CITY OF CUPERTINO
CI
TY COUNCIL
AGENDA
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber and via Teleconference Monday, August 29, 2022
5:00 PM
Televised Special Meeting
IN-PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION Mem
bers of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways:
1) Attend in person at Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue. 2) Tune to Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV. 3) The meeting will also be streamed live on and online at www.Cupertino.org/youtube and www.Cupertino.org/webcast
Members of the public wishing to comment on an item on the agenda may do so in the following ways:
1) Appear in person at Cupertino Community Hall. Members of the audience who address the City Council must come to the lectern/microphone, and are requested to complete a Speaker Card and identify themselves. Completion of Speaker Cards and identifying yourself is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments. 2) E-mail comments by 4:00 p.m. on Monday, August 29 to the Council at [email protected]. These e-mail comments will also be forwarded to Councilmembers by the City Clerk’s office before the meeting and posted to the City’s website after the meeting.
3) E-mail comments during the times for public comment during the meeting to the City Clerk at [email protected]. The City Clerk will read the emails into the record, and display any attachments on the screen, for up to three minutes (subject to the Mayor’s discretion to shorten time for public comments). Members of the public that wish to share a document must email [email protected] prior to speaking.
Members of the public may provide oral public comments during the meeting as follows:
1 CC 08-29-2022
1 of 214
City Council A genda August 29, 2022
Oral public comments will be accepted during the meeting. Comments may be made d
uring “oral communications” for matters not on the agenda, and during the public comment period for each agenda item.
Teleconferencing Instructions
To address the City Council, click on the link below to register in advance and access the meeting:
Online
Register in advance for this webinar:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Bg3OEYt9RwybXzMME6cwxA Phone
Dial: 669-900-6833 and enter Webinar ID: 952 4399 5641 (Type *9 to raise hand to speak, *6 to unmute yourself). Unregistered participants will be called on by the last four digits of their phone number.
Or an H.323/SIP room system:
H.323:
162.255.37.11 (US West)
162.255.36.11 (US East)
Meeting ID: 952 4399 5641
SIP: [email protected]
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
Please read the following instructions carefully:
1. You can directly download the teleconference software or connect to the meeting in your internet browser. If you are using your browser, make sure you are using a current and up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer.
2. You will be asked to enter an email address and a name, followed by an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. If you wish to make an oral public comment but do not wish to provide your name, you may enter “Cupertino Resident” or similar designation.
3. When the Mayor calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand,” or,
2 CC 08-29-2022
2 of 214
City Council A genda August 29, 2022
if you are calling in, press *9. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.
4. When called, please limit your remarks to the time allotted and the specific agenda topic.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this teleconference City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 6 hours in advance of the Council meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format.
NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL N
OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City Council is hereby called for Monday, August 29, 2022, commencing at 5:00 p.m. in Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 and via teleconference. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters listed below under the heading, “Special Meeting."
SPECIAL MEETING
ROLL CALL
P
OSTPONEMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
1. Subject: Consider the appointment of two City of Cupertino representatives to the Santa Clara County Unhoused Task Force
Recommended Action: Appoint two City of Cupertino representatives to the Santa Clara County Unhoused Task Force
Staff Report
2. Subject: Discuss Priority Housing Sites for the 2023-2031 Housing Element update (Continued from August 16, 2022)
Recommended Action: That the City Council receive the report and presentation, provide input on the proposed housing inventory sites, and consider approval of the sites on the “Recommended Sites Inventory Table” (Attachment D) as the 6th Cycle Housing Element sites inventory
Presenter: Luke Connolly, Senior Planner, Community Development Department
3 CC 08-29-2022
3 of 214
City Council A genda August 29, 2022
Staff Report
A - August 29 Memorandum from EMC Planning
B - Survey Responses from EMC Planning
C - Summary of Sites Inventory Changes
D - Recommended Sites Inventory Table (Attachment A from August 16 Staff Report) E - Cupertino Sites Overview (Attachment B from August 16 Staff Report) F - Pipeline, Tier 1 and Tier 2 Projects Map (Attachment C from August 16 Staff Report) G - Neighborhood Map Series (Attachment D from August 16 Staff Report)
ADJOURNMENT
Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Requirements: Individuals who influence or attempt to influence l
egislative or administrative action may be required by the City of Cupertino’s lobbying ordinance (Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.100) to register and report lobbying activity. Persons whose communications regarding any legislative or administrative are solely limited to appearing at or submitting testimony for any public meeting held by the City are not required to register as lobbyists.
For more information about the lobbying ordinance, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 94107; telephone (408) 777-3223; email [email protected]; and website: www.cupertino.org/lobbyist.
The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.
Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/cityclerk for a reconsideration petition form.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 6 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, during normal business hours; and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site.
4 CC 08-29-2022
4 of 214
City Council A genda August 29, 2022
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section
2.08.100 w
ritten communications sent to the Cupertino City Council, Commissioners or City staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. Do not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made publicly available on the City website.
5 CC 08-29-2022
5 of 214
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
22-11406 Agenda Date: 8/29/2022
Agenda #: 1.
Subject: Consider the appointment of two City of Cupertino representatives to the Santa Clara County Unhoused Task Force
Appoint two City of Cupertino representatives to the Santa Clara County Unhoused Task Force CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 8/25/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
6 CC 08-29-2022
6 of 214
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: August 29, 2022
Subject
Consider the appointment of two City of Cupertino representatives to the Santa Clara County Unhoused Task Force
Recommended Action
Appoint two City of Cupertino representatives to the Santa Clara County Unhoused Task Force
Discussion
In January 2020, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors established an Unhoused Task Force (“UTF”) to work on serving homeless people in the County and helping them transition into temporary and permanent supportive housing . The UTF is scheduled to meet on September 16, 2022.
The City of Cupertino’s current appointees to the UTF are former Councilmembers Steven Scharf and Rod Sinks. To ensure representation from the City on the UTF, Council must appoint two new representatives. Mayor Paul has recommended that Council appoint Vice Mayor Chao and himself to represent the City.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Christopher D. Jensen, City Attorney
Reviewed by: Dianne Thompson, Acting City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Dianne Thompson, Acting City Manager 7 CC 08-29-2022
7 of 214
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
22-11405 Agenda Date: 8/29/2022
Agenda #: 2.
Subject: Discuss Priority Housing Sites for the 2023-2031 Housing Element update (Continued from August 16, 2022)
That the City Council receive the report and presentation, provide input on the proposed housing inventory sites, and consider approval of the sites on the “Recommended Sites Inventory Table” (Attachment D) as the 6th Cycle Housing Element sites inventory Presenter: Luke Connolly, Senior Planner, Community Development Department CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 8/25/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
8 CC 08-29-2022
8 of 214
1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: A ugust 29, 2022
Subject
Meeting on the Housing Element update focusing on the establishment of a housing sites selection inventory.
Recommended Action
That the City Council receive the report and presentation, provide input on the proposed housing inventory sites, and consider approval of the sites on the “Recommended Sites Inventory Table” (Attachment D) as the 6th Cycle Housing Element sites inventory.
Discussion
The Planning and Hou sing Commissions held joint meetings focused on the Hous ing Element update Sites Inventory on June 28 and July 5, 2022. During these meetings , the Planning and Housing Commissions made recommendations to the City Council regarding which sites should be included on the Inventory . The Commissions’ recommendations are listed in the Recommended Sites Inventory (Attachment D) . On August 16, the City Council met for the first time to consider the Housing Element Sites Inventory. After an initial staff presentation, public comment , and discussion by Councilmembers, the item was continued to a special meeting on August 29, 2022. The August 16 staff report , discussing the Housing Element update and Sites Inventory process is included as Attachment D of this staff report. All attachments to the August 16 report are also included.
Prepared by: Luke Connolly, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Christopher Jensen, City Attorney
Michael Woo, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Be njamin Fu, Director of Community Development
9 CC 08-29-2022
9 of 214
2 Attachment A – August 29 Memorandum from EMC Planning Attachment B – Survey Responses from EMC Planning
Attachment C – Summary of Sites Inventory Changes
Attachment D – Recommended Sites Inventory Table (Attachment A from August 16 staff report)
Attachment E – Cupertino Sites Overview (Attachment B from August 16 staff report) Attachment F – Pipeline, Tier 1 and Tier 2 Projects Map (Attachment C from August 16 staff report)
Attachment G – Neighborhood Map Series (Attachment D from August 16 staff report)
10 CC 08-29-2022
10 of 214
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: A ugust 16, 2022
Subject
Meeting on the Housing Element update focusing on the establishment of a housing sites selection inventory.
Recommended Action
That the City Council receive the report and presentation, provide input on the proposed housing inventory sites, and consider approval of the sites on the “Recommended Sites Inventory Table” (Attachment A) as the 6th Cycle Housing Element sites inventory.
Discussion
Background: 6th Cycle Housing Element Update/RHNA
The City is currently preparing its 6 th Cycle Housing Element update, which covers the planning period 2023 to 2031. The Housing Element is part of Cupertino’s General Plan and identifies policies and programs intended to meet the housing needs of the City’s current and future residents, at all income levels. State law requires that every city and county in California adopt a Housing Element every eight years to reflect the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) established for each jurisdiction. The City’s RHNA is 4,588 units for the 2023- 2031 planning period. Based on income levels, Cupertino’s RHNA of 4,588 breaks down as follows: 1,193 Very -Low income units; 687 Low income units; 755 Moderate income units; 1,953 Above -Moderate, or market rate, units. Once a city’s RHNA has been determined that city must demonstrate that they have adequate housing sites to accommodate their RHNA. There are specific requirements on site selection, ensuring that the City has policies in place to support the development of housing for persons at all income levels, as specified by State law.
On September 21, 2021, the City Council awarded a consultant agreement to prepare the 6 th Cycle Housing Element update to EMC Planning Group (EMC). Since that time EMC and City staff have held numerous meetings related to the Housing Element update, beginning with two City Council study sessions, on September 28 and November 16, 2021,
which focused on the overall Housing Element update process and State 11 CC 08-29-2022
11 of 214
2 requirements that have greatly expanded the role and extent of public outreach required for the 6th Cycle update. On December 9, 2021, EMC held both a daytime study session with the Housing Commission and an evening community workshop. Like the previous Council meetings these studies sessions focused on the overall Housing Element update process and new State requirements.
In early March 2022, the City Council held meetings focusing on the community engagement component of the Housing Element and established the ad hoc Community Engagement Plan -Strategic Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) to guide the planning of the City’s future community engagement and compliance with State Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements. The Advisory Committee has met five times between March 30 and July 25 and will next meet on September 16, 2022.
Planning and Housing Commission Sites Inventory Meetings During the 2022 calendar year, a primary focus of the Housing Element update has been the establishment of a housing sites inventory that would allow the City to meet its 6 th Cycle housing needs, or RHNA. The sites inventory is the list of City Council -approved properties that identifies where housing will be developed during the 2023-2031 planning period. Approval of the sites inventory is crucial to commencing the environmental review process and defining the scope of the Housing Element update as a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Given the scale of the Housing Element update, an environmental impact report (EIR) will be prepared. The Environmental Review Committee will consider the scope of the environmental analysis before the EIR is presented to the Planning Commission and City Council.
The Planning Commission held meetings focused specifically on the Housing Element sites selection on January 25, February 22, April 26, and May 24, 2022, with each meeting progressing from a more general, citywide discussion of potential housing sites and locations to a more specific discussion focused on selecting sites at specified densities.
At the January and February Planning Commission study sessions, staff and EMC provided overviews of the housing sites selection process and identified nearly 400 properties citywide that could potentially be placed on the City’s housing sites inventory.
The majority of these properties fell within the property size range, 0.5 -10 acres, recommended by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), th e State agency that oversees the Housing Element update process and ultimately certifies all city and county Housing Elements. During the January and February study sessions, Planning Commissioners provided staff with principles and objectives to guide whi ch sites should be included, specifically that: 1) housing sites should be dispersed throughout the City and strive for a balance between the City’s eastern and western areas; 2) new housing sites should avoid or minimize displacement of existing uses, particularly existing residential uses that would necessitate the relocation of residents; 3) the Housing Element should avoid significantly “up-zoning” 12 CC 08-29-2022
12 of 214
3 sites to the extent feasible; and 4) the Housing Element should include new housing sites that could support the City’s public schools and help counteract declining enrollment trends that are occurring city and county wide.
Based on this input, staff and EMC presented a reduced, more focused list of potential housing sites at the April 26 Planning Commission meeting, grouping the potential sites by neighborhood and special area to better illustrate the locations of the properties.
Extensive public comment was provided at the April 26 meeting, where th e Planning Commission reiterated its previously -stated principles and goals for housing site selection and also directed staff to focus on the potential inclusion of several “key” sites along South DeAnza and Stevens Creek Boulevards.
On June 28 and July 5, 2022, the Planning and Housing Commissions held a special joint meeting (the meeting was continued from June 28 to July 5) to finalize their housing sites inventory recommendation to Council. The Commissions’ sites inventory recommendation (Attachment A) largely coincides with staff’s June 28 recommendation to the Planning and Housing Commissions, but it also includes key changes, notably increasing housing densities to areas on the City’s west side, such as the South DeAnza Boulevard and Bubb Road special areas, as well as the North and South Monta Vista neighborhoods. The Commissions also recommended that development standards be established that allow for more intensive development along the street frontage portions of the DeAnza and Steve ns Creek Boulevard corridors but that development of the properties along these corridors adjacent to single -family neighborhoods be limited in scale to preserve the existing neighborhood character. The sites listed on Attachment A, excluding properties de signated as “Tier 2,” are the Commissions’ recommended sites.
The Commissions’ discussion and recommendations are discussed further in the Analysis section, below. Attachments B and C, respectively, “Cupertino Sites Overview” and “Pipeline, Tier 1, and Tie r 2 Projects Map,” provide additional information on the housing sites and their locations throughout the City.
Analysis
Pipeline Projects and RHNA
The Recommended Sites Inventory Table (Attachment A) included with this staff report is the list of properties recommended by the Planning and Housing Commissions to the Council for inclusion on the housing sites inventory. At the top of Attachment A are the City’s nine residential “pipeline projects.” Pipeline projects are those that have received development entitlements but have not yet been constructed or received building permits or certificates of occupancy for any of the approved residential units. The Rise (the former Vallco Shopping Center site) and the nearby The Hamptons Apartment Homes are the most significant of these pipeline projects in terms of the number of units, with over 3,000 new dwellings entitled between them. Given that pipeline projects have all the necessary 13 CC 08-29-2022
13 of 214
4 approvals in place to proceed to the development stage, these projects have a high degree of certainty that they will be constructed within the 2023 -2031 planning cycle. In total, Cupertino has 3,545 pipeline units, a significant amount, making up 77% of the City’s overall RHNA of 4,588. In addition to pipeline units, the City can take credit for accessory dwelling unit (ADU) production that is anticipated to occur in the next planning cycle; it is estimated, based on the City’s ADU production over the last three years, that Cupertino will add 25 ADUs per year. The amount of pipeline units plus estimated ADU units appears to leave the City only 843 units short of its RHNA. However, since the RHNA is broken down into the Very- Low, Low, Moderate and Above -Moderate income categories, those categories must be taken into consideration during the site selection process, altering the total number of units needed to comply with the RHNA.
TABLE 1
Very-Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above-
Moderate
Total
Units
RHNA 1,193 687 755 1,953 4,588
Pipeline Projects (9 projects) 300 988 40 2,217 3,545
ADUs (based on past prod.) 60 60 60 20 200
Balance* 833 0 655 0 1,488
*Amount of units needed per RHNA for income category. Limited to 0 since a credit cannot be applied due to overproduction in this income category.
As Shown in Table 1, above, due the significant amount of pipeline and units, the City is already exceeding its RHNA in the Low and Above -Moderate income categories for the 2023-2031 planning period. The City, however, cannot meet its Very-Low and Moderate income RHNA requirements through the pipeline projects, resulting in a need (shown as “Balance” in Table 1) of 1,488 Very -Low and Moderate income units beyond those provided by pipeline projects. Additionally, HCD recommends a “buffer” of between 15- 30% of additional units be included in the sites inventory for each of the below market - rate income categories (i.e., Very-Low, Low and Moderate incomes), in accordance with the State’s No Net Loss Law. The concep t of buffer and the No Net Loss Law are discussed in more detail, below.
Recommended Housing Sites
Listed below the pipeline projects on the Recommended Sites Inventory Table (Attachment A) are the properties recommended for inclusion on the housing sites inventory. There are two “tiers” of properties shown, Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 properties are the recommended sites, and Tier 2 properties (indicated in the second column of Attachment A) are included as alternative sites for reasons discuss ed, below. There are 56 individual Tier 1 properties that, if developed at the minimum densities specified in the Table, would result in 2,090 new housing units. When staff made its sites inventory recommendation to the Planning and Housing Commissions on June 28 the total Tier 1 14 CC 08-29-2022
14 of 214
5 units was estimated at 1,871; based primarily on increasing the density to the sites recommended by staff, particularly along the South DeAnza Boulevard corridor, the Planning and Housing Commissions added over 200 additional units through their June 28 and July 5 review.
The primary reasons staff recommended these properties to the Planning and Housing Commissions for inclusion on the sites inventory was based on the guidance given by the Planning Commission during the four January -May Planning Commission study sessions, specifically:
1. The properties are not clustered in the Heart of the City/Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor. The four Stevens Creek Boulevard properties on the recommended inventory are all located east of DeAnza Boulevard;
2. The properties are generally dispersed throughout the City (Attachment C), including significant development potential on the City’s west side. For instance, excluding the large number of pipeline units, 1,423 of the units are located between DeAnza Boulevard and the City’s western boundary, whereas only 676 non - pipeline units are located on properties east of DeAnza Boulevard;
3. The recommended sites minimize or avoid potential displacement of existing residents through future redevelopment of the sites for housing.
Generally, the Recommended Sites Inventory (Attachment A) has three major areas of concentration for new housing in the City. These three areas have 1,482, or 71%, of the 2,090 recommended units. They are:
Stelling Gateway/Homestead (440 units) in the northwestern portion of the City; South De Anza (462 units) in the southwestern portion of the City; and North Vallco Park/Vallco Shopping District (580 units) in the northeastern portion of the City.
The remaining 608 Tier 1 units are spread throughout the City’s neighborhoods and special areas. As noted, above, if the pipeline units are not factored in, there are more potential units (1,414) located west of DeAnza Boulevard than east of DeAnza Boulevard (676), consistent with the Planning Commission’s general direction stated during the study sessions held earlier this year. Going into the June 28 joint Planning and Housing Commission meeting, staff had initially recommended more of an even east -west split (896 units west of DeAnza; 948 east of DeAnza) for new housing units. The Commissions’ recommendation to Council further emphasizes increasing the minimum density of the recommended properties on the west side relative to the eastern portion of the City.
Buffer/No Net Loss Law
Even though only 1,488 units are needed (Table 1, p. 4) to meet the City’s RHNA by income category, once pipeline projects are accounted for, HCD recommends a “buffer” of 15-30% additional units be included in the sites inventory. The purpose of the buffer is 15 CC 08-29-2022
15 of 214
6 to comply with the State’s No Net Loss Law (SB 166), which requires that sufficient adequate sites are available at all times throughout the 2023-2031 RHNA planning period, for each income category. For instance, if the City were to approve a project, or a series of projects, at lower densities or different income levels than what is designated in the Housing Element, it could result in the City dropping below the required number of units for one or more income level categories. To prevent this from happening, HCD recommends a RHNA buffer of 15-30%. However, HCD does not mandate any particular number. Given the lack of a mandate, some jurisdictions have included buffers greater than 30%, while others have included less than 15% in their Housing Elements.
Ostensibly, a buffer at the higher end of the range will provide more assurance that sites will be consistently available at all income categories during the planning period than would a lower percentage buffer. Since pipeline projects are already entitled and therefore have a high degree of certainty in terms of knowing the total number of units, as well as the number of units within each RHNA income category, there is less of a need for a buffer for these project sites. In addition to the pipeline projects the Recommended Sites Inventory has 2,090 Tier 1, units, and an additional 200 ADUs, for a total of 2,290 units. Combined with the pipeline projects 3,545 units this brings the total to 5,844 units, 1,256 units more than the City’s RHNA, for a buffer of 27%, in the upper end of HCD’s recommended 15-30% range.
Thus, when reviewing the Sites Inventory Table, staff recommends maintaining the approximate number of units that would result from the recommended Tier 1 sites at the densities specified, plus the number of buffer units desired. The City Council has discretion to select a buffer of any size. However, Council should keep in mind that a smaller buffer increases the risk that the City could be required to revise the Housing Element during the 2023-2031 planning period to comply with No Net Loss requirements.
If there are additional sites proposed to be added to the Table, such as Tier 2 sites that include properties in the Heart of the City area, this could enable Council to remove some of the Tier 1 sites or reduce minimum required site densities below those shown on the Recommended Sites Inventory.
Density/Affordability Considerations
One of the primary reasons the Recommended Sites Inventory indicates the minimum density for all of the housing sites is that HCD bases the site’s development potential on the minimum density shown. Even though a property may actually be developed over the minimum density, for instance, a property designated as 30 units/acre developing at 40 or 50 units per acre, HCD is focused on what is considered the realistic development potential of the sites, which HCD typically considers the minimum density. However, when approving the sites inventory, Council has the flexibility to determine a density range, establishing minimums and maximums, similar to that used in land use regulations such as the General Plan Land Use Element or specific plans. Two concerns 16 CC 08-29-2022
16 of 214
7 to keep in mind if the minimum density is lowered are the reduction of the RHNA buffer and the difficulty of lower density sites being able to provide affordable housing, which is one of HCD’s primary objectives. In terms of affordability HCD has strongly recommended that sites have a minimum density of 30 units/acre. Below that level of density affordability becomes more difficult to achieve, and HCD would require documentation that affordable housing would be feasible at the lower density. Presently, the Recommended Sites Inventory has 56 individual properties listed, 20 of which have a minimum density of 30 units/acre and 24 with a minimum density of 50 units/acre. Only twelve of the properties listed have minimum densities below 30 units/acre. Therefore, nearly 80% of the properties listed meet HCD’s affordability criteria of 30 units/acre. The density at which sites develop, or are anticipated to develop, is important for the City to produce the required number of units. The City could therefore adopt a strategy to require “Priority Housing” sites to develop at the minimum density indicated in the Housing Element to ensure that the City achieves its goals rather than allowing them to develop at a lower density. Other sites could have greater flexibility.
It is also possible that the City consider an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) for certain (or all) Priority Housing sites or establish a City density bonus that could be applied in addition to State density bonus law. This could allow an increase to the density of projects only if they were primarily affordable to households at lower income levels or, specifically, at income levels where the City needs to have units develop within the 2023- 2031 Housing Element cycle. For Cupertino, since there needs to be an increased production of Very- Low income and Moderate income level housing, the City could consider increased density (e.g., an increase of 50%) for projects that provide a greater number of units at these specific income levels.
Next Steps
Once the City Council approves the housing sites inventory, the CEQA/environmental review process for the Housing Element update will commence. It is anticipated that the CEQA process will take approximately nine months to complete. During this time EMC and staff will be preparing the draft Housing Element to submit to HCD for its initial review and will be completing the community engagement process.
Prepared by: Luke Connolly, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Christopher Jensen, City Attorney
Michael Woo, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Be njamin Fu, Director of Community Development
Attachment A – Recommended Sites Inventory Table
Attachment B – Cupertino Sites Overview
17 CC 08-29-2022
17 of 214
8 Attachment C—Pipeline, Tier 1 and Tier 2 Projects Map Attachment D—Neighborhood Map Series
18 CC 08-29-2022
18 of 214
EMC Planning Group
To: City Council
From: Ande Flower, Principal Planner; Kylie Pope, Associate Planner, EMC Planning Group Date: August 29, 2022
Re: Sites Inventory Analysis Review- Public Comments
SUMMARY
This memorandum describes public comments submitted to the website survey tool for individual recommended sites and comments submitted to the Housing Simulator (Balancing Act).
ACTION REQUEST
Consider using this memo and attachment as a guide for reviewing sites to include with the Sites Inventory for the 6th Cycle Housing Element update.
BACKGROUND
The sites inventory analysis is the first step in the Housing Element update process because it will help us understand what kind of environmental review may be necessary. The numbering system is now alphabetized to comply with the Planning Commission’s request to review sites from east to west across the city.
DISCUSSION
The attached list of comments is summarized with a two-page cover sheet in the order that the sites will be discussed during the Monday, August 31 Council meeting. A support quotient was used to analyze the more than 1,000 unique comments shared by the public. The conservative formula for the support quotient was found by div iding the number of comments that were self-proclaimed as positive support (“Happy” that this site is included) by the total number of comments received. The total number of comments includes neutral proclamations and undetermined additional comments that were submitted through the Balancing Act mapping housing simulator. There was not an option to declare a preferential response to site inclusion within the mapping tool. Three priorities for Council consideration w ere discovered through the process of tabulating public comments:
Priority 1: Sites that received less than 40% favorable response. Priority 2: Sites that received between 40% and 50% favorability. Priority 3: Tier 2 sites with favorability levels between 46% and 86%.
19 CC 08-29-2022
19 of 214
EMC Planning Group
Table 1: Priority 1 List of Sites with Lower Favorability Scores Public Comments
Website BA
Map
ID Tier Owner Name of Area
# of
units Happy Neutral Unhappy Additional Total
Support
Quotient
A-
26a 1 Yes
North Vallco
Park 323 6 1 9 3 19 32%
D-
11a 1 Yes
South
Blaney 65 29 5 47 6 87 33%
K-6c 1 Yes Jollyman 0 7 1 7 3 18 39%
K-6d 1 Yes 21 6 0 7 3 16 38%
M-7a 1 Yes
Monta Vista
North 73 22 5 89 3 119 18%
N-
13a 1 Yes Bubb Road 23 11 4 12 4 31 35%
Total: 505 290 33% Average
The lower favorability coincided with volume of submitted comments. This was particularly true for sites D11a ( 10787 & 10891 S Blaney Ave ) and M7a (multiple sites at Linda Vista Dr , AKA the Evulich site).
Planning for a deeper d iscussion about these potential housing sites, the number of units and density possible, and potential trade-offs that would be necessary if these sites were to be removed from the list would likely benefit the public interest.
Table 2: Priority 1 List of Sites with Less than 50% Favorability Scores Public Comments
Website BA
Map
ID Tier Owner Name of Area
# of
units Happy Neutral Unhappy Additional Total
Support
Quotient
B-
24a 1 Yes
Vallco Shopping
District 257 19 3 19 1 42 45%
E-
18c 2 Yes
Heart of the City
(East) 134 6 1 4 2 13 46%
I-
14a 1 Yes
Heart of the City
(West) (was 3a) 22 11 4 8 3 26 42%
L-8a 2
Monta Vista
South 8 10 3 10 2 25 40%
Total: 421 106
43% Average
20 CC 08-29-2022
20 of 214
EMC Planning Group
It is important to consider including Tier 2 sites with the CEQA analysis to continue to enable flexibility of site selection through the drafting of the final Housing Element update. There are also opportunities to add these units if some of the Tier 1 sites are subtracted or diminished from the total housing unit number.
Table 3: Priority 3 List of Tier 2 Sites
Public Comments
Website BA
Map
ID Tier Owner Name of Area
# of
units Happy Neutral Unhappy Additional Total
Support
Quotient
E-
18c 2 Yes
Heart of the City
(East)
Total = 194
possible
134 6 1 4 2 13 46%
E-
18d 2 Yes 60 6 0 3 2 11 55%
F-
16a 2 Heart of the City
(Central)
Total = 79 units
possible
23 5 1 3 1 10 50%
F-
16b 2 Yes 24 8 0 2 1 11 73%
F-
16c 2 Yes 32 8 1 1 1 11 73%
G-
15a 2 Yes
Heart of the City
(Crossroads)
Total = 474 units
possible
55 14 2 1 3 20 70%
G-
15b 2 Yes 16 13 0 1 3 17 76%
G-
15c 2 25 9 1 0 4 14 64%
G-
15d 2 314 8 0 2 3 13 62%
G-
15e 2 24 7 1 0 3 11 64%
G-
15f 2 28 6 0 1 7 86%
G-
15g 2 14 7 0 1 3 11 64%
J-
23c 2 Yes South De Anza
Total = 86 units
possible
8 8 2 0 3 13 62%
J-
23e 2 9 7 2 0 4 13 54%
J-23f 2 69 8 1 0 4 13 62%
L-8d 2
Monta Vista
South 1 8 1 1 2 12 67%
M-
7b 2
Monta Vista
North 1 15 3 10 2 30 50%
834 230 58% Average
21 CC 08-29-2022
21 of 214
EMC Planning Group
PROPERTY OWNER INTEREST
Property owner interest is a new consideration for HCD’s analysis of the final site selection.
Understanding this new aspect of the process, we invited property owners of sites that are not located in geohazard zones that also meet HCD’s generalized property size qualification, between 0.5 acre – 10 acres, to consider whether they have an interest in becoming a potential Housing Element site. Letters were sent out to all such property owners. This form as also been available to the public, announced at Public Meetings and on the Engage Cupertino Housing website: https://forms.gle/F7td3SE9bXLjyAPW9.
Opportunities exist for those with properties that are smaller than the generalized size, particularly if there is a willingness for consolidation among neighboring properties. To date, we have received 59 owner-interest forms, and this information has been integrated with the revised Sites Inventory List.
More than one-third of all Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites include property owner interest. Of these, we’ve received Property Owner Interest submittals for 22% of Tier 1 sites, and for 40% of all Tier 2 sites. This information has been included with the tables provided in the attached Cover Sheet for the public comments.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Cover Sheet and Full List of All Public Comments Received for this Sites Inventory Review 22 CC 08-29-2022
22 of 214
Cupertino Housing Element Update 2023 – 2031 Public Comments for Sites Inventory August 29, 2022
Public Comments
Website BA
Map
ID Tier Owner Name of Area
# of
units Happy Neutral Unhappy Mapping Total
Support
Quotient
A-
26a 1 Yes North Vallco Park 323 6 1 9 3 19 32%
B-
24a 1 Yes
Vallco Shopping
District 257 19 3 19 1 42 45%
C-9a 1 North Blaney 61 15 5 5 4 29 52%
D-
11a 1 Yes South Blaney 65 29 5 47 6 87 33%
D-
11b 1 37 15 1 2 5 23 65%
E-
26a 1 Yes
Heart of the City
(East)
133 7 1 4 2 14 50%
E-
18b 1 32 6 0 4 2 12 50%
E-
18c 2 Yes 0 6 1 4 2 13 46%
E-
18d 2 Yes 0 6 0 3 2 11 55%
F-
16a 2 Heart of the City
(Central)
0 5 1 3 1 10 50%
F-
16b 2 Yes 0 8 0 2 1 11 73%
F-16c 2 Yes 0 8 1 1 1 11 73%
G-
15a 2 Yes
Heart of the City
(Crossroads)
0 14 2 1 3 20 70%
G-
15b 2 Yes 0 13 0 1 3 17 76%
G-
15c 2 0 9 1 0 4 14 64%
G-
15d 2 0 8 0 2 3 13 62%
G-
15e 2 0 7 1 0 3 11 64%
G-
15f 2 0 6 0 1 7 86%
G-
15g 2 0 7 0 1 3 11 64%
H-
19a 1 Yes Homestead & Stelling
Gateway
6 5 2 1 2 10 50%
H-
19b 1 Yes 21 10 1 0 2 13 77%
23 CC 08-29-2022
23 of 214
Cupertino Housing Element Update 2023 – 2031 Public Comments for Sites Inventory August 29, 2022
H-
20a 1 45 14 1 2 17 82%
H-
20b 1 228 12 1 3 1 17 71%
H-
20c 1 167 8 1 0 1 10 80%
I-14a 1 Yes
Heart of the City
(West) (was 3a) 22 11 4 8 3 26 42%
J-23a 1 Yes
South De Anza
50 10 2 2 3 17 59%
J-23b 1 66 9 1 5 2 17 53%
J-23c 2 Yes 0 8 2 0 3 13 62%
J-23d 1 Yes 121 8 1 4 4 17 47%
J-23e 2 0 7 2 0 4 13 54%
J-23f 2 0 8 1 0 4 13 62%
J-23g 1 26 7 0 1 3 11 64%
J-23h 1 20 7 1 0 2 10 70%
J-23i 1 67 6 0 1 4 11 55%
J-23j 1 43 6 1 0 4 11 55%
J-23k 1 46 8 1 0 3 12 67%
J-23l 1 24 12 0 0 2 14 86%
K-6a 1 Yes
Jollyman
20 18 4 21 3 46 39%
K-6b 1 Yes 23 13 0 7 3 23 57%
K-6c 1 Yes 0 7 1 7 3 18 39%
K-6d 1 Yes 21 6 0 7 3 16 38%
L-8a 2
Monta Vista South
0 10 3 10 2 25 40%
L-8b 1 6 12 1 5 2 20 60%
L-8c 1 21 11 1 2 1 15 73%
L-8d 2 2 8 1 1 2 12 67%
M-7a 1 Yes Monta Vista North 73 22 5 89 3 119 18%
M-7b 2 0 15 3 10 2 30 50%
N-
13a 1 Yes Bubb Road 23 11 4 12 4 31 35%
O-4a 1 Homestead Villa 12 13 0 1 2 16 81%
P-1a 1
Creston-Pharlap
13 26 4 4 5 39 67%
P-1b 1 10 17 6 1 5 29 59%
P-1c 1 8 14 1 2 5 22 64%
1,088 58% Average
24 CC 08-29-2022
24 of 214
A 26a: 10989 N Wolfe Road et al
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 6
Neutral 1
Unhappy 9
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
NO NOT INCLUDE the hotel that was approved. REMOVE the hotel parcel out of the Housing Element.
This borders Linnet Lane which is residential. Please ensure height is max of 30 ft.
This location should have high density housing because of it's proximity to Apple, freeways, retail, etc. I would like to see 1000+ homes here like there will be at Vallco
This is shown on the latest Recommended Sites listing July 28, to be a Tier 2 location. Recommend moving to Tier 1 to replace homes from taking The Hamiltons off the list. Discussion at the Joint Planning and Housing Commission made it clear that various methods, including keeping some of the businesses is possible. Up to 373.5 homes were estimated with 30 DU with around 9 acres of property.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
59:31 pm Happy
This site makes a lot of sense. Near a lot of hotels, so doesn't look out of place. glose to transit
25 CC 08-29-2022
25 of 214
Aug 02 22 08:
09:52 pm Happy
A site bordering De Anza Blvd seems fine for higher density housing.
Aug 04 22 12:
43:31 pm Happy
This area is perfect to support higher density housing because it is close to everything
Aug 05 22 04:
36:23 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create new units and retail
Aug 14 22 08:
00:25 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 15 22 05:
11:55 pm Happy
Work with the owners and Sand Hill Properties on a
transformation of Wolfe Rd. into a stunning “complete streets” gateway.
Aug 02 22 09:
53:18 pm Neutral
Jul 28 22 07:
38:33 pm Unhappy Too dense
Jul 28 22 07:
38:57 pm Unhappy
Jul 28 22 07:
54:36 pm Unhappy Too dense
Jul 29 22 10:
33:53 am Unhappy NO again more traffic and people.
Jul 29 22 05:
36:04 pm Unhappy too dense
Jul 29 22 06:
46:32 pm Unhappy too dense
Aug 03 22 11:
08:06 am Unhappy traffic congestion
Aug 03 22 11:
07:56 pm Unhappy
Isn't this Cupertino Village where Ranch 99 grocery store is? This should be maintained as is. It's a great place to come shop, have a meal and hang out. Don't build housing on this parcel.
Aug 14 22 08:
06:16 pm Unhappy
26 CC 08-29-2022
26 of 214
Jul 28 22 09:
00:07 pm
This site makes a lot of sense. Near a lot of hotels, so doesn't look out of place. Close to transit and other amenities.
Jul 29 22 06:
49:17 pm
27 CC 08-29-2022
27 of 214
B 24a: Vallco Shopping District
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 19
Neutral 3
Unhappy 19
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
The map shows this to be the Simeon property which was discussed at the Joint Planning and Housing Commission to be suitable for 100% affordable housing.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jun 24 22 01:
44:22 pm Happy
Dense housing in Cupertino is desperately needed and this is a prime spot to build hundreds of units. It'll be nice to drive northbound on 280 some day and see sleek housing
developments next to the Apple campus instead of tents.
Jul 12 22 11:
13:07 am Happy
28 CC 08-29-2022
28 of 214
Jul 28 22 08:
56:59 pm Happy
This is excellent and may look pretty cool balanced with Hyatt across the street. High transit. Somewhat close to shopping Jul 28 22 11:
46:14 pm Happy
More mixed housing = better schools, more local employment opportunity, better quality of life, better city.
Aug 02 22 08:
12:29 pm Happy
I agree the location near 280 is suitable for high density housing.
The only objection could be increased traffic, but being close to 280 this shouldn't be a big issue.
Aug 03 22 11:
21:25 am Happy
Aug 03 22 06:
26:55 pm Happy Close to transit
Aug 03 22 06:
45:21 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 07:
54:22 pm Happy
This is excellent and may look pretty cool balanced with Hyatt across the street. High transit. Somewhat close to shopping Aug 03 22 07:
54:38 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:
40:59 pm Happy
Good choice for higher density. Whole area is being developed so this should be on par too.
Aug 04 22 06:
13:55 am Happy
Aug 04 22 11:
15:47 am Happy
This area is going to be a mess any way so go ahead and add to it
Aug 04 22 12:
42:19 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing because it is close to everything and very walkable.
Aug 05 22 04:
35:29 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to ten to create more than 257 units
Aug 14 22 07:
58:47 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 15 22 10:
39:47 am Happy
Good site, fits in context with the rest of vallco. Mitigate freeway noise and pollution. Add public easements to Merritt Dr. for bike and pedestrian
29 CC 08-29-2022
29 of 214
Aug 15 22 05:
06:55 pm Happy Go higher next to 280 - much higher.
Aug 15 22 08:
07:56 pm Happy Close to freeway and good place for high density housing Jul 29 22 03:
23:18 pm Neutral
Cupertino needs to step up their housing supply to satisfy the needs of the state
Aug 03 22 05:
20:35 pm Neutral
Aug 04 22 07:
04:04 am Neutral
Too many housing units and too close to freeway with bad air quality. Very unhealthy.
Jul 28 22 07:
39:46 pm Unhappy Way too much housing already
Jul 28 22 10:
57:49 pm Unhappy
It’s already a dense area full of aptmnts w’in 1 mile circle. High rise (8 flrs) & even denser units proposal would exhaust neighborhood resources such as education and traffic. It’d become a tumor of city. Consider areas of less apartments instead.
Jul 29 22 10:
29:25 am Unhappy
I do not want 22 story buildings in my backyard..TRAFFIC is awful now.. Think how it will be with all this housing. UGLY Jul 29 22 10:
32:56 am Unhappy NO we have enough housing and traffic already.
Jul 29 22 05:
27:34 pm Unhappy
There has been an increase of traffic at all time of the day when Apple was built. Homestead/Lawrence Expressway/Wolf is jammed with traffic.
Jul 29 22 05:
35:16 pm Unhappy Already too dense in this area
Jul 29 22 06:
46:05 pm Unhappy Way too much housing already
Aug 03 22 11:
05:10 am Unhappy traffic congestion
Aug 03 22 01:
40:37 pm Unhappy I don't like to have too many houses in this area any more. 30 CC 08-29-2022
30 of 214
Aug 04 22 02:
48:18 pm Unhappy
Too many cars jammed into a two-lane road to enter/exit I-280; It is on top of the cars to/from the Apple campus across I-280.
Aug 04 22 03:
52:12 pm Unhappy
The housing density - including existing condos/apartments - alone Wolfe Rd, which is a two-lane road will be way too high; how many cars can go through the I-280 interchange without causing serverely congested Wolfe Rd.?
Aug 04 22 03:
57:40 pm Unhappy
The last few high density housing projects are unevenly distributed toward the eastern end of Cupertino; have you calculated the density per subdivision in Cupertino and try to balance it across the City as a whole?
Aug 04 22 04:
06:08 pm Unhappy
That is simply too many units/cars jammed into one highway interchange. How do you expect Wolfe to digest ~3000 cars over a 2-3 hour window, twice a day; plus the people comes to Main Street/Cupertino Village; plus Apple employees!!
Aug 04 22 04:
09:23 pm Unhappy
Why most of the high density housing (past and present) are **heavily** allocated to eastern side of Cupertino? They should be spread out across the city to reduce the hot spot.
Aug 04 22 06:
09:10 pm Unhappy Simple, two words: traffic, school.
Aug 04 22 06:
13:16 pm Unhappy
How many news kids will there be to get into the schools? On the one hand, you are saying the school is overcrowded; on the other, you are saying the enrollment number is dropping; so which one is true?
Aug 07 22 03:
27:55 pm Unhappy
Aug 13 22 11:
39:18 pm Unhappy
Monstrous buildings - and what happens when the developer fails/refuses to maintain the "roof top garden" - which is like a grave by the way?
Aug 14 22 08:
05:45 pm Unhappy
31 CC 08-29-2022
31 of 214
C 9a: 10730 N. Blaney Ave. & 10710 N. Blaney Ave.
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 15
Unhappy 5
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Self-Storage site at Blaney and I-280...Reduce the amount of housing planned by changing the NEW ZONING TO BE R3 with a LAND USE DENSITY of Medium10-20 du/ac). That would be double what it is today, giving the owner a boost but keeping the area similar to other surrounding apartments. This parcel is at a very tight corner used heavily by school traffic, apartment dwellers, neighborhoods accessing Blaney to get to Homestead without making a left turn and avoiding Merritt & Blaney. It will also be an entry point to the Junipero Serra Trail. Please don't make this more dangerous!
The Site Overview is INCORRECT. Current Zoning is NOT R3! Parcel -009 (Mini-Storage) is ZONED P(R2, Mini-Stor)
Parcel -008 (house) is ZONED P(R2, Mini-Stor) with Density Low/Med (5-10 DU/AC) All the surrounding apartments are 2-story R3 with a max height of 30 ft. (-20 homes)
Great location to add density (+15 homes)
No comment (-61 homes)
This is good. No displacement. On latest Site List, there is 10710 also. The Google shows the 10710 as a house, and the 10730 as a Self Storage. Either way, it looks like a good place to put homes, and the DU of 30 allows for affordable housing. 32 CC 08-29-2022
32 of 214
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
27:19 pm Happy
Definitely like this. Like the 5-story since it is close to 280. Good use of space
Aug 03 22 03:
14:49 pm Happy
Makes sense to increase density especially if we have lost some existing high-density housing.
Aug 03 22 04:
05:51 pm Happy more of the same
Aug 03 22 05:
51:47 pm Happy
Good location. Freeway close. Seems like good traffic flow near on-ramps.
Aug 03 22 06:
01:41 pm Happy Need more apartments in Cupertino. Close to schools.
Aug 03 22 06:
34:22 pm Happy Near 280, large site
Aug 03 22 06:
35:46 pm Happy Large and near 280
Aug 03 22 06:
44:56 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
13:17 pm Happy great location for higher density
Aug 05 22 01:
07:39 pm Happy
High transit areas like Hwy 280 should be better utilized.
Increase building height to 6 stories to create more than 61 units Aug 11 22 04:
20:47 pm Happy
Aug 11 22 07:
12:11 pm Happy Close to Apple campus, reduce potential traffic.
Aug 14 22 08:
41:57 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state. 33 CC 08-29-2022
33 of 214
Aug 15 22 12:
20:16 pm Happy
Drivers on 280 won’t complain about height. A cautionary note:
air quality is a concern; consider measurement and mitigation (such as the soot-catching oaks planted by Canopy.org along the East Palo Alto sound wall.
Aug 16 22 10:
31:02 am Happy
Jul 28 22 07:
46:03 pm Unhappy not appropriate for houses
Jul 29 22 07:
37:14 am Unhappy No high rise in neighborhood
Jul 29 22 10:
31:57 am Unhappy We have had enough. More traffic and crime.
Jul 29 22 05:
00:49 pm Unhappy
this already has housing and would be hard to put more. Not appropriate
Aug 14 22 08:
03:09 pm Unhappy
34 CC 08-29-2022
34 of 214
D 11a: 10787 S Blaney Ave et al
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 29
Neutral 5
Unhappy 47
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
This site is too close to residential neighborhoods (-65 homes) Shopping center behind Walgreens at Blaney and Bollinger...There are homes on the north end of this site so keep the height/setback to be the same as max R1 at this end. PRESERVE THE RETAIL COMPONENT because this is a NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER! REQUIRE 80% of ground floor be retail, 100% accessible to the public, with retail space large enough for a grocery store or produce market - something to complement the Walgreens. Not all small salons. This is an ideal site to foster walking to local shopping located on this site. REQUIRE retail square footage to be AT LEAST as much as is currently present. If the 80% requirement conflicts with the AT LEAST requirement, require the larger square footage of the two.
SUGGESTION: Maybe keep the current density (don't increase it)but just add it to the Housing Element as a site? NOTE: It is NOT "surrounded by commercial" as the "Site Overview" states. It IS the commercial! It's a long walk to De Anza Blvd and back with groceries.
(-15 homes)
Traffic here is already bad -- why make it worse? Is there a corresponding plan to contain traffic congestion? great location to add density. (+10 homes)
Change to 30 DU to allow for affordable housing.
10787 is a small shopping center. Does not displace housing. (+40 homes(
No comment (-65 homes)
35 CC 08-29-2022
35 of 214
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:
17:12 pm Happy
Mixed use would not fit well in this neighborhood. Proposed density and height would allow a nice development which would blend in with the existing neighborhoods.
Jul 28 22 07:
29:29 pm Happy Good use of land. Close to transit.
Jul 31 22 01:
51:53 pm Happy
Aug 01 22 04:
11:23 am Happy
This site is more suitable for residential than commercial.
Density and heights seem appropriate.
Aug 01 22 02:
57:04 pm Happy
Good new zoning criteria. This is best as a residential neighborhood.
Aug 03 22 10:
08:15 am Happy
This would be an improved use for this property, located in a residential area. density and height are appropriate.
Aug 03 22 10:
25:19 am Happy
This is a better location for residential than along busy main streets such as De Anza.
Aug 03 22 11:
11:50 am Happy
New housing needs to be spread throught the city. This is a small number of additional housing units for this part of the city.
Definately good.
Aug 03 22 11:
54:19 am Happy
Residential here would be a good addition to the neighborhood.
Density is appropriate.
Aug 03 22 01:
07:49 pm Happy Commercial belongs on De Anza and Stevens Creek.
Aug 03 22 01:
11:06 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 01:
40:48 pm Happy
36 CC 08-29-2022
36 of 214
Aug 03 22 02:
05:48 pm Happy Suitable location. Suitable zoning specifics.
Aug 03 22 02:
55:56 pm Happy Good location and density.
Aug 03 22 04:
36:46 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 04:
40:54 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 05:
48:53 pm Happy
A nice large site. I like the height limitation of four stories given the surrounding residential. I'm sure some people would complain about this one, but we have to do something to increase housing opportunities for people.
Aug 03 22 05:
57:42 pm Happy Very suitable for this location.
Aug 03 22 06:
44:50 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 06:
45:10 pm Happy
I think this site would be a good selection for affordable housing.
I would rather see only two stories however.
Aug 03 22 09:
56:02 pm Happy
This looks like an excellent spot for higher density because of the large lot.
Aug 03 22 09:
58:18 pm Happy
This is a good place for higher density. It is close to restaurants, schools and parks. It will be an attractive place to live.
Aug 04 22 12:
14:36 pm Happy
this location should have high density housing due to proximity to city services and shops
Aug 05 22 01:
18:05 pm Happy
Happy to see this large site get more than 65 units / condos / townhomes. Increase building height to 5 or 6
Aug 11 22 04:
21:23 pm Happy
Aug 14 22 08:
43:53 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state. 37 CC 08-29-2022
37 of 214
Aug 15 22 10:
32:20 am Happy
Underutilized shopping center with empty stores. Keep in mind this contains neighborhood retail with lots of small businesses. It should be zoned mixed use with options to keep the existing businesses. Build a public easement to La Roda Dr.
Aug 15 22 05:
03:00 pm Happy
Trees, balconies with plants, and a stepped-back design can help mitigate the concerns of the next door NIMBYs.
Aug 15 22 08:
03:49 pm Happy Good location near jobs, schools and freeway.
Jul 28 22 07:
46:52 pm Neutral need some retail there - not so much housing Jul 29 22 05:
02:44 pm Neutral
Make this more retail and viable for retail. Very little housing here. We need to retain our businesses and help businesses come in
Jul 29 22 06:
33:37 pm Neutral
Aug 01 22 06:
02:04 pm Neutral
4 stories seems a bit high - 3 stories seems about right. Assume wall would remain that buffers the current La Roda Drive dead- end? Otherwise that would significantly increase traffic along La Roda Drive. Also, where would lost retail get replaced? Aug 02 22 10:
23:39 pm Neutral seems ok to me.
Jul 28 22 07:
47:18 pm Unhappy hope TP Tea stays
Aug 01 22 11:
56:01 am Unhappy
4 story building will be too intrusive to neighboring single family home. 2 story building should be fine.
Aug 01 22 09:
25:30 pm Unhappy
We don't want multi-story housing projects built in our neighborhood. We need sense of safety and privacy. The city needs to set a height and density limit of any new constructions to protect the benefit of existing residents of single or two-story houses
Aug 02 22 09:
58:58 pm Unhappy
1. I love those convenient small stores such as restaurants, barber shops, music/dance classes for kids, which is part of our community.
38 CC 08-29-2022
38 of 214
Aug 02 22 10:
01:01 pm Unhappy The original stores are good, why rezone to residential? Aug 02 22 10:
02:14 pm Unhappy
I don't like the 4 story high density residential plans, not very good for privacy for SFH in the neighborhood.
Aug 02 22 10:
10:15 pm Unhappy love the boba tea stores and restaurants, want to keep them Aug 03 22 12:
47:04 pm Unhappy
Current plaza is quite good for the community. The building height should be equal or less than 2.
Aug 03 22 12:
49:04 pm Unhappy Want to keep the commercial stores, they're awesome! Aug 03 22 12:
50:03 pm Unhappy No need to change.
Aug 03 22 12:
51:18 pm Unhappy Hope to build more schools， not high density ones.
Aug 03 22 03:
20:54 pm Unhappy Don’t want any more high density residential units! Aug 03 22 04:
20:48 pm Unhappy no more high density housing!
Aug 03 22 04:
34:53 pm Unhappy love the boba tea ship and other stores, can we keep them? Aug 03 22 04:
50:00 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 04:
56:13 pm Unhappy not happy with this plan!
Aug 03 22 04:
56:39 pm Unhappy no more 4 story buildings!!
Aug 03 22 04:
57:35 pm Unhappy no rezone for high density any more
Aug 03 22 05:
01:31 pm Unhappy please keep the current zoning
Aug 03 22 06:
01:30 pm Unhappy Don’t like the rezone plan
39 CC 08-29-2022
39 of 214
Aug 03 22 06:
34:20 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 06:
44:10 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 07:
41:06 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 08:
12:23 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 08:
42:51 pm Unhappy More prefer not to rezone
Aug 03 22 09:
06:30 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 10:
26:44 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 11:
39:28 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 11:
55:59 pm Unhappy Stop rezoning the commercial land
Aug 04 22 12:
04:08 am Unhappy
Aug 04 22 12:
35:09 am Unhappy
Aug 04 22 08:
34:09 am Unhappy
Aug 04 22 11:
58:00 am Unhappy
Aug 04 22 03:
37:35 pm Unhappy
Aug 04 22 08:
27:40 pm Unhappy
Aug 04 22 09:
52:20 pm Unhappy
40 CC 08-29-2022
40 of 214
Aug 04 22 11:
27:54 pm Unhappy
Aug 05 22 07:
41:40 am Unhappy
Aug 05 22 01:
22:04 pm Unhappy
Aug 05 22 03:
04:41 pm Unhappy
Aug 05 22 09:
58:48 pm Unhappy
Aug 07 22 07:
11:52 pm Unhappy
Aug 08 22 07:
24:51 pm Unhappy
Aug 11 22 09:
20:06 pm Unhappy
Four stories is too high for the neighborhood. Two stories will make more sense.
Aug 14 22 07:
58:05 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 07:
58:35 pm Unhappy
Too crowded already. Not enough infrastructure. What about water?
Aug 14 22 08:
06:42 pm Unhappy
Aug 04 22 06:
52:56 am
41 CC 08-29-2022
41 of 214
D 11b: 20421 Bollinger Rd et al
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 15
Neutral 1
Unhappy 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Taco Bell and adjacent sites...The far eastern side of 11b should not be taller than what's allowed for R1 because it borders single family homes.
REQUIRE that there be ground floor retail where Taco Bell is located with the size being AT LEAST as large as the existing Taco Bell (not multiple little shops).
Traffic here is already bad -- why make it worse? Is there a corresponding plan to contain traffic congestion? great location to add density
Taco Bell et all. Great location. Perhaps add density to allow for more height on this major thoroughfare. (+20 homes) No comment (-37 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
42 CC 08-29-2022
42 of 214
Jul 28 22 07:33:
15 pm Happy Good use of land in a high transit area
Aug 02 22 10:07:
28 pm Happy
There is large land just full of weeds, I think build some residential will be good plan here.
Aug 02 22 10:08:
28 pm Happy
good location, and that Taco Bell store is abandoned long time ..
Aug 02 22 10:09:
35 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 12:49:
54 pm Happy This location is very good for housing development Aug 03 22 01:08:
33 pm Happy Good location for residential.
Aug 03 22 04:21:
18 pm Happy support this!
Aug 03 22 04:40:
13 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 05:46:
13 pm Happy
Seems like a reasonable place. It does border some
residential, but highly commercial as well so this should be fine. Large size means the residential borders (east side) might have some setback from the building so not so close to
neighbors.
Aug 03 22 09:59:
48 pm Happy
This is a good location. Many amenities close by. Easy access to freeway.
Aug 04 22 12:15:
45 pm Happy
This location should have high density due to proximity to city services, shops, etc.
Aug 05 22 01:19:
32 pm Happy
All high transit corridor sites like this large site should be better utilized. Increase building height to six stories to create more than 38 units
Aug 11 22 07:17:
06 pm Happy
A good location for high density building with connivence stores nearby.
Aug 15 22 09:42:
48 am Happy
Housing fits well with the Bollinger safety improvements planned by Cupertino and SJ. These lots are severely
underutilized but preserve the existing plexes if possible. 43 CC 08-29-2022
43 of 214
Aug 15 22 05:05:
33 pm Happy
A great opportunity for tall housing with a “complete” streets project to slow traffic on this high pedestrian traffic crossing.
Jul 29 22 05:03:
32 pm Neutral Perfect spot for more retail and less housing on this area Jul 29 22 07:38:
56 am Unhappy
Aug 02 22 10:00:
20 pm Unhappy
I don't like the high density residential plan, even it's plan to re- zone, I think 4 story is too high for the adjacent single family neighbors.
44 CC 08-29-2022
44 of 214
E 18a: 10065 E Estates Dr
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 7
Neutral 1
Unhappy 4
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial Excellent choice. No families displaced.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
07:21 pm Happy Good use of land, close to transit, close to shopping Aug 03 22 12:
40:10 pm Happy
45 CC 08-29-2022
45 of 214
Aug 03 22 05:
32:38 pm Happy
I agree this is a great place for high density development, particularly given the proximity to The Rise and Main Street. This whole are is a great place for high density given the walkable opportunities with everything around.
Aug 03 22 10:
14:46 pm Happy
Good spot for development. Higher density will bring much needed housing to this side of town.
Aug 04 22 12:
26:11 pm Happy
This location should have high density housing due to proximity to city services, shops, transit, freeways, etc.
Aug 05 22 04:
10:28 pm Happy
Good to see more housing. Increase the building height to ten to create more units / condos / townhomes
Aug 15 22 09:
29:02 am Happy
Close to vallco, transit, parks, tino high school. This is a prime location for mixed use and homes on top. Redesign the
sidewalks and streetscape to be walking friendly!
Jul 29 22 05:
10:37 pm Neutral
make this mixed use with emphasis on retail. We are losing our retail and will have so much housing across the street. Retail Retail little housing, if any
Jul 28 22 07:
52:39 pm Unhappy too dense for this area. Too many high rises Jul 29 22 07:
42:34 am Unhappy Too high. Traffic.
Jul 29 22 08:
35:40 am Unhappy Too high a housing density
Jul 29 22 06:
38:32 pm Unhappy
keep good retail here. tooo much across the street already.
NOOOOO
46 CC 08-29-2022
46 of 214
E 18b: 19550 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 6
Unhappy 4
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial Excellent choice. No families displaced.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
09:06 pm Happy Good location, close to transit, close to shopping Aug 03 22 12:
40:24 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 05:
30:42 pm Happy
Somewhat small, but a good candidate given the location. High density is fine.
47 CC 08-29-2022
47 of 214
Aug 03 22 10:
16:31 pm Happy
This part of town sorely needs new development. Higher density will bring much needed housing to this side of town.
Aug 04 22 12:
26:44 pm Happy
This location should have high density housing due to proximity to city services, shops, transit, freeways, etc.
Aug 05 22 04:
11:07 pm Happy
appy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 32 units Jul 29 22 08:
36:44 am Unhappy Housing would clog important intersection Jul 29 22 08:
37:27 am Unhappy Too many cars at important intersection Jul 29 22 05:
11:30 pm Unhappy
maybe 2-3 stories high. Stop putting all the dense housing so close together. Not cool
Jul 29 22 06:
39:09 pm Unhappy maybe 2-3 stories high. too much in this area already 48 CC 08-29-2022
48 of 214
E 18c: 19220 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 6
Neutral 1
Unhappy 4
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+133 homes)
Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate. Add 48 homes. . 96 x du 50 = 48 homes
(+48 homes)
Date of
contributi
on
Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22
08:10:32
pm Happy Good location, close to transit, close to shopping 49 CC 08-29-2022
49 of 214
Aug 03 22
12:41:24
pm Happy
Aug 03 22
10:17:58
pm Happy
Good location for development and high density housing. It's opposite Main St. Residents can walk to the restaurants here. Close to freeway too. Very convenient.
Aug 04 22
12:27:21
pm Happy
This location should have high density housing due to proximity to city services, shops, transit, freeways, etc.
Aug 05 22
04:11:47
pm Happy
appy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to ten to create new units Aug 15 22
09:31:55
am Happy
GREAT site close to Main St, Cupertino High School, Apple HQ. Fits in a context with lots of mixed use and housing. Next to the rainbow flag crosswalk too -- could be a community space for LGBT youth? Use TDM strategies -- many don't need cars here
Aug 03 22
05:29:42
pm Neutral
This is a pretty good candidate. Seems like a middle ground type of development might be better here compared to other candidate areas. Not as tall of buildings (maybe 3 or 4 stories max).
Jul 29 22
07:41:48
am Unhappy Too close to school. Traffic.
Jul 29 22
08:38:43
am Unhappy Way too high housing density. 8 floors is out of character for area.
Jul 29 22
05:12:31
pm Unhappy
Too much in this area. Stop with all the density in 1 area. Enough already. Schools are so crowded in these areas
Jul 29 22
06:39:44
pm Unhappy too much here already
50 CC 08-29-2022
50 of 214
E 18d: 19400 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 6
Unhappy 3
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+50 homes)
Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate. Add 48 homes. . 96 x du 50 = 48 homes
(+60 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:12:
12 pm Happy Good location, Close to transit and shopping Aug 03 22 12:
41:53 pm Happy
51 CC 08-29-2022
51 of 214
Aug 03 22 10:
19:01 pm Happy
Good location for more higher density housing. Lots of
restaurants here . Close to freeway. All very convenient.
Aug 04 22 12:
27:55 pm Happy
This location should have high density housing due to proximity to city services, shops, transit, freeways, etc.
Aug 05 22 04:
12:30 pm Happy
appy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site.
Increase building height to ten to create new units
Aug 15 22 09:
34:07 am Happy
Good location in high density mixed use context with protected bike lanes. Make sure any housing has a public easement to Richwood Ct/Miller Ave for pedestrian access. Maybe even a bridge over the creek to Craft Dr -- super short walk to Tino Jul 29 22 08:39:
32 am Unhappy
Way too high housing density. 8 floors is out of character for area.
Jul 29 22 05:13:
35 pm Unhappy
As said before. Enough of the density in this part of town. So unfair
Jul 29 22 06:40:
30 pm Unhappy stop the density in this part of town.
52 CC 08-29-2022
52 of 214
F 16a: 19990 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 5
Neutral 1
Unhappy 3
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Move to Tier 1 (+23)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
58:54 pm Happy Good use of land, close to transit, shopping Aug 04 22 12:
23:42 pm Happy
This location should have high density housing due to proximity to city services, shops, transit, freeways, etc.
Aug 05 22 03:
38:35 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to ten to create new units Aug 15 22 09:
37:23 am Happy build mixed use housing!
53 CC 08-29-2022
53 of 214
Aug 15 22 12:
29:49 pm Happy
Gas stations are, hopefully, a dying breed. Watch for soil contamination here, and again, build tall, with verdant and attractive elements. Tall corner features like a clock tower can add interest and calm traffic.
Aug 03 22 10:
09:10 pm Neutral
Isn't this currently a gas station? What will it take to clean up this space so that it is suitable for housing?
Jul 29 22 05:
07:21 pm Unhappy
too dense for this area. If you put housing make it for sale nice units. This whole area is way to dense on this side of town Jul 29 22 06:
36:50 pm Unhappy great place for more retail goods
Jul 30 22 08:
53:10 am Unhappy
Too much housing already being added in this area due to Vallco.
54 CC 08-29-2022
54 of 214
F 16b: 20010 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Unhappy 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Move to Tier 1 (+23 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:00:
54 pm Happy Good use of land, close to transit, stores
Aug 03 22 10:
10:00 pm Happy
There are already some apartment blocks here. Adding to them will fit the general look of the area.
Aug 04 22 12:
24:16 pm Happy
This location should have high density housing due to proximity to city services, shops, transit, freeways, etc.
Aug 05 22 03:
39:04 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create new units 55 CC 08-29-2022
55 of 214
Aug 15 22 09:
38:26 am Happy
Mixed use housing fits well in the existing context. Improve the streetscape for pedestrians. Fewer environmental concerns than the gas station across the street. Go as big as possible -- this is a good spot
Aug 15 22 12:
23:46 pm Happy
Good rationale. I’d also require large tree species with plenty of root room, as well as daylight plane considerations.
Aug 15 22 12:
26:36 pm Happy
Again, good rationale. And again, large tree species and daylight plane considerations. Some kind of unifying design elements for the entire Heart of the City would creat a sense of place.
Aug 15 22 12:
39:43 pm Happy
Short-sighted owner missed an opportunity to link with the surrounding apartment project. That being said, a distinctive, tall, corner project could provide one of several “gateway” features along SC Blvd. Include ground level food.
Jul 29 22 06:37:
15 pm Unhappy retail appropriate
Jul 30 22 08:52:
53 am Unhappy
Too much housing already being added in this area due to Vallco.
56 CC 08-29-2022
56 of 214
F 16c: 20149 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Neutral 1
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Move to Tier 1 (+30 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:02:
37 pm Happy Good use of land, close to transit and shopping Aug 03 22 11:
26:05 am Happy
Aug 03 22 12:
38:15 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:
10:47 pm Happy
57 CC 08-29-2022
57 of 214
Aug 04 22 12:
25:00 pm Happy
This location should have high density housing due to proximity to city services, shops, transit, freeways, etc.
Aug 05 22 03:
40:21 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to ten to create new units Aug 15 22 09:
41:07 am Happy
There is a mixed use complex across the street! This fits in the context well. Make it as easy to build here as possible and encourage TDM strategies.
Aug 15 22 04:
44:03 pm Happy
Same as previous comments - except that a plaque should be placed on the adjacent parcel to the north (10080)
commemorating the original location of the Cupertino Bike Shop, famous for popularizing lightweight multi-speed racing bikes -
Jul 29 22 06:37:
43 pm Neutral a few houses would be ok
Jul 29 22 05:09:
07 pm Unhappy
not too dense here. Make it nice homes for sale - no high density so close to Vallco Area. Schools are pretty impacted here
58 CC 08-29-2022
58 of 214
G 15a: 10125 Bandley Dr
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 14
Neutral 2
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Lei Garden Dim Sum site...REMOVE THIS ENTIRELY FROM THE LIST! This is a very popular restaurant! I think people come from outside of Cupertino for dim sum. With Marina putting in housing next to it, people will be looking for restaurants.
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+50 houses) Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:39:
18 pm Happy Good location, good transit, good shopping, services, etc. 59 CC 08-29-2022
59 of 214
Jul 28 22 07:51:
24 pm Happy Dense here. Perfect spot for dense dense dense Jul 29 22 03:51:
20 pm Happy
Jul 29 22 03:51:
48 pm Happy
Jul 29 22 05:05:
53 pm Happy
great spot for housing near transit and shopping. Dense here is appropriate for this site
Jul 29 22 06:35:
49 pm Happy near everything. Dense os appropriate
Aug 03 22 11:
23:40 am Happy
Aug 03 22 05:
35:23 pm Happy
Great place for high density. Maybe moderate things a bit with the residential across the street (less than 8 stories high) Aug 03 22 06:
03:45 pm Happy Need more apartments. Close to schools on Blaney.
Aug 03 22 10:
02:40 pm Happy
This is a good place for high density. Close to everything.
Residents can walk to a lot of things.
Aug 04 22 12:
18:18 pm Happy
this location should have high density due to proximity to shops, transit, etc.
Aug 05 22 03:
12:10 pm Happy
Good to see more density at a high transit corridor site this large. Increase building height to ten for more than 50 units Aug 14 22 08:
47:55 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 15 22 04:
48:39 pm Happy
Let’s consider going higher here (12 stories?) due to low neighbor impact and setback from SC Blvd.
Aug 03 22 12:
32:54 pm Neutral
I like the idea in the abstract, but I'm concerned about what might happen to the existing business on the site.
Aug 04 22 06:
16:52 am Neutral
Aug 14 22 08:
04:03 pm Unhappy
60 CC 08-29-2022
60 of 214
G 15b: 20950 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 13
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Mr. Sun Tea site/was a BBQ site...REQUIRE 80% of first floor be retail open 100% to the public (put it in the deed restrictions).
REQUIRE that at least one of the retail spaces on the first floor be AT LEAST AS BIG as the existing square footage.
Can this be an affordable disabled site? It has sidewalks, access to transportation and shopping and classes at De Anza.
Policy...Can retail businesses (not office) grab a unit for an employee and somehow subsidize it? Can rent be lower for Cupertino retail workers?
Can local property tax be reduced if X% of units are Cupertino retail workers or 50% affordable? OR can Cupertino retail workers be able to submit paperwork for rebates on their rent each month? (+15 homes)
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+10 homes)
Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate. (+15 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
61 CC 08-29-2022
61 of 214
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
41:23 pm Happy Excellent site, shopping, transit.
Jul 29 22 06:
36:20 pm Happy greart place for housing and density
Aug 03 22 10:
32:56 am Happy
Aug 03 22 11:
23:55 am Happy
Aug 03 22 12:
36:18 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 05:
05:27 pm Happy Owner interest. Near everthing
Aug 03 22 05:
37:24 pm Happy
Good place for development. Probably less than 8 stories given the small size.
Aug 03 22 10:
04:20 pm Happy
Definitely should build high density housing here. It is such an underused space. More housing here means residents can walk to many amenities. Memorial Park, restaurants and shops.
Aug 04 22 11:
03:55 am Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
19:13 pm Happy
This location should have high density housing due to proximity to shops, transit, etc.
Aug 05 22 03:
13:22 pm Happy
Happy to see more density in a high transit corridor site.
Increase the building height to ten for more units
Aug 14 22 08:
49:53 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 15 22 04:
50:18 pm Happy
Sounds good - just plant plenty of trees to mitigate neighbor impacts.
Aug 04 22 06:
22:38 am Unhappy Too dense
62 CC 08-29-2022
62 of 214
G 15c: 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 9
Neutral 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Fontana's Restaurant site...REQUIRE 80% of first floor be retail open 100% to the public (put it in the deed restrictions). REQUIRE that at least one of the retail spaces on the first floor be AT LEAST AS BIG as the existing square footage.
Can this be an affordable disabled site? It has sidewalks, access to transportation and shopping and classes at De Anza.
Policy...Can retail businesses (not office) grab a unit for an employee and somehow subsidize it? Can rent be lower for Cupertino retail workers?
Can local property tax be reduced if X% of units are Cupertino retail workers or 50% affordable? (+10 homes)
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+50 homes)
Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate. (+10 homes)
Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
63 CC 08-29-2022
63 of 214
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Aug 03 22 10:
32:20 am Happy
Aug 03 22 12:
36:25 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:
05:36 pm Happy
More housing here means it won't be 'dead' at night. Residents can walk to many amenities. Good location for higher density.
Aug 04 22 06:
25:00 am Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
20:06 pm Happy
This location should have high density mixed-use housing due to proximity to transit, shops, city center
Aug 05 22 03:
21:16 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 25 units
Aug 14 22 08:
52:52 pm Happy State requirements
Aug 15 22 09:
16:09 am Happy
Excellent access to shopping and public transit. There will be protected bike lanes soon so you can get around very easily.
Means more homes, less parking needed. Walkable to De Anza College too. Shoot for mixed use -- commercial on ground floor Aug 15 22 04:
53:05 pm Happy
It was a nice restaurant - but times change. Why not consider stepped height - three along SC Blvd and eight in the “back”.
First floor retail also, with large trees and wide sidewalk.
Jul 28 22 07:
46:57 pm Neutral
I'm having a hard time envisioning how this fits with everything else nearby, but it matches all my other criteria: transit, shopping/services, etc.
64 CC 08-29-2022
64 of 214
G 15d: 20730 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Unhappy 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
TJ Max, HomeGoods, UPS Store, Sprouts, Starbucks, FedEx, Credit Union, etc. - REMOVE THIS FROM THE LIST ENTIRELY! This is a thriving shopping center. Don't mess with it. We desperately need retail. What good is Via if there's no place to go in Cupertino?!?!?
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+250 homes) Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
49:48 pm Happy
This has it all: location, transit, matches density of existing units, services, stores
Aug 03 22 10:
31:38 am Happy
65 CC 08-29-2022
65 of 214
Aug 03 22 12:
36:31 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
20:30 pm Happy
This location should have high density mixed-use housing due to proximity to transit, shops, city center
Aug 05 22 03:
22:46 pm Happy
Happy to see more density in a high transit corridor site this large. Create a mixed use building for retail and residents Aug 14 22 08:
53:50 pm Happy Required
Aug 15 22 09:
17:33 am Happy
In my experience, the parking lot on the west side is
underutilized. You can build on there without disrupting parking for the shopping center. This is a great place for housing walkable to shopping, transit. Build a pedestrian Paseo to Faria on Scofield
Aug 15 22 04:
56:13 pm Happy
This is a prime candidate for moving the face of first floor retail out toward the street, with large tree species and a wide sidewalk. This will make Cupertino’s signature street much more attractive. Put LOTS of housing above.
Aug 03 22 05:
12:06 pm Unhappy Only mixed retail with a little house
Aug 04 22 06:
19:25 am Unhappy Keep important retail stores
66 CC 08-29-2022
66 of 214
G 15e: 20830 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 7
Neutral 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Staples site - REMOVE THIS FROM THE LIST COMPLETELY!!! This is the only office supply store in miles. Do a search. The closest are in Los Gatos and Mountain View. Encourage them to stay, don't entice them to leave! Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+25 homes)
Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate. (+10 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
51:58 pm Happy
Every little bit helps. This meets my criteria: location, transit, shopping
67 CC 08-29-2022
67 of 214
Aug 03 22 12:
36:38 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 06:
20:47 am Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
20:59 pm Happy
This location should have high density mixed-use housing due to proximity to transit, shops, city center
Aug 05 22 03:
23:29 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 30 units
Aug 14 22 08:
54:54 pm Happy Required
Aug 15 22 05:
00:00 pm Happy
An opportunity to create a bike/Pedestrian connection to Scofield Dr.
Aug 03 22 05:
15:38 pm Neutral As long as retail stays
68 CC 08-29-2022
68 of 214
G 15f: 20750 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this
site being considered for
future housing?
Happy 6
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Dish Dash Restaurant...keep this retail/restaurant! It's successful.
If it's added, REQUIRE 80% of entire first floor to be retail 100% open to the public. REQUIRE that one of the first floor retail spaces be AT LEAST AS BIG as the Dish Dash restaurant square footage (not broken up into nail salon size).
Policies...Is there a creative way for local businesses to grab a unit for an employee, maybe subsidize it? Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+ 50 homes)
Change this to Tier 1. The homes will be needed to replace the Hamptons, and ensure the buffer is appropriate. (+10 homes) Date of
contribution Survey Response
69 CC 08-29-2022
69 of 214
How do you
feel about
this site
being
considered
for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
53:46 pm Happy Like it because of the location, shopping & transit Aug 03 22 10:
33:45 am Happy
Aug 03 22 12:
36:54 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
21:23 pm Happy
This location should have high density mixed-use housing due to proximity to transit, shops, city center
Aug 05 22 03:
24:13 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 28 units
Aug 14 22 08:
55:41 pm Happy Required
Aug 04 22 06:
26:48 am Unhappy Dish dash is great
70 CC 08-29-2022
70 of 214
G 15g: 20850 Stevens Creek Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 7
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
"CONFUSING...map shows 15g in front of Staples (15e).
Is this the old Pizza Hut site? If so, REQUIRE 80% of first floor to be RETAIL with 100% open to the public. Also, REQUIRE that one retail unit be AT LEAST the same or larger square footage as the Pizza Hut building. Put REQUIRMENTS as deed restrictions that must be recorded in order for zoning to change or building permit to be issued."
(+10 homes)
Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial (+20 homes)
Change this to Tier 1. These homes will be needed to take the place of the Hamptons. (+10 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
71 CC 08-29-2022
71 of 214
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
55:47 pm Happy Like that it is near shopping & transit. Good use of land Aug 03 22 11:
23:27 am Happy
Aug 03 22 12:
37:01 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:
07:32 pm Happy
This is prime location. Housing here will allow residents to walk to many things.
Aug 04 22 12:
21:46 pm Happy
This location should have high density mixed-use housing due to proximity to transit, shops, city center
Aug 05 22 03:
24:41 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 14 units
Aug 15 22 09:
18:13 am Happy Homes on old parking lots = good
Aug 03 22 05:
19:27 pm Unhappy
72 CC 08-29-2022
72 of 214
H 19a: 19820 Homestead Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 5
Neutral 2
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
good location for moderate density (duplex, triplex, 4-plex, etc) Allow higher du so that more homes can be built. .44 X30 = 13.2 Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
16:05 pm Happy It's fine. Doesn't add a whole lot, but every little bit helps.
Jul 29 22 05:
15:22 pm Happy ok if not too many homes
Aug 03 22 10:
20:06 pm Happy
Good location for more housing. Restaurants, grocery store and freeway are all close by.
73 CC 08-29-2022
73 of 214
Aug 04 22 12:
29:19 pm Happy great location to add moderate density
Aug 05 22 04:
13:29 pm Happy
Good to see more housing. Increase the building height to four or five to create more units / condos / townhomes
Jul 29 22 06:
40:56 pm Neutral
Aug 11 22 02:
25:11 pm Neutral
I am not opposed to this location, just seems like high density for this site.
Aug 02 22 08:
36:01 pm Unhappy
Pretty small and close to residential. Not a good place for high density.
74 CC 08-29-2022
74 of 214
H 19b: 11025 N De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 10
Neutral 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
good location for moderate density (duplex, triplex, 4-plex, etc) Corner of Stevens Creek blvd. Excellent space to add density. No families displaced.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
17:52 pm Happy
Good location, close to transit, much better use than the current eyesore
Jul 29 22 05:
16:33 pm Happy ok site for density Has all amenities including transit Aug 02 22 08:
48:02 pm Happy
I agree that the proximity to 280 and adjacent commercial make this a good candidate for development.
75 CC 08-29-2022
75 of 214
Aug 03 22 11:
24:44 am Happy
Aug 03 22 10:
21:18 pm Happy
Great spot for more housing. There are apartments already nearby so it won't affect the "look" of area. Lots of restaurants and grocery stores within walking distance.
Aug 04 22 12:
30:55 pm Happy
this location should have high density housing due to proximity to transit, freeways, shops, etc.
Aug 05 22 04:
14:25 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to ten to create more than 21 units
Aug 11 22 02:
23:19 pm Happy Good place for infill.
Aug 11 22 04:
20:05 pm Happy
Aug 15 22 10:
58:45 am Happy
Good, but consider leaving it open to mixed use as well. Fits with the commercial corridor across the street.
Jul 29 22 06:
41:38 pm Neutral
76 CC 08-29-2022
76 of 214
H 20a: APN 32607030
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 14
Neutral 1
Unhappy 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
If this is adjacent to 20916 -- parking and McDonald's, excellent. No families displaced.
This whole area is ideal for housing density! Good traffic flow and some support businesses that could use the customers.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:30:
07 pm Happy
Jul 28 22 06:30:
20 pm Happy
77 CC 08-29-2022
77 of 214
Jul 28 22 07:56:
25 pm Happy High dense perfect area
Jul 28 22 08:20:
57 pm Happy
I can't tell where this is, but being on Stelling, it has easy access.
Jul 29 22 05:17:
50 pm Happy near everything
Aug 02 22 08:23:
38 pm Happy
Not close to a lot of residential so it makes sense this could have higher density development.
Aug 03 22 04:23:
42 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:22:
05 pm Happy
If the parking lot is not needed, then building more housing makes sense.
Aug 04 22 12:32:
09 pm Happy great opportunity to add density to this part of the city Aug 05 22 04:15:
30 pm Happy
Good to see more housing. Increase the building height to ten to create more than 45 units
Aug 14 22 08:59:
03 pm Happy Required
Aug 14 22 09:13:
10 pm Happy State
Aug 15 22 05:19:
26 pm Happy
Former Cupertino mayor Rod Sinks told me that someone did an analysis that showed I’d we developed every parking lot in Silicon Valley, the income could a public transit system that would be free for everyone forever. Parking lots.
Aug 15 22 06:39:
55 pm Happy
Close to Homestead HS, building over underutilized surface parking lots
Aug 12 22 01:00:
07 pm Neutral
it would break up access to the sports facilities from the main church. Perhaps the church would want to partner with a developer and sponsor/build their own social housing to meet city needs?
Aug 04 22 11:10:
03 am Unhappy 8 stories is too high. I would support 3-4 stories. 78 CC 08-29-2022
78 of 214
Aug 14 22 08:04:
35 pm Unhappy
79 CC 08-29-2022
79 of 214
H 20b: 20916 Homestead Road et al
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 12
Neutral 1
Unhappy 3
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Excellent. No families replaced.
Date of
contributi
on
Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22
06:30:58
pm Happy
Jul 28 22
07:57:26
pm Happy Keep some retail please. Too dense in one area 80 CC 08-29-2022
80 of 214
Jul 28 22
08:22:39
pm Happy Good location, love the added units, close to shopping, transit Jul 29 22
05:18:58
pm Happy
near all amenities. Good for density. Retain bowling alley. we need places to play
Jul 29 22
06:42:31
pm Happy Keep some retail please.
Aug 02 22
08:33:49
pm Happy
Being in a commercial area, it seems appropriate for high density housing.
Aug 04 22
12:32:59
pm Happy great location to add density to this area
Aug 05 22
04:16:24
pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to ten to create more than 228 units and retail
Aug 12 22
01:01:01
pm Happy Parcel could be better designed with mixed-use social housing.
Aug 14 22
09:01:43
pm Happy Required
Aug 14 22
09:15:39
pm Happy StAte
Aug 15 22
05:20:55
pm Happy
I call this area the “slums of Cupertino”. Great candidate for tall, beautiful housing.
Aug 03 22
04:24:08
pm Neutral
81 CC 08-29-2022
81 of 214
Aug 03 22
04:03:58
pm Unhappy Have to get people out of their cars or traffic will be impossible Aug 03 22
10:23:27
pm Unhappy
There are not many restaurants in this part of town. It would be a shame to take away this plaza for housing.
Aug 04 22
11:09:03
am Unhappy
8 stories is much higher than other buildings around this area. I would support shorter buidlings
82 CC 08-29-2022
82 of 214
H 20c: APNs 32607036 & 32607022
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Neutral 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
If this is the adjacent parking lot and McDonald's Excellent area. no families displaced Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
25:07 pm Happy
Nice big area, lots of potential units, close to shopping, close to transit
Jul 29 22 05:
19:39 pm Happy good for density here. Higher and bigger Aug 03 22 11:
27:21 am Happy
83 CC 08-29-2022
83 of 214
Aug 03 22 10:
24:37 pm Happy
I'd rather you take away this parcel for housing compared to 20b.
This parcel is underused and more housing here makes sense.
Aug 04 22 12:
33:45 pm Happy
great location to add mixed-use buildings with high density housing
Aug 05 22 04:
17:00 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to ten to create more than 167 units
Aug 14 22 09:
23:39 pm Happy State
Aug 15 22 06:
36:06 pm Happy
Aug 12 22 01:
02:33 pm Neutral
Perhaps the church would be agreeable to partner with a developer to create social housing for the community. I enjoy using these community resources the church provides for my children and my family. The sports facilities are open to the public.
84 CC 08-29-2022
84 of 214
I 14a: Right- of- Way, Mary Ave Site
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 11
Neutral 5
Unhappy 8
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
great location to add density. Close to freeways and De Anza college (+88 homes) Excellent location for Extremely Low Income Housing for Developmentally Intellectually Disabled people.
I've lived nearby and feel this is an ideal place for affordable homes. However it is ALSO the site where they were going to put in senior housing and the local NIMBY contingent destroyed any possibility. This is a completely unused space. Please build housing there.
Date of contribution Survey Response
How do you feel
about this site
being considered
for future housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:36:32 pm Happy ok for this site
Jul 29 22 04:47:51 pm Happy Perfect site for more density. Near park, transportation and schools. Go up in height
Aug 02 22 07:17:17 pm Happy Highway noise and pollution need to be mitigated. 85 CC 08-29-2022
85 of 214
Aug 02 22 08:28:20 pm Happy Need to mitigate freeway noise and potential pollution. Close to major traffic hub
Aug 03 22 03:02:16 pm Happy Adding units for affordable housing is a great idea.
Aug 03 22 04:23:08 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 06:30:02 pm Happy Near 85
Aug 4 22 11:57:05 AM Happy great opportunity for affordable housing with services within walking distance
Aug 5 22 11:49:27 AM Happy Cupertino needs both affordable and market rate housing so this site should be better utilized
Aug 11 22 2:21:56 PM Happy Will need EXTREME noise mitigation.
Aug 14 22 8:37:27 PM Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Jul 28 22 06:35:53 pm Neutral
I don't have a good feel for how close to the highway this is. I'm all for it, as long as it's safe.
Jul 28 22 08:44:00 pm
Neutral
These units seem like the would be fairly miserable to live in-- loud and with all kinds of pollution making opening your windows impossible. This is not the best spot for new housing.
Aug 03 22 12:25:23 pm Neutral
Aug 03 22 12:35:35 pm Neutral Are you going to plant trees somewhere else to replace all the trees and foliage that will be removed for this project? Aug 15 22 10:34:17 AM
Neutral
It would fit in with existing and future housing in the area but I'd be concerned about noise and air pollution from the freeway.
Look for ways to mitigate -- air filtration, plant trees, etc Jul 28 22 07:44:48 pm Unhappy Concerned about traffic jam around Mary.
Aug 03 22 11:10:57 am Unhappy need public transit improvements concurrent with this project Aug 4 22 7:12:36 AM Unhappy There is no freeway access which forces all traffic to route through Steven's Creek and Stelling.
Aug 4 22 10:55:00 AM Unhappy new development at stevens creek and mary is already adding housing and traffic.
Aug 4 22 10:57:16 AM
Unhappy
new development at stevens creek and mary is already adding housing and traffic. When De Anza is 100% in person teaching there is also a lot of traffic. During the weekends with flea market and memorial park events it is a very busy area
86 CC 08-29-2022
86 of 214
Aug 12 22 12:33:00 PM
Unhappy
I'm not against more housing, however the space identified is very very narrow and I question if the developer would be able to build residences to code. but the location is good and so is the idea. Feasibility seems low.
Aug 14 22 8:00:12 PM Unhappy
Aug 14 22 8:00:50 PM Unhappy
Aug 03 22 06:42:36 pm
87 CC 08-29-2022
87 of 214
J 23a: 10105 S. De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 10
Neutral 2
Unhappy 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Old McWhorter's Stationary site...Good location BUT keep the buildings adjacent to the R1 homes at a max of 30 ft and with setbacks and major privacy protection like no windows or high windows above 6ft or frost windows, etc.
Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
45:16 pm Happy even more dense would be good
88 CC 08-29-2022
88 of 214
Jul 28 22 08:
27:42 pm Happy Good location, close to transit, close to shopping Jul 29 22 05:
22:31 pm Happy Great and handy with transit
Aug 01 22 04:
13:16 am Happy
Aug 03 22 04:
07:35 pm Happy Near transportation, shopping and grocery stores Aug 03 22 10:
26:38 pm Happy
This is a good spot for high density. It is currently underused.
Residents here can walk to restaurants, grocery stores. Right on De Anza Blvd also very convenient.
Aug 04 22 12:
35:04 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to everything. Mixed use like Main Street Cupertino would be great! Aug 05 22 04:
24:33 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 50 units and mixed retail
Aug 11 22 06:
44:28 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years.
Aug 14 22 08:
10:35 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 02 22 08:
15:12 pm Neutral
Being near De Anza makes it a good candidate for high density housing. It is a bit small.
Aug 03 22 11:
45:51 am Neutral
Aug 04 22 02:
08:20 am Unhappy
Oppose the five-story height limit, which will tower over adjacent residential dwellings.
Aug 14 22 08:
05:04 pm Unhappy
Aug 03 22 06:
42:50 pm
89 CC 08-29-2022
89 of 214
J 23b: 10291 S. De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 9
Neutral 1
Unhappy 5
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? Great opportunity for mixed use: housing, retail, commercial Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 05 22 04:
36:19 pm Happy
Very accessible area BUT please require it maintain the same square footage of retail!
Jul 28 22 08:
28:52 pm Happy Good location, close to shopping and transit Jul 29 22 05:
23:56 pm Happy
ok as long as not too dense for schools or can always bus to schools with low pupil count
90 CC 08-29-2022
90 of 214
Jul 29 22 06:
44:23 pm Happy bus to schools with low pupil count. too dense here Aug 02 22 08:
17:19 pm Happy
Being close to De Anza and 280 access makes this a good candidate. Close to City Center as well.
Aug 04 22 12:
35:25 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to everything. Mixed use like Main Street Cupertino would be great! Aug 05 22 04:
25:15 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 66 units and retail
Aug 11 22 06:
47:24 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Comercial ground floors are a+ Aug 14 22 08:
09:43 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 03 22 11:
46:21 am Neutral
Jul 29 22 06:
07:01 pm Unhappy
New housing here is a good idea, but what I have a problem with is it being 5-stories tall. It should match the surrounding 2 story units behind the shopping center. Also, with 66 units and possibly 2 cars per unit, where will all the parking come from? Aug 03 22 04:
29:31 pm Unhappy
Do not put housing on all the identified sits on South De Anza otherwise there will be no retail, no grocery or drug stores.
Aug 03 22 10:
28:13 pm Unhappy
Not sure about developing this parcel for housing. It's a nice little plaza here for restaurants and grocery store.
Aug 04 22 02:
12:41 am Unhappy
Oppose the five-story height limit. As proposed, the new structure would tower over adjacent residential dwellings. De Anza Blvd may be a "high transit corridor," but the same should not be said for Rodrigues Ave.
Aug 14 22 08:
05:20 pm Unhappy
91 CC 08-29-2022
91 of 214
J 23c: 10619 South De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Neutral 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
good location for moderate density (duplex, triplex, 4-plex, etc.) Move to Tier 1. .26 x 30 = 8 homes
No comment (+10 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
30:39 pm Happy Pretty good location, close to transit, close to shopping Jul 29 22 05:
25:49 pm Happy handy for transit and shops. go up and make a little denser 92 CC 08-29-2022
92 of 214
Aug 03 22 04:
34:41 pm Happy
Do not develope aPlease do not make all of these S De Anza sites housing only or there will not be any retail, grocery stores, banks or support services
Aug 03 22 10:
29:15 pm Happy
It makes sense to develop this parcel as not much is going on here.
Aug 04 22 12:
35:48 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to everything. Mixed use like Main Street Cupertino would be great!
Aug 05 22 04:
25:54 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create new units and retail
Aug 11 22 06:
48:49 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Comercial ground floors are a+ Aug 14 22 08:
09:15 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 02 22 08:
20:01 pm Neutral A smaller parcel. I'm Ok with development.
Aug 03 22 11:
46:58 am Neutral
93 CC 08-29-2022
93 of 214
J 23d: 1361 S. De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Neutral 1
Unhappy 4
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Yamagami's Nursery...REMOVE from the list entirely. It is one of the 2 remaining nurseries in Cupertino and draws people from other cities. We need a place to buy our drought tolerant and native plants! Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? Excellent location . No families displaced.
No comment (-21 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:33:
30 pm Happy Good location, close to transit, lots of possible new units Jul 29 22 05:26:
38 pm Happy
Height could be higher and get more housing here. Near everything
94 CC 08-29-2022
94 of 214
Aug 01 22 04:
12:47 am Happy
Aug 04 22 11:
13:59 am Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
36:15 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to everything. Mixed use like Main Street Cupertino would be great!
Aug 05 22 04:
26:26 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 121 units and retail
Aug 11 22 06:
50:27 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Comercial ground floors are a+
Aug 14 22 08:
11:08 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 03 22 04:
21:37 pm Neutral Only if the owner really want to sell. We need nurserys Aug 03 22 11:
44:31 am Unhappy
We need nursery in our community. Please keep Yamagami nursery.
Aug 03 22 11:
48:05 am Unhappy
Aug 03 22 12:
02:46 pm Unhappy
Yamagami's Garden Center is part of our community and we support the efforts to keep it open..
Aug 03 22 10:
30:26 pm Unhappy
Isn't Yamagami on this parcel? It's the only independent nursery in Cupertino. Why take it away?
95 CC 08-29-2022
95 of 214
J 23e: 1375 S De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 7
Neutral 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
REQUIRE 80% ground floor retail and the retail square footage to be preserved.
Move to Tier 1 to replace homes from taking The Hamiltons off the list. .3X30 = 9 homes. Excellent. No families displaced.
Business is currently out of business.
No comment (+20 homes)
No comment (+10 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:36:
21 pm Happy Pretty good site, close to transit
Jul 29 22 05:28:
21 pm Happy
Need housing in this area. badly. Yes Yes Yes. Dense is good here
96 CC 08-29-2022
96 of 214
Aug 03 22 10:
36:03 pm Happy
Looks like an underused site. Might as well build higher density housing.
Aug 04 22 12:
37:19 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to shops and freeways
Aug 05 22 04:
27:12 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site.
Increase building height to six to create new units and retail Aug 11 22 06:
51:51 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Comercial ground floors are a+
Aug 14 22 08:
10:14 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 11:
49:22 am Neutral
Aug 03 22 04:
38:18 pm Neutral
97 CC 08-29-2022
97 of 214
J 23f: 1491 s De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Summer Winds Nursery site...REMOVE completely from this list! It is one of two remaining nurseries in Cupertino.
PLEASE DO NOT include this in Tier 1 or Tier 2. Many people in Saratoga and other communities come to this nursery to shop. We want to draw customers not send our people to other cities to shop! Also, with the drought many residents are re-doing their yards with drought tolerant plantings and they come to Summery Winds to shop.
Move to Tier 1 to replace homes from taking The Hamiltons off the list. DU of 30 allows for affordable homes.
No comment (+10 homes)
No comment (+20 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
98 CC 08-29-2022
98 of 214
Jul 28 22 08:40:
02 pm Happy
Good location, close to transit. I couldn't understand what the new unit potential is
Jul 29 22 05:28:
54 pm Happy more dense here too
Jul 29 22 05:29:
24 pm Happy Yes here. and dense
Aug 03 22 10:
37:12 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
37:57 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to shops and freeways
Aug 05 22 04:
27:45 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create new units and retail
Aug 11 22 06:
54:37 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+
Aug 14 22 08:
11:43 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 03 22 04:
41:07 pm Unhappy
99 CC 08-29-2022
99 of 214
J 23g: 1451 S De Anza Blvd. and Saratoga/Sunnyvale Rd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 7
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Jack-in-the-Box site...REQUIRE retail square footage on first floor be at least as much as is currently present.
Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? Jack in the Box. Excellent. No families displaced.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:41:
28 pm Happy Looks fine, good use of lot, close to transit Jul 29 22 05:30:
54 pm Happy
all the 23 areas should be able to build high and dense. Very handy area. Put all areas together and build build build Aug 03 22 10:38:
42 pm Happy
100
CC 08-29-2022
100 of 214
Aug 04 22 12:38:
25 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to shops and freeways
Aug 05 22 04:28:
35 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 15 units and retail
Aug 11 22 06:56:
41 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+
Aug 14 22 08:12:
15 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 03 22 04:44:
36 pm Unhappy Can”t we have at least one drive through in Cupertino? 101
CC 08-29-2022
101 of 214
J 23h: 1471 S De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 7
Neutral 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? Move to Tier 1 to replace homes from taking The Hamiltons off the list. Excellent location. No families displaced.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
42:50 pm Happy Good use of lot, close to transit
Jul 29 22 05:
31:55 pm Happy
all the 23 areas can be higher and denser. great area for housing for all
Aug 03 22 10:
39:14 pm Happy
102
CC 08-29-2022
102 of 214
Aug 04 22 12:
38:50 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to shops and freeways
Aug 05 22 04:
31:50 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site.
Increase building height to six to create more than 20 units and retail
Aug 11 22 06:
58:31 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+ Aug 14 22 08:
12:52 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 03 22 04:
47:51 pm Neutral Don’ get rid of all our businesses
103
CC 08-29-2022
103 of 214
J 23i: 1505 S De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 6
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
New Kelly Moore building site...REQUIRE retail square footage be maintained on the first floor, 100% accessible to the public. The west boundary borders single family homes so keep the max height at 30 ft on that side.
No comment (-67 homes)
Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? Kelly Moore out of business. Excellent choice. No families displaced. DU allows affordable housing.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:
44:21 pm Happy Good location, close to transit
Jul 29 22 05:
32:33 pm Happy BUILD BUILD BUILD
104
CC 08-29-2022
104 of 214
Aug 04 22 12:
39:35 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to shops and freeways
Aug 05 22 04:
32:49 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 67 units and retail
Aug 11 22 07:
00:01 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+
Aug 14 22 08:
13:20 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 03 22 04:
51:09 pm Unhappy Do get rid of all of our retail
105
CC 08-29-2022
105 of 214
J 23j: 1515 S De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Happy 6
Neutral 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Ideal place for housing due to transit availability, shopping and parks. Also struggling schools.
No comment (-43 homes)
Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? Excellent choice. No families displaced. DU allows for affordable housing.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you
feel about this
site being
considered for
future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
106
CC 08-29-2022
106 of 214
Jul 28 22 08:48:
17 pm Happy Good location, close to transit
Jul 29 22 05:33:
00 pm Happy YES
Aug 04 22 12:40:
01 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to shops and freeways
Aug 05 22 04:33:
22 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large.
Increase building height to six to create more than 43 units and retail Aug 11 22 07:00:
57 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+
Aug 14 22 08:13:
49 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 03 22 04:54:
42 pm Neutral Save retail
107
CC 08-29-2022
107 of 214
J 23k: South De Anza Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Neutral 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? No comment (-46 homes)
Assume this is the Coach Liquor property and adjacent business building with Kikusushi. Excellent location. No families displaced.
DU enough to allow affordable housing.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:49:
03 pm Happy Good location, close to transit
Jul 29 22 05:33:
41 pm Happy ALL THESE AREAS OF 23 CAN BE AS DENSE AS VALLCO 108
CC 08-29-2022
108 of 214
Aug 03 22 12:
43:33 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:
39:33 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
40:25 pm Happy
This area should have high density housing due to proximity to shops and freeways
Aug 05 22 04:
33:52 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site that is large. Increase building height to six to create more than 46 units and retail
Aug 11 22 07:
01:47 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+
Aug 14 22 08:
14:39 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 03 22 04:
57:33 pm Neutral Where in the world is this? Impossible to evaluate 109
CC 08-29-2022
109 of 214
J 23l: 20555 Prospect Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 12
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Traffic on De Anza is already bad -- why make it worse? Business next to gas station. DU is enough for affordable housing . No families displaced.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:51:
22 pm Happy
This looks like a good site, close to transit. Doesn't provide a lot of units, but every little bit helps
Jul 28 22 09:08:
44 pm Happy
As long as it is done in a way that is respectful to the neighborhood behind, sites like this along high transit corridors are the right place to put higher density.
Jul 29 22 05:34:
23 pm Happy
ADD ALL TOGETHER AND MAKE ANOTHER DENSE PROJECT
LIKE VALLCO IN THIS AREA
110
CC 08-29-2022
110 of 214
Jul 29 22 06:45:
43 pm Happy
add all areas together and make a high dense project like on East Side of Town
Aug 03 22 11:51:
18 am Happy
Aug 03 22 12:44:
10 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 05:01:
09 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:39:
53 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:41:
18 pm Happy good location to add density to this area
Aug 05 22 04:34:
40 pm Happy
Happy to see increased density in a high transit corridor site. Increase building height to create more than 24 units
Aug 11 22 07:03:
48 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+
Aug 14 22 08:03:
08 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state. 111 CC 08-29-2022
111 of 214
K 6a: 20865 McClellan road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 18
Neutral 4
Unhappy 21
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Traffic on McClellan is already bad -- why make it worse? great location to add density. Close to De Anza college Change to DU 30 to allow property owner latitude to build affordable housing. 30 DU times 1 acre = 30 homes.
Date of contribution Survey Response
How do you feel
about this site being
considered for
future housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 10 22 09:31:46 pm Happy
Please correct a few things that are incorrect with your assessment on this property.
Jul 28 22 06:57:01 pm Happy Good use of area. Walking distance to transit Jul 28 22 07:42:48 pm Happy good
Jul 28 22 07:48:09 pm Happy
112
CC 08-29-2022
112 of 214
Jul 28 22 08:25:28 pm Happy
I have heard this site might need some soil cleanup but it would be a great sight for townhomes or apartments since it is near major corridor etc
Jul 28 22 08:47:17 pm Happy
This is a perfect spot, and would add needed homes to the west size of DeAnza. With the church next door, it would be quiet and enjoyable place to live, with a bus transport link and shops nearby. It should be three stories, though, not two.
Jul 29 22 04:51:43 pm Happy
good site for housing. Near schools, transportation and ammenities.
Jul 29 22 06:30:21 pm Happy good
Aug 03 22 11:15:46 am Happy
Aug 03 22 03:07:37 pm Happy
This is an awesome site to add more housing. It's close to restaurant, schools, parks.
Aug 03 22 07:47:03 pm Happy Proximity to services and transportation Aug 03 22 10:06:11 pm Happy
With the two story height limitation this sounds like a good strategy.
Aug 04 22 07:31:28 am Happy
Aug 04 22 12:07:41 pm Happy
I would like to see higher density (more stories) at this site due to proximity to De Anza college and retail
Aug 05 22 11:51:59 am Happy
This site needs to be utilized better. Increase the building height to 4 or 5 stories to create more than 20 units
Aug 11 22 07:05:49 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+ Aug 15 22 09:08:20 am Happy
This parcel is underutilized. The neighboring lot was turned only in into single family homes so I'm happy to see more homes being considered here. It is near protected bike lanes and close to commercial areas. Consider allowing mixed use or more height Aug 15 22 08:12:44 pm Happy Good location for access to freeway and schools Jul 28 22 07:20:49 pm Neutral Just a potential traffic bottleneck.
Jul 28 22 07:25:08 pm Neutral incorrect picture of 20865 McClellan road 113
CC 08-29-2022
113 of 214
Aug 03 22 04:00:06 pm Neutral ok, but need public transit or roads will be more clogged than ever Aug 15 22 02:33:32 pm Neutral
20 units of housing in this location would increase the amount of traffic on McClellan Road, which already has a high volume of traffic.
Jul 29 22 12:51:46 pm Unhappy This is not a photo of 20865 McClellan Road.
Jul 29 22 05:01:04 pm Unhappy
Building 10-20 new units on a property where similar size lots around it only hold 1-3 houses is not appropriate for the area.
McClellan also has no street parking, where will these 20units park their cars (w/ potentially ea. unit having minimum 2 cars)? Jul 29 22 05:40:26 pm Unhappy
Will introduce a minimum of 1 additional car per unit (20) that will require access to an already busy McClellan Road, have
considerations been made for water restriction in an already impacted drought, and additional impact to schools and
hospitals?
Aug 02 22 04:16:03 pm Unhappy
10-20 units is too many for this neighborhood space. No parking in McClellan. If each unit has 1-2 cars, where will they park? Aug 02 22 04:17:52 pm Unhappy
Disrupts the neighborhood we already have a surprise
elementary/middle school that appeared suddenly. Traffic is horrible with the unexpected new school as well. There are days I Struggle to get out of my driveway on McClellan
Aug 02 22 04:24:26 pm Unhappy
Ok with 4-5 houses. No 10-30 units of block townhomes/condos.
Doesn’t match cherry lane existing homes. Should focus on completing the court. Not enough parking for 10-20cars.
Aug 02 22 05:31:15 pm Unhappy Traffic is already horrible in the mornings Aug 03 22 08:47:59 am Unhappy
morning school traffic is horrible heading to lincoln, monte vista, faria, tellations (at a church that is now a k-8 school?) Aug 04 22 06:08:13 am Unhappy Traffic on Mclellan
Aug 11 22 09:15:49 pm Unhappy Why not higher than 2 stories? The area is sparsely populated.
Aug 14 22 08:01:20 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:10:28 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:11:17 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:11:30 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:11:45 pm Unhappy
114
CC 08-29-2022
114 of 214
Aug 14 22 08:11:59 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:12:13 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:12:26 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:12:37 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:13:10 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:13:24 pm Unhappy
115
CC 08-29-2022
115 of 214
K 6b: 21050 Mcclellan Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 13
Unhappy 7
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Traffic on McClellan is already bad -- why make it worse? Great location to add density.
Wonderful site on corner of Stelling and McClellan. No families displaced. Near De Anza College. Near transit. Near grocery shopping, restaurants and other shopping.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:
58:29 pm Happy Good use of land, close to transit
Jul 28 22 08:
27:39 pm Happy Near major intersection, college etc
116
CC 08-29-2022
116 of 214
Jul 28 22 08:
48:53 pm Happy
This is an excellent site, right next to DeAnza College and close to shops, bus line, etc. It's on the corner, so does not affect any neighborhoods. A winner.
Jul 29 22 04:
52:49 pm Happy good place for housing
Jul 30 22 08:
54:59 am Happy need more housing in this area to avoid school closures.
Aug 03 22 11:
16:09 am Happy
Aug 03 22 07:
46:02 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:
08:19 pm Happy
Could be a helpful for apartments for De Anza students, at least if some at below market rent.
Aug 04 22 12:
01:20 pm Happy
great location to add density due to proximity to De Anza college and retail
Aug 05 22 11:
53:37 am Happy
This is a great and large site with transit and high density.
Increase building height to 5 or 6 to create more than 23 units Aug 11 22 06:
36:52 pm Happy
We need more density housing to reduce the cost of units along transit lines, thus crating more "affordable housing for young families. That might also rejuvenate the neigbrhood, and increase the enrollment in our schools, that has shrunk over the years.
Aug 15 22 09:
12:28 am Happy
It's a large site close to the transit center, commercial areas, and good bike access across town. Work with the owner to see if some kind of mixed use is possible so we can have housing and the office space.
Aug 15 22 09:
13:37 am Happy
Aug 15 22 08:
11:25 pm Happy Large site near good transit
Jul 30 22 07:
06:31 pm Unhappy
Way too much traffic at this intersection during commute hours already. Bike safety curbs have made McClellan really narrow and treacherous for cars.
117
CC 08-29-2022
117 of 214
Aug 04 22 06:
09:47 am Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
12:55 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
13:39 pm Unhappy
Aug 15 22 02:
28:54 pm Unhappy
This is a high traffic area and at certain times during the day traffic tends to back up on McClellan. High-density housing would increase the traffic in this area.
Aug 16 22 10:
58:02 am Unhappy
Aug 16 22 04:
51:48 pm Unhappy Too many units. Keep as with surrounding area. 118
CC 08-29-2022
118 of 214
K 6c: 7540 McClellan Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 7
Neutral 1
Unhappy 7
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
location can probably only support moderate density (+8 homes) Move to Tier 1. This home can legally built under other housing laws. Can be at least 2 units.
No comment (+10 homes)
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
00:13 pm Happy Not a bit site but every little bit helps. Close to transit Jul 28 22 08:
49:59 pm Happy
This change will have minimal impact to the neighborhood, with only a net two new units. It's an easy yes.
119
CC 08-29-2022
119 of 214
Jul 29 22 04:
53:23 pm Happy housing would be good here
Aug 04 22 12:
02:28 pm Happy good proposed density for the site
Aug 05 22 11:
54:31 am Happy
All high transit corridors should have more housing. Increase building height to 4 or 5 to create more units
Aug 11 22 07:
07:28 pm Happy
We need denser, more "affordable" housing for young families with kids. Parents would be able to use public transit to get to work, and the kids will increase the enrollment in our schools that has declined over the years. Commercial ground floors are a+
Aug 15 22 09:
11:06 am Happy
It'd be sad to see this cute farmhouse go, but if it's replaced by more homes it'll be worth it. This is close to transit, walkable to retail and the library, good bike access to. Consider allowing a 4plex on this site!
Aug 15 22 02:
47:36 pm Neutral
Most of the existing homes are single family, one story homes in this area. Increasing the density to 10-20 would also increase the traffic on McClellan Road, which backs up at times during the day.
Jul 29 22 03:
48:09 pm Unhappy Too much traffic on Mc Clellan at this time Aug 02 22 05:
33:43 pm Unhappy Too much congestion in McClellan
Aug 03 22 08:
55:00 am Unhappy traffic already horrible on this street!!!!! Aug 03 22 08:
55:30 am Unhappy
Aug 04 22 11:
20:46 am Unhappy not worth it for a net gain of 2 units Aug 14 22 08:
13:54 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
14:07 pm Unhappy
120
CC 08-29-2022
120 of 214
K 6d: 20920 McClellan Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 6
Unhappy 7
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Traffic on McClellan is already bad -- why make it worse? Great location to add density (+29 homes)
Excellent location. No families displaced.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:01:
43 pm Happy Nice large site near transit.
Jul 28 22 08:51:
57 pm Happy
This is a great site for additional housing, as it is diagonal from DeAnza College, and has a bus line right outside and shops very close by. Four stories is fine (it's on a corner) and it's a huge parcel. A definite yes.
121
CC 08-29-2022
121 of 214
Jul 29 22 04:54:
40 pm Happy Near schools, transit, etc. Could be more dense here Aug 04 22 11:20:
03 am Happy
Aug 04 22 12:03:
29 pm Happy
good proposed density for the area due to proximity to De Anza college and retail
Aug 05 22 11:55:
29 am Happy
All sites within a high transit corridor should have more housing. Increase building height to 5 or 6 to create more than 21 units
Aug 03 22 11:17:
11 am Unhappy Need public transportation plan concurrent with approval.
Aug 03 22 07:44:
52 pm Unhappy
The church and the orchard are important city markers. I would not want them replaced with housing.
Aug 04 22 06:11:
38 am Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:14:
20 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:14:
32 pm Unhappy
Aug 15 22 02:50:
20 pm Unhappy Too much traffic in this area without adding more housing.
Aug 16 22 04:56:
01 pm Unhappy
Too many units and too much height. Too much congestion and environmentally destructive.
122
CC 08-29-2022
122 of 214
L 8a: 20666 Cleo Ave
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 10
Neutral 3
Unhappy 10
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Great location to add density. Close to freeway and retail Move to Tier 1. Increase DU to 30 for 7 homes possible.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:13:
52 pm Happy
It is fine - I like that it will match the density of the houses around it.
Jul 28 22 07:49:
39 pm Happy
Jul 28 22 08:32:
27 pm Happy
123
CC 08-29-2022
123 of 214
Jul 29 22 04:57:
43 pm Happy
this area needs more housing. Schols need students and need to put houses wherever possible
Jul 29 22 06:32:
42 pm Happy
need to put houses wherever possible where schools have room for students
Aug 03 22 03:
11:12 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
09:39 pm Happy
great location do add density due to proximity to freeways and retail
Aug 05 22 12:
16:53 pm Happy
Please utilize this site better and increase the building height to 5 or 6 to create more units
Aug 11 22 09:
18:02 pm Happy
Aug 15 22 09:
20:11 am Happy
Housing fits in with rest of neighborhood and it's great there is owner interest. Look into TDM strategies to mitigate parking demand -- free VTA and Via shuttle passes? Bike storage? E- bike subsidies?
Aug 02 22 09:
58:12 pm Neutral
Aug 03 22 05:
54:10 pm Neutral Pretty small.
Aug 16 22 09:
10:15 am Neutral
I think you need to look at existing neighborhood. Will a four story building block existing view and match the neighborhood Jul 28 22 08:37:
35 pm Unhappy
I live in this neighborhood and would not like to see multi-story dwelling over 2 stories high.
Aug 03 22 12:
20:56 pm Unhappy Yes to development, but not nearly as dense as proposed.
Aug 04 22 07:
02:24 am Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
02:39 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
08:50 pm Unhappy
124
CC 08-29-2022
124 of 214
Aug 14 22 08:
09:16 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
09:35 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
09:53 pm Unhappy
Aug 15 22 10:
06:15 pm Unhappy
Parking along Gardenside and surrounding area have been overwhelmed by nearby townhouses and condos. Additional housing units could create over-congested roadways and
hazards for local pedestrians.
Aug 15 22 10:
09:25 pm Unhappy
Increased noise level and traffic. Gardenside is a major access road to Three Oaks Park neighborhood and will increase
amount of traffic. Nearby parking availability is also a major challenge.
125
CC 08-29-2022
125 of 214
L 8b: APN 36231030
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 12
Neutral 1
Unhappy 5
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Great location for higher density housing. Close to freeway and retail (+14 homes) Move to Tier 1. Increase DU to 30 for 7 homes possible.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
16:56 pm Happy
Use of this land makes sense. 4-story is fine, given the proximity to the highway
Jul 28 22 08:
36:00 pm Happy It is near 85 but it is not near a way to get on the freeway.
Jul 29 22 04:
58:14 pm Happy put housing where you can near this area 126
CC 08-29-2022
126 of 214
Aug 03 22 03:
11:37 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 04:
01:55 pm Happy empty land
Aug 03 22 05:
52:47 pm Happy Good place to squeeze in a few units.
Aug 03 22 06:
22:21 pm Happy Next to 85. Increase housing
Aug 03 22 07:
50:10 pm Happy Make better use of this vacant parcel
Aug 04 22 12:
10:27 pm Happy great location to add density due to freeway access and shops Aug 05 22 12:
22:04 pm Happy
I would be happier to see a building height of 5 or 6 to create more than six units/condos/townhomes by Hwy 85
Aug 15 22 09:
21:59 am Happy
Good to see housing across from the Habitat for Humanity complex. Main concern would be mitigating freeway noise and pollution, as well as mitigating parking demand. Plant trees along the sound wall? Long term, work with VTA to bring buses back to Rainbow
Aug 16 22 09:
07:30 am Happy
Aug 02 22 09:
30:08 pm Neutral
Jul 28 22 08:
39:37 pm Unhappy
I live in this neighborhood and would not like seeing multi-story dwellings higher than 2 stories.
Aug 02 22 09:
59:56 pm Unhappy Poor location for housing - too close to 85 and noise.
Aug 03 22 11:
19:14 am Unhappy need traffic plan
Aug 15 22 10:
06:43 pm Unhappy
Parking along Gardenside and surrounding area have been overwhelmed by nearby townhouses and condos. Additional housing units could create over-congested roadways and hazards for local pedestrians.
127
CC 08-29-2022
127 of 214
Aug 15 22 10:
10:21 pm Unhappy Too many cars and traffic.
128
CC 08-29-2022
128 of 214
L 8c: 21710 Regnart Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 11
Neutral 1
Unhappy 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Looks like that parcel can accommodate the housing
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 07:
55:35 pm Happy great. place for high rise. Yes
Jul 28 22 08:
41:08 pm Happy
One issue may be that edge of property is where Regnart creek goes underground. I am not sure if that may factor in as far as the number or size of units one can built there.
Jul 29 22 04:
59:00 pm Happy
this area needs more students and families. good for high dense here
129
CC 08-29-2022
129 of 214
Aug 02 22 10:
00:50 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 03:
12:56 pm Happy
This is prime location as it is close to schools, parks and hiking trails. Increasing density makes sense for more families to be able to live in this area.
Aug 03 22 04:
00:07 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 06:
23:49 pm Happy Large site for more housing
Aug 03 22 07:
51:29 pm Happy
This beautiful property would add more affordable units in the Regnart Lincoln area.
Aug 04 22 12:
11:23 pm Happy good location to add moderate density
Aug 05 22 01:
06:00 pm Happy
Increase the building height to 4 or 5 to create more than two units / condos / townhomes here
Aug 11 22 05:
14:53 pm Happy
it is already surrounded with existing single family homes. new housing can blend in;
Jul 28 22 07:
21:21 pm Neutral It's okay... Kind of out in the middle of nowhere Aug 03 22 12:
25:44 pm Unhappy
Plan claims “similar density” but from map and number of expected units it looks to be at least twice as dense as surrounding area. Development yes; but not as dense as
proposed.
Aug 11 22 02:
44:24 pm Unhappy
This proposal is not similar density. This is a great site for home that complement the surrounding homes. Not a place an
apartment/condo complex that overwhelms Regnant road as entrance to foothills.
130
CC 08-29-2022
130 of 214
L 8d: 21530 Rainbow Dr
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 8
Neutral 1
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
good location for moderate density (duplex, triplex, 4-plex, etc.) Move to Tier 1. Need the housing for the buffer without The Hamiltons, which should be removed from this Housing Element.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 08:43:
48 pm Happy Good place for housing
Jul 29 22 04:59:
27 pm Happy Yes for this area
Aug 02 22 10:
01:54 pm Happy
131
CC 08-29-2022
131 of 214
Aug 03 22 11:
18:07 am Happy
Aug 03 22 06:
25:28 pm Happy Owner interest & compatible
Aug 03 22 07:
52:25 pm Happy
Aug 04 22 12:
12:01 pm Happy good opportunity to add moderate density Aug 15 22 09:
24:15 am Happy
Consider higher density. It's not the most walkable location but it's close to Kennedy and Lincoln schools. Work with VTA to bring a bus route back to Rainbow and Bubb roads
Jul 28 22 07:23:
55 pm Neutral It's nothing special, and way out on the edge of town.
Aug 11 22 02:
46:43 pm Unhappy
This site should be subdivided to build homes similar to surroundings. This is a quiet foothill neighborhood that is safe and secure providing a great transition to beautiful foothills and parkland. Keep new development consistent with current
character.
132
CC 08-29-2022
132 of 214
M 7a: 10857 Linda Vista Dr et al
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 22
Neutral 5
Unhappy 89
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Yes, great idea. The schools are struggling so additional housing will help. 72 homes in that parcel seems high, but less housing would be good in that area Excellent. No families displaced. The 30 DU will allow for affordable housing.
Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:58:
20 pm Happy good use of this land
Jul 28 22 07:06:
35 pm Happy
I like it because it offers more units, but is not close to transit (that I know of), but I like the density
Jul 28 22 07:49:
02 pm Happy need more housing on this side of town
133
CC 08-29-2022
133 of 214
Jul 28 22 08:53:
56 pm Happy
This is a great site as it is on a culdesac--thus its 'own neighborhood' and provides much-needed housing on the west side. There are several projects like this off Finch Ave, and it would be good to have this on the west side too.
Jul 29 22 04:55:
36 pm Happy People would love this area to live.
Aug 02 22 09:22:
39 pm Happy
Very good location. Near parks, trails, schools. Needs to be upgraded
Aug 02 22 09:49:
21 pm Happy Large site close to schools suitable for multifamily housing.
Aug 02 22 09:55:
01 pm Happy Close to schools suitable for family housing Aug 03 22 10:10:
38 am Happy
I live here and and would love more housing for my friends, for whom there isn't enough housing to live near me!
Aug 03 22 11:03:
24 am Happy Poorly used land convenient to schools.
Aug 03 22 03:09:
19 pm Happy
This is a great place to add density. It's an attractive location with schools and parks nearby. It will give more families to live in this area.
Aug 03 22 07:53:
36 pm Happy
Higher density would provide more affordable options in this neighborhood
Aug 03 22 10:03:
17 pm Happy
Good use of the area. I like the 3 story limitation for an area like this.
Aug 04 22 12:05:
12 pm Happy Great opportunity to add density to this location Aug 05 22 12:02:
05 pm Happy
This large cul de sac could have a building height of 4 or 5 to include more than 30 units / condos / town homes
Aug 14 22 12:14:
35 pm Happy
We cannot ignore the housing shortage, and currently this land is for all practical purposes simply providing open space and an opportunity for the lone crane to visit during the rainy season. It is common sense to develop it.
Aug 14 22 04:27:
52 pm Happy
It makes sense to put housing there. However, current plan is far too dense for the neighborhood.
134
CC 08-29-2022
134 of 214
Aug 14 22 05:57:
59 pm Happy
More high density housing would hopefully help the the
housing problem, and attract new families with kids to the amazing local schools.
Aug 14 22 07:50:
09 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 14 22 08:31:
13 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 14 22 09:41:
41 pm Happy
The area is lack of maintenance for long long time. The community should renovate this area to either fit in more residents, or convert to community center to better serve the neighborhood.
Aug 15 22 02:00:
55 pm Happy
Large area on an enclosed cul de sac. Provides 73 units, which does not seem overwhelming of the area.
Aug 03 22 08:11:
05 pm Neutral
The site is long overdue for housing, but 30 units/acre is unrealistic to the point of absurdity, more so at one of the least accessible addresses in the city. Disparity with surroundings seems certain to create animosity, both ways, with no
mitigations.
Aug 14 22 09:29:
00 pm Neutral Don’t live in the area.
Aug 16 22 12:19:
32 pm Neutral
Limit the units for this site because it's close to 3 schools and the traffic is already very, very heavy due to limited street access in the neighborhood. Plan for 72 units is insane and clog up our streets and create dangerous traffic patterns..
Aug 16 22 04:42:
36 pm Neutral
Only consistent with surrounding housing; single family with limited of 2-story and not less than 8,000 square feet lot.
Aug 17 22 05:02:
57 pm Neutral
Cupertino needs more housing. It will be a change and
change is hard, but it is silly to have a huge vacant lot there and it will be good for our schools to have more students. I suggest that we start with one or two of the sections, and the rest woul
Jul 29 22 03:49:
48 pm Unhappy Environmental impact on wildlife and water use 135
CC 08-29-2022
135 of 214
Aug 03 22 10:25:
54 am Unhappy
Doesn't make sense to add that much density here with single family homes
Aug 03 22 12:05:
32 pm Unhappy
Seems like this is a good location for less dense housing than proposed while still providing more housing than now exists which is zero. The owner of this property obviously resisted any development for decades. Don’t give a windfall to
him/her/heirs(??)
Aug 03 22 07:30:
26 pm Unhappy
I don't understand the urban planning goal to put 70 units way out on Linda Vista Dr. with no public transit and no services such as grocery stores. Three story units and added traffic near Kennedy Middle will be bad as well.
Aug 04 22 06:05:
53 am Unhappy Way too dense
Aug 04 22 07:01:
38 am Unhappy Too many housing units for already crowded school Aug 04 22 11:06:
14 am Unhappy this area already has too many traffic problems Aug 11 22 02:41:
29 pm Unhappy
Overbuilds in neighborhood against foothills. Subdivision to smaller single family home would be more appropriate. Three stories would loom over neighbors and park. Keep to two stories with individual homes consisted with surroundings.
Aug 11 22 02:50:
28 pm Unhappy
Addition of single story condos seems reasonable for the look of the neighborhood. Multi-story, especially 3-story buildings would seriously detract from the look and feel of the area and may cause traffic congestion
Aug 14 22 04:19:
58 pm Unhappy
Why would you build 3 story buildings looking into bedrooms of existing houses? This neighborhood is all single family homes and a large building(s) would not fit the existing neighborhood. 70+ units will increase already high car speed on Linda Vista.
Aug 14 22 04:20:
58 pm Unhappy This is and should stay single family homes 136
CC 08-29-2022
136 of 214
Aug 14 22 04:23:
53 pm Unhappy
We don't need 3 story housing looking into people back yards or blocking existing views of the hill sides. There is a lot of wildlife that comes into the field from golf course. I bought my house for views. 2 story should be max height
Aug 14 22 04:26:
03 pm Unhappy
three story houses do not fit this neighborhood, too many more cards, too much speeding, dangerous for cyclists
Aug 14 22 04:28:
14 pm Unhappy
Three story houses are too much and more cars would be
dangerous as many bikers use the road.
Aug 14 22 04:37:
03 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 04:37:
06 pm Unhappy This will look into our house and backyard Aug 14 22 04:41:
00 pm Unhappy
It will block the light into our house, it will increase traffic, it will reduce our privacy , it will be unsafe for bike trail traffic, it will affect wild life in the area as the lot is very inviting for wildlife, several trees will be torn
Aug 14 22 04:42:
37 pm Unhappy
Three stories seems too high, especially at 10887 since they would be overlooking existing max. 2 story homes. There is nothing that tall in the existing neighborhood. From 5 units to 75 units is shocking.
Aug 14 22 04:43:
42 pm Unhappy
Too close to our property- that is not why we purchased in this zone
Aug 14 22 04:45:
45 pm Unhappy
Too many trees will be knocked down , too much local wildlife affected, increased pollution, increased traffic, reduce privacy for surrounding homes
Aug 14 22 04:47:
08 pm Unhappy It is completely unfair to live people around it.
Aug 14 22 04:55:
07 pm Unhappy
This is not a smart idea, why would you change the zoning. It was zoned that way for a good reason
Aug 14 22 05:16:
43 pm Unhappy
The area doesn't need high density housing, leave the zoning as it is.
Aug 14 22 05:25:
34 pm Unhappy
137
CC 08-29-2022
137 of 214
Aug 14 22 05:48:
53 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 06:00:
36 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 06:02:
13 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 06:03:
44 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 06:20:
03 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 06:45:
59 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 07:12:
20 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 07:46:
46 pm Unhappy
I’m completely opposed to this proposal. The density is too high, that will ruin the neighborhood’s calm and quiet aura.
Adding that many residential lots will cause excessive traffic Aug 14 22 07:52:
26 pm Unhappy
Cupertino is already overly developed and has too many
apartments/condos/townhomes/duplex
Aug 14 22 07:56:
04 pm Unhappy Out of character for the neighborhood.
Aug 14 22 08:00:
37 pm Unhappy
More housing means more population which changes the
nature balance and causes pollution
Aug 14 22 08:09:
49 pm Unhappy
Don’t want high density housing in the middle of low density neighborhood that will increase auto traffic and parking spill over into the neighborhood streets.
Aug 14 22 08:40:
15 pm Unhappy
The roads around schools are very congested as such. Every now and then we hear about scary accidents. Secondly, Linda vista park is peaceful and serene. My family and I go there to relax, with multi housing units right next to it, it will change.
Aug 14 22 08:59:
56 pm Unhappy
138
CC 08-29-2022
138 of 214
Aug 14 22 09:10:
39 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:12:
02 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:12:
21 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:12:
36 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:12:
49 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:12:
51 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:12:
58 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:13:
22 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 09:13:
52 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 10:16:
43 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 10:23:
37 pm Unhappy
Aug 15 22 07:08:
14 am Unhappy
Aug 15 22 08:01:
08 am Unhappy
I have lived in the neighborhood for over 25 years. I support development and adding affordable housing. But, this property can not support that many units. Density is too great.. 3 stories is out of character. No room for cars and parking.
Aug 15 22 09:34:
58 am Unhappy There is no need to rezone
Aug 15 22 10:06:
41 am Unhappy
139
CC 08-29-2022
139 of 214
Aug 15 22 10:30:
20 am Unhappy
Can’t be anything more than single family houses. No
apartments or condos. Alternatively this could be used as a dog park.
Aug 15 22 12:26:
22 pm Unhappy
Three story building do not fit in the neighborhood. Traffic from 72 units would overwhelm Linda Vista Dr, which is a quiet neighborhood street,. Paring on Linda Vista may be an issue.
Noise and congestion will also be a problem.
Aug 15 22 03:13:
19 pm Unhappy
This area is part of a very small neighborhood that would be significantly impacted by the amount of traffic that would be generated by the large number of units.
Aug 15 22 05:18:
32 pm Unhappy
It’s too dense for this residential area. Parking and traffic will be an issue.
Aug 15 22 06:00:
05 pm Unhappy
We need to preserve privacy and air for our residents and stop building high density housing. Plus, closing schools and increasing housing are competing trends. I’d like to see more progressive leadership from Cupertino.
Aug 15 22 07:41:
09 pm Unhappy
High density housing ought to be located close to high capacity traffic corridors rather than located several stop signs and 25 mph streets away from expressways and freeways.
Neighborhood was already the location of a tragic vehicle bike accident.
Aug 15 22 08:24:
50 pm Unhappy
Aug 15 22 08:36:
56 pm Unhappy
Aug 15 22 10:21:
17 pm Unhappy Apartments in the middle
Aug 16 22 08:42:
18 am Unhappy
Aug 16 22 09:06:
23 am Unhappy
I'm not big on three story housing in this area. Most of the homes here are single to two stories.
Aug 16 22 10:29:
33 am Unhappy
School traffic already makes commute very hard. High density housing will cause intolerable congestion. Please consider normal density housing.
140
CC 08-29-2022
140 of 214
Aug 16 22 10:42:
33 am Unhappy
We live on Baxley court off of Linda Vista very close to the said site. It is going to be a traffic night mare. Needless to say it violates the zoning and bring down the value of our property and locality. This is a beautiful part of cupertino which will Aug 16 22 10:43:
44 am Unhappy It is going to be a traffic night mare.
Aug 16 22 10:45:
37 am Unhappy It is going to be a traffic nightmare.
Aug 16 22 11:09:
47 am Unhappy
High density housing is going to be very problematic in this area, including high-rise buildings. This area will be
overcrowded.
Aug 16 22 11:10:
37 am Unhappy
Aug 16 22 11:11:
18 am Unhappy
Aug 16 22 11:18:
22 am Unhappy
Aug 16 22 11:18:
41 am Unhappy
Aug 16 22 11:18:
59 am Unhappy Traffic will be a nightmare.
Aug 16 22 11:19:
02 am Unhappy
Aug 16 22 12:13:
47 pm Unhappy
Aug 16 22 12:55:
54 pm Unhappy
An addition of 72 units will create dangerous traffic, especially for street access to our 3 nearby schools (Lincoln, Kennedy, MV).
Aug 16 22 01:20:
01 pm Unhappy
Aug 16 22 02:26:
45 pm Unhappy
Proposed density is too high for the neighborhood. It would triple the number of cars, causing traffic safety issues. A lower housing density may work, for example 12 new units.. 141
CC 08-29-2022
141 of 214
Aug 16 22 02:37:
20 pm Unhappy It will become noisy and add additional traffic.
Aug 16 22 02:44:
03 pm Unhappy
Proposed density is too high to keep traffic and pollution to an acceptable level
Aug 16 22 04:06:
58 pm Unhappy This entire area is single family with lots averaging 8000 s.f.
Aug 16 22 04:10:
16 pm Unhappy
This area is already overly congested with the three schools within a block of one another.
Aug 16 22 04:54:
38 pm Unhappy
Aug 16 22 04:55:
38 pm Unhappy Traffic nightmare
Aug 16 22 06:25:
55 pm Unhappy Too much traffic, too high and too many units. Parking issues.
Aug 16 22 07:56:
39 pm Unhappy IAm
Aug 17 22 07:07:
31 am Unhappy
Aug 17 22 01:37:
59 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 12:19:
49 pm
Developing the property is simple common sense. However, the current #'s proposed are too aggressive. 72 units on 2.5 acres? Pretty dense for a neighborhood of 1 and 2 story single family homes. I would recommend 2 story height limitation.
Aug 14 22 08:10:
54 pm
142
CC 08-29-2022
142 of 214
M 7b: 22381 McClellan Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 15
Neutral 3
Unhappy 10
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
good location for moderate density (duplex, triplex, 4-plex, etc.) This is located near a hairpin curve on McClellan Rd. Keep on Tier 2 or remove.
Date of
contributi
on
Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22
06:59:29
pm Happy improving this site will increase property values Jul 28 22
08:19:20
pm Happy How about a duplex?
143
CC 08-29-2022
143 of 214
Jul 28 22
08:55:13
pm Happy
But it sounds like it will not be getting future housing as the expected units is zero. So I'm not sure why this is on the list.
Jul 29 22
04:56:36
pm Happy
This area needs more housing - so as many units as allowed.
Handy to all schools
Aug 02 22
09:50:49
pm Happy
Aug 02 22
09:55:57
pm Happy
Aug 03 22
11:05:38
am Happy
Aug 03 22
03:10:36
pm Happy
Aug 03 22
08:21:57
pm Happy
Much better location than "Monta-Vista-North 7a" for increased density (more consistent w/ neighboring units, better access [corridor potential]), though even here designation of >10 units/acre looks unsustainably aggressive w/o significant new planning.
Aug 03 22
10:05:06
pm Happy Sounds like a good plan for this site.
Aug 04 22
12:06:26
pm Happy This site could be used to build medium density (4-plex) Aug 05 22
12:03:13
pm Happy
I would be even more happy to see a building height of 4 or 5 to create more than two units / condos / townhomes
Aug 14 22
12:15:57
pm Happy Simply makes sense.
144
CC 08-29-2022
144 of 214
Aug 14 22
04:28:43
pm Happy Why not?
Aug 15 22
09:27:10
am Happy Close to schools and commercial area on Stevens Canyon Road.
Jul 28 22
07:08:39
pm Neutral No strong views, not sure what we get from this one Aug 03 22
12:16:08
pm Neutral
No new units anticipated?? Then why the need to rezone? Or what are you hiding behind “for this analysis”? We will rezone and then do an new analysis to add units???
Aug 16 22
10:26:28
am Neutral The site doesn’t seem large enough for more units Jul 28 22
06:56:34
pm Unhappy
Area is single family housing and multi family, crowded housing will not fit in. There are duplexes nearby, so duplex would be okay Jul 29 22
03:50:47
pm Unhappy Need for privacy in the atea
Aug 03 22
10:33:31
am Unhappy
Aug 03 22
07:36:11
pm Unhappy
I don't understand the urban planning goal of putting 20 units on McClellan with no public transit and no services like grocery stores.
More units along Stevens Creek Blvd. (at the Oaks?) or on DeAnza Blvd. (convert commercial to condo) make more sense.
Aug 04 22
06:05:06
am Unhappy
Aug 04 22
11:05:40
am Unhappy this area already has too many traffic problems 145
CC 08-29-2022
145 of 214
Aug 11 22
09:17:24
pm Unhappy Why not three?
Aug 14 22
07:53:52
pm Unhappy Traffic
Aug 14 22
08:31:51
pm Unhappy
Aug 15 22
07:39:01
pm Unhappy
This is in stark contrast with neighboring 1and 2 story residences. I am concerned about a huge increase in traffic on our quiet neighborhood.
146
CC 08-29-2022
146 of 214
N 13a: 21431 McClellan Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being considered
for future housing?
Happy 11
Neutral 4
Unhappy 12
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
200
This site is ideal for student housing. It's close to De Anza College and within walking distance of transportation. Add more units by maybe doing shared kitchens/facilities and make it affordable. Possibly requiring residents to be students at De Anza? WHY is this the only site near Bubb Rd? The whole Bubb Rd from Stevens Creek Blvd to McClellan should be on this list. It would help increase local school populations (K-Community College). Add large ground ground floor retail to the sites large enough for a pharmacy/drug store, grocery, produce market, office supply store for students. (+10 homes)
Traffic on McClellan is already bad -- why make it worse? Great location to add density. Close to De Anza college Date of
contribution Survey Response
How do you feel about this site
being considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
147
CC 08-29-2022
147 of 214
Jul 28 22 06:
57:47 pm Happy
This is near De Anza College. Would be good for
teacher/students. Could be Studios or dorms. Other sites which now are office/light industry sights on Bubb road should be considered/persued
Jul 28 22 07:
36:31 pm Happy Makes sense, close to 85. Good use of land Jul 28 22 07:
53:38 pm Happy do as dense as possible for college kids and low income Jul 29 22 05:
04:45 pm Happy
perfect spot for low income housing - gearing towards students.
Needed badly
Jul 29 22 06:
35:11 pm Happy handy place to have lots of housing. near transit and schools Aug 03 22 10:
29:51 am Happy
Aug 03 22 07:
49:03 pm Happy
Closer to employment for some. Additional housing near this side of Cupertino
Aug 03 22 10:
01:19 pm Happy
This is prime location for more housing. Near schools, close to De Anza. It will be attractive to have more housing here.
Aug 04 22 12:
16:59 pm Happy good location to add density close to De Anza college Aug 05 22 01:
20:32 pm Happy
Sites near high transit like Hwy 85 should have more housing.
Increase building height to six stories to create more than 23 units
Aug 15 22 05:
14:12 pm Happy
An opportunity for a homeowner to cash out - big time - and build a very tall development next to the freeway.
Jul 03 22 03:
45:37 pm Neutral
Aug 03 22 05:
41:38 pm Neutral
This is definitely more of a borderline high density sight. Maybe Townhouses (2 stories). Something that fits in better. Lower height may be good with the 85 road noise (so not so far above the adjacent sound wall).
Aug 04 22 11:
17:03 am Neutral
148
CC 08-29-2022
148 of 214
Aug 14 22 08:
45:34 pm Neutral Traffic
Jul 29 22 12:
43:12 pm Unhappy
Would be an additional traffic hazard on McClellan. Extremely narrow road that has barriers to protect bicycle riders, and presently has very heavy traffic.
Jul 29 22 03:
46:18 pm Unhappy
Too much traffic on Bubb road now; we don’t need more density here
Jul 31 22 12:
58:46 pm Unhappy
That area is needed for light industrial development to diversify Cupertino's business.
Aug 03 22 11:
20:36 am Unhappy traffic plan needed
Aug 06 22 03:
34:52 pm Unhappy Will add to traffic nightmare on Bubb road Aug 06 22 03:
36:22 pm Unhappy Doesn’t fit with the nieghborhoid
Aug 14 22 08:
03:34 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
07:11 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
07:32 pm Unhappy
Aug 14 22 08:
07:48 pm Unhappy
Aug 16 22 10:
57:07 am Unhappy
Aug 16 22 04:
47:26 pm Unhappy
Already too congested. Townhouses only and limited to 2-story with covered parking.
149
CC 08-29-2022
149 of 214
O 4a: 10860 Maxine Ave
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 13
Neutral 0
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
great place to add density. close to freeways (+6 homes) No comment (+8 homes)
Date of contribution Survey Response
How do you feel
about this site being
considered for
future housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:39:41 pm Happy Yes this makes sense. Plenty of area and close to transit Jul 28 22 07:41:54 pm Happy ok for this area
Jul 28 22 08:45:26 pm Happy
It's a nice size parcel, and with keeping the height low, it won't be as loud as the Mary Ave ROW project. We need the homes, and this is a viable spot.
150
CC 08-29-2022
150 of 214
Jul 29 22 04:49:46 pm Happy
ok for ths area. More stories would be good could add more units
Jul 29 22 06:29:57 pm Happy ok for this area
Aug 03 22 01:09:37 pm Happy good in fill location
Aug 03 22 03:05:54 pm Happy
This looks like a good place with easy access to the freeways and Homestead Ave. Opportunity to add 12 units is great.
Aug 03 22 10:11:20 pm Happy
It's in a residential area, but it has good access to highway 85 via homestead so that's helpful.
Aug 04 22 07:30:36 am Happy
Aug 04 22 12:08:23 pm Happy
I would like to see higher density here (more stories) due to proximity to freeway and stores
Aug 05 22 11:50:49 am Happy
Please designate new zoning and increase the building height to 4 or 5 stories to better utilize this site
Aug 11 22 02:20:49 pm Happy
This is a great site, mostly wasted space. BUT VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING. ALSO CRIME, SINCE IT IS
SO CLOSE TO MAJOR STREETS/HIGHWAY.
Aug 14 22 08:39:19 pm Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 03 22 11:13:15 am Unhappy Need public transportation plan to accompany this project.
Aug 03 22 06:42:17 pm
151
CC 08-29-2022
151 of 214
P 1a: 10231 Adriana Ave
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 26
Neutral 4
Unhappy 4
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
EVERYWHERE where you specify number of stories, please replace with ACTUAL MAX HEIGHT IN FEET! Stories vary tremendously. Make this requirement objective and consistent everywhere! Like the density here. Can it reasonably hold more?
Traffic on Stevens Creek is already bad -- why make it worse? Do not see how you can fit 13 homes in an established single family residential neighborhood. These homes would be on the railroad tracks
great location to add density. (+20 houses)
It is hard to tell from the map if this is causing displacement. If it is, Please remove it from the list. If not, then Increase the density and approve the owner for up to 30 du to allow for affordable housing. 152
CC 08-29-2022
152 of 214
Date of contribution Survey Response
How do you feel
about this site being
considered for future
housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:17:17 pm Happy Looks like a great site near transit and services Jul 28 22 06:55:37 pm Happy we need housing
Jul 28 22 07:34:01 pm Happy need more housing there
Jul 28 22 07:43:41 pm Happy do dense
Jul 28 22 08:37:16 pm
Happy
This is an area will only single family housing, and could use some diversity in types of housing to meet the needs of all residents.
Jul 29 22 04:41:15 pm Happy good site. Would go up in levels for more density, if possible.
Near bus and major streets
Jul 29 22 06:27:39 pm Happy good here
Jul 31 22 09:00:45 pm Happy Already residential, so increasing density has minimal impact Aug 02 22 07:22:57 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 10:27:45 am Happy
Aug 03 22 11:07:48 am Happy
Aug 03 22 11:14:08 am Happy
Aug 03 22 12:27:19 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 02:58:38 pm
Happy
This will be a neat place to live. There are a few restaurants around this area. The freeway is close by, easy to commute to work.
Aug 03 22 06:28:20 pm Happy Large site
Aug 04 22 07:08:35 am Happy
Aug 04 22 10:59:54 am Happy
Aug 04 22 11:01:58 am Happy looks like a good use of land that is not already crowded Aug 04 22 11:53:36 am Happy good density for the area
Aug 05 22 11:43:49 am Happy Adding density to this large site makes sense. Please add more than the 13 suggested units
153
CC 08-29-2022
153 of 214
Aug 11 22 2:18:31 PM Happy Plenty of space if creatively designed Aug 15 22 7:47:03 PM Happy Reasonably consistent with existing area and close to arteries.
Aug 15 22 8:14:55 PM Happy Location near transit and freeway Aug 16 22 9:00:08 AM Happy You should make this three stories as it butts up against the train tracks
Aug 16 22 10:31:24 AM Happy
Aug 16 22 10:31:51 AM Happy
Jul 28 22 07:40:48 pm Neutral ok for this area
Aug 02 22 09:26:41 pm Neutral
Aug 03 22 06:38:29 pm Neutral I am not familiar with this site and do not live near this neighborhood.
Aug 03 22 10:16:02 pm Neutral A challenge with this site is the road access is not the best. Might be OK.
Aug 11 22 3:06:12 PM Unhappy
that end of stevens creek blvd is so hard to turn in and out of from side streets. drivers speed down the hill from either direction, unsafe and unpleasant.
Aug 14 22 7:59:19 PM Unhappy
Aug 14 22 8:34:20 PM Unhappy Traffic
Aug 16 22 5:05:44 PM Unhappy
This area is extremely congested. Navigating to Stevens Creek Blvd, 280 and 85 already a nightmare. What are the City's plan for relief of ingress and egress?
Jul 28 22 09:00:43 pm Looks like a great site near transit and services 154
CC 08-29-2022
154 of 214
P 1b: 22273 Cupertino Road
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 17
Neutral 6
Unhappy 1
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
Can this site hold more than 10 units? It's very close to Sunnyview Assisted Living and it's in school areas that have low enrollment. Workers at Sunnyview could live here if units were affordable.
Traffic on Stevens Creek is already bad -- why make it worse? How can you put 10 houses on existing single family home site great location to add density.
Increase the density and approve the owner for up to 30 du to allow for affordable housing.
Date of contribution Survey Response
How do you feel
about this site being
considered for
future housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:22:39 pm Happy Looks like a great way to use the space. Walking distance to transit
Jul 28 22 07:50:27 pm Happy dense here
155
CC 08-29-2022
155 of 214
Jul 28 22 08:38:18 pm
Happy
This is a huge site, and still will be very low density with only two story houses. It will fit the character of the neighborhood and provide much needed housing.
Jul 29 22 04:43:43 pm Happy good - could add density here Jul 29 22 06:28:13 pm Happy
Jul 31 22 09:02:41 pm Happy Already residential, so additional housing fits the neighborhool Aug 03 22 11:08:08 am Happy
Aug 03 22 11:14:33 am Happy
Aug 03 22 03:00:24 pm
Happy
This is a great opportunity to add density. It's close to school so it will be attractive to young families. Their kids can walk to school and also play in the park nearby. I live in this neighborhood and think it will be great to have more housing.
Aug 03 22 06:31:19 pm Happy Large site
Aug 03 22 10:16:44 pm Happy With the limitations this seems like a good plan.
Aug 04 22 11:54:12 am Happy good density for the location Aug 11 22 3:07:41 PM
Happy
quiet neighborhood with multiple outlets are good; don't need to solely rely on stevens creek blvd and can void the big
slopes/crazy drivers when turning in and out
Aug 12 22 1:19:01 PM
Happy
I currently live directly next to this area (10055 Carmen Rd) and I think that it is a great location for more density. The area is pleasant and not at all overcrowded. This one lot is a waste of land as is, would love for some density here.
Aug 14 22 8:35:20 PM Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 15 22 7:48:09 PM Happy Consistent with existing scale Aug 16 22 10:31:35 AM Happy
Aug 03 22 12:28:01 pm Neutral I would be happier with a 3-story max Aug 03 22 06:35:14 pm Neutral I am not familiar with the site and do not live in this neighborhood.
Aug 04 22 07:13:47 am Neutral
Aug 11 22 2:19:14 PM Neutral Worried about additional traffic through this neighborhood.
Aug 15 22 8:16:19 PM Neutral Looks like access to this housing would be very limited. 156
CC 08-29-2022
156 of 214
Aug 16 22 9:03:05 AM Neutral Seems like a bottle neck to get into area Aug 03 22 12:39:04 pm Unhappy Too dense. Too many trees will be removed. Yes to some additional units but not what is proposed.
157
CC 08-29-2022
157 of 214
P 1c: 10050 N Foothill Blvd
Survey Responses Graph
How do you feel about this site being
considered for future housing?
Happy 14
Neutral 1
Unhappy 2
Comments from the Balancing Act Simulation
INCLUDE THIS SITE in the HOUSING ELEMENT!!!
WHY is this site NOT listed on the "Final Excel for CC 7-21-22.pdf" spreadsheet? WHY is this site NOT listed on the "Narrative for City Council Sites Overview.pdf"? This site is ideal for housing. It has access to transportation (bus runs right by there!). It is in an area where schools are struggling. It is near Sunnyview Assisted Living and Cupertino Healthcare & Wellness (near Monta Vista Park) so workers could walk to work. It's flat so there's no hillside issues.
Traffic on Foothill is already bad -- why make it worse? Looks like converting excess office space to housing not a bad idea great location to add density.
Change the DU to 30 (times .62 acres) to allow for 18 homes.
Date of contribution Survey Response
158
CC 08-29-2022
158 of 214
How do you feel
about this site being
considered for
future housing?
Can you say more about why you feel that way?
Jul 28 22 06:25:54 pm
Happy
Very close to transit. Good use of space (though not sure what current building is used for. Don't want it to be mere displacement)
Jul 28 22 08:40:05 pm
Happy
This is along a relatively busy road, Foothill, which eventually becomes high speed. It's an idea place for more housing, and three stories even seems low. I would recommend higher, such as 5.
Jul 29 22 02:40:08 pm Happy
Jul 29 22 04:44:49 pm Happy good location for transit and can accomodate more density. Go higher
Aug 02 22 07:40:02 pm Happy Please retain the veterinary office next to this property Aug 03 22 12:26:59 pm Happy
Aug 03 22 02:57:08 pm
Happy
I live in this neighborhood and feel it's a great place to live. If young families can move in to this area, it will also help with the low enrollment problem our elementary schools are facing.
Aug 03 22 06:32:55 pm Happy Near foothill
Aug 03 22 06:41:16 pm Happy I think this site right near Foothill Expressway would be a good place for affordable housing.
Aug 03 22 10:17:27 pm Happy Good plan with the limit of 3 stories.
Aug 04 22 11:01:13 am Happy looks like a good use of land that is not already crowded Aug 04 22 11:55:14 am Happy good density for the location Aug 11 22 2:17:24 PM Happy Good access to site from existing streets.
Aug 11 22 9:13:29 PM Happy
The area is sparsely populated. Should increase to more stories? Consider the development near 1st street in Los Altos. It is a good example
Aug 12 22 1:22:00 PM Happy
I live right around the corner from this, it would be a great place to build more density. Lots of amenities in short biking (or long walking) distance. The density in this area is very low when housing is as expensive as it is. Need market rate units.
159
CC 08-29-2022
159 of 214
Aug 14 22 8:35:56 PM Happy Need to meet housing element required by state.
Aug 16 22 9:04:24 AM Happy
Aug 16 22 10:32:04 AM Happy
Jul 28 22 06:56:48 pm Neutral traffic on foothill is already dense, adding housing here would make that worse
Jul 31 22 09:04:18 pm Unhappy This should allow mixed use, not just housing.
Aug 03 22 11:09:18 am Unhappy Proposal seems too dense
160
CC 08-29-2022
160 of 214
ATTACHMENT C
Summary of Sites Inventory Changes between Planning Commission/Housing Commission Review and City Council Consideration
Pipeline
Site P8 (20865 McClellan) moved from Pipeline to Jollyman Site 6a. No development application submitted to City yet.
20860 McClellan replaces 20865 McClellan as P8 on Pipeline. Project going to hearings 8/13/2022 and Sept. CC.
Creston-Pharlap
1a and 1b (10033 and 10190 Hillcrest), both Tier 2 sites deleted. Larger single-family lots with limited redevelopment potential and slopes.
Garden Gate
Site 3a (10193 Randy Lane), Tier 2 site, deleted from Inventory. Building permit plans for single-family residence with ADU submitted for site.
Jollyman
20865 McClellan moved from Pipeline and added as 6a, replacing 20860 McClellan. 20860 McClellan moved to pipeline (former 6a). See notes in “Pipeline” above. Site 6c (7450 McClellan) moved from Tier 2 to Tier 1. Site only 0.33 acres.
Monta Vista North
Site 7a (four Linda Vista properties): minimum density increased from 20 du/acre to 30 du/acre based on the site’s west side location and desire to increase affordable housing in this part of the City.
Monta Vista South
Sites 8a (20666 Cleo Ave) and 8d (21530 Rainbow Dr) are erroneously shown as Tier 2 sites on Recommended Inventory. Both should be classified as Tier 1, as they were at PC/HC meetings. Site 8c (21710 Regnart Rd), density increased from 5 to 15 du/acre due to the site’s west side location.
North Blaney
Site 9b (19986 Olivewood, 10716 Rosewood, N Portal Avenue), the Pointe Apartments, deleted from Inventory as a Tier 2 site due to relocation of residents, if redeveloped with new housing.
South Blaney
Site 11b (20455 Silverado – Chamber building) deleted from Inventory as Tier 2 site. Lot size only 0.23 acres.
161
CC 08-29-2022
161 of 214
Site 11a (10787 and 10891 S Blaney; Tin Tin Market): density reduced from 30 du/acre to 20 du/acre.
Bubb Road
Site 13a (21431 McClellan) density increased from 30 to 50 du/acre. Smaller 0.47-acre lot has close proximity to DeAnza and west side public schools.
Heart of the City-Crossroads
Sites 15c through 15g added as Tier 2 sites to Inventory after PC/HC meetings for Council consideration. No owner interest submitted for sites 15c through 15g. These sites were not on the Inventory presented at PC-HC meetings on June 28 and July 5. PC had discussed former Fontana’s Restaurant and Pizza Hut sites as potential housing locations but did not recommend them.
Heart of the City-East
Site 18b (19550 Stevens Creek; gas station) moved from Tier 2 to Tier 1. PC/HC recommends all HOC-East sites have “split” densities where portions of properties near the Stevens Creek right-of-way are 50 du/acre and portions closer to existing single-family neighborhoods are 25 du/acre.
Monta Vista Village
Sites 21a (21730 Olive Ave) and 21c (10141 Pasadena Ave) deleted from Inventory due to greater number of existing onsite units than was identified on the Inventory. Olive Ave has 5 units, not 3; Pasadena has 4, not 2. This limits the potential increase in housing units through redevelopment and increases resident displacement.
South De Anza Blvd
Site 23d (Yamagami’s Nursery, 1361 S De Anza) moved from Tier 2 to Tier 1 since owner interest letter was submitted.
Site 23f (Summerwinds Nursery, 1491 S De Anza) moved from Tier 1 to Tier 2. Summerwinds owners have not submitted owner interest letter to be on Housing Inventory. Leaving Summerwinds as a Tier 2 site retains one of two existing nurseries in the City as an amenity to residents.
Density of all S DeAnza sites increased from 30 to 50 du/acre, due to west side location. PC/HC recommended densities on S. De Anza sites have “split” densities where portions of the properties near De Anza right-of-way are 50 du/acre and portions closer to existing single- family neighborhoods be 30 du/acre.
North Vallco Park
10801 N Wolfe Road (Duke of Edinburgh) deleted from inclusion in Site 26a in order to retain the approved hotel development potential and potential Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue.
162
CC 08-29-2022
162 of 214
Recommended Sites Inventory
8/8/2022 1
Key Map ID
Tier 2/ Total
Units for
each Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
General Plan Designation
(New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
Color Legend
P Pipeline Project: Projects that have received approval Neighorhood or Special Area Name
Tier 2 Tier 2: Sites that are not currently part of the Draft Sites List Represents possible lot merges for a single project site P ( 3,545) Pipeline Projects Pipeline Project Names
P1
31620120
10101 N Wolfe Rd
10330 N Wolfe Rd
Vallco 0 ( 2,402)
31620121
P2 32627043 21267 Stevens Creek Blvd Westport 0 ( 259)
P3 34216087 10625 S. Foothill Blvd Canyon Crossing 0 ( 18) P4 36610126
36610061 7357 Prospect Rd Carriage House (1655 S. De Anza) 0 ( 34) P5 32634066
32634043
10118-10122 Bandley Dr
10145 N. De Anza Blvd Marina Food 0 ( 206)
P6
34214066
34214104
34214105
22690 Stevens Creek Blvd Bateh Brothers 0 ( 8)
P7 35907021 10040 Bianchi Way 1 ( 6)
P8 35920030 20860 Mcclellan Rd 0 ( 12)
P9
316-06-058
316-06-059
316-06-060
19500 Pruneridge Ave The Hamptons Apartment Homes 342 ( 600) PIPELINE SUB-TOTAL 344 3,545
1 ( 31) Creston-Pharlap
1a 32620034 10231 Adriana Ave Res Low 1-5 Res ML 5-10 R1-5 R1-7.5 1.42 4 10 1 ( 13) 1b 32616075 22273 Cupertino Rd Res Low 1-5 Res ML 5-10 R1-10 R1-5 1.35 4 5 1 ( 10) 1c 32650062 10050 N Foothill Blvd Com/Off/Res Res Medium 10-20 P(OA) R3 0.62 15 15 1 ( 8) 2 0 Fairgrove: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended 163
CC 08-29-2022
163 of 214
Recommended Sites Inventory
8/8/2022 2
Key Map ID
Tier 2/ Total
Units for
each Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
General Plan Designation
(New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
3 ( 22) Garden Gate
3a Tier 2 31624016 10193 Randy Ln Res MH 5-10 Res Medium 10-20 R1-7.5 R-1C 0.45 10 12 1 ( - ) 3b ROW Mary Ave site P/Res Res H 30> T P(Res) 0.75 0 30 0 ( 22) 4 ( 12) Homestead Villa
4a 32602063 10860 Maxine Ave Res ML 5-10 na R2-4.25i na 0.71 10 20 2 ( 12) 5 0 Inspiration Heights: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended 6 ( 64) Jollyman
6a 35913019 20865 Mcclellan Rd Res Low 1-5 Res Medium 10-20 R1-10 R1-7.5 1.00 5 20 0 ( 20) 6b 35905133 21050 Mcclellan Rd Com/Off/Res Res Medium 10-20 P P(R-3) 0.78 15 30 0 ( 23) 6c 35919043 7540 McClellan Rd Low Den (1-5
DU/Ac.) Res Medium 10-20 R1-6 R1-C 0.33 5 10 1 ( - )
6d 35920028 20920 Mcclellan Rd Quasi-Public Res H 30> BQ P(Res) 0.71 0 30 0 ( 21) 7 ( 72) Monta Vista North
7a
35606001 10857 Linda Vista Dr Res Low 1-5 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac) R1-7.5 P(R-3) 0.73 5 30 1 ( 21)
35606002 10867 Linda Vista Dr Res Low 1-5 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac) R1-7.5 P(R-3) 0.69 5 30 1 ( 20)
35606003 10877 Linda Vista Dr Res Low 1-5 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac) R1-7.5 P(R-3) 0.25 5 30 1 ( 7)
35606004 10887 Linda Vista Dr Res Low 1-5 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac) R1-7.5 P(R-3) 0.87 5 30 1 ( 25)
7b Tier 2 35705010 22381 McClellan Rd Res Low 1-5 Res Medium 10-21 R1-10 R-1C 0.44 5 5 1 ( - ) 8 ( 29) Monta Vista South
164
CC 08-29-2022
164 of 214
Recommended Sites Inventory
8/8/2022 3
Key Map ID
Tier 2/ Total
Units for
each Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
General Plan Designation
(New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
8a Tier 2 36231001 20666 Cleo Ave Res Medium
10-20
Med/High (20-35
DU/Ac) P(R3) P(Res) 0.25 20 30 1 ( - )
8b 36231030 [no address] Res Medium
10-20
Med/High (20-35
DU/Ac) P(R3) P(Res) 0.23 20 30 0 ( 6)
8c
35623057 21710 Regnart Rd Res Very Low
S/D
Res Low 1-5 RHS R1-5 1.46 15 1 ( 21)
35623001 21710 Regnart Rd None Res Low 1-5 RHS R1-5 0.15 15 0 ( 2) 8d Tier 2 36638021 21530 Rainbow Dr Res Very Low
S/D
RHS R1-7.5 0.43 5 5 1 ( - )
9 ( 61) North Blaney
9a
31643009 10730 N Blaney Ave Ind Res H 30> P(R2, Mini-
Stor)
P(Res) 1.76 0 30 1 ( 51)
31643008 10710 N Blaney Ave Res Low Med
5-10 Res H 30> R-2 P(Res) 0.37 10 30 1 ( 10)
10 0 Rancho Rincondada: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended 11 ( 102) South Blaney
11a
36934053 10787 S Blaney Ave Com/Res Med/High (20-35
DU/Ac) P(CG) P(CG/Res) 0.54 15 20 0 ( 11)
36934052 10891 S Blaney Ave Com/Res Med/High (20-35
DU/Ac) P(CG) P(CG/Res) 2.70 15 20 0 ( 54)
11b
36937028 10710 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30> R2 P(CG/Res) 0.56 25 30 0 ( 17) 36937022 20421 Bollinger Rd Medium (10-
20 DU/Ac) Res H 30> R3 P(Res) 0.39 20 30 0 ( 12)
36937023 20411 Bollinger Rd Medium (10-
20 DU/Ac) Res H 30> R3 P(Res) 0.22 20 30 2 ( 5)
36937024 20431 Bollinger Rd Medium (10-
20 DU/Ac) Res H 30> R3 P(Res) 0.17 20 30 1 ( 4)
12 0 Oak Valley Neighborhood: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended 13 ( 23) Bubb Road
13a 35720044 21431 Mcclellan Rd Ind/Res/Com Res H 30> ML-rc P(Res) 0.47 20 50 1 ( 23) 14 0 Heart of the City - West: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended 15 0 Heart of the City - Crossroads
15a Tier 2 32634047 10125 Bandley Dr Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(Res) 1.09 25 50 0 ( - ) 15b Tier 2 35907006 20950 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(Res) 0.32 25 50 0 ( - ) 165
CC 08-29-2022
165 of 214
Recommended Sites Inventory
8/8/2022 4
Key Map ID
Tier 2/ Total
Units for
each Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
General Plan Designation
(New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
15c Tier 2 35908025 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(CG/Res) 0.83 25 30 0 ( - ) 15d Tier 2 35908028 20730 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(CG/Res) 10.45 25 30 0 ( - ) 15e Tier 2
35908027 20830 Stevens Creek Blvd
Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(CG/Res) 0.81 25 30 0 ( - ) 15f Tier 2
35908029 20750 Stevens Creek Blvd
Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(CG/Res) 0.92 25 30 0 ( - ) 15g Tier 2
35908026 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd
Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(CG/Res) 0.45 25 30 0 ( - ) 16 0 Heart of the City - Central
16a Tier 2 36905007 19990 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(Res) 0.46 25 50 0 - 16b Tier 2 36903005 20010 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(Res) 0.47 25 50 0 - 16c Tier 2 31623027 20149 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(Res) 0.64 25 50 0 - 17 0 City Center Node: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended 18 ( 165) Heart of the City - East
18a 36906002 10065 E Estates Dr Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(Res) 0.90 25 50 0 ( 45) 36906003 10075 E Estates Dr Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(Res) 0.53 25 50 0 ( 25) 36906004 10075 E Estates Dr Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(Res) 1.29 25 50 0 ( 63) 18b 36906007 19550 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(Res) 0.64 25 50 0 ( 32) 166
CC 08-29-2022
166 of 214
Recommended Sites Inventory
8/8/2022 5
Key Map ID
Tier 2/ Total
Units for
each Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
General Plan Designation
(New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units 18c Tier 2
37506007 19220 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(Res) 0.96 25 50 0 ( - ) 37506006 19300 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(Res) 1.71 25 50 0 ( - ) 18d Tier 2 37501023 19400 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(Res) 1.20 25 50 0 ( - ) 19 ( 27) Homestead
19a 31604064 19820 Homestead Rd Res Low 1-5 Res M 10-20 A1-43 P(Res) 0.44 5 15 1 ( 6) 19b 32336018 11025 N De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG) P(CG/Res) 0.42 35 50 0 ( 21) 20 ( 440) Stelling Gateway
20a 32607030 [no address] Com Res H 30> BQ P(Res) 0.92 15 50 0 ( 45) 20b
32609052 20916 Homestead Rd Com Res H 30> P(CG) P(CG/Res) 0.74 35 50 0 ( 36) 32609061 20956 Homestead Rd Com Res H 30> P(CG) P(CG/Res) 1.12 35 50 0 ( 55) 32609060 20990 Homestead Rd Com Res H 30> P(Rec/Enter) P(CG/Res) 2.75 50 0 ( 137) 20c
32607036 [no address] Com Res H 30> P(CG) P(Res) 1.74 15 50 0 ( 86) 32607022 [no address] Com Res H 30> P(CG) P(Res) 1.64 15 50 0 ( 81) 21 0 Monta Vista Village: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended 22 0 North De Anza: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended 23 ( 462) South De Anza
23a 35909017 10105 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(CG/Res) 1.00 25 50 0 ( 50) 23b 35917001 10291 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG) P(CG/Res) 1.32 25 50 0 ( 66) 23c Tier 2 35918044 10619 South De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30> P[CG] P(CG/Res) 0.26 25 30 0 ( - ) 23d
36619078 [no address] Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res 5-
15) P(CG/ Res) 0.08 15 50 0 ( 4)
36619047 1361 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res 5- 15) P(CG/Res) 2.33 15 50 0 ( 117)
23e Tier 2 36619081 1375 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res 5- 15)
P(CG/Res) 0.30 15 30 0 ( - )
167
CC 08-29-2022
167 of 214
Recommended Sites Inventory
8/8/2022 6
Key Map ID
Tier 2/ Total
Units for
each Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
General Plan Designation
(New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units 23f Tier 2
36619053 1491 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res 5- 15)
P(CG/Res) 0.56 15 30 0 ( - )
36619054 1491 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res 5- 15)
P(CG/Res) 1.75 15 30 0 ( - )
23g
36619044 1451 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res 5- 15)
P(CG/Res) 0.44 15 50 0 ( 22)
36619045 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res) 0.07 15 50 0 ( 4)
23h 36619055 1471 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res 5- 15)
P(CG/Res) 0.40 15 50 0 ( 20)
23i 36610121 1505 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res 5- 15)
P(CG/Res) 1.34 15 50 0 ( 67)
23j 36610127 1515 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res 5- 15)
P(CG/Res) 0.86 15 50 0 ( 43)
23k 36610137 [no address] Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res 5- 15)
P(CG/Res) 0.92 15 50 0 ( 46)
23l 36610054 20555 Prospect Rd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res 5- 15)
P(Res) 0.48 15 50 0 ( 24)
24 ( 257) Vallco Shopping District
24a 31620088 [no address] Reg Shopping Res H 30> CG P(Res) 5.16 50 0 ( 257) 25 0 South Vallco Park: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended ( 323) ( 323) North Vallco Park
26a
31605050 10989 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(CG/Res) 1.02 25 30 0 ( 31) 31605056 10805 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(CG/Res) 6.94 25 30 0 ( 208) 31605052 10871 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(CG/Res) 0.73 25 30 0 ( 22) 31605053 10883 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(CG/Res) 0.92 25 30 0 ( 28) 31605051 10961 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(CG/Res) 0.62 25 30 0 ( 19) 31605072 11111 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30> P(CG, Res) P(CG/Res) 0.54 25 30 0 ( 16) 168
CC 08-29-2022
168 of 214
Recommended Sites Inventory
8/8/2022 7
Key Map ID
Tier 2/ Total
Units for
each Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
General Plan Designation
(New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
Subtotal ( 2,090) 22 2,090
ADUs ( 200)
TOTAL (Gross) 5,835
TOTAL (Net) 366 5,469
RHNA 4,588
Difference 881
Percent of RHNA 119%
169
CC 08-29-2022
169 of 214
Cupertino City Council Sites Overview
Cupertino has identified 25 areas that were studied for potential Housing Opportunity Sites. Of these, capacity for future housing is reasonably anticipated to be accommodated in the following 16 areas of the city. This is a live list of sites, and better informed with community comments and discussion participation. On the Engage Cupertino website , individual area pages have more information about each site and an opportunity to provide feedback.
Balancing Act Mapping (Housing Simulator):
https://city-of-cupertino.abalancingact.com/cupertino-available-housing-sites Engage Cupertino Housing Website Surveys:
https://engagecupertino.org/hub-page/housing-element
Area P: Pipeline Projects
Pipeline projects are those that have the highest likelihood of being constructed within the 8-year Housing Element cycle. The following projects have received planning entitlements, so that the primary permit needed prior to construction is a building permit.
RHNA - Pipeline Projects = Sites Inventory need 4,588 units - 3,563 units = 1,025 units needed (+ buffer) July 20, 2022 1
170
CC 08-29-2022
170 of 214
Table 1: Pipeline Projects
Project # Parcel Number Address or Intersection Total Net New Units P1 31620120
31620121 10101 N Wolfe Rd (the Rise) 2,402 P2 32627043 21267 Stevens Creek Blvd 259 P3 34216087 10625 S. Foothill Blvd 18
P4 36610126
36610061 7357 Prospect Rd 34
P5 32634066
32634043
10118-10122 Bandley Dr
10145 N. De Anza Blvd 206
P6
34214066
34214104
34214105
22690 Stevens Creek Blvd 8
P7 35907021 10040 Bianchi Way 6
P8 35913019 20860 Mcclellan Rd 12
P9
316-06-058
316-06-059
316-06-060
19500 Pruneridge Ave 600
Total number of Pipeline Projects 3,545 units Areas with NO specific sites anticipated to accommodate housing:
Neighborhood Area 2: Fairgrove
Neighborhood Area 5: Inspiration Heights Neighborhood Area 10: Rancho Rincondada Neighborhood Area 12: Oak Valley Neighborhood Special Area 14 : Heart of the City - West Special Area 16 : Heart of the City - Central Special Area 17 : City Center Node Special Area 21 : Monta Vista Village July 20, 2022 2
171
CC 08-29-2022
171 of 214
Special Area 22 : North De Anza Special Area 25 : South Vallco Park Special Area 26 : North Vallco Park Potential Sites within Neighborhood & Special Areas anticipated to accommodate housing:
Neighborhoods are areas where future changes are expected to be minimal.
Table 2: Comparison of Neighborhood Areas and anticipated future housing units Neighborhood Area Number of Units
1: Creston-Pharlap 31
3: Garden Gate 22
4: Homestead Villa 12
6: Jollyman 64
7: Monta Vista North 72
8: Monte Vista South 29
9: North Blaney 61
11: South Blaney 102
Total number of Neighborhood Units 393 July 20, 2022 3
172
CC 08-29-2022
172 of 214
Special Areas are typically regulated with Specific Plans and are expected to transition over the life of the General Plan.
Table 3: Comparison of Special Areas and anticipated future housing units Special Area Number of Units
13: Bubb Road 23
15: Heart of the City - Crossroads 0 (Tier 2 only) 16: Heart of the City - Central 0 (Tier 2 only) 18: Heart of the City - East 165 19: Homestead 27
20: Stelling Gateway 440
23: South De Anza 462
24: Vallco Shopping District 257
26: North Vallco Park 323
July 20, 2022 4
173
CC 08-29-2022
173 of 214
Total number of Special Area Units 1,374 Tier 1: is the default status for all sites listed with potential housing units. Current Tier 1 total units (Neighborhood Areas + Special Areas) = 1,767 units.
Tier 2: represents sites that may be selected for inclusion with Tier 1.
Buffers are recommended by HCD because they assist City staff with meeting No Net Loss requirements, specifically to meet low and very low affordable housing unit allocations.
Visit the following link to correlate density numbers with housing types, specifically in relation to "Missing Middle" housing options:
( https://missingmiddlehousing.com/types ).
Neighborhood Area 1: Creston-Pharlap - 31 total units The Creston-Pharlap neighborhood is a single- family residential area that includes the last remaining unincorporated pocket within the Cupertino urban service area.
Site 1a: 10231 Adriana Ave
10231 Adriana Ave. Parcel #: 32620034. Creston-Pharlap Neighborhood. ● Current General Plan Designation Res Low 1-5 ● New General Plan Re-Designation Res 1-7.5 ● Current Zoning designation R1-10
● New Zoning Designation R1-5
The parcel size in gross acres is 1.42. The New density (du/ac) may be 10. There is 1 existing unit and the net added units may equal 13. The maximum building height (stories) would be two. Rationale for density change is because it is a large site.
Site 1b: 22273 Cupertino Road
22273 Cupertino Road. Parcel #: 32616075. Creston-Pharlap Neighborhood. ● Current General Plan Designation Res Low 1-5 ● New General Plan Re-designation Res ML 5-10 ● Current zoning designation R1-10
● New zoning designation R1-5
July 20, 2022 5
174
CC 08-29-2022
174 of 214
The parcel size in gross acres is 1.35. The New density (du/ac) may be 5. Existing unit is 1. Net new units may equal 10. The maximum building height (stories) would be two. Rationale for density change is because it is a large site.
Site 1c: 10050 N Foothill Blvd
10050 N Foothill Blvd. Parcel #: 32650062. Creston-Pharlap Neighborhood. ● Current General Plan designation Com/Off/res ● New General Plan re-designation Res medium 10-20 ● Current zoning designation P (OA)
● New zoning designation R3
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.62. The New density (du/ac) may be 15. Existing unit is 1. Net new units may equal 8. The maximum building height (stories) would be three.
Neighborhood Area 2: Fairgrove - 0 units There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended.
Neighborhood Area 3: Garden Gate - 22 total units The Garden Gate neighborhood is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes with pockets of duplexes and apartments, including the Villages of Cupertino apartment site. This area is served by several amenities including shopping and employment opportunities along Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards, Garden Gate Elementary, the YMCA, Memorial Park and the Quinlan Community Center.
Site 3a: Right- of- Way, Mary Ave Site.
Portion of Mary Ave Right-of-way. Garden Gate Neighborhood. ● Current General Plan Designation P/Res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation T
● New Zoning designation P (Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.71. The New density (du/ac) may be 40. There are no existing units, and new units may equal 22. The maximum building height (stories) would be five. Rationale for density change is to recognize opportunity for affordable housing within the un-utilized ROW.
Neighborhood Area 4: Homestead Villa - 12 total units July 20, 2022 6
175
CC 08-29-2022
175 of 214
The Homestead Villa neighborhood includes a mixture of traditional single family homes, clustered homesites, townhomes, condominiums and duplexes that is also served by the Homestead Crossing neighborhood center.
Site 4a: 10860 Maxine Ave.
10860 Maxine Ave. Homestead Villa. Parcel #: 32602063. ● Current General Plan Designation Res ML 5-10 ● New General Plan Re-designation is not available ● Current zoning designation R2-4.25i
● Proposed new zoning designation may be not available.
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.71. New density (du/ac) may be 20. There are zero existing units. The total of new units may be 12. The maximum building height (stories) would be two.
Neighborhood Area 5: Inspiration Heights - 0 units There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended.
Neighborhood Area 6: Jollyman - 64 total units The Jollyman neighborhood is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes but also includes fourplexes, townhomes and apartments. Jollyman Park and Faria Elementary School are also located in the Jollyman Neighborhood.
Site 6a: 20865 McClellan road
Tier 2 Potential Additional Site: 20865 McClellan Road. Parcel #: 35913019.
Jollyman Neighborhood.
● Current General Plan designation Res Low 1-5. ● New General Plan re-designation Res Medium 10-20 ● Current zoning designation R1-10
● New zoning designation R1-7.5
The parcel size in gross acres is 1.00. New density (du/ac) may be 20. Net new units may be 20. The maximum building height (stories) would be two. The rationale for density change is pending application review. Owner interest.
Site 6b: 21050 Mcclellan Road
21050 Mcclellan Road. Parcel #: 35905133. Jollyman Neighborhood. ● Current General Plan designation COM/Off/Res ● New General Plan re-designation Res Medium 10-20 July 20, 2022 7
176
CC 08-29-2022
176 of 214
● Current zoning designation P
● New zoning designation P(R-3)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.78. New density (du/ac) may be 30. Existing unit is one. Net new units may be 23. The maximum building height (stories) would be four. The rationale for density change is because it is within a high-transit corridor, neighboring high density, and because it is a large site. Owner interest.
Site 6c: 7540 McClellan Road
Former Tier 2 Potential Additional Site: 7540 McClellan Road. Parcel #: 35919043.
Jollyman Neighborhood.
● Current General Plan designation Low Den (1-5 DU/Ac.) ● New General Plan re-designation res Medium 10-20 ● Current zoning designation R1-6
● New zoning designation R1-C
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.33. New density (du/ac) may be ten. Net new units may be 2. The maximum building height (stories) would be two. Rationale for density change is high-transit corridor.
Site 6d: 20920 McClellan Road
20920 Mcclellan Road. Parcel #: 35920028. Jollyman Neighborhood. ● Current General Plan designation Quasi-Public ● New General plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation BQ
● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross aces is 0.71. New density (du/ac) may be 30. Existing unit is zero. Net new units may equal twenty-one. The maximum building height (stories) would be four. The rationale for density change is because it is within a high-transit corridor and because it is a large site.
Neighborhood Area 7: Monta Vista North - 72 total units The Monta Vista North neighborhood is primarily single-family homes that also encompasses the tri-school area of Lincoln Elementary School, Kennedy Middle School and Monta Vista High School, and also includes community facilities such as Blackberry Farm, McClellan Ranch Preserve, Linda Vista Park and Stevens Creek County Park.
Site 7a: Linda Vista Dr.
July 20, 2022 8
177
CC 08-29-2022
177 of 214
10857, 10867, 10877, & 10887 Linda Vista Dr.
Parcel #: 35606001, -002, -003, -004. Monta Vista North. ● Current General Plan designation Res Low 1-5 ● New General Plan re-designation Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac) ● Current zoning designation R 1-7.5
● New zoning designation P(R-3)
The parcel size in gross acres is 2.54. New density (du/ac) may be 30. Existing unit is zero. The maximum building height (stories) would be three. Rationale for density change is because it is within a self-enclosed cul de sac and because it is a large site. Owner interest.
Net new units for 10857 may equal 21 Net new units for 10867 may equal 20 Net new units for 10877 may equal 7 Net new units for 10887 may equal 25 Site 7b: 22381 McClellan Road.
Tier 2 Potential Additional Site: 22381 McClellan Road. Parcel #: 35705010. Monte Vista North.
● Current General Plan designation Res Low 1-5 ● New General Plan re-designation Res Medium 10-21 ● Current zoning designation R1-10
● New zoning designation R-1C
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.44. There is no proposed change to density. This is a Tier 2 site with no new units anticipated with initial analysis. The maximum building height (stories) would be two. Owner interest.
Neighborhood Area 8: Monta Vista South - 29 total units The Monta Vista South neighborhood is combined with hillside development in the west while the east side is on the valley floor and is developed in a more traditional residential subdivision pattern with lots generally 6,000 square feet in size. The 37-acre Seven Springs Ranch that was listed on the California Register of Historic Places is located on the southern edge of this area.
Site 8a: 20666 Clea Ave.
Tier 2 Potential Additional site: 20666 Cleo Ave. Parcel #: 36231001. Monta Vista South.
● Current General Plan designation res medium 10-20 July 20, 2022 9
178
CC 08-29-2022
178 of 214
● New General Plan re-designation Med/High (20-35 DU/ac) ● Current zoning designation P(R3)
● New zoning designation P(res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.25. New density (du/ac) may be 30. Existing unit is one. This is a Tier 2 site with no new units anticipated with initial analysis.
The maximum building height (stories) would be four. Rationale for density change is that it would be compatible with adjacent density. Owner interest.
This parcel was formerly Tier 1.
Site 8b: No address.
No address. Parcel #: 36231030. Monte Vista South. ● Current General Plan designation is Res Medium 10-20 ● New General Plan re-designation Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac) ● Current zoning designation P (R3)
● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.23. New density (du/ac) may be 30. Existing unit is zero. Net new units may equal six. The maximum building height (stories) would be four. Rationale for density change is adjacent to Hwy 85.
Site 8c: 21710 Regnart Road
21710 Regnart Road. Parcel #: 35623057, 35623001. Monte Vista South. ● Current General Plan designation Res very Low S/D ● New General Plan re-designation Res Low 1-5 ● Current zoning designation RHS
● New zoning designation R1-5
The parcel size in gross acres is 1.61. New density (du/ac) may be 15. Existing unit for parcel -057 is one. Existing unit for parcel -001 is zero. Net new units may equal 21 at the 35623057 parcel. Net new units may equal 2 at parcel 35623001.
The maximum building height (stories) would be two. Rationale for density change is a large site: similar density adjacent. Owner interest.
Site 8d: 21530 Rainbow Dr.
Tier 2 Potential Additional site: 21530 Rainbow Dr. Parcel #: 36638021. Monte Vista South.
● Current General Plan designation Res Very Low S/D July 20, 2022 10
179
CC 08-29-2022
179 of 214
● New General plan re-designation is not available ● Current zoning designation RHS
● New zoning designation R1-7.5
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.43. New density (du/ac) may be 3.4. Existing unit is one. This is a Tier 2 site with no new units anticipated with initial analysis.
The maximum building height (stories) would be two. Owner interest. Formerly a Tier 1 parcel.
Neighborhood Area 9: North Blaney - 61 total units The North Blaney neighborhood is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes with duplexes, townhomes and apartments closer to the freeway. Collins Elementary School and Lawson Middle School are also located in this Neighborhood.
Site 9a: 10730 N. Blaney Ave. & 10710 N. Blaney Ave. 10730 N. Blaney Ave. Parcel # 31643009 10710 N. Blaney Ave. Parcel # 31643008 ● Current General Plan designation res Medium 10-20 ● -009 current General Plan designation ind. ● All parcels new General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current Zoning designation R3
● Current zoning designation for -009 P (R2, Mini-Star) ● New zoning designation P(res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 2.13. New density (du/ac) may be 30.
Existing units at each site are one, for a total of two. Net new units may be 61.
The total Max building height may be five stories. Rationale for density change is because it is close to Hwy 280; significant increase in density offset loss of existing high-density housing; and because it is a large site. Owner interest.
Neighborhood Area 10: Rancho Rincondada - 0 units There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended.
Neighborhood Area 11: South Blaney - 102 total units This neighborhood is defined by single-family residential homes served by several amenities including proximity to the Cupertino Library and two large parks:
Wilson Park and Creekside Park. The De Anza Plaza Shopping Center is located here as well as Eaton Elementary School. Housing types located in this July 20, 2022 11
180
CC 08-29-2022
180 of 214
neighborhood include townhomes and duplexes that line Miller Avenue and Bollinger Road.
Site 11a South Blaney
10787 S. Blaney Ave. Parcel #: 26934053. South Blaney neighborhood. 10891 S. Blaney Ave. Parcel #: 26934052 ● Current General Plan designation Com/Res ● New General Plan re-designation Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac) ● Current zoning designation P(CG)
● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 3.24. New density (du/ac) may be 20. Existing unit is zero. Net new units is 65. The maximum building height (stories) would be four. Rationale for destiny change is surrounded on three sides by small-lot SFD; and because it is a large site. Owner interest.
Site 11b: South Blaney various contiguous properties 10710 S. De Anza Blvd. Parcel #: 36937028. 20421 Bollinger Road. Parcel #: 36937022. 20411 Bollinger Road. Parcel #: 36937023 20431 Bollinger Road. Parcel #: 36937024.
South Blaney neighborhood.
● -7028 Current General Plan designation Com/res ● -7022, 7023, 7024 current General Plan designation Medium (10-20 DU/Ac) ● New General Plan re-designation Res H> 30 ● -7028 Current zoning designation R2 ● -7022,7023,7024 current zoning designation R3 ● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 1.34. New density (du/ac) 40. -7028 existing units are zero.
-7022 existing units are zero.
-7023 existing units are two.
-7024 existing units are one.
Net new units may equal 38.
-7028 total new units may equal 17 units. -7022 total new units may equal 12 units. -7023 total new units may equal 5.
July 20, 2022 12
181
CC 08-29-2022
181 of 214
-7024 total new units may equal 4.
The maximum building height (stories) would be five. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor, because it is a large site, surrounded by commercial; and adjacent to the city limit.
Neighborhood Area 12: Oak Valley Neighborhood - 0 units There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended.
Special Area 13: Bubb Road - 23 total units The Bubb Road Special Area is approximately 30 acres in size and consists primarily of low-rise industrial and research and development uses.
Site 13a: 21431 McClellan Road
21431 McClellan Road. Parcel #: 35720044. Bubb Road Special Area. ● Current General Plan designation Ind/Res/ Com ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation ML-rc
● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.47 New density (du/ac) may be 50. Existing unit is one. Net new units may equal 23. The max building height (stories) are five.
Rationale for density change is that it is close to Hwy 85 and adjacent to commercial. Owner interest.
Special Area 14: Heart of the City West - 0 units There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended.
Area 15: Heart of the City-Crossroads - 0 units The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides specific development guidance for one of the most important commercial corridors in the City of Cupertino, for the purpose of creating a greater sense of place and community identity in Cupertino. The plan contains streetscape design, development standards and design guidelines for multi-unit residential and commercial/office projects.
Site 15a: 10125 Bandley Dr.
Tier 2 Potential Additional Site: 10125 Bandley Dr. Parcel #: 3263407. Heart of City- Crossroads.
● Current General Plan designation Com/off/res July 20, 2022 13
182
CC 08-29-2022
182 of 214
● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P(CG, Res) ● New zoning designation P (Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 1.09. New density (du/ac) may be 50. This is a Tier 2 site with no new units anticipated with initial analysis. The max building height (stories) are eight. Rationale for density change is that it is a high transit corridor; Heart of the City; and because it is a large site.
Site 15b: 20950 Stevens Creek Blvd
Tier 2 Potential Additional Site. 20950 Stevens Creek Blvd. Parcel #: 35907006.
Heart of City- Crossroads
● Current General Plan designation Com/off/res ● New General Plan re-designation res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P(CG, Res) ● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.32. New density (du/ac) may be 50. This is a Tier 2 site with no new units anticipated with initial analysis. The max building height (stories) are eight. Rationale for the density change is that it is a high transit corridor; Heart of the City. Owner interest.
Site 15c: 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Tier 2 Potential Additional site. 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd. Parcel # 35908025.
Heart of City-Crossroads
● Current General Plan Designation COM/OFF/RES ● New General Plan Designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P9 (CG,Res) ● New zoning designation P (CG/Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.83. New density may be 30. This is a tier two site.
The net new units may equal 25. The maximum building height (stories) are five.
Rationale for the density change is that it is a high transit corridor and a large site.
Site 15d: 20730 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Tier 2 potential additional site 207030 Stevens Creek Blvd. Parcel # 35908028 Heart of City-Crossroads
● Current general plan designation Com/Off Res ● New general plan designation Res H 30> July 20, 2022 14
183
CC 08-29-2022
183 of 214
● Current zoning designation P (CG, Res) ● New zoning designation P (CG/Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 10.45. New density may be 30. This is a tier 2 site.
Existing units are 314. The net new units may equal 38. The maximum building height (stories) are five. Rationale for the density change is that it is a high transit corridor and a large site.
Site 15e: 20830 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Tier 2 potential additional site. 20830 Stevens Creek Blvd. Parcel # 35908027.
Heart of City-Crossroads
● Current general plan designation Com/Off/Res ● New general plan designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P (CG, Res) ● New zoning designation P (CG/Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.81. New density may be 30. This is a tier 2 site.
There are 24 existing units. The net new units may equal 30. The maximum building height (stories) are five. Rationale for the density change is that it is a high transit corridor and a large site.
Site 15f: 20750 Stevens Creek Blvd
Tier 2 potential additional site. 20750 Stevens Creek Blvd. Parcel # 35908029.
Heart of City-Crossroads
● Current general plan designation COM/Off/Res ● New General Plan Designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P(CG,Res)
● New zoning designation P(CG/Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.92. New density may be 30. This is a tier 2 site.
The net new units may equal 28 if it is elevated to a Tier 1 site. The maximum building height (stories) are five. Rationale for the density change is that it is a high transit corridor and a large site.
Site 15g: 20850 Stevens Creek Blvd
Tier 2 potential additional site. 20850 Stevens Creek Blvd. Parcel # 35908026.
Heart of City-Crossroads
● Current general plan designation Com/Off/res ● New general plan designation Res H 30> July 20, 2022 15
184
CC 08-29-2022
184 of 214
● Current zoning designation P (CG,Res) ● New zoning designation P(CG/Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.45. New density may be 30. This is a tier 2 site.
Existing units are 14. The net new units may equal 14 if it is elevated to a Tier 1 site. The maximum building height (stories) are five. Rationale for the density change is that it is a high transit corridor and a large site.
Special Area 16: Heart of the City-Central - 0 units The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides specific development guidance for one of the most important commercial corridors in the City of Cupertino, for the purpose of creating a greater sense of place and community identity in Cupertino. The plan contains streetscape design, development standards and design guidelines for multi-unit residential and commercial/office projects.
Site 16a: 19990 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Tier 2 Potential Additional Site: 1000- Stevens Creek Blvd. Parcel #: 36905007.
Heart of the City- Central Area.
● Current General Plan designation Com/Off/Res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P9CG, Res) ● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.46. The New density (du/ac) may be 50. This is a Tier 2 site with no new units anticipated with initial analysis. The max building height (stories) are eight. Rationale for density change is a high transit corridor; Heart of the City.
Site 16b: 20010 Stevens Creek Blvd
Tier 2 Potential Additional site: 20010 Stevens Creek Blvd. Parcel #: 36903005.
Heart of the City- Central Area.
● Current General Plan designation Com/Off/res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P (CG, Res) ● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.47. The New density (du/ac) may be 50. This is a Tier 2 site with no new units anticipated with initial analysis. The maximum building height (stories) would be eight. The rationale for density change is July 20, 2022 16
185
CC 08-29-2022
185 of 214
because it is in a high transit corridor, and because it is a Heart of the City.
Owner interest.
Site 16c: 20149 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Tier 2 Potential Additional Site: 20149 Stevens Creek Blvd. Parcel #: 31623027.
Heart of the City- Central Area.
● Current General Plan designation Com/off/res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P (CG, Res) ● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.64. The New density (du/ac) may be 50. This is a Tier 2 site with no new units anticipated with initial analysis. The maximum building height (stories) would be eight. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor, and because it is a Heart of the City; and because it is a large site. Owner interest.
Special Area 17: City Center Node - 0 units There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended.
Special Area 18: Heart of the City-East - 165 total units The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides specific development guidance for one of the most important commercial corridors in the City of Cupertino, for the purpose of creating a greater sense of place and community identity in Cupertino. The plan contains streetscape design, development standards and design guidelines for multi-unit residential and commercial/office projects.
Site 18a: 10065 E Estates Dr
10065 & 10075 E. Estates Dr. Parcels #: 36906002, 6003, 6004. Heart of the City- East Area.
● Current General Plan designation Com/off/res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30 > ● Current zoning designation P(CG, Res) ● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is three. The New density (du/ac) may be 50.
Existing unit is zero. Net new units133.
Total new units at 6002 may be: 45 Total new units at 6003 may be: 25 July 20, 2022 17
186
CC 08-29-2022
186 of 214
Total new units at 6004 may be : 63 Site 18b: 19550 Stevens Creek Blvd. 19550 Stevens Creek Blvd. Parcel # 36906007. ● Current General Plan designation Com/off/res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P(CG, Res) ● New zoning designation P(Res)
This is a 0.64 acre site with 32 new units anticipated with initial analysis. The new density (du/ac) 50. Max building height (stories) is eight. Rationale for density change is that it is a high transit corridor; Heart of the City; and because it is a large site.
Site 18c: 19220 Stevens Creek Blvd. Heart of City-East Tier 2 Potential Additional Sites: 19220 Stevens Creek Blvd. Parcel #: 37506007 & 19300 Stevens Creek Blvd. -37506006
● Current General Plan designation Com/off/res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P(CG, Res) ● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is three. The new density (du/ac) 50. This is a Tier 2 site with no new units anticipated with initial analysis. Max building height (stories) is eight. Rationale for density change is that it is a high transit corridor; Heart of the City; and because it is a large site. Owner interest.
Site 18d: 19400 Stevens Creek Blvd
Tier 2 Potential Additional Site: 19400 Stevens Creek Blvd. Parcel #: 37501023.
Heart of the City East.
● Current General Plan designation Com/Off/Res ● New General plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P (CG, Res) ● New zoning designation P (Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 1.20. The New density (du/ac) may be 50. This is a Tier 2 site with no new units anticipated with initial analysis. The maximum building height (stories) are eight. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor. Owner interest.
July 20, 2022 18
187
CC 08-29-2022
187 of 214
Special Area 19: Homestead - 27 total units The Homestead Special Area is a major mixed- use corridor with a series of neighborhood commercial centers and multi-family housing.
Site 19a: 19820 Homestead Road
19820 Homestead Rd. Parcel #: 31604064. Homestead Area. ● Current General Plan designation Res Low 1-5 ● New General Plan re-designation is a no ● Current zoning designation is BQ
● Proposed new zoning designation may be R1-5 The parcel size in gross acres is 0.44. The new density (du/ac) is fifteen. Existing unit is zero. The Net new units may equal six. The maximum building height (stories) are two. Owner interest.
Site 19b: 11025 N De Anza Blvd
11025 N De Anza Blvd. Parcel #: 32336018. Homestead Area. ● Current General Plan designation is Com/res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P (CG, Res) ● New zoning Designation P (Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.42. New density (du/ac) may be 50. There are no existing units and the net added units may equal 21. The max building building height (stories) are eight. Rationale for density change is because it is close to Hwy 280 interchange; high-transit corridor; adjacent commercial.
Owner interest.
Special Area 20: Stelling Gateway - 440 total units Stelling Gateway, which consists primarily of commercial and residential uses, is located in this area within the Homestead Planning Area, at the intersection of Homestead and Stelling Roads.
Site 20a: No address
No address. Parcel #: 32607030. Stelling Gateway. ● Current General Plan designation is Com ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation BQ
● New zoning designation P(Res)
July 20, 2022 19
188
CC 08-29-2022
188 of 214
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.92. New density (du/ac) may be 50. There are no existing units and the net added units may equal 45. The max building height (stories) may be eight.
Site 20b: Homestead Road
20916, 20956, 20990 Homestead Road. Parcel #: 32609052- , -9061. Stelling Gateway.
● Current General Plan Designation is Com ● New General Plan re-designation is Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation is P (CG) ● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 4.61. New density (du/ac) may be 50. There are no existing units and the net added units may equal 228. -32609052 total new units may be: 36 -32609061 total new units may be: 55 -32609060 total new units may be: 137 The maximum building height (stories) are eight. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor; adjacent commercial; and because it is a large site.
Site 20c: No address
(no address.) Parcel #: 32607036 & 32607022. Stelling Gateway. ● Current General Plan designation is Com ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P(CG)
● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 3.38. New density (du/ac) may be 50. There are no existing units and the net added units is 167. -3260736 total new units may be: 86 -32607022 total new units may be: 81 The maximum building height (stories) are eight. The rationale for density change is because it is a high-transit corridor, adjacent commercial, and because it is a large site.
Special Area 21: Monta Vista Village - 0 units There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended.
July 20, 2022 20
189
CC 08-29-2022
189 of 214
Special Area 22: North De Anza - 0 units There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended.
Special Area 23: South De Anza - 462 total units South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan encompasses the stretch between Stevens Creek Blvd. and Bollinger Rd along De Anza Blvd.
Site 23a: 10105 S. De Anza Blvd 10105 South De Anza Blvd. Parcel #: 35909017. ● Current General Plan designation Com/Res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P (CG, Res) ● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 1.00. The new density (du/ac) is 50. There are no existing units and the net added units may equal 50. The max building height (stories) are five. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor, and because it is a large site. Owner interest.
Site 23b: 10291 S. De Anza Blvd 10291 South De Anza Blvd. Parcel #: 35917001. ● Current General Plan designation is Com/Res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P(CG)
● New zoning designation P (Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 1.32. The New density (du/ac) may be 50. There are no existing units and the net added units may be 66. The max building height (stories) are five. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor and because it is a large site. Owner interest.
Site 23c: 10619 South De Anza Blvd Tier 2 Potential Additional Site: 10619 South De Anza Blvd. Parcel #: 35918044. ● Current General Plan designation Com/ Res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P (CG)
● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.26. The new density (du/ac) is 30. This is a Tier 2 site with no new units anticipated with initial analysis. The max building height July 20, 2022 21
190
CC 08-29-2022
190 of 214
(stories) are five. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor and because it is a large site. Owner interest.
Site 23d: 1361 S. De Anza Blvd 1361 & 1375 South De Anza Blvd. Parcels #: 36619078 & 36619047. ● Current General Plan designation Com/Res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P (CG, Res 5-15) ● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 2.41. The New density (du/ac) may be 50. There are no existing units. The net new units may equal 121. The max building height (stories) are five. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor and because it is a large site. Owner interest. This is a former Tier 2 site.
Site 23e: 1375 S De Anza Blvd
Tier 2 Potential Additional Site: 1375 South De Anza Blvd. Parcel #: 36619081. ● Current General Plan Designation Com/Res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P(CG, Res 5-15) ● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.30. The New density (du/ac) may be 30. This is a Tier 2 site with no new units anticipated with initial analysis. The max building height (stories) are five. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor.
Site 23f: 1491 s De Anza Blvd
Tier 2 Potential Additional Site. 1491 S De Anza Blvd. South De Anza Blvd. Parcels #: 36619053, -9054.
● Current General Plan designation Com/Res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P(CG, Res 5-15) ● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 2.31. The New density (du/ac) may be 30. Existing unit is zero. This is a Tier 2 site with no new units anticipated with initial analysis. -36619053 net added units may be: 16 -9054 net added units may be: 52 July 20, 2022 22
191
CC 08-29-2022
191 of 214
The net new units may equal zero. The max building height (stories) are five.
Rationale for density change because it is a high transit corridor and because it is a large site. Former tier 1 site.
Site 23g: 1451 S De Anza Blvd. and Saratoga/Sunnyvale Rd 1451 S De Anza Blvd. South De Anza Blvd. Parcels #: 36619044 & 36619045 (Saratoga/Sunnyvale Rd.) South De Anza. ● Current General Plan designation Com/Res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P(CG, Res 5-15) ● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.51. The New density (du/ac) may be 50. There are no existing units and the net added units may equal 15. -36619044 net added units may be: 22 -36619095 net added units may be: 4 The max building height (stories) are five. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor, and because it is a large site.
Site 23h: 1471 S De Anza Blvd
1471 S. De Anza Blvd. South De Anza Blvd. Parcel #: 36619055. ● Current General Plan designation Com/res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P(CG, Res 5-15) ● New zoning designation P (Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.40. The New density (du/ac) may be 50. There are zero existing units and the net added units may equal 20. The max building height (stories) are five. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor.
Site 23i: 1505 S De Anza Blvd
1505 S De Anza Blvd. South De Anza Blvd. Parcel #: 36610121. ● Current General Plan designation Com/Res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P(CG, Res 5-15) ● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 1.34. The New density (du/ac) may be 50. There are zero existing units and the net added units may equal 67. The max building July 20, 2022 23
192
CC 08-29-2022
192 of 214
height (stories) are five. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor and because it is a large site.
Site 23j: 1515 S De Anza Blvd
1515 S De Anza Blvd. South De Anza Blvd. Parcel #: 36610127. ● Current General Plan designation Com/Res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation P(CG, Res 5-15) ● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.86. The new density (du/ac)is 50. There are no existing units and the net added units may equal 43. The max building height (stories) are five. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor and because it is a large site.
Site 23k: South De Anza Blvd
(no address) South De Anza Blvd. Parcel #: 36610137. ● Current General Plan designation Com/Res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H30> ● Current zoning designation P (CG, Res 5-15) ● New zoning designation P (Res)
The parcel size in gross acres is 0.92. The New density (du/ac) may be 50. There are no existing units and the net added units may equal 46. The max building height (stories) are five. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor and because it is a large site.
Site 23l: Prospect Road
20555 Prospect Rd. Parcel Number: 36610054. ● Current General Plan designation Com/Res ● New General Plan re-designation Res H30> ● Current zoning designation P (CG, Res 5-15) ● New zoning designation P (Res)
The New density (du/ac) may be 50. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor. There are no existing units. Net new units may equal 24.
Area 24: Vallco Shopping District - 257 total units July 20, 2022 24
193
CC 08-29-2022
193 of 214
The South Vallco planning area is an approximately 125-acre area bounded by I-280 to the north, Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south, including Cupertino Square shopping center (formerly Vallco Fashion Park) along the east and west side of Wolfe Road and the office development along the east side of Tantau Avenue.
Site 24a: Vallco Shopping District
10333 N Wolfe Road. Parcel #: 31620088. Vallco Shopping District ● Current General Plan designation Reg Shopping ● New General Plan re-designation Res H 30> ● Current zoning designation CG
● New zoning designation P(Res)
The parcel in gross acres is 5.16. New density (du/ac) may be 70. There are no existing units and the net added units may equal 257. The max building height (stories) are eight. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor, and because it is a large site, and close to Hwy 280.
Area 25: South Vallco Park - 0 units There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended.
Area 26: North Vallco Park - 323 North Vallco Master Plan (not adopted by Council - for guidance only) The North Vallco planning area is the 240-acre area bounded by Homestead Road, Tantau Avenue, I-280 and Wolfe Road. It includes the 100-acre Hewlett Packard campus, 50 acres acquired by Apple Computer for a future second campus, Cupertino Village shopping center, hotel, residential and office developments.
Site 26a: 10989 N Wolfe Road et al Tier 2 Potential Additional Site: 10989 N Wolfe Rd North Vallco Park. Parcel #:
31605050
10801 N Wolfe Rd. -5017
10805 N Wolfe Rd. -5056
10871 N. Wolfe Rd. - 5052
10883 N Wolfe Rd. -5053
11111 N Wolfe Rd. -5072
● Current General Plan designation for Com/Res ● New General Plan designation Res H 30> July 20, 2022 25
194
CC 08-29-2022
194 of 214
● Current zoning designation P (CG, Res) ● New zoning designation P (CG/Res)
The total parcel size in gross acres is 1.68. New density (du/ac) may be 25. This is a Tier 2 site with no existing units and unless this site is elevated to a Tier 1 site, the net added units may equal zero. The max building height (stories)are five. The rationale for density change is because it is in a high transit corridor and because it is a large site.
Additional methods to assist with meeting housing unit allocation:
Senate Bills: State laws that can be considered to meet RHNA Senate Bills 9 and 10 were passed in 2021 to enable increased flexibility for property owners and local governments to support construction of infill housing in areas that are already developed. Both laws apply to single-family zoned properties, and are optional. These laws respect the uniqueness for each lot and each City by enabling an ability for individuals and local governments to determine potential opportunities to increase the number of housing units in ways that align with community goals for the local built environment.
These descriptions are included to provide information for these options. For any SB-9 projects to count towards Cupertino’s 6th Cycle update, a letter of intent by each property owner interested in constructing this type of project would be helpful for HCD Sites Inventory compliance towards certification.
If you are a property owner interested in constructing units with SB-9 regulations, please sign-up to have your property included in this Sites List at https://rb.gy/2mz5eq .
Senate Bill 9 (SB - 9): Ability for property owners to add units for single-family zoned lots
SB 9 is intended to support increased supply of homes by encouraging building of smaller houses on existing or subdivided small lots. For SB-9 sites to be considered for the 6th Cycle Housing Element update, certain information must be gathered to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that committed units will be constructed within the eight-year cycle. SB-9 facilitates the creation of up to 4 housing units in the lot area typically used for 1 single-family home, through July 20, 2022 26
195
CC 08-29-2022
195 of 214
either adding a unit to the existing lot, or subdividing the lot to allow two units for each lot. Cities may limit the unit size to 800 square feet, but this is not required.
Only objective zoning standards, subdivision standards, and design standards can be applied. However, these standards cannot preclude the construction of two units of at least 800 square feet.
General requirements for lot splits: Each new lot must be at least 1,200 sq ft. • Lots must be split roughly in half – smaller lots must be at least 40% of the original lots. • A lot intended to be split cannot be created by a previous SB 9 lot split. • New lot divisions may not be adjacent to another lot that has been split using SB 9 by the same owner, or any person acting in concert with the owner. • Applicants must sign an affidavit stating they intend to live in one of the units for at least three years on a lot split, unless the applicant is a “community land trust” or a “qualified non-profit corporation” as defined by the Revenue and Taxation Code.
Senate Bill 10 (SB - 10): Ability for City to enable additional units for single-family zoned lots
Use of this law is optional for each City. This law enables the local government to approve up to a 10-unit multi-family building on lots currently zoned for single-family housing. City Council would need to pass a resolution to adopt a plan to use SB -10, and exempts that zoning action from being considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. When the local government passes this resolution, it can choose whether the individual projects will be ministerial/by right or subject to discretionary approval.
July 20, 2022 27
196
CC 08-29-2022
196 of 214
Monta Vista
Bubb
Rd
Homestead
Rd
Homestead Rd
North De
Anza Blvd
Vallco Park
North
Heart of the
City - West
Vallco
Shopping
District
Homestead
Villa
Jollyman
Garden Gate
North Blaney
Rancho
Rinconada
South Blaney
Fair Grove
Creston-PharlapOak Valley
Monta
Vista
South
Inspiration
Heights Monta
Vista
North
Heart of
the City
- Central
Heart of the
City - East
Heart
of the City -
Crossroads
South
De
Anza
Blvd
South De
Anza
Blvd
Mcclellan Rd
N Blaney Ave
Prospect Rd
Bubb Rd
Rainbow Dr
Stevens Canyon Rd
Foothill Blvd
Rainbow Dr
N Blaney Ave
Homestead Rd
N Foothill Blvd
Bollinger Rd
S Tantau AveMiller Ave
S Blaney Ave
N Stelling Rd N Wolfe Rd
N Tantau AveN De Anza Blvd
Bubb Rd
Bollinger Rd
S De Anza BlvdS Stelling Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd
Pipeline, Tier 1, and Tier 2 Projects
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects Neighborhood / Special
Center Boundary
County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA 0 0.5 10.25 Miles
197
CC 08-29-2022
197 of 214
1a
1b
1c P2
P6
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
Creston-Pharlap Neighborhood
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
198
CC 08-29-2022
198 of 214
4a
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
Homestead Villa Neighborhood
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
199
CC 08-29-2022
199 of 214
6a
6b 6c
6d
P8
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
Jollyman Neighborhood
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
200
CC 08-29-2022
200 of 214
7a
7b
P2
P3
P6 P7
P8
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
Monta Vista North Neighborhood
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
201
CC 08-29-2022
201 of 214
8a
8b
8c
8d
P4
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
Monta Vista South Neighborhood
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
202
CC 08-29-2022
202 of 214
3a
9a
P1
P1
P1
P5
P9
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
North Blaney Neighborhood
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
203
CC 08-29-2022
203 of 214
11a
11b
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
South Blaney Neighborhood
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
204
CC 08-29-2022
204 of 214
13a
P2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
Bubb Rd Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
205
CC 08-29-2022
205 of 214
3b
P2
P5
P7
P8
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
Heart of the City - West Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
206
CC 08-29-2022
206 of 214
15a
15b
15c
15d
15e
15f
15g
P5
P7
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
Heart of the City - Crossroads Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
207
CC 08-29-2022
207 of 214
16a
16b
16c P1P5
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
Heart of the City - Central Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
208
CC 08-29-2022
208 of 214
18a
18b
18c
18d
P1
P1
P1
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
Heart of the City - East Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
209
CC 08-29-2022
209 of 214
19a
19b
20a
20b
20c
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
Homestead Rd Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
210
CC 08-29-2022
210 of 214
23d
23e
23f
23g
23h
23i
23j23k
23l
P4
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
South De Anza Blvd Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
211
CC 08-29-2022
211 of 214
23a
23b
23c
P8
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
South De Anza Blvd Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
212
CC 08-29-2022
212 of 214
24a
P1
P1
P1
P9
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
Vallco Shopping District
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
213
CC 08-29-2022
213 of 214
26a
P1
P1
P1
P9
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri, County of Santa Clara, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EP
A, NPS, USDA
Vallco Park North Special Center
0 500 1,000 Feet
Tier 1 Projects
Tier 2 Projects
Pipeline Projects
Neighborhood /
Special Center
Boundary
´
214
CC 08-29-2022
214 of 214