONING PLAT DESCRIPTION
25 PARCELS LOCATED ON ARCADIA COURT AND ALONG GREENLEAF DRIVE
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Area to be rezoned from P (CG, ML, Res 4 -10) to 31 -7
All of that certain real property, situated in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of
California, being more particularly described as follows;
Being all of Lots 1 through 25, as said lots are shown on Tract No. 6259, which was filed for record on
April 7, 1978, in Book 416 of Maps at Pages 23 & 24, Santa Clara County Official Records.
In Addition thereto, that portion of land located within the right of way, along the frontage of said
properties, to the centerline of the street, is included in this description;
Containing approximately 6.21 +/- acres.
End of Description.
AREj 3
ZONING PLAT DESCRIPTION
10455 BANDLEY DRIVE
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Area to be rezoned from P (CG, ML, BQ, Res 4 -10) to 1' (CG, ML, BO, Res)
All of that certain real property, situated in the City oi: Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of
California, being more particularly described as follows;
Being all of Parcel 1, as said parcel is shown on that certain Parcel Map, which was filed for record on
January 24, 1979, in Book 434 of Maps at Page 42, Santa Clara County Official Records.
In Addition thereto, that portion of land located within the right of way, along the frontage of said
property, to the centerline of Bandley Drive, is included in this description;
Containing approximately 3.15 +/- acres.
End Description
I._.. __.... _- .. -.._ ... _....__. _.-- JUMPERO- SI >RRAFWY- _._.... ..__.. ......- .._ ..................._.
INTERSTATE 280
TRACT NO. 4776
LOT 1
P.M. 344 -M -10
PCL. 4
P.M. 344 -M -10
PCL. 1
N
W +E
S
P.M. 344 -M -10
PCL. 3
P.M. 344 -M -10
AREA 1 PCL. 2
P.M. 249 -M -9 2,575,503.82 SF
PCL1 59.13 AC 1 PM 249 -M -9 !
TO BE REZONED FROM PORTION j
P (CG, ML, RES 4 -10) TO 011 OF PCL. 3 j
........_._.._... .... ........
:
P (CG, ML, RES)
VALLEY GREEN ..DR._
P.M. 420 -M -45
PCL. 1
P.M. 357 -M -16
PCL. A - INFINITE -LOOP.
P.M. 420 -M -45
PCL. 2
TRACT NO. 6259 "
LOTS 1 THRU 25,
AREA 2 :: ; :: TRACT NO. 6259
270,419.30 SF LOT 26
6.21 AC
TO BE REZONED FROM
P (CG, ML, RES 4 -10)
TO R1-7
.....
GREENL .... _ ....... --- ... _ - __ ..._ _ MAR IAN /- AVE
................. .
TRACT 110. 97 8 PM PM PM 469 -M -39
LOTS HRU 468 -M -9 469 -M -39 PCL. B
.......... •::'.....
::....... PCL. B PCL. A
7.
-'- DUNBAR -DR
-
PM 477 M -28 & 29 PM 584 M -23 & 24
PCL. A PCL. A
FARGO DR- - -.- PM 434 -M-42
PC 1 A 3p AREA 3 137,382.99 SF 3.15 AC ROS 31 TO BE REZONED FROM { PCL. 1
P (CG, ML, BQ, RES 4 -10) 1 L, BQ, RES) HANFORD DR
PCL. B °
ROS 307 -M -29 m
PCL. 19 w
REMAINDER
a
__ . - _ ......_ .._ ......._ ..._ ... . GARDEN GATE -DR
PM 455 -M -8
PCL. 1
PM 392 -M -18
PCL. A
ZONING PLAT MAP
Z- 2010 -01
Prepared by the City of Cupertino
03/05/10
w
all
Y
Q
Z- 2010 -02
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue Attachment F
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6586
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING RE- ZONING OF:
59.13 ACRES FROM P(CG,ML,RES 4 -10), PLANNED GENERAL COMMERCIAL,
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL WITH A DENSITY OF 4 -10 UNITS
PER GROSS ACREA, TO P(CG, ML,RES), PLANNED GENERAL
COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
6.21 ACRES FROM P(CG, ML, RES 4 -10), PLANNED GENERAL COMMERCIAL,
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTLAL WITH A DENSITY OF 4 -10 UNITS
PER GRPSS ACRE, TO R1 -7, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH
A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 7,000 SQUARE FEET
3.15 ACRES FROM P(CG, ML, BQ, RES 4 -10), PLANNED GENERAL COMMERCIAL,
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, QUASI- PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND RESIDENTIAL WITH A
DENSITY OF 4 -10 UNITS PER GROSS ACRE, TO P(CG, ML, BQ, RES),
PLANNED GENERAL COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,
QUASI- PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND RESIDENTIAL
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: Z- 2010 -02
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Area in the N De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan Area generally
located west of N. De Anza Boulevard, north of Lazaneo Drive and
south of 280 Fwy and residential parcels located on Arcadia Court
& along the north side near the terminus of Greenleaf Drive
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for the rezoning of property, as described in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the
following requirements:
Resolution No. 6586 Z- 2010 -02 March 9, 2010
Page 2
1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City
of Cupertino.
2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to
the new zoning designation.
3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land.
4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of subject parcels.
5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application no. Z- 2010 -02 is hereby recommended for
approval; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application Z- 2010 -02, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting
of March 9, 2010, and are incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on Attachment 6: Legal Descriptions
and Zoning Plat Map, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in
this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of March 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Kaneda, Miller,
Giefer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Gary Chao /s/ Paul Brophy
Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair
City Planner Planning Commission
GPA- 2008 -01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, Ca:'.ifornia 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6587
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL .APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: GPA- 2008 -01 (EA- 2009 -05)
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held public hearings and considered public
testimony from citizens, and from representatives from other public agencies and interested
groups; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Initial Study which evaluated the
potential significant impacts that the General Plan amendment may have on the environment;
and
WHEREAS, said Initial Study reflects the independent judgment of the Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that certain potential environmental impacts
resulting from adoption of the project may cause a significant effect upon the environment, but
that changes have been incorporated into the project to avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect and a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Attachment 1: Draft
Housing Element of the General Plan to the City Council
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of March 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Miller, Kaneda, Giefer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s /Gary Chao /s /Paul Brophy
Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair
City Planner Planning Commission
MCA - 2010 -02
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6588
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS TO COMPLY WITH THE HOUSING
ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the
City of Cupertino Municipal Code as shown in Attachment 5: Municipal Code
Amendments.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of March 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Miller, Kaneda,
Giefer
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST:
/s/ Gary Chao
Gary Chao
City Planner
APPROVED:
/s/Paul Brophy
Paul Brophy, Chair
Planning Commission
Cupertino Planning Commission 6
Attachment G
March 9, 2010
that home and subdivide and increase density in the neighborhood. There is always that
emotional side of any redevelopment proposal that comes in. This is consistent; it meet e
eneral Plan, and meets our zoning. If we have agreement from the Planning Com sion
regards to trying to salvage as many of the existing trees thrZssible f way
side \1k, ould move forward on that.
Gary C
• Said a conditi could be added to state that to the maximum ex shall
work with the ap ' ant and Public Works stalTto preserve as man
Chair Brophy:
• Said he was not looking to d a condition to this but if applicant could look at the house
and to the extent that Mrs. Gri 's point and Mr. M y's point that there may be redwood
or other useful materials that coul recycled, th ommission would appreciate that.
Gary Chao:
• Said there is a condition that address �t in terms of recycling, which is a standard
condition.
Com. Kaneda:
• Explained the X ruction where a decons tion company comes in and takes
down a home aterials; it costs about the e amount as demolition but the
materials are ss a write off, which covers the st of the deconstruction.
Motion: Moti second by Com. Kaneda, and car 4 -0 -1, Com.
r abstained, to approve Application TM- 2010 -01 h the additional
nguage added specifically to request Public Works to t o preserve as
many trees as possible in the public right -of -way
Chair Brophy declared a recess.
OLD BUSINESS
3. GPA- 2008 -01 (EA- 2009 -05)
Z- 2010 -02, MCA - 2010 -02
City of Cupertino
Citywide Location
(a) General Plan Amendment for 2007 -2014 Housing
Element update.
Paul Penninger, Bay Area Economics, Consultant, presented the staff report:
• The Housing Element is one of seven required elements of the General Plan and is updated
under State law every 7 to 10 years. The process began over a year ago with community
meetings, collecting background information, reaching out to stakeholders and developing new
policies, guidelines and procedures to address some new changes in State law which required
us to have a more extensive inventory of residential sites as part of the housing element.
• Said the City Council approved staff forwarding a Draft Housing Element to the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in June 2009. Under State law,
HCD had 60 days to review the housing element and provide the city with comments which
were received at the end of August 2009. Since then staff, along with consultants, have been
participating in an ongoing discussion with HC and have submitted additional information as
requested by the HCD to address some of the issues they brought up in their letter to the city
about bringing the housing element into compliance with State procedures, regulations and
Cupertino Planning Commission % March 9, 2010
Housing Element law.
• The Planning Commission is being asked to consider the revised Draft Housing Element and
relevant amendments to the Municipal Code as well as the rezoning of some parcels on North
DeAnza. The City Council will then review all three issues at their April 6, 2010 meeting. He
reviewed the State HCD comments and key Municipal Code amendments; rezoning
approximately 50 acres in the North DeAnza area; the Initial Study, as outlined in the
overhead presentation.
• The Planning Commission is being asked to adopt the 2007 -2014 Housing Element and
forward it to the City Council for review and approval before it is forwarded to HCD so they
can certify it as being in compliance with State law; recommend adoption of the Model
Ordinance amending the Municipal Code as it relates to the 2007 -2014 Housing Element; and
recommend approval of application Z- 2010 -02 to create consistency between the zoning map,
the Housing Element and the 2005 General Plan.
Vera Gil, Senior Planner:
• Said there were comments from the community relative to the Villages and Glenbrook
apartment complexes at the City Council meeting that the Planning Department look at
apartment complexes that are under- utilized, and haven't developed to their maximum, and
there is the ability to do things such as at Villa Serra or Lake Biltmore to get rid of some older
architectural features or landscaping features such as lakes, tennis courts and parking areas that
were reconfigured to put new buildings in. There is the capacity on some of the sites, and
there is a history of developers wanting to update, maximize the density on their properties.
Suggestions came from the community when they went out to some of the properties and said
that is what they found is palatable, they are suggestions. The City Council appreciated it as
well as staff.
Gary Chao:
• Explained the rezoning process for the parcels. The property owners are individually notified
within that area in addition to a radius of 1,000 feet around that boundary. In terms of the
process, it is not necessarily required to go through at the same time as the Housing Element
but it is seen as an opportunity to clean house. There is only one parcel within the 50 acres of
land that is required as part of the Housing Element to be rezoned. If doing it for one parcel,
they need to ensure that all the parcels surrounding it will be consistent with the General Plan
as well. As part of this process, with your recommendation, if the recommendation is
favorable to rezone, it is going to be carried forth to the City Council for consideration and
there is two readings associated with that part.
Com. Giefer:
• Have we ever requested rezoning and had a property owner disagree; and what is their
recourse?
Gary Chao:
• Their recourse is to attend the public hearing, voice their concerns and also go through the
appeal process. He added that they received several phone calls and inquiries and all the
property owners he spoke to who are affected, agree to the change because it is bringing more
benefit to their land value; and in addition doesn't change anything that is already permitted in
the zoning district. It is not necessary for the property owner to record anything differently on
their current title.
Vera Gil:
• Explained the concept of "reasonable accommodation." It establishes a process for allowing
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 March 9, 2010
an exception if there is a need to encroach into the FAR or into the setback to accommodate a
wheelchair ramp, to accommodate mobility in an existing home. It may go further than that,
but that is the basic reason the State suggests that you have one in place.
• If somebody moves into a home that is maxed out with FAR; they discover in the future that
they need wheelchair access and there is no way to accommodate that because of the front
stairs. It allows without having to go through Planning Commission and City Council and
paying exorbitant fees, for them to meet their requirements and allows the Community
Development Director to approve it. It could mean a kitchen is too tight for wheelchair
maneuvering and they are going to have to encroach 2 feet into the setback to add some
additional space so they can be accommodated.
Chair Brophy:
• Said they already had some generous FAR, and he questioned why someone would need
additional space to expand their house if they couldn't do it within their existing structure.
Vera Gil:
• Much of it could be the wheelchair access; because it has to be at a certain grade, so that the
wheelchair doesn't slip down and cause injury; sometimes the wheelchair ramps are longer
and they do encroach into the front setback area.
Paul Benninger:
• Where this comes from is an opinion from the State Attorney General that has prompted HCD
to advice jurisdictions to adopt a program in their housing elements stating that the city will
prepare some sort of written, reasonable accommodation ordinance to provide persons with
disabilities exceptions in the zoning and land use codes for housing; and the reason for this is
concern from some disability rights advocates and others and from the Attorney General's
office that the actual procedures under which a disabled person might come to a city to ask for
reasonable accommodation were very often not spelled out in writing or with any clarity. It is
Program 38 in your Housing Element; what the program would do is state that a new
ordinance will be prepared that will specify an administrative process with minimal or no
processing fee and subject to approval by the Community Development Director. It is
essentially a means to put all of the specific requirements and regulations for a process for
reasonable accommodation in writing in an ordinance so that everybody is clear.
City Attorney:
• The consultant is correct, this is an attempt cn the part of the city to insulate itself from any
type of lawsuit or litigation brought by somebody who needs an accommodation and qualifies
under Federal or State law for an accommodation. The language being recommended begins
on Page 3 -251 and it basically as was indicated, sets out the procedures and process so that we
can avoid charges of discrimination or inconsistency or any kind of thing that would indicate
that there is vagaries or is it just up for grabs.
Com. Kaneda:
• Presumably this comes into fact when you have an existing property that there is something
about it that is right up to the edge of the setbacks; and you need to make some modifications;
either tear the whole house down because you need an extra foot or let the homeowner
encroach into their setback.
Gary Chao:
• That is correct; typically where you get into the areas where people are asking for exceptions
on FAR; that would be for existing houses because it is not geared for handicapped access. It
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 March 9, 2010
is not a free pass for people; they still have to go through findings that the city would have to
make and the applicants would have to demonstrate that indeed what they are asking for is
reasonable and it is going to be specifically for catering to their special needs. The findings
that take certain control and as part of that process would have to be carried out.
Com. Kaneda:
• Asked for clarification of transitional and supportive housing and what the difference is.
Paul Benninger:
• On one hand we are talking about emergency shelters which are temporary impermanent
shelters that can provide persons or families with short term shelter and services, and that is
what the emergency shelter provisions are in the housing element about accommodating
emergency shelter in the BQ zone. Separately from that, and this is the state of the art in the
world of housing and social services, what many non -profit developers and local governments
are doing these days is to support permanent supportive housing for individuals or families
that are either at risk of homelessness or transition from homelessness. The idea is that rather
than providing a temporary shelter, you provide high quality housing with social services, with
counseling, child care, job training, in order to equip these individuals and families to move
from homelessness into a home and into a better life. The intent behind the State law which
now requires supportive housing to be allowed in all residential zones, is to acknowledge that
this is the type of housing that should be treated like any other type of housing. It is a service
enriched type of housing. It is distinct from short term emergency shelters which are for short
term emergencies, and you will see going forward a lot more emphasis on this kind of model
of permanent supportive housing. It is heavily service enriched; something that is supported at
the Federal level through HUD and at the `.hate level and many housing practitioners and
policy experts are in favor of this model of housing provision.
City Attorney:
• The definitions from the California Health and Safety Code can be found on Page 3 -220; they
are proposed to be added to the Municipal Code but the language is essentially lifted from the
existing State law.
Paul Benninger:
• Said that emergency shelters and transitional housing are defined separately. Transitional
housing even though it is shorter term than permanent supportive housing is longer term than
an emergency shelter and is a slightly different housing product type and set of services. It has
a separate definition.
Com. Miller:
• When we started this exercise we had a broad list of potential sites throughout the city; what
we are ending up with is a final list, not distributed; it appears it is heavily weighted towards a
couple of areas in town and one in particular it seems like there is a lot of sites that are focused
on what I would call the Cupertino High School District. He said he thought there were some
sites in the Homestead District and some in the Morita Vista District. He said it would have
been ideal to have a list that was more diversely spread throughout the city as opposed to just
targeting a couple of areas in a very heavy way. It should be considered in terms of what that
does to the school system and in some cases, the high schools are impacted but there are also
some areas where the elementary schools will be heavily impacted because of this. He asked if
it was considered when the final list was put together; was the list run by the schools to see if
they were okay with what was being proposed at this point.
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 March 9, 2010
Vera Gil:
• During the initial study process, the schools were analyzed. The final list comes from the City
Council; it was their recommendation; the unexpected was that HCD did not look back and say
that they did not like the sites, or they don't think that they can accommodate those units.
• This is the list from the City Council at their last meeting after having the discussion about
school districts, about taking public comments and listening to the public and their
suggestions, and also considering environmental factors. There are many properties on
Pruneridge that staff could address; there were some environmental factors that we were not
sure whether housing could even be built there and it would require a certain amount of money
to be spent on testing soil and going through the initial study process and the city would have
to split that bill, so the decision from the City Council was that this is our list, these are our
numbers and the good news is that HCD did not amend that list; they didn't remove anything.
Com. Miller:
• Some of these properties, if they are on the Pier l list and they have a zoning that is a mixed
zoning, such as commercial residential combination; does being on the Tier 1 list imply that
they are only going to go to housing at this point or does it still allow if someone should come
in with a commercial zoned project.
Vera Gil:
• Remember back to that first task force meetin; that we had, the first focus group meeting; a lot
of what we tried to talk about was just because it is on this list, does not force the property
owner to build the residential; it doesn't hold them to it; they can propose anything that
allowed in the land use and zoning code. It doesn't force or hold the property owner to it;
these are properties we have looked at; we believe they can accommodate those units.
Cupertino is a difficult place; there is very little vacant land left.
Chair Brophy commended Aarti Shrivastava, Gary Chao and Vera Gil for their efforts over the
past year on the project.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said she was familiar with buildout of housing in the county and was surprised and mortified
to see what was happening potentially in Cupertino. It is state mandated, but Cupertino is a
city that is almost at maximum buildout. Many areas that were targeted are in Heart of the
City along Stevens Creek Boulevard in the eastern part of Cupertino. We are already at
maximum traffic congestion; we have very large development going in, Sand Hill project
across the street with Tantau and Finch and Stevens Creek which will generate a lot of new
traffic for the area and hopefully it will be controlled. That was one of the reasons why so
much time and effort was spent on the Sand Hill project and the neighbors seem pleased about
that.
• She expressed concern about the currently revitalized Loree Shopping Center. She said it
appears that the property value on some of the sites along Stevens Creek Boulevard that have
been targeted for additional higher density housing, has gone u p when rezoned from
commercial property to higher density housing. What is to preclude this property from being
sold for housing and the disappearance of businesses along Stevens Creek Boulevard and the
buildup of additional housing in these areas. What if Loree Shopping Center is sold for
housing? She said it was distressing and confusing that property all over the city was being
rezoned and she was concerned about the loss of businesses along Stevens Creek because the
Cupertino Planning Commission 1: March 9, 2010
property will be sold for housing. How do you stop it, or has it been factored in?
• Said that the city should not give an inch on parking.
Gary Chao:
• Clarified that the Loree Shopping Center site was not subject to any rezoning; it already allows
for residential. The exercise is merely identifying it as a potential housing site because it is
under- developed. The property owner coulc sell it as a residential property if they wish if
there is a market for it. It is a mixed use zoning.
Vera Gil:
• The City Council deliberately looked at making the least zoning changes that they could
possibly make, with the exception of the Villages, those are the only parcels that need to be
rezoned.
Keith Murphy,
• Said he participated in the housing element update focus groups; and referred to the letter in
response to the City's letter to the State. The State followed up and discussed public
participation, which was not shown in BAE's comments from the State.
• The State also wanted those comments or that participation to be a genuine participation on the
part of the public and he said he felt that the 13AE focus groups missed their goal, in that they
didn't have the chance to use the tools they were given and to have participation and see where
the sites were going to be in the city. One important application that just came up and was
turned down due to poor public acceptance was the Mary Avenue senior housing project
brought forward by the Rotary Club and the former mayor as their sponsor. He said he was
disappointed they did not have more group Participation from the community; it would have
been a good thing to vet that with the stake hclders and it was a missed opportunity. He hoped
that in the future they could bring more of the community on board so that there would be
more acceptance for housing and that it would be in the right locations that the community is
ready for to accept.
• Said he hoped that when flexible parking standards are reviewed, the parking will always be
appropriate and it won't be required that street parking will make up for lack of parking on
projects like the senior project proposed of Mary Avenue. There should always be an
allowance for caregivers and people in the community to interact with low income senior
housing people who live in those areas.
• Said he was pleased to see that density on existing sites can be increased similar to apartment
complexes. It is something that everybody should support; the State seems to say that if you
do that, it is better for the community, and Netter for the low income people who might be
living there and the result will be a more cohesive type of housing development.
Bob McKibban, Cupertino resident:
• Thanked staff for incorporating many of the ideas that came from the public at the end of the
process. He said he appreciated the work staff did to incorporate their ideas.
Tom Huganin, Cupertino resident:
• Said they spent countless hours doing a Google drive -by on all the properties fishing around in
the city looking for places to accommodate extra density and existing complexes; he said lie
was pleased to see they were on the list. He said they did a good job and he thanked staff for
working with them.
Endry Surjanto, Greenleaf Court:
• Said he did not understand the change from CGML residential 410 to CGML residential and
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 March 9, 2010
how it impacts his current house, and how the neighboring site would affect his house.
Gary Chao:
• Said that street currently is zoned CGML residential, and he agreed that it should be in the
yellow zone; however this exercise makes all the properties within the north DeAnza area
consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan has that Greenleaf Court in the mixed
use area that consists of general commercial, light industrial and residential. In terms of what
is being done this time, it won't affect any of the residential uses out there; he is locked in as
he was approved a few years back. It doesn't have any bearing towards his residential use.
• He said it was not the time to do a General Plan amendment for that, staff will look at that
when they return to the Planning Commissicn on an annual basis; they will look at General
Plan amendments, housecleaning items where they will change the General Plan land use; and
then can make the zoning consistent with whatever they change it to be. In this case, likely a
straight R1 single family zone would be more appropriate.
David Lee, Greenleaf Court:
• He said he was concerned about increasing the density of that neighborhood; when increasing
density it usually means more parking problems, traffic and the impacts on the schools. He
said he was curious if his site was one of the sites that needed to be rezoned as required by the
State of California.
Gary Chao:
• Said that the simplest explanation is that the current land use allowance in the current General
Plan already permits the density that the p�'operties are being rezoned to now; there is a
discrepancy between the actual land use map to the land use permissible intensity. Regardless
of what we do with the zoning map, any property owner within this area when they come in
for an application, they could request up to th ,- 25 units per acre per the land use map. As part
of this exercise, we are cleaning our map so that the cat is already out of the barn, so to speak,
or in terms of the density that you are concerned with. To the extent of the impact on schools
or traffic, or parking, that was already considered as part of the 2005 General Plan EIR when
that intensity was put in at that time; but for some reason the zoning map was not correlating
to it and this is what we do and from time tc time when we have the opportunity, we like to
make them consistent.
Chair Brophy:
• There was a general question Mr. Lee asked about this kind of density; the impact it would
have in terms of traffic, parking on his neighborhood and the other single family home areas
nearby.
Paul Benninger:
• There has been so much discussion about these great issues brought up over the course of the
last year, and there are a lot of materials on the city's website from the workshops and from
the Planning Commission and City Council meetings that address many of the issues brought
up, including schools, traffic, parking, density and why it might be desirable in some cases to
re -use under- utilized commercial parcels and convert them into residential uses. There is no
short easy answer to those questions and it differs from community to community; but there
are a lot of materials on the city website and Ms. Gil would be happy to talk to you and refer
you to some of those.
Vera Gil:
• Said that all the focus group meetings were filmed and are available on the
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 March 9, 2010
ww .Cupertino.or _g /housingelement
assistance is needed.
She can be emailed at housingLd),,cupertino.org if
Paul Benninger:
• Said it was his first experience working in a community on a housing element or other similar
planning process where there had been so much commitment to the public schools and a really
active engagement with the education community.
• One of the policies and programs we did not discuss which is unique to your housing element
that no other housing element I can think of has, is that there is a specific policy to set up an
ongoing working committee between city staff and the schools so that as land use proposals
are made, there is a formal process for working together to make sure that the schools interests
and the city's interests are moving in the same direction.
Gary Chao:
• Added that just because density allows for certain amount of units, it does not mean that it is
guaranteed; the developer will still have to go through the public review process in which case
individual sites of projects as they come in will have technical reports to look at, more specific
area impact or lack of impact, which also consists of school impact, assessment, traffic,
parking assessment, air and noise; the whole gamut of assessment that is typically required of
any discretionary application. The potential is thee, but the applicant will still have to
demonstrate to this Commission and City Council and also to the neighbors which will be part
of the public review process that all factors will be considered and would be accommodated in
terms of having a product that would be consistent and compatible with the surrounding
environment.
• Said that only a handful of people responded; some inquiries were from adjacent property
owners; the residential homeowners who are not in the area who are curious to find out what
they might be dealing with in the future. Staff has explained the situation and the homeowners
and neighbors are comfortable with the proposal.
Meichuan Chou, Cupertino resident:
• Said she was concerned with the language referring to 25 units per acre. Although one or two
of the houses could someday be demolished and rebuilt, what is the chance of building a 25
units per acre on that kind of density near our area?
Gary Chao:
• In response to Ms. Chou's concerns, he illustrated on a map the area to the north which is the
immediate neighborhood that would potentially impact them the most; the residential rezone
proposal is zoning it from where it currently allows for general commercial light industrial and
residential 4 to 10 dwelling units per acre down to single family residential. The properties
indicated in yellow color are the only ones that are going to be single family residential,
individual homes, no apartments, duplexes or multi- family residential if the rezoning goes
through. He said all the properties in front of her and across the street and in the same block
are going to be changed into a zoning that would offer the most protection in terms of what she
is concerned with. The areas indicated in red color, those areas in mixed use zoning district,
are the properties that would have more of a potential to go higher up; that is if they chose to
do so.
• He said he felt they addressed the process and the future review process and considerations
they would have to go through in order to realize some of those things.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission 14.
March 9, 2010
Com. Giefer:
• Said she was pleased that they were finally at the end where the communications between
them and the State were at the point they had a well thought out document with a lot of
significant public input based on that.
• Supports the recommendation.
Com. Miller:
• Said he supported the recommendation.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he supported the recommendation. He commended Paul Benninger and Vera Gil on their
excellent work on the project.
Vice Chair Lee:
• Said she supported staff's recommendation.
Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Com. Miller, and unanimously carried 5 -0 -0,
to recommend to City Council the approval of Application GPA- 2008 -01,
EA- 2009 -05, Z- 2010 -02 and MCA - 2010 -02.
NEW BUSINESS None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO
Environmental Review Committee
• Chair Brophy reported that on March 4 " the ERC approved a negative declaration for the
reconstruction of the shopping center on the corner of Homestead and DeAnza Boulevard.
Housing Commission Meeting scheduled for March 11, 2010.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioner Meeting scheduled for March 10, 2010.
Economic Development Committee No meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• Gary Chao reported that Panasonic is leasing the building at 10900 Tantau Avenue.
• Reported that A. Salvador is the new building official has been hired effective March 1, 2020.
Adiournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for March 23, 2010 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
EXHIBITS
BE(lIN
HERE
sTATEJ)F CAI IF()RNIA RI ISINFSS__T73ANSPnRTAT1c)NANn 1 -- ARKcv 11 Sf:ijWAR799F0C;Fft (TnvPrnnr
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
4110 o GO•, t 1UN,r j b f
1800 Third Street, Suite 430 C C . ,_' ''
P. O. Box 952053 N '
�� t „
Sacramento, CA 94252 -2053 off . ro
+
(916) 323 -3177 / FAX (916) 327 -2643 Z Vu • hr.
www.hcd.ca.aov °,11 WO
April 6, 2010
Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Director
Community Development Department .
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Ms. Shrivastava:
RE: Review of the City of Cupertino's Revised Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of Cupertino's revised draft housing element received
for review on March 26, 2010. The Department is required to review draft housing
elements and report the findings to the locality pursuant to 3overnment Code
Section 65585(b). Communications with you, Ms. Vera Gil, Senior Planner, and
Mr. Paul Peninger, of BAE Consulting, facilitated the review.
The revised draft element addresses the statutory requirements described in the
Department's August 25, 2009 review. For example, the element now demonstrates
adequate sites to accommodate Cupertino's regional housing need. The Department
commends the City's commitment to address its housing needs, including programs to
encourage lot consolidation and infill development and promote residential and mixed
use opportunities near employment centers. These programs will facilitate the
development of housing affordable to lower - income households and workers while
maximizing land resources and improving job housing relatipnships. The revised draft
element will comply with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government
Code) when adopted and submitted to the Department, pursuant to Government Code
Section 65585(g).
The Department appreciates the effort and cooperation provided by you, Ms. Gil and your
consultant throughout the course of the review and looks forward to receiving Cupertino's
adopted housing element. If you have any additional questions, please contact
Paul McDougall, of our staff, at (916) 322 - 7995.
•
Sincerely,
a_h.4 ep "6.
,
Cathy E. reswell
Deputy Director
•
•
STATF OF (:AI IFORNIf ll1SINFSS ]TRANSPORTATION AND HO USING,A(;FN(;Y ARNCI D S(:HWAR7FNF( FR, (inmmnr
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT o` '�E•
1800 Third Street, Suite 430 CC K I L' I O
P. 0. Box 952053 ' 1 "
Sacramento, CA 94252 -2053 °°y y
(916) 323 -3177 / FAX (916) 327 -2643 ZVt
www. hcd. ca.aov �9UFOaN1P
April 6, 2010 k l; ► Li
Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Director
Community Development Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Ms. Shrivastava:
RE: Review of the City of Cupertino's Revised Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of Cupertino's revised draft housing element received
for review on March 26, 2010. The Department is required to review draft housing
elements and report the findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code
Section 65585(b). Communications with you, Ms. Vera Gil, Senior Planner, and
Mr. Paul Peninger, of BAE Consulting, facilitated the review.
The revised draft element addresses the statutory requirements described in the
Department's August 25, 2009 review. For example, the element now demonstrates
adequate sites to accommodate Cupertino's regional housing need. The Department
commends the City's commitment to address its housing needs, including programs to
encourage lot consolidation and infill development and promote residential and mixed
use opportunities near employment centers. These programs will facilitate the
development of housing affordable to lower- 'ncorne households and workers while
maximizing land resources and improving job housing relatipnships. The revised draft
element will comply with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government
Code) when adcpted and submitted to the Department, pursuant to Government Code
Section 65585(g).
The Department appreciates the effort and cooperation i.irovided by you, Ms. Gil and your
consultant throughout the course of the review and looks forward to receiving Cupertino's
adopted housing element, If you have any additional questions, please contact
Paul McDougall, of our staff, at (916) 322 -7995.
Sincerely,
(fiat/ � r 't
Cathy E. resweli
Deputy Director