CC 9-20-2022
Study Session #1
SB 9 Study Session
Review of Objective
Standards
Presentation
1 City Council
September 20, 2022
SB 9 Study Session
Review of Objective Standards
Background
● Senate Bill 9 effective January 1, 2022
● Urgency / Interim Ordinance 21-2235 adopted on
December 21, 2021
● Expires on December 19, 2022
● Planning Commission – October 11, 2022
● CC 1st Reading – November 1, 2022 (tentative)
● CC 2nd Reading – November 15, 2022 (tentative)
● Effective Date – December 15, 2022 (anticipated)
1 2
CC 09-20-2022 Study Session Item No. 1
2 Senate Bill 9 (Atkins, 2021) conditionally
allows ministerial approval of:
Two units on one
Single Family lot
Urban Lot Split –
Two-lot subdivision
State Law Overview
State Law Overview
Development Criteria:
- In Single Family zoning
- Cannot demolish affordable or rental housing
- Not in sensitive areas identified under SB 35
- Not a historic landmark or in historic district
- No short-term rentals permitted
3 4
3 State Law Overview
Additional Urban Lot Split Criteria:
• Must reside on one lot for at least three years
• Resulting lots must be 1,200 square feet min.
• Resulting lot area must be 40% of original lot
• SB 9 lot split can only be used once
• SB 9 lot split cannot be used by same owner
across neighboring lots
• Lots created must be limited to residential use
State Law Overview
Development Allowances:
• Unit Size - 800 square feet
• Setback – 4 feet
• No setback if built within existing structure footprint • One parking space per unit
Urban Lot Split Allowances:
• No off-site improvements required
• Non-conforming zoning conditions can remain
5 6
4 Objective Standards
State law supersedes certain City regulations for
subdivisions and development standards.
City may impose regulations that are:
● Objective
● Do not prevent Urban Lot Splits or two 800 sq.
ft. units
Ordinance Aims
Objective standards have been adopted to:
1. Preserve neighborhood character;
2. Maintain privacy protection;
3. Minimize traffic conflicts; and
4. Protect environmental resources.
7 8
5 Areas of discussion
● Other existing interim ordinance standards to
remain
● Staff requests input in following areas:
a. Lot configuration
b. Second story decks and balconies
c. Grade change limitation
d. Zero-foot setback allowance
e. Second story building envelope
Lot Configuration – Urban Lot SplitsLot Configuration – Urban Lot Splits ● Regulations adopted result in specified lot
configurations based on existing lot shape.
● Interior/Pie-shaped lots ≥60 feet, side-by-
side lots.
● Interior/Pie-shaped lots <60 feet, flag lots.
Why?
● Consistent with GP Strategy 27.7.2
● Only 1.7% of R1 lots in City are flag lots
● Reduce excess hardscape (long driveway)
● Privacy Concerns
● Regulations adopted result in specified lot
configurations based on existing lot shape.
● Interior/Pie-shaped lots ≥60 feet, side-by-
side lots.
● Interior/Pie-shaped lots <60 feet, flag lots.
Why?
● Consistent with GP Strategy 27.7.2
● Only 1.7% of R1 lots in City are flag lots
● Reduce excess hardscape (long driveway)
● Privacy Concerns
9 10
6 Lot Configuration - PrivacyLot Configuration - Privacy Lot Configuration
Comments have noted that this standard:
a. Limits development potential
b. Does not reflect pattern of lot configuration in
City (only 1.7% of R1 lots are flag lots in CU)
c. Creates lots that are too narrow to
accommodate two-unit development
(Concerns potentially addressed by zero-foot
setback allowance)
11 12
7 City Council Direction - Lot Configuration
a. Retain existing lot configuration standards? or
b. Modify regulations to allow flag lots on lots of
all widths?
Second Story DecksSecond Story Decks
● Disallowed in SB9 developments in R1 and RHS* zones
due to:
• Privacy Concerns from smaller, narrower lots
• Ministerial nature of permit issuance
● After SB 9 permits, balconies allowed in:
● R1 zones with discretionary Minor Residential permits ● RHS zones with Building Permit *
* Correction since staff report published on 9/14
● Disallowed in SB9 developments in R1 and RHS* zones
due to:
• Privacy Concerns from smaller, narrower lots
• Ministerial nature of permit issuance
● After SB 9 permits, balconies allowed in:
● R1 zones with discretionary Minor Residential permits ● RHS zones with Building Permit *
* Correction since staff report published on 9/14
13 14
8 Second Story Deck
Second
Story
Decks
Second
Story
Deck
Second
Story
Decks
15 16
9 Second
Story
Deck
Second
Story
Decks
Second
Story
Decks
17 18
10 Second
Story
Decks
City Council Direction -
Second Story Decks
a. Retain existing second story deck and balcony
regulations?
or
b. Modify regulations to disallow them:
i. In RHS zones; or *
ii. For all future lots and homes developed using SB
9?
* Update since staff report published on 9/14
19 20
11 Grade Change LimitationGrade Change Limitation
● Urban Lot Splits: Change in natural grade > six inches disallowed ● Does not apply to homes built under SB 9
Why does it matter?
● Increased height and privacy impacts
● May substantially alter natural contours
● Exorbitant cuts leading to significant
environmental impacts
Grading for
Building Pad
Urban Lot Split
R1 Lot
Residential
Development
Grade Change LimitationGrade Change Limitation
21 22
12 Grade Change Limitation
Existing standard may be too restrictive.
One property owner noted that this standard
limited their ability to pursue an Urban Lot Split.
City Council Direction -
Grade Change Limitation
a. Retain existing grade change limitations?
or
b. Modify regulations and apply to both Urban
Lot Splits and SB 9 developments?
23 24
13 Zero-Foot SetbackZero-Foot Setback
● Applies to new shared
property lines in side yards
● Proposed for inclusion by
Vice Mayor Chao
● Adopted to incentivize
increased setback along
other side property lines
● Applies to new shared
property lines in side yards
● Proposed for inclusion by
Vice Mayor Chao
● Adopted to incentivize
increased setback along
other side property lines
Zero-Foot SetbackZero-Foot Setback
● Potential to result in
setbacks of varying size
between 0-feet and 4-feet
● Contrary to intent
● Inconsistent application of
side yard setback
● Potential to result in
setbacks of varying size
between 0-feet and 4-feet
● Contrary to intent
● Inconsistent application of
side yard setback
25 26
14 Zero-Foot Setback
Staff proposes clarification by allowing zero-foot
setbacks only if:
a) Other side yard setback is minimum of five feet
on first floor and 10 feet on second floor; and
b) Units along 0-foot setback developed at same
time; and
c) Entirety of wall faces with zero-foot setback are
structurally attached.
City Council Direction -
Zero-Foot Setback
a. Retain existing zero-foot setback allowance?
or
b. Modify regulations to either…
i. Clarify objective design standards; or
ii. Require 4-foot setback, consistent with state
law?
27 28
15 Second Story EnvelopeSecond Story Envelope
Regulations require 2nd story to
comply with a building envelope
Why?
● Privacy concerns
● Massing concerns
Regulations require 2nd story to
comply with a building envelope
Why?
● Privacy concerns
● Massing concerns
One member of public commented:
● Limits modern designs (walls can be stacked, with more setback) ● Limits development potential (does not restrict floor area) One member of public commented:
● Limits modern designs (walls can be stacked, with more setback) ● Limits development potential (does not restrict floor area) City Council Direction -
Second Story Envelope
a. Retain existing second story building envelope
regulations? or
b. Modify regulations to eliminate the
requirement?
29 30
16 Council Direction Summary
Flag Lot Configuration
a. Retain existing lot configuration standards?
b. Modify regulations to allow flag lots on lots of all widths? Second Story Decks and Balconies
a. Retain existing second story deck and balcony
regulations?
b. Modify regulations to disallow them:
i. In RHS zones; or *
ii. For all future lots and development using SB 9?
* Updated since staff report published on 9/14
Council Direction Summary
Grading Change Limitation
a. Retain existing grade change limitations?
b. Modify regulations and apply to both Urban Lot Splits and SB 9 developments?
Zero-Foot Setback
a. Retain existing zero-foot setback allowance?
b. Modify regulations to either…
i. Clarify objective design standards; or
ii. Require 4-foot setback, consistent with state law?
31 32
17 Council Direction Summary
Second Story Building Envelope
a. Retain existing second story building envelope
regulations?
b. Modify regulations to eliminate the requirement?
Next Steps
Community Meeting
Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 6 p.m.
Planning Commission
Tuesday, October 11, 2022
City Council
Tuesday, November 1, 2022 (tentative)
33 34
18 Questions
Questions, comments, or suggestions?
35 CC 9-20-2022
#5
FY 21-22 & FY 22-23 City
Work Program Report on
Homeless Jobs Program
Presentation
Kerri Heusler, Housing Manager
September 20, 2022
FY 21-22 & FY 22-23 City Work
Program: Report on Homeless
Jobs Program
CC 09-20-2022 Item No. 5
Objective
● FY 21-22 & FY 22-23 City Work
Program (CWP) item
● Provide employment for two
unhoused residents for up to six
months
● City budget: $200,000 / annually
Program Administrator
● West Valley Community
Services (WVCS)
● WVCS selected by RFP
WVCS
● Coordinates with several
regional employment services
● Expanded the Haven to
Home program to provide
local employment services in
Cupertino
WVCS Contract Amount
● City budget: $200,000 /
annually
● FY 21-22: $169,058
● FY 22-23: $190,900
CWP Homeless Jobs Program
● Two unhoused residents
selected from Cupertino
● Employment provided in
Cupertino at WVCS
CWP Homeless Jobs Program cont…
Two full-time positions with WVCS
including salary & benefits
Work clothing
Motel payment & housing search
Training & job coaching
Case management
FY 21-22 Homeless Jobs Program
Client #1
Food Programs Assistant
Client #2
Facilities Assistant
FY 22-23 Homeless Jobs Program
● Client #3
● Market Associate
● Client #4
● Facilities Associate
Questions & Answers
CC 9-20-2022
#8
Department Update
Public Works
Presentation
City Council update 9/20/2022
Public Works
Department
CC 09-20-2022 Item No. 8
Department Overview
Capital Improvements
Development Services
Transportation
Environmental Programs
Facilities and Fleet
Grounds
Streets and Storm Drains
Trees and Right-of-Way
Memorial Park Outreach
Capital Improvement Program
Memorial Park Ponds
Separated Bikeways
Transportation
Via Shuttle
Safe Routes to School
Environmental Programs
Operations
Maintaining Assets
Growing Urban Forest
SCB Median Work
Public Works Department
www.Cupertino.org/311
CC 9-20-2022
#14
Via-Cupertino Pilot
Program Overview &
Expansion
Presentation
Department of Public Works
Via-Cupertino Pilot Program
Overview & Expansion
September 20, 2022
CC 0 9-20-202 2 Item No. 14
• October 2019 – September 2022
• 13-month pause taken due to COVID-19
• Re-launch October 2021
• August ridership highest since re-launch: 2,012
Pilot Program Background
Ridership Data
• Total trips taken: 25,836
• Average ride rating: 4.9 stars
• Average trip distance: 2.7 miles
• Average wait time: 10 minutes
• Farebox revenue: $34,750
Oct 19 Oct 21 Aug 22Aug 19
Oct 19
Feb 20
Apr 20
Aug 20
Average Cost Per Trip Subsidy
Dec 19
Oct 21
Dec 21
Feb 22
Aug 22
Apr 22
Jun 22
Jun 20
2021 Survey Data
A 2021 survey of 150 individuals highlighted
various reasons for using the service:
Work Commuting - 28%
Daily errands - 28%
Healthcare Visits - 20%
Travel to/from school - 20%
Via. Proprietary & Confidential
7 Ridership since Relaunch (Oct 2021 - Aug 2022)
What are riders saying about Via Cupertino*?
“Via is essential for
linking Cupertino to
Caltrain.”
“Via is amazing. It was
a life changing
experience. It was also
quick and affordable!”
“I need Via to
get to Kaiser
and DeAnza.”
“Our school has no
nearby bus stops so
Via my main form of
transportation.”
*Source: Via Cupertino Rider Survey 2021-2022
From Pilot Program to Program.
1. Pilot Program is a success
2. Via desired in surrounding communities
3. Community supports EV fleet
4. Mtn View Caltrain & El Camino Hospital
requested frequently
We now have an opportunity to expand Via and
continue service for 5 years.
Recommended Actions
• Accept CalSTA Grant: $8,465,000
• Authorize Contract Extension to June 2023
• Adopt Reso. 22-XXX increasing budget by
$200,000
• Dispense with City Bidding Requirements
Recommended Actions
Accept CalSTA Grant Funds
• $8,465,000 over a 5-year period
• 50% match for Cupertino & Santa Clara
• Costs scale up from year 1 to 5, allowing
time to procure additional funds.
• Funds administered retroactively & monthly
once project begins.
Via – Cupertino Expansion Map
Recommended Actions
Via Contract Extension
• $200,000 to extend service to April 2023
• Existing contract to expire in October 2022
• Funds have lasted longer than envisioned
during18-month pilot due to COVID-19.
Recommended Actions
Dispense with Bidding Requirements
• Via is a named partner in CalSTA expansion
• Grant award is for an expansion of an existing
program
• Via’s has met or exceeded expectations
during the pilot program
• CAO supports the exception request based on
the criteria outlined in the municipal code.
Via – Cupertino Expansion Map
Next Steps
January 2023 Caltrans Master Agreement
City of Santa Clara Funding Agreement
Expansion Funding Request
March 2023 Project update prior to April 2023 launch.
April 2023 Estimated launch date
Upcoming Council Meetings
Department of Public Works
Via-Cupertino Pilot Program
Overview & Expansion
September 20, 2022
CC 9-20-2022
#18
Update on Community
Funding Grant Program
Presentation
Cupertino City Council
Update on the Cupertino Community
Funding Grant Program
September 20, 2022
CC 09-20-2022 Item No. 18
• Background
• Grant Program Process
• Historical Funding
• Council Subcommittee
• Current Eligibility Criteria
• General Plan Guiding Principles
• Next Steps
Agenda
Background
• Since 2013, the City’s Community Funding
Grant Program has been awarding funding to
local non-profit organizations
• Social services
• Fine arts
• Other programs for the general public
• Historically, City Council solely determined the
organizations to be awarded funds
Background Continued
• On June 5th, 2018, City Council directed City Staff
to update the policy and process
• Community funding applications are now
presented to the Parks and Recreation
Commission for a recommendation before
presenting to Council
• Application Period: January – February 1
• Range $70,000 to $90,000 per year
• Awards shall not exceed $20,000 per
applicant, per year
Grant Program Process
City Staff review applications for completeness & compliance Applications sent to Parks & Recreation Commission for evaluation and recommendation to City Council
City Council considers grant requests during Budget Study Session as part of budget adoption
After final budget adoption, City Staff coordinate funding agreements with awarded organizations
The next year, grant recipients submit a written report to show proof grant funds have been spent in the manner stated in their application Historical Funding
$52,400
$109,800 $110,000 $115,900
$69,461
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 FY 2020-2021 FY 2021-2022 FY 2022-2023 Funding Received FY 2019-2023
Funding Total
Council Subcommittee
• Council Subcommittee formed on June 4th, 2021
to review the Grant Program evaluation process
and procedures for upcoming funding cycles
• On March 9, 2022, Council Subcommittee
directed City Staff to clarify additional eligibility
& evaluation criteria and provide an update on
the grant process
Historical Funding Recipients
19%
31%
43%
\7%
FY 2021-2022
Art Education Events Health Site Improvements
4%
69%
15%
12%
FY 2022-2023
Art Education Events Health Site Improvements
Current Eligibility Criteria
• Be made or sponsored by a 501(c)(3) non- profit
organization with experienced members capable of
implementing and managing the program/project/event
• Identify how the funds will be used to benefit the
Cupertino community
• Be awarded only once per project
• For specific needs, not ongoing, operational costs
• Have more than 75% of the requested funds allocated for direct service costs versus administrative costs
• Be complete and submitted by the application deadline General Plan Guiding Principles
Develop
Cohesive
Neighborhoods
Develop
Cohesive
Neighborhoods
Improve Public
Health And
Safety
Improve Public
Health And
Safety
Improve
Connectivity
Improve
Connectivity
Enhance
Mobility
Enhance
Mobility
Ensure A
Balanced
Community
Ensure A
Balanced
Community
Support Vibrant
And Mixed-Use
Businesses
Support Vibrant
And Mixed-Use
Businesses
Ensure
Attractive
Community
Design
Ensure
Attractive
Community
Design
Embrace
Diversity
Embrace
Diversity
Support
Education
Support
Education
Preserve the
Environment
Preserve the
Environment
Ensure Fiscal
Self Reliance
Ensure Fiscal
Self Reliance
Ensure A
Responsive
Government
Ensure A
Responsive
Government
Next Steps
• Fiscal Impact
• If City Council approves to continue
allocating funding to the Cupertino
Community Funding Grant Program, this will
be included in the annual budget for Fiscal
Year 2023-2024
• City Staff will update the Community Funding
Grant Policy in addition to eligibility
requirements, evaluation criteria, and the City
webpage based on City Council direction.
CC 9-20-2022
#19
Conflict of Interest Code
Presentation
Cupertino City Council
September 20, 2022
Conflict of Interest Code
CC 09-20-2022 Item No. 19
Conflict of Interest Code
Per State law (Political Reform Act, Gov Code section
81000 et seq.) cities must:
● Establish a list of positions based on position’s
level of decision making
● Ensure disclosure of potential conflicts
● Narrowly tailor disclosure requirements
● Make amendments when circumstances have
changed
● City Manager reports necessary amendments
● City Council directs review and adoption
Draft Resolution
Makes clarifying amendments to the code:
● Adds Economic Development Committee
● Adds 12 positions
● Deletes 2 positions
Local Agency Biennial Notice
● Agencies must review the code biennially
● Must be submitted to Council by October 3
● Verifies review and any amendments to the
code
● Draft Notice is consistent with FPPC regulations
Recommended Action:
a.) Adopt Resolution No. 22-120 rescinding Resolution No. 20-115 and amending the City of Cupertino Conflict of
Interest Code for officials and designated employees; and b.) Authorize the City Manager to sign the required 2022 Local Agency Biennial Notice
CC 9-20-2022
#20
Regnart Creek
Trail/Campo de Lozano
Midblock Pedestrian
Crosswalk and Public
Pedestrian Walkway
Easement Signage
Presentation
City Council
Regnart Creek Trail/Campo de Lozano
Midblock Pedestrian Crosswalk and Public
Pedestrian Walkway Easement Signage
September 20, 2022
CC 09-20-2022 Item No. 20
History
• Campo de Lozano developed early 2000’s
• Included 400’ Regnart Creek Trail along
southern boundary
• City requested and was granted 10’ wide
pedestrian easement along western
boundary to connect Regnart Creek Trail to
public sidewalks along Rodrigues
• Trail connects to publicly accessible sidewalks
at eastern end
History
• City approved extension of Regnart Creek
Trail in 2020, including a continuation
westward from Campo de Lozano to
Rodrigues and City Center
• HOA requested City vacate easement, due
to new connectivity to the west and security
concerns
• Public opening of Regnart Creek Trail
anticipated late 2022
History
• City Council discussed pathway and
pedestrian access on February 1 and
March 1, 2022. Directed staff to:
• Monitor trail and pathway usage and
return to Council after one year with report
on whether pathway should remain
• Return to Council sooner with crosswalk
concepts, including safety, and signage
suggestions
Aerial Vicinity Map
Available site distance:
• Location A: West-unlimited. East-240;
• Location B: West-200’. East-unlimited.
• Location C: (70’ east): West-200’. East-unlimited
• Location C’: (170’ east): West-310’. East-unlimited Considerations – Midblock Crosswalk
• Midblock crosswalks discouraged
• Difficult to channelize pedestrians
• Unexpected by drivers
• Site distance for approaching vehicles important
• Crosswalk at walkway not possible due to driveway, fire hydrant, storm drain, and inadequate site distance
• Minimum stopping site distance per HDM: 200 feet at 30 mph • Any midblock crossing would need to be enhanced with high visibility striping, advance warning and pedestrian-actuated flashing beacons
• Approximate cost $40,000
At Pathway
Driveway, fire hydrant and
storm drain conflicts
Location A
Looking to west - unlimited Looking to east – 240’
Location B
Looking to west – 200’ Looking to east –
unlimited’
Location C (70’ east of pathway)
Looking to west – 200’ Looking to east – unlimited’
Location C’ (170’ east of pathway)
Looking to west – 310’ Looking to east – unlimited’
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Action
• Bicycle Pedestrian Commission considered
crosswalk concepts at July 15, 2022 meeting
• Commission motion:
• Collect data for one year following trail opening to
determine need for crosswalk at locations B or C
• Install crosswalk at location A (Rodrigues gate near
City Hall) prior to trail opening
• However, Staff does not recommend installing
crosswalk prior to trail opening
Pathway Signage
• At March 1, 2022 meeting, City Council directed staff to return to Council with suggested signage for Lozano pathway
• Proposed sign, to be placed at each end of Lozano Pathway:
Staff Recommendation
• Collect data on trail usage, walkway usage, and
vehicle speeds for one year following opening of
trail. Anticipated trail opening November 2022.
• Evaluate need for midblock crossings or trail
access closures at that time and return to
Council with recommendation. Do not install
crosswalk at this time.
• Prior to trail opening, install signage at walkway
entrances advising “Pedestrian Walkway –
Dismount Bicycle”, or similar, along with hours of
trail operation
Questions?
September 20, 2022
END SLIDE
Regnart Creek Trail/Campo de Lozano
Midblock Pedestrian Crosswalk and Public
Pedestrian Walkway Easement Signage