Cupertino City Council
April 16, 2024

Disproportionate Housing Needs
“Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For

16 CalEPA. 2022. SB 525 Disadvantaged Communities (2022 Update). https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535 APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-36

purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.” Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.

HOUSING NEEDS
Population growth in Cupertino accelerated in 1994, outpacing the county trends; however, the rate of growth has leveled off since 2018. A portion of this population growth can be attributed to the City’s annexation of 168 acres of land between 2000 and 2008. Cupertino’s annexation of Garden Gate, Monta Vista, and scattered county “islands” added 1,600 new residents.

As discussed earlier, residential development in Cupertino has lagged behind job growth significantly.

Almost three quarters of the city’s homes were built between 1960 and 1999. After this period, housing production slowed dramatically, with only 502 houses built since 2010. However, as with the population growth discussed previously, housing units were also added to the city through the annexation of 168 acres of land between 2000 and 2008.

Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been for higher- income builds, with 215 321 units permitted for above moderate-income households, and only 19 for low- or very low income households, 48 for very -low- income households and 158 for moderate - income units have been permitted, for a total of 546 units.

According to 2020 estimates by the California Department of Finance, 57 percent of Cupertino’s housing units are single single-family detached units. The next closest share is multifamily at 21 percent of units, followed by 12 percent single- family attached units and 10 percent du -/tri-/fourplexes. As of the 2015-2019 ACS, While owners in Cupertino mostly occupy occupied 3- and 4-four or more- bedroom homes ( 72 50.7 percent), while 68 60.8 percent of renters occupy 1- or 2-two or three- bedroom units. Countywide during the same time period , 55.7 percent each of owners and renters occupied two or three-bedroom units.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-37

Figure B3-4 Access to Opportunity

Access to Opportunity
Regional Access
City of Cupertino Santa Clara County
Jobs to Household Ratio 2.60 1.71
Unemployment Rate 4% 6%
LEP Population 5% 9%
Share of Population by Race in Resource Areas in the City of Cupertino Employment by Disability Status
0%0%
68%
0%
1%
0%
25%
0%
3% 3%
Moderate Resource Area
High/Highest Resource Area
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH Asian / API, NH
Black or African American, NH White, Non-Hispanic (NH)
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH Hispanic or Latinx
97%
84%
3%
16%
No Disability
With A Disability
City of Cupertino
96%
90%
4%
10%
No Disability
With A Disability
Employed Unemployed
Santa Clara County
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-38

Ownership in Cupertino comes at a steep price. Of owner-occupied homes in the city, 83 percent are valued over $1 million, with 37 percent valued above $2 million. This compares to 48 percent for the county and 35 percent for the Bay Area overall of homes over $1 million. According to the Zillow Home Value Index, between 2001 and 2020, Cupertino’s home values followed county and regional area pricing trends until 2011have been consistently higher than those of the county and Bay Area overall, and are now roughly double the prices home values in the county and Bay Area overall.

Rentals are very expensive in Cupertino, with 52.0 percent of units renting for $3,000 per month and 87 86.5 percent renting above $2,000 per month. Both categories are considerably higher than in the county (56.9 percent above $2,000 and 18.5 percent above $3,000) and Bay Aarea overall (42.0 percent above $2,000 and 13.0 percent above $3,000). Only 4 percent of all renters pay less than $1,000 per month in Cupertino, compared to 10.2 percent in the county and 16.3 percent in the Bay Area. While the rates in Cupertino are higher than the county’s rates, the trends are similar.

According to HCD’s A FFH Data Viewer (HCD data viewer), Cupertino does not have any public housing buildings. Additionally, none of the census tracts in the c ity show data for Housing Choice Voucher usage. However, HUD and California Housing Finance Authority (CalHFA) have funded a total of 127 units of subsidized housing in Cupertino. Additionally, during the 5th cycle planning period, the City’s Below Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) funded the conversion of three units into BMR rental housing , and as part of the C ity’s BMR) ownership program, 99 households were assisted in buying affordable units.

COST BURDEN AND SEVERE COST BURDEN
Despite Cupertino’s high housing costs, cost burden, which occurs when households spend more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs, is slightly better than the county and Bay Area.

This outcome is likely due to the lack of low -income households living in the c ity, as lower-income households are much more likely to face cost burden. Cost burden is much higher for the city’s lowest- income households, 75 percent of whom pay more than 50 percent of their gross household incomes in housing costs.

Cost burden does vary by tenure (rentership or ownership) in Cupertino with renters more by renters (37 percent burdened) more likely to experience burden than owners (24 percent). As seen in Figure B3-743, Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019, renter overpayment is highest in the area around Homestead Square Shopping Center, Jollyman/Faria, S.

Blaney, S. Vallco Park , and Rancho Rinconada neighborhoods. In these areas, the rate of renter overpayment ranges narrowly from 40.2 percent of renters in the S. Vallico Parkway neighborhood to

43.5 percent of renters in each of the Rancho Rinconada and the census tracts that include parts of the Creston-Pharlap, Monte Vista Village, Bubb Road, Heart of the City, and Jollyman neighborhoods.

Many of these neighborhoods tend to have a higher proportion of renters in general, likely due to the placement of multifamily housing near major thoroughfares, commercial centers, and the college. The APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-39

greatest concentrations of owner overpayment, in contrast, range from 43.1 percent in the Rancho Rinconada area to 43.5 percent in the northernarea including parts of the Garden Gate Neighborhood and areas west of the Homestead Square Shopping Center. In parts of e ach of the neighborhoods with rates of homeowner overpayment exceeding 40 percent , nearly 30 percent of households are lower-to-moderate income, which likely contributes to the higher rates of overpayment.

There are also disparities in housing cost burden in Cupertino by race and ethnicity. Hispanic households experience by far the highest rates of cost burden in the c ity (45 percent). Asian (28 percent), non-Hispanic White (27 percent), and Black/African American (11 percent) households are least likely to be cost burdened, with Black/African American residents reporting zero cost burden.

Figure B3-5 summarizes disproportionate housing needs in Cupertino.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-40

Figure B3-5 Disproportionate Housing Needs

Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost Burden, City of Cupertino, 2019
Area Median Income (AMI)
Overcrowding, City of Cupertino, 2019
Occupants per Room by Tenure
Substandard Housing, City of Cupertino, 2019
Incomplete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities by Tenure
Homelessness, Santa Clara County, 2019
Race and Ethnicity
Share of Homeless
Population
Share of Overall
Population
American Indian or Alaska Native 8% 1%
Asian / API 5% 37%
Black or African American 19% 2%
White 44% 44%
Other Race or Multiple Races 24% 16%
Displacement, 2020
Assisted Units at High or Very
High Risk of Displacement City of Cupertino Santa Clara County Number of Units 0 417
% of Assisted Units 0% 1%
19%
37%
43%
48%
86%
6%
19%
30%
35%
12%
75%
44%
27%
17%
1%
0%-30% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
100%+ of AMI
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing

0.1%

0.0%

2.8%

0.7%
Kitchen
Plumbing
Owner Renter

8.9%

3.8%

1.9%

0.5%

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room
More than 1.5 Occupants per Room
Owner Renter Series3

1.5+ Occupants
per Room
1-1.5 Occupants
per Room

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-41

OVERCROWDING
The vast majority of households (94 percent) in Cupertino do not live in overcrowded conditions, indicated by more than one occupant per bedroom. However, renter households are more likely to be overcrowded, with 12.7 percent of renter households overcrowded, compared to 2.4 percent of owner households. One factor in this difference may be the practice of landlords renting shared units on a “"by the bed”" basis rather than on as full units, increasing the density of residents in each apartment.

Furthermore, Black/African American households are significantly more likely to be living in overcrowded conditions (17.9 percent) than the rest of the City’s residents, though the sample size of Black/African American households is smaller than that of other populations.

As shown in Figure B3-74, overcrowding is highest in the Garden Gate neighborhood (10.2 percent), Jollyman/Faria (11.1 percent), the tract including parts of the Crest on-Pharlap, Garden Gate, Homestead Villa and Homestead Road areas (12.3 percent), and the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood (14.0 percent).

In the Rancho Rincona nda neighborhood, there is likely a higher concentration of families with children due in part to housing turnover and redevelopment within the past 10 to 15 years, as well as the proximity to early childhood, elementary, middle, and high schools, as well as other resources for children such as parks, and soccker fields. At other points in the city ’'s history, overcrowding has concentrated in other areas in close proximity to different schools as housing turnover occurred in those areas (e.g. around Lincoln, Kennedy and Monta Vista High) . Children up to age 18 comprise approximately 28.8 percent of the population, and the average household size is 3.1, compared to a citywide average household size of 2.8. Though a marginal difference, the slightly large r household sizes in this neighborhood paired with higher overcrowding rates may reflect children sharing rooms and/or smaller home sizes. The Rancho Rinconada neighborhood was developed in the unincorporated part of western Santa Clara County as workforce housing in the 1950s. . The typical home size was 800 square feet on 4,700 to 5,100-square-foot. lots. While the neighborhood hais been going through a rapid transition in the last 20 years, many of the homes continue to be smaller with fewer rooms. These smaller homes may be more affordable due to their size and age, but may not suit growing families or one- or two-person households.

As mentioned previously, the areas near the Homestead Square Shopping Center have a higher proportion of townhomes and other multifamily housing units that are typically more affordable. In these instances, households may be living in units that are smaller than is needed for their family or may be sharing with roommates or other households to afford housing costs. Overcrowding in this neighborhood, as well as the Garden Gate and Jollyman/Faria neighborhoods, may reflect a need for more affordable, larger housing options or more units affordable to single-person or small households.

Four census tracts had over 8.3 percent overcrowding, with one full tract experiencing over 12 percent.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-42

SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Data on housing condition are very limited, with the most consistent data available across jurisdictions found in the American Community Survey (ACS)—which captures units in substandard condition as self-reported in census surveys. Only 0.1 percent of owner households in Cupertino report living in substandard housing , all of which arose out of a lack of complete kitchens and only for lacking complete kitchens. About 2.8 percent of renter households lack complete kitchens and 0.7 percent lack complete plumbing. In the City of Cupertino, the med ian home value in December 2020 was $2,275,730, and the median income was estimated at approximately $ 182,857 in 2020. The median income is too low for existing residents to afford a new home at the median sales price, but it is assumed that current property owners are most likely completing ongoing maintenance and repairs to maintain the values of their homes. Therefore, while the 2015 -2019 ACS reported that 77.0 percent of the homes in Cupertino are at the age where they may need minor repairs up to major rehabilitation (built in 1989 or earlier) such as new roofs, siding repair, paint, replacing cracked or inoperable windows, or plumbing systems, based on visual reconnaissance of Cupertino neighborhoods, the City estimates that fewer than five percent of units in the city may be in need of rehabilitation, and that only one to two homes in the city may have such severe need for rehabilitation as to be unsafe for habitation.

The City estimates that, based in part on housing stock age, the greatest need for rehabilitation is likely in the Monta Vista Village area and parts of the S. Blaney neighborhood. U ntil recently, Ranch o Rinconada had the greatest rehabilitation need .; However, over the last 20 years, there has been a significant amount of rehabilitation as homes have been replaced, thereby reducing rehabilitation need in this area. Older neighborhoods that still have smaller, older homes, likely need greater rehabilitation investment due to the age of the housing stock, as was the case in Rancho Rinconada. Rehabilitation might be most necessary for housing occupied by seniors on fixed incomes, where such turnover has not occurred.

HOMELESSNESS
In 2019, 9,706 people were experiencing homelessness in the county during the One -Day Count (Point-In-Time), with only 18 percent of people in emergency or transitional shelter while the remaining 82 percent were unsheltered. The majority of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness were in households without children. The majority of people in transitional housing were in households with children. In May 2022, Santa Clara County published its 2022 Point-in-Time Report on Homelessness (PIT), which estimated 10,028 persons experiencing homelessness in Santa Clara County. Of that number, 2,320 persons were sheltered homeless and 7,922 were unsheltered homeless. Of this population, 102 individuals were counted in the City of Cupertino, all of whom were unsheltered. This was a decrease of approximately 36 percent, from 159 homeless persons in Cupertino in 2019.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-43

The PIT provides the demographic composition of the homeless population at the county level, but not at the local level. Therefore, Table B3-21, Demographic Composition of the Homeless Population, 2022, identifies the proportion of each of these protected characteristics from the 2022 PIT compared to the proportion of total population in Cupertino to identify whether any protected classes are disproportionately represented as part of the homeless population. It is worth noting that, given the small proportion of the homeless population that was counted in Cupertino, it is unlikely that all protected characteristics are represented in the homeless populations of these jurisdictions.

However, without data available at the local level, it is assumed that the percentages of each protected class apply to the local homeless population.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-44

Table B3-1Table B3-2 Demographic Composition of the Homeless Population, 2022
Characteristic Percentage of Santa Clara
County Homeless Population
Percentage of City of
Cupertino Population
Female 37.1% 50.2%
Male 60.8% 49.8%
Transgender <0.1% No data
Gender Nonc-Conforming <0.1% No data
Hispanic/Latinx 47.0% 3.3%
White 60.0% 25.2%
Black or African American 14.0% 0.8%
American Indian or Alaska Native 7.0% 0.1%
Asian 6.0% 67.7%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 3.0% <0.1%
Multi--race orf Other 10.0% 3.0%
Under 18 Years <1.0% 20.7%
Senior 16.0% 14.7%
Source: Santa Clara County 2022 Point in Time; American Community Survey 2015-2019.

As seen in Table B3-1, all groups except females, seniors, and Asian- identifying residents were overrepresented in the Santa Clara County homeless population, compared to the City of Cupertino population. Bolded figures in Table B3 -1 represent over-represented demographic groups. Though data by race is not collected at the individual jurisdiction level through the Point in Time Count, it is estimated that the over -representation of Hispanic/Latinx, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Paci fic Islander, Multi -Racial, and American Indian or Alaska Native community members that is seen in the countywide count may also be true of the homeless community within the city at any given time. Additionally, though data on the number of homeless community members in the city who have one or more disabilities is not counted at the city level, it is estimated that they may be over-represented due to the existing challenges Bay Area residents with physical and mental disabilities face in accessing affordable housing. To address the needs of these groups, the City will support homeless services providers, support new affordable housing development and prioritize projects targeting special needs groups such as those experiencing homelessness, and revise the Zoning Code to facilitate the development of emergency shelters and low-barrier navigation centers through Policy HE-5.1 and Strategies HE-2.3.1, HE-5.1.1, and HE-5.1.4. Approximately 34.0 percent APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-45

of homeless individuals that responded to the survey reported that they believe rent or mortgage assistance would have prevented homelessness for them, 28 .0 percent believed that employment assistance would have prevented homelessness, 28.0 percent reported alcohol and drug counseling as a prevention tool, 26.0 percent reported mental health services , and 23 .0 percent reported general assistance accessing benefits. The primary barriers to obtaining housing were the ability to afford rent (69 percent of respondents), lack of a job and income (55 percent), lack of available housing (32 percent), shortage of money to afford moving costs (28 percent), and challenges of navigating the housing process (18 percent).

Homeless residents typically congregate to camp in the Lawrence Mitty Park area in east Cupertino on a property that the City acquired with the intention of developing it as a park along the Lawrence Expressway. While encampments are frequent in this area, it is not near transit or homeless services.

Additional areas where homeless residents camp include along most freeway on - and off- ramps, embankments off roadways and overpasses, and parks. Most areas are out of sight from the roadway.

One particular area, in addition to Lawrence Mitty, is at the south embankment at Tantau Avenue and I-280 (on the south side of 280), in the Caltrans right- of- way. This location is not close to transit or services and the individuals there are either chronically homeless/jobless with no evidence that they are using public transit, or those individuals that have their own personal vehicles.

Additionally, many transient unhoused residents sleep in parks and vehicles overnight then pack up and leave during the day. In particular, Alves Drive, Civic Center, and Memorial Park are examples of areas where unhoused residents frequently spend the night and leave the areas during the daytime .

The City has a permitted rotating car park facility used by unhoused residents that have their own vehicles that they park overnight at the facility. The facility is closer to transit but the individuals using the facility have personal vehicles.

The City participates in, and offers, several countywide and local homelessness resources to meet the needs of this population. Programs that are available regionally and locally, include the following. • Countywide Resources and Services:
− Sacred Heart Community Service provides several homelessness prevention programs, including emergency rent and deposit financial assistance. − Here4You Hotline is a centralized referral system to connect residents with temporary housing programs, rental assistance, and referrals to other community services. − Emergency Assistance Network provides emergency financial assistance and other services to prevent homelessness, utility disconnections, and hunger. Services include one- time rent and mortgage payment assistance, move -in costs for rental deposits, one -time utility assistance, one-site information and referrals, food pantries, and more.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-46

− Santa Clara County Homeless Prevention System assists low- income families or individuals at risk of losing their housing through temporary financial assistance, legal support, and case management.
− Law Foundation of Silicon Valley has a legal aid program providing housing discrimination and eviction prevention representation.
• Local Resources and Services:
− West Valley Community Services (10104 Vista Drive) provides rental and utility assistance, case management services, information, referrals, food pantry, and transitional housing for single adults and women with children under age six.
− De Anza College Housing Assistance Grants Program provides funds to eligible students to prevent eviction, assist with move-in costs, or to maintain secure housing to be able to continue their education. The City of Cupertino has contributed $50,000 to the program, eligible students may receive up to $2,000 in assistance. − West Valley Rotating Safe Car Park Program is a partnership between the City of Cupertino, faith-based communities, and service organizations and consists of volunteer sites that host overnight guests for up to two months on an annual rotating basis, allowing for temporary overnight parking. The program also connects homeless individuals and families with case management and hospitality services.

DISPLACEMENT
The severe shortage of housing in Cupertino, particularly in relation to the number of jobs in the city, creates a market where households do not move regularly. Similar to the county, around 86 percent of Cupertino households have not moved recentlyin the last year. Owners move very infrequently: 96

22.1 percent of homeowners moved into their current residence on in or before 1989, and 73.9 percent moved into their current residence in 2009 or earlier . In contrast, 81 45.9 percent of renters have moved to their current residence since 20172015.

Another indicator of displacement is the potential of assisted units converted to market - rate properties. Cupertino reports 153 units at a low risk of conversion, with no other units at risk.

According to the Sensitive Communities map of vulnerable communities, five of the City’s census tracts are vulnerable to displacement, which is similar to surrounding areas.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-47

Displacement Sensitive Communities
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria:
 They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
 Share of very low-income residents is above 20 percent, 2017 AND
 The tract meets two of the following criteria:
• Share of renters is above 40 percent, 2017
• Share of people of color is above 50 percent, 2017
• Share of very low-income households (50 percent AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017 • They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures. Displacement pressure is defined as:
 Percent change in rent above county median for rent increases, 2012-2017
OR
 Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017” Source: https://www.sensitivecommunitiesUrbanDisplacement.org/.

A combination of factors can result in increased displacement risk, particularly for lower -income households. These factors include overpayment, overcrowding , and housing condition, as well as vacancy rates, availability of a variety of housing options, and increasing housing prices compared to wage increases. The Urban Displacement Project analyzes income patterns and housing availability to determine the gentrification displacement risk at the census tract level. Seven displacement typologies exist in Santa Clara County:
• Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement: These tracts are predominantly low- or mixed-income, susceptible to changes if housing prices increase. • Ongoing Displacement: These tracts were previously low income, before seeing a significant loss of low-income households between 2000 and 2018.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-48

• At Risk of Gentrification: These are low- or mixed-income tracts with housing affordable to lower-income households; however, the tract has seen increases in housing costs or rent values at a greater rate than regional increases or resulting in a larger rent gap locally than regionally.
• Stable Moderate/Mixed Income: These tracts are predominantly occupied by moderate-, mixed-moderate, mixed-high, or high-income households.
• At Risk of Becoming Exclusive: These tracts are also predominantly occupied by moderate-, mixed-, or high-income households, with housing affordable to middle- to high- income households but ongoing increases in prices.
• Stable/Advanced Exclusive: These are high-income tracts with housing only affordable to high-income households, and marginal or rapid increases in housing costs. • High Student Population: These are areas excluded from the classification spectrum due to their high concentration of student residents.

All of Cupertino, with the exception of the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood, is considered Stable/ Advanced Exclusive. Rancho Rinconada is considered Stable Moderate/Mixed Income. Dramatic increases in home and rental prices have impacted residents throughout Cupertino and the greater Bay Area, though renters are typically disproportionately burdened by housing market increases in annual rate increases, compared to homeowners who have fixed -rate mortgages. However, the Urban Displacement Project has not identified any areas of Cupertino that have a greater risk of displacement for lower- and moderate-income renters compared to the rest of the state.

According to the Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), the average home value in Cupertino has increased by nearly 60 percent between February 2015 and February 2023, from $1,602,012 to $2,562,110, for an average increase of approximately 7.5 percent annually. Despite this rapid increase, housing prices in Cupertino have increased at a slower rate than most other incorporated jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, with the exception of the Cities of Palo Alto (5.2 percent) and Los Altos Hills (6.2 percent). While the prices have increased more slowly in these cities, the median home value in both exceeds that of Cupertino, with a median value of $3,125,678 in Palo Alto and $5,340,078 in Los Altos Hills. However, the median home price in Cupertino is still only affordable to above moderate- income households. Rent prices in Cupertino have increased at a significantly slower rate than home values, but still present a barrier for lower-income households. Between February 2015 and 2023, the average rent for a two -bedroom unit, for example, increased from $ 3,414 to $3,899 according to a survey of online rent tracking platforms, resulting in an annual average increase of 1.8 percent. The median rent in February 2023 was affordable to moderate-income households.

While the rate of increase in wages has kept up with increases in rent in Cupertino, they have not matched increases in home values. The median income in Cupertino has increased approximately 4.8 percent annually, from $120,201 in 2010 to $171,917 in 2019, according to the ACS. The difference APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-49

in these trends indicates growing unaffordability of housing in the city . To address affordability challenges, the City will encourage and incentivize development of affordable housing units, particularly in areas in close proximity to resources and will identify funding for financial assistance for first-time homebuyers. (Strategies HE-2.3.1 and HE-2.3.5).

Strategy HE-1.3.2 to rezone sites to accommodate higher density housing; Strategy HE-1.3.9 to lower fees for all multifamily development and parking requirements for studio apartments and single- room occupancy units to encourage development of these housing types; Strategy HE-2.3.4 to target Below -Market -Rate Affordable Housing Fund to benefit populations with the greatest need;
Strategy HE-2.3.6 to facilitate development of housing by partner ing with developers to purchase surplus properties for development; and
Strategy HE-2.3.7 to incentivize development of affordable housing.

Displacement risk increases when a household is paying more for housing than their income can support, their housing condition is unstable or unsafe, and when the household is overcrowded. Each of these presents barriers to stable housing for the occupants. As discussed in Section B3.7, Integration and Segregation, the rate of poverty in Cupertino is approximately 7.7 percent, with the highest rate in the northern portion of the city . The City has included several programs to increase the supply of affordable housing by providing assistance with acquisition, rehabilitation, and construction; providing technical assistance, streamlining, and other incentives; and working with affordable housing providers to preserve units. Public comment received during City Council meetings also expressed a desire to see reasonable renter protections; Strategy HE-3.3.6 proposes to study rent stabilization and tenant protection ordinances in California and displacement in Cupertino due to rising rents and evictions.

Work with relevant stakeholders to establish tenant protection and/or a rent stabilization to ensure protection for renters, as appropriate based on findings.

ACCESS TO MORTGAGE LOANS
In many communities, disparities by race and ethnicity are prevalent for home mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates. This is true in the Census Tracts that include Cupertino, but primarily only for Black/African American applicants. Mortgage denial rates are consistent by race —, ranging from 18 percent to 20 percent, --with the exception of Black/African American applicants (33 percent). It should be noted that only six applicants from Black/African American applicants were received out of 2,214 total applications in 2018 and 2019 , so these findings may not represent a larger , more generalizable pattern in the region . Figure B 3-5, Disproportionate Housing Needs, summarizes information on disproportionate housing needs in the city.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-50

B3.10 SITES ANALYSIS
The location of housing in relation to resources and opportunities is integral to addressing disparities in housing needs and opportunity and to fostering inclusive communities where all residents have access to opportunity. This is particularly important for lower-income households. Assembly Bill (AB) 686 added a new requirement for housing elements to analyze the location of lower -income sites in relation to fair housing factors to determine whether the sites inventory further entrenches existing fair housing issues. When patterns of fair housing issues do overlap with sites identified in the inventory (parcels with pipeline projects, parcels that are vacant, and parcels that are considered underutilized), the City is obligated to establish strategies to mitigate and improve conditions contributing to fair housing issues. What follows is an analysis of the distribution of the City’s sites inventory by income category compared to citywide patterns, in the context of the fair housing issues discussed earlier in the Fair Housing Assessment.

OVERALL SUMMARY
For the purposes of this analysis, the location of the sites within the city will be described by their associated census tracts and census block groups. Figure B3-65 illustrates the distribution of the sites inventory by affordability along with the boundaries of the city’s census tracts and block groups. Table B3-32, summarizes the conditions in areas of the city with RHNA sites or projects, organized by census tract and block group, with the percentage of units in a given income category that are in this block group. Please note, Figure B3-5 shows tract boundaries prior to the 2020 Census update to match ACS data used in the analysis.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-51

Figure B3-6 RHNA Sites by Affordability with Census Tract and Block Group Boundaries

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-52

This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-53

Table B3-3 Fair Housing Factors and Percentage of RHNA Units Tract and Block
Group
RHNA Inventory, by Affordability Category
TCAC
Opportunity
Area, 2021
TCAC
Education
Score
Jobs
Index
In a Racially
Concentrated
Area of
Affluence?
CalEnviro-
Screen 4.0
Percentile
Median
Household
Income
Households
with Income
Under the
Poverty Line
(%)
Househol
ds with a
Disability
(%)
Children
in
Female-
Headed
House-
holds (%)
Non-
White
(%)
Households
Experiencing
Overcrowding
(%)
Renters
Overpaying
for Housing
(%)
Homeowners
Overpaying
for Housing
(%)
Community
Vulnerable
to
Dis-
placement?
VLI &
LI
Units
VLI &
LI
Units
(%)
Mod.

Income
Units
Mod.

Income
Units (%)
Above-
Mod
Income
Units
Above
Mod
Income
Units (%)
Census Tract 5077.01,
Block Group 13
0 0.0% 2 0.2% 11 0.43%
Highest
Resource

0.999
61 No 11.5
$160,491

4.7% 7.5% 3.4%

62.0%

0.9% 43.5% 36.6% No
Census Tract 5077.01,
Block Group 3
162

7.27.8 %
70 8.27% 181 65.57% 82 $183,750 77.5%
Census Tract 5077.02,
Block Group 3
310 1.45% 18 2.21% 35 1.31%
Highest
Resource

0.999 45 No 2.3 $205,804 4.4% 5.9% 0% 73.9% 1.3% 16.3% 33.3% No Census Tract 5077.03,
Block Group 4
1 0.0% 5 0.6% 22 0.87%
Highest
Resource

0.966 51 No 5.8
Data Not
Available

5.3% 8.2% 4.9% 66.0% 3.6% 32.2% 24.9% No
Census Tract 5078.05,
Block Group 1
254

11.312.
2%
99 12.311.6
%
268 9.78.5%
Highest
Resource

0.959
71 No 19.2
$107,538

13.7% 5.2% 10.7%

79.6%

12.3% 42.1% 43.5% No
Census Tract 5078.05,
Block Group 3
88 3.94.2
%
0 0.0% 211 7.66.7% 68 $142,969 77.7%
Census Tract 5078.06,
Block Group 3
48 2.13% 55 6.95% 221 8.07.0%
Highest
Resource

0.996 81 No 17.9 $144,239 7.9% 3.7% 9.2% 92.6% 10.2% 28.2% 42.4% Yes Census Tract 5078.07,
Block Group 1
15 0.7% 12 1.4% 21 0.7%
Highest
Resource
1 72 No No 14.2 $178,750 1.8 6.2 7.7 83.1 11.12 27.8 31.2 Census Tract 5078.08,
Block Group 2
0 0.0% 2 0.2% 18 0.6%
Highest
Resource

0.997
52 No 1.5
$197,625

2.5% 2.8% 2.1%

85.4%

2.9% 19.4% 21.7% No
Census Tract 5078.08,
Block Group 4
118 5.37% 53 6.6% 160 55.1.8% 43 $211,111 82.2%
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-54

Table B3-3 Fair Housing Factors and Percentage of RHNA Units Tract and Block
Group
RHNA Inventory, by Affordability Category
TCAC
Opportunity
Area, 2021
TCAC
Education
Score
Jobs
Index
In a Racially
Concentrated
Area of
Affluence?
CalEnviro-
Screen 4.0
Percentile
Median
Household
Income
Households
with Income
Under the
Poverty Line
(%)
Househol
ds with a
Disability
(%)
Children
in
Female-
Headed
House-
holds (%)
Non-
White
(%)
Households
Experiencing
Overcrowding
(%)
Renters
Overpaying
for Housing
(%)
Homeowners
Overpaying
for Housing
(%)
Community
Vulnerable
to
Dis-
placement?
VLI &
LI
Units
VLI &
LI
Units
(%)
Mod.

Income
Units
Mod.

Income
Units (%)
Above-
Mod
Income
Units
Above
Mod
Income
Units (%)
Census Tract 5080.01,
Block Group 1
00 0.0% 93

11.610.9
%
70 2.52%
Highest
Resource

0.998
80 No 18.3
$171,351

4.6% 5.7% 1.5%

77.1%

4.57% 40.4% 32.3% Yes
Census Tract 5080.01,
Block Group 3
12 0.56% 5 0.6% 12 0.4% 81 $128,250 78.4%
Census Tract 5080.01,
Block Group 4
82 3.73.9
%
3435 4.0%4.4% 98102 3.1%3.7% 78 $221,563 69.6%
Census Tract 5080.03,
Block Group 1
83 3.74.0
%
33 4.13.9% 87 3.12.8%
Highest
Resource

0.964 72 No 17.1 $158,971 7.8% 12.1% 0.8% 79.2% 14.0% 41.3% 43.1% Yes Census Tract 5081.01,
Block Group 1
20725
3 9.212.2
%
13081

10.115.3
%
21648 7.81.5%
Highest
Resource

0.973
81 No 18.3
$224,438

1.4% 3% 2.7%

77.7%

7.3% 20.5% 24.2% No
Census Tract 5081.01,
Block Group 2
89 4.03% 126

15.714.8
%
62 2.22.0% 80 $201,563 78.2%
Census Tract 5081.01,
Block Group 3
252

11.312.
1%
111 13.08% 290 10.59.2% 79 $174,929 79.3%
Census Tract 5081.02,
Block Group 1
78558
1 35.128.
6%
0 0.0%
7841,3
21 28.3%339
.9%
Highest
Resource

0.905 69 No 18.1 $171,324 4.8% 2.9% 4.5% 76.5% 4.7% 40.2% 13.5% No Census Tract 5083.04,
Block Group 5
11 0.5% 4 0.5% 11 0.43%
Highest
Resource

0.903 76 No 11.8 $90,515 9.2% 4.7% 14.6% 81.5% 13.8% 47.0% 25.3% Yes Source: American Communities Survey (2015-2019); US Department of Housing and Urban Development (2014-2017); ESRI, 2018; California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) 2021 and 2023; OEHHA, 2022; UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project, 2018.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-55

ANALYSIS OF FAIR HOUSING FACTORS RELATING TO RHNA SITE AND

PROJECT PLACEMENT
Similarities
As is shown in Table B1 -.1, many of the areas in the city that include RHNA sites have similar conditions to each other, and therefore are not expected to reinforce existing patterns of segregation or poverty by disproportionately concentrating housing sites of a particular income level in areas with high or low levels of poverty or segregation. All of the city’s units to meet RHNA are within areas that were designated Highest Resource under the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee’s (TCAC) opportunity areas classification system in 2021. In 2023, when the opportunity areas methodology was shifted to evaluating each census tract in comparison to other c ities in the Council of Governments area, none of the census tracts in the city were identified as an Area of High Segregation and Poverty.

TCAC’s evaluation of education outcomes in the area scored all of the census tracts with inventory sites or projects in Cupertino within the 90th percentile or better..

In all of the census tracts with sites or pending projects in the inventory, rates of poverty are below 15 percent, which is similar to the overall rates of poverty citywide. None of the sites are in RCAAs, as defined and identified by HCD.

None of the census tracts in Cupertino are considered a disadvantaged community under SB 535, which refers to a census tract with a CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score in the 75th percentile or higher. None of the parts of Cupertino where RHNA sites or projects are located has a CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score higher than the 20th percentile. Though not identified in Table B1.1, nearly all of Cupertino, including all areas where RHNA inventory sites or projects are located, was ranked in the 80 th percentile or better on the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC) Healthy Places Index in 2021.

Additionally, because the zones to which many of the inventory sites will be rezoned have maximum permitted densities of 65 dwelling units per acre, the City has estimated that sites larger than 0.5 acres will develop with affordability levels that can accommodate a mix of lower-, moderate-, and above moderate- income households. This can help to avoid any overconcentration of housing to accommodate a particular income level in any one part of the city.

The remaining analysis will focus on ways that conditions in some parts of the city differ from others as it relates to the proportion of sites in each part of the city and the affordability level of housing that is estimated may develop on the site.

AREAS OF DIFFERENCE
The remaining analysis will focus on fair housing factors that meaningfully differ between some parts of the city and others as it relates to the proportion of sites in each part of the city and the affordability level of housing that is estimated may develop on the site.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-56

The following discusses the conditions where Access to Employment Cupertino is known regionally as a jobs center, so fittingly many of the census block groups with sites in the inventory or pending projects have high scores on HUD’s Jobs Proximity Index, indicating that residents of those census block groups live within close proximity to jobs. However, because much of the city’s employment is centered in the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor , at De Anza College, and near the Apple campus, residents of areas on the outskirts of the cCity may have a higher transportation cost to access employment opportunities. Additionally, because not all workers in these areas live within Cupertino and not all Cupertino residents work in these areas, city residents may have longer distances to travel to work despite living in areas close to office and commercial uses. It is important to note that the decision regarding where to reside is not solely dependent on the location of one’s job; other factors such as access to schools, preferred social and cultural amenities and experiences, and demography also influence this decision. Most of the block groups with RHNA sites or projects have a Jobs Proximity Index score of at least 68, indicating a moderate to close proximity to employment areas. Four block groups with RHNA sites or projects have scores lower than 60.

In Block Group 3 of Tract 5077.02, which is south and west of the De Anza College area, the Jobs Index score is 45, among the lowest in the city. Just 1.45 percent of the lower -income units, 2.21 percent of moderate units and 1.31 percent of above- moderate units are estimated to develop in this block group. This will not reinforce any historic patterns of siting more affordable housing far from employment centers. Additionally, sites in the inventory that are within this block group are located in the part of the block group that is closest to commercial areas in central Cupertino, which may help to mitigate the distance of the block group overall.

In Block Group 4 of Tract 5077.03, which is due west of De Anza College, the Jobs Proximity Index score was 51. This block group is predominantly a lower -density residential area near several large park areas. Two pending projects are identified within this area. One, the Canyon Crossing project, is planned to be predominantly market -rate housing with a small number of moderate - and lower - income units. The other, currently called the “Bateh Brothers /Alan Row” project, will only include moderate- and above -moderate- income units. Combined, these project units represent less than 0.1 percent of the lower-income units, 0.6 percent of moderate- income units, and 0.87 percent of above moderate- income units in the combined sites inventory and projects. Accordingly, placement of these projects is not expected to significantly establish or reinforce patterns of affordable housing units being placed far from job centers.

Block Groups 3 2 and 4 of Tract 5078.08 are due south of central Cupertino and just west of the I-85 and De Anza Boulevard corridors and have Jobs Proximity Index scores of 52 and 43, respectively. It is estimated that 8.25.37 percent of lower-income units, 6.48 percent of moderate-income units, and

8.765.74 percent of above moderate-income units are expected to develop in the two block groups combined. This area has one transit route along De Anza Boulevard with 30-minute transit frequency, which can help to mitigate the cost associated with accessing employment from farther away.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-57

Additionally, several of the sites in this area (including sites 54, 55, and 56) are already allowed to develop at 60 dwelling units per acre under AB2011 and SB6 , and are being targeted for rezoning by the City to mixed-use zones, which can help to promote the development of additional employment opportunities in close proximity to new housing.

Disability
The city as a whole has low rates of households with any members who have disabilities, and none of the census tracts in the city has a rate of more than 20 percent of households with members who have disabilities. Only one census tract has a rate of disability between 10 and 20 percent, Tract 5080.03. In this census tract, 12.1 percent of households report having a member with a disability. This tract also includes a non-profit- run housing project for adults with disabilities, Adults Toward Independent Living. Sites 5 and 6 are within this census tract, and together represent 3.7 4.0 percent of the lower- income units, 4.13.9 percent of moderate-income units, and 3 .12.8 of above moderate-income units of the sites and projects counted towards RHNA. By identifying sites in this area with a high level of density, it is estimated that more affordable units may develop here, which can help to prevent displacement for households with disabled members.

Race
As a whole, the population of Cupertino is majority non- white, with no census block groups in the city having a majority of White residents. The most common non-white racial group that Cupertino residents identify with is Asian, and Asian community members are the predominant group in the Garden Gate and Jollyman/Faria neighborhoods. Census tracts in southern and eastern Cupertino also have sizeable Asian populations, though with a lower “predominance gap.”. No other non-white racial groups are predominant in any other part of Cupertino, and only a small portion of the far northwest corner of the city is predominantly White. This area is the neighborhood surrounding Rancho San Antonio County Park and a large portion of this tract is located in Los Altos, which has a majority White demographic.

Citywide, the lowest rate of minority residents is 59.0 percent non-white; among census block groups with sites or projects in the RHNA inventory, the lowest rate is 62.0 percent of residents identifying as non- white (Block Group 41 of Tract 5077.01) . This tract had a median household income of $160,491 as of the 2015- 2019 ACS. Few of the RHNA inventory sites or projects are in this b lock group, including no lower-income units, 0.2 percent of moderate-income units, and 0.43 percent of above moderate-income units are estimated to develop in this block group. This block group is on the far west side of the city in a predominantly low-density residential area. Because of the low number of units expected to develop in this area, it is unlikely that their development would establish or reinforce any existing fair housing concerns in this area.

The block group with one of the highest rates of non- white residents is Block Group 3 of Tract 5078.06. Of the total population in this block group, 92.6 percent identify as non-white. Of the RHNA APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-58

units in the sites inventory and project list, it is estimated that 2.312.3 percent of lower-income units,

7.16.95 percent of moderate- income units, and 8.307.0 percent of above moderate-income units will develop in this area. The median household income here is $144,239, which is high compared to the state as a whole but on the mid- to lower-end of median incomes in Cupertino. The development of moderate-income housing in this area may allow for existing community members who are experiencing housing cost burden to find more affordable options without leaving established community networks.

Household Income, Housing Affordability, Familial Status, and Overcrowding The median income for all block groups in the city in 2019 is higher than the 2020 state median income of $87,100, and for many of the block groups in the city, the median income is greater than $125,000.

Two block groups with RHNA units have median incomes below $125,000: Block Group 1 of Tract 5078.05 has a median income of $107,538, and Block Group 5 of Tract 5083.04 has a median income of $90,515. Though these levels of income are relatively high compared to the state as a whole, the high cost of housing in this area means that high-earning households may still experience a meaningful cost burden or may experience overcrowding . Additionally, a high level of households with single female households can be correlated with lower median incomes and higher housing cost burden.

Much of Block Group 5 of Tract 5083.04 extends into areas of Sunnyvale with older stock, multi - family housing, which may contribute to a relatively median lower income.

Block Group 5 of Tract 5083.04, which was mentioned as having the lowest median income in the city, also has the highest percentage of cost- burdened renter households of any of the block groups with inventory sites or pending projects (47.0 percent of renter households). Though it does not have a high rate of homeowners experiencing cost burden, it does have the second- highest rate of household overcrowding of any tract in the city with sites or projects in the RHNA inventory ( 13.8 percent of households). This tract also includes the highest rate of families with children and single - female heads of household at 14.6 percent of households. This tract is on the north side of the city and extends beyond the city borders into Sunnyvale, with only a small piece of Block Group 5 included in Cupertino’s boundary. Inventory sites in this area represent only 0.5 percent of lower-income units,

0.5 percent of moderate- income units, and 0.43 percent of above moderate-income units. Therefore, it is not expected that development of sites in the inventory will exacerbate any overconcentration of lower-income households that may exist in this census tract.

Block Group 1 of Tract 5078.05 has the city’s second-lowest median income and is part of the census tract with the highest rate of homeowner cost burden and second- highest rate of renter cost burden of any tract in the city with sites or projects in the RHNA inventory (with 43.5 percent of homeowners and 42.1 percent of renters experiencing cost burden) . This tract also has the third- highest rate of households experiencing overcrowding of any with sites or projects in the inventory, at 12.3 percent, and the second- highest rate of children in female -headed households ( 10.7 percent). Of the units counted in the sites inventory and pending projects, 11.312.2 percent of lower-income units, 12.311.6 APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-59

percent of moderate - income units, and 9.7 8.5 percent of above moderate -income units are in this block group. An additional 3.94. 2 percent of lower -income units and 7.9 6.7 percent of above moderate-income units are estimated to develop in Block Group 3 of the same census tract. This tract is also on the north side of the city and the tract also includes two small areas within Sunnyvale. The mix of income levels estimated to develop on many of these sites is expected to increase the overall number of affordable units in this census tract without creating an overconcentration of lower-income units.

As mentioned previously, some areas with higher median incomes also experience the negative effects of an overall high cost of housing. For example, Census Tract 5080.03 has the highest rate of households experiencing overcrowding (14.0 percent) of any tract in the city where RHNA sites inventory or project units are located. It also has the second -highest rate of homeowner cost burden (43.1 percent) and the third -highest rate of renter housing burden (40.4 percent) of any tract in the city with RHNA sites inventory or project units. Block Group 1 of this census tract has a median income of $158,971. Though not among the highest median income levels in the city, this is also not among the lowest. This census tract is on the city’s east side and has a low overall number of households, as a large percentage of the land area of the tract is made up of Cupertino High School, DJ Sedgwick Elementary School, Hyde Middle School, and a few large church properties.

Census Tract 5078.06 has the city’s third -highest rate of homeowner cost burden, at 42.4 percent , though renters in this area do not experience the same high rate of housing cost burden (28.2 percent).

This tract also has one of the higher rates of household overcrowding (10.2 percent). While the single- family homes that are present in this tract are relatively large, the tract contains a significant number of multi-family units. Block Group 3 is the block group in this census tract where several RHNA inventory sites and pending projects are located. Located on the city’s north side, this block group has a median household income of $144,239. Of the units in the RHNA sites inventory and pending projects, 2.3 12.3 percent of lower -income units, 7.16.8 6.5 percent of moderate - income units, and

8.37.97.0 percent of above moderate-income units are expected to develop in this area. It is expected that including units in this area that can accommodate higher -income households may provide more housing opportunities for moderate- or higher-income households that may be looking to move out of the housing where they have been experiencing cost burden without having to leave their current neighborhood.

Education
Vulnerability to Displacement
Four census tracts in the city were identified by UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project as being communities that are vulnerable to displacement. Three of the four have been discussed previously in this analysis in discussions of the fair housing factors that likely contribute to residents in these areas APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-60

experiencing a heightened vulnerability to displacement. Below is a summary of the vulnerability factors that exist in these three tracts:
• Tract 5078.06 has the city’s third-highest rate of homeowner cost burden, at 42.4 percent . It also has a moderately high rate of households experiencing overcrowding (10.2 percent) and one of the city’s largest non-white populations, at 92.6 percent. • Tract 5080.03 has the highest rate of households experiencing overcrowding (14.0 percent) of any tract in the city where RHNA sites inventory or project units are located. It also has the second-highest rate of homeowner households experiencing housing cost burden (43.1 percent) and the third - highest rate of renter households experiencing housing cost burden (41.3 percent). It also has the highest rate of residents with disabilities in the city (12.1 percent).

This tract contains a significant number of smaller multifamily units, which may contribute to overcrowding; however, its proximity to schools may make it a more attractive neighborhood for families with children.
• Tract 5083.04 contains a block group with the lowest median income and a comparatively high level of renter households experiencing cost burden. Among census tracts with RHNA inventory sites or projects, i t is also the tract with the second - highest rate of households experiencing overcrowding (13. 8 percent) and the highest rate of children in female -headed households (14.6). However, the majority of this census tract is not within Cupertino city limits.

One additional tract, Tract 5080.01, was not previously discussed in this analysis but was given a designation of being a community vulnerable to displacement. Of the sites in the RHNA inventory and project list, 4.4 24.5 percent of lower - income units, 1 4.916.515.5 percent of moderate - income units, and 6.465.7 percent of above -moderate- income units are estimated to develop in this census tract. The tract has relatively high rates of renters and homeowners experiencing cost burden (40.4 percent of renters and 32.3 percent of homeowners), but neither of these rates is among the highest levels citywide. Though each of these individual factors is not among the highest rates in the city, the combination of each of these factors can make residents in this area vulnerable to displacement.

Employment
Environment
Cost Burden
Overcrowding
Displacement Vulnerability

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-61

B3.11 FAIR HOUSING AND RESOURCES AND MAPS
B3.11 This section provides information on fair housing resources available in Santa Clara County and supporting maps.

FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH CAPACITY
Fair housing assistance organizations in Santa Clara County are listed in Figure B3-7. Data regarding fair housing inquiries is depicted on Figures B3-8 through B3-10. Figure B3-11 shows the location of the county’s public housing buildings. Figure B3-12 shows HCVs by census tract.

Figure B3-6Figure B3-7 Fair Housing Assistance Organizations, Santa Clara County

Source: Organization Websites

Name
Project
Sentinel  Northern California
1490 El Camino
Real, Santa Clara,
CA 95050
(800) 339-6043 https://www.housing.org/
Housing and
Economic
Rights
Advocates
State of California
1814 Franklin St.

Ste. 1040 Oakland,
CA 94612
(510) 271-8443 https://www.heraca.org
Bay Area Legal
Aid
Parts of Santa Clara
County
1735 Telegraph Ave.

Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 663-4755 https://www.baylegal.org California
Department
of Fair
Employment
and Housing
State of California
2218 Kausen Dr.

Ste. 100 Elk Grove,
CA 95758
(916) 478-7251 https://www.dfeh.ca.gov
Law
Foundation of
Silicon Valley
Greater Silicon
Valley, Santa Clara
County
152 N. 3rd St. #3
San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 293-4790 https://lawfoundation.org WebsiteService Area Address Phone
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-62

Figure B3-7Figure B3-8 HCD Fair Housing Inquiries, 2013- 2021

Source: Organization Websites

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-63

Figure B3-8Figure B3-9 FHEO Inquiries by City to HCD, Santa Clara County, 2013-20221

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-64

Figure B3-9Figure B3-10 HCD Fair Housing Inquiries by Bias, January 2013- March 2021

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

Jurisdiction
San Jose 39 9 9 8 0 3 0 1 46 9 111 225
Santa Clara 2 2 4 4 0 0 0 26 1 12 40
Sunnyvale 7 1 3 0 0 0 0 17 1 16 29
Palo Alto 3 1 3 0 0 1 0 18 1 9 26
Gilroy 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 4 15
Morgan Hill 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 12
Campbell 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 5 11
Mountain View 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 6 11
Los Gatos 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 1 5 8
Cupertino 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 7
Milpitas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 6
Saratoga 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Los Altos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Los Altos Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Monte Sereno 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TotalDisability Race
Familial
Status
National
Origin Religion Sex Color
Failure
to
Respond
None
Cited
Decision
Not To
Persue
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-65

Figure B3-10Figure B3-11 Public Housing Buildings, Santa Clara County

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-66

Figure B3-11Figure B3-12 Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-67

INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION
This section provides information on factors such as race, ethnicity, diversity, segregation, and disability status in Cupertino, along with supporting maps.

RACE AND ETHNICITY.

Figures B3-13 and B3-14 show population by race and ethnicity in Cupertino. Figure B3 -15 shows senior and youth population by race. Figure s B3-16 and B3-17 show AMI and poverty rate by race and ethnicity. Figure B3 -18 shows the percentage non -white population by census block groups.

Figures B3-19 through B3-21 show census tracts by racial majority . Figure B3 -22 shows neighborhood segregation by census tract. Figure s B3-23 and B3-24 show the diversity index by block group. Figure B3-25 shows the share of population in Cupertino by disability status and Figure B3-26 shows population with a disability by census tract. Figure B3 -27 shows age distribution in Cupertino. Figures B3-28 through B3-31 show share of households by si ze, type, presence of children, and tenure. Figure B3-32 shows housing units by number of bedrooms and tenure. Figure B3-33 through B3-36 show household data by census tract.

Figure B3-12Figure B3-13 Population by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-68

Figure B3-13Figure B3-14 Population by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2000- 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-14Figure B3-15 Senior and Youth Population by Race, Cupertino, 2000-2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-69

Figure B3-15Figure B3-16
Area Median Income by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019

Note: Black or African American Area Median Income comes from ABAG, but it does not align with Figure II-5’B3-17s poverty rate.

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-16Figure B3-17 Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino 2019[Whites have the second- lowest median income but lowest poverty rate?]

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-70

Figure B3-17Figure B3-18 Percentage Non-White Population by Census Block Groups, 2018

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-71

Figure B3-18Figure B3-19 White Majority Census Tracts

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-72

Figure B3-19Figure B3-20 Asian Majority Census Tracts

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-73

Figure B3-20Figure B3-21 Hispanic Majority Census Tracts

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-74

Figure B3-21Figure B3-22 Neighborhood Segregation by Census Tract, 2019

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-75

Figure B3-22Figure B3-23 Diversity Index by Block Group, 2010

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-76

Figure B3-23Figure B3-24 Diversity Index by Block Group, 2018

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-77

DISABILITY STATUS.

Figure B3-24Figure B3-25 Share of Population by Disability Status, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-78

Figure B3-25Figure B3-26 Percentage% of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-79

FAMILIAL STATUS.

Figure B3-26Figure B3-27 Age Distribution, Cupertino, 2000-2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure B3-27Figure B3-28 Share of Households by Size, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-80

Figure B3-28Figure B3-29 Share of Households by Type, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure B3-29Figure B3-30 Share of Households by Presence of Children (Less than 18 years old), 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-81

Figure B3-30Figure B3-31 Housing Type by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-31Figure B3-32 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure, Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-82

Figure B3-32Figure B3-33 Percentage of Children in Married- Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-83

Figure B3-33Figure B3-34 Percent Households with Single Female with Children by Census Tract, 2019

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-84

Figure B3-34Figure B3-35 Percentage of Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-85

Figure B3-35Figure B3-36 Percentage of Adults Living Alone by Census Tract, 2019

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-86

HOUSEHOLD IINCOME.

Figure B3-37 through B3-41 depict data on housing income in Cupertino.

Figure B3-36Figure B3-37 Share of Households by Area Median Income (AMI), 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-87

Figure B3-37Figure B3-38 Median Household Income by Block Group, 2019

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-88

Figure B3-38Figure B3-39 Low to Moderate Income Population by Block Group

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-89

Figure B3-39Figure B3-40 Poverty Status by Census Tract, 2019

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-90

Figure B3-40Figure B3-41 R/ECAPs, 2013

Note: R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50% percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County (19.4% in 2010). Edge R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is two times the average tract poverty rate for the County (13% in 2010).

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-91

ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY

EDUCATION
Figure B3-42 shows TCAC opportunity areas educational score by census tract.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-92

Figure B3-41Figure B3-42 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score by Census Tract, 2021

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-93

EMPLOYMENT
Figure B3-43 shows jobs by industry in Cupertino for 2002 through 2018. Figure B3-44 shows job holders by industry. Figure B3-45 shows jobs to household ratio and Figure B3 -46 shows jobs to worker ratio by wage. Figure B3-47 depicts the unemployment rate from 2010 through 2021. Figure B3-48 shows TCAC opportunity areas e conomic score by census tract. Figure B3 -49 shows jobs proximity index by block group.

Figure B3-42Figure B3-43 Jobs by Industry, Cupertino, 2002-2018

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-94

Figure B3-43Figure B3-44 Job Holders by Industry, Cupertino, 2002-2018

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure B3-44Figure B3-45 Jobs to Household Ratio, Cupertino, 2002-2018

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-95

Figure B3-45Figure B3-46 Jobs to Worker Ratio by Wage, Cupertino, 2002-2018

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure B3-46Figure B3-47 Unemployment Rate, 2010-2021

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-96

Figure B3-47Figure B3-48 TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Score by Census Tract, 2021

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-97

Figure B3-48Figure B3-49 Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group, 2017

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-98

ENVIRONMENT
Figure B3-50 shows TCAC opportunity areas environmental score by census tract . Figure B3-51 shows the CalEnviroScreen by census tract. Figure B3 -52 shows the healthy places index by census tract.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-99

Figure B3-49Figure B3-50 TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Score by Census Tract, 2021

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-100

Figure B3-50Figure B3-51 CalEnviroScreen by Census Tract, 2021

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-101

Figure B3-51Figure B3-52 Healthy Places Index by Census Tract, 2021

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-102

PATTERNS IN DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Figures B3-53 and B3-54 depict data on race and ethnicity and populations with limited English proficiency. .Figure B3-55 shows TCAC opportunity areas composite score by census tract. Figure B3-56 depicts the social vulnerability index by census tract. Figure B3 -57 shows SB 535 disadvantaged communities.

Figure B3-52Figure B3-53 Population Living in Moderate and High Resource Ares by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019

Note: There are no moderate or low resource areas in the city.

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure B3-53Figure B3-54 Population with Limited English Proficiency, Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-103

Figure B3-54Figure B3-55 TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score by Census Tract, 2021

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-104

Figure B3-55Figure B3-56 Social Vulnerability Index by Census Tract, 2018

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-105

Figure B3-56Figure B3-57 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-106

DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS WITH

DISABILITIES
Figure B3-58 depicts population by disability status and Figure B3-59 shows data by disability type.

Figure B3-60 shows data by disability for seniors. Figure B3-61 shows employment by disability status. Figure B3-62 depicts the share of population with a disability by census tract.

Figure B3-57Figure B3-58 Population by Disability Status, Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-58Figure B3-59 Disability by Type for the Non-Institutionalized Population 18 Years and Over, Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-107

Figure B3-59Figure B3-60 Disability by Type for Seniors (65 years and over), Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure B3-60Figure B3-61 Employment by Disability Status, Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-108

Figure B3-61Figure B3-62 Share of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-109

DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS

HOUSING NEEDS
Figure B3-63 shows the population of Cupertino indexed from 1990 through 2020. .Figure B3-64 depicts housing permits issued by income group and Figure B3-65 shows housing units by year built.

Figure B3-66 depicts distribution of home value for owner -occupied units for 2019. Figure B3 -67 shows the Zillow home value index for 2011 through 2020. Figure B3 -68 shows the distribution of contract rents for renter -occupied units. Figure B3 -69 shows the median contract rent for 2009 through 2019.

Figure B3-62Figure B3-63 Population Indexed fromto 1990

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-63Figure B3-64
Housing Permits Issued by Income Group, Cupertino, 2015-2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-110

Figure B3-64Figure B3-65 Housing Units by Year Built, Cupertino

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure B3-65Figure B3-66 Distribution of Home Value for Owner Occupied Units, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-111

Figure B3-66Figure B3-67 Zillow Home Value Index, 2001-2020

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure B3-67Figure B3-68 Distribution of Contract Rents for Renter Occupied Units, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-112

Figure B3-68Figure B3-69 Median Contract Rent, 2009-2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

COST BURDEN AND SEVERE COST BURDEN
Figure B3-70 shows overpayment by jurisdiction. Figures B3-71 through B3-74 show overpayment (cost burden) by tenure, AMI, race and ethnicity, and family size, respectively.. Figure B3-75 depicts a map of overpayment for renter households by census tract and Figure B3-76 shows this map for owner households.

Figure B3-69Figure B3-70 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Jurisdiction, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-113

Figure B3-70Figure B3-71 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure B3-71Figure B3-72 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Area Median Income (AMI), Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-114

Figure B3-72Figure B3-73 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure B3-73Figure B3-74 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Family Size, Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-115

Figure B3-74Figure B3-75 Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-116

Figure B3-75Figure B3-76 Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Owner Households by Census Tract, 2019

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-117

OVERCROWDING
Figure B3-77 shows occupants per room by jurisdiction (city, county, and Bay Area as a whole). .

Figure B3-78 shows occupants per room by tenure (renter versus owner) for Cupertino. Figures B3- 79 and B3-80 show overcrowding by race and ethnicity and AMI, respectively. Figure B3-81 depicts overcrowded households by census tract.

Figure B3-76Figure B3-77 Occupants per Room by Jurisdiction, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure B3-77Figure B3-78 Occupants per Room by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-118

Figure B3-78Figure B3-79 Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019

Note: Overcrowding is indicated by more than 1 person per room.

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-79Figure B3-80 Occupants per Room by AMI, Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-119

Figure B3-80Figure B3-81 Overcrowded Households by Census Tract, 2019

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-120

SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
.Figure B3-82 depicts percentage of units lacking kitchen and plumbing facilities.

Figure B3-81Figure B3-82 Percentage of Units Lacking Complete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities, Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

HOMELESSNESS.

Figures B3-83 through B3-86 show homeless statistics.

Figure B3-82Figure B3-83 Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Santa Clara County, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 7 3 77 696
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 3 301 400
Unsheltered # 243 7,413
People in
Households
S
olely
Children
People in
Households
w
ith Adults
and Children
People in
Households
W
ithout
Children
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-121

Figure B3-83Figure B3-84 Share of General and Homeless Populations by Race, Santa Clara County, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure B3-84Figure B3-85 Share of General and Homeless Populations by Ethnicity, Santa Clara County, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-122

Figure B3-85Figure B3-86 Characteristics of the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa Clara County, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

DISPLACEMENT.

Figure B3-87 through B3-93 depict data on displacement in Cupertino.

Figure B3-86Figure B3-87 Location of Population One Year Ago, Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 128 5 201 7 9 52
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 153 11 130 129 20
Unsheltered 1,668 65 2,328 445 383
Chronic Substance
Abuse HIV/AIDS
Severely
Mentally Ill Veterans
Victims of Domestic
Violence

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-123

Figure B3-87Figure B3-88 Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence, Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-88Figure B3-89 Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion, Cupertino, 2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Cupertino 153 0 0 0 153
Santa Clara County 28,001 1,471 359 58 29,889
Bay Area 110,177 3,375 1,854 1,053 116,459
Low Moderate High Very High
Total Assisted
Units in Database
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-124

Figure B3-89Figure B3-90 Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-125

Figure B3-90Figure B3-91 Location Affordability Index by Census Tract

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-126

Figure B3-91Figure B3-92 Share of Renter Occupied Households by Census Tract, 2019

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-127

Figure B3-92Figure B3-93 Special Flood Hazard Areas, 2020

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-128

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Figure B3-94 shows mortgage applications by race and ethnicity in Cupertino and Figure B3 -95 shows mortgage application denial rates by race and ethnicity..

Figure B3-93Figure B3-94 Mortgage Applications by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2018-2019

Note: Applications were very low for American Indian/Alaskan Native (6 total), Black/African American (also 6 total), and Hispanic/Latino applicants (33 total).

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Figure B3-94Figure B3-95 Mortgage Application Denial Rate by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2018-2019

Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Housing Resources and Opportunities B.4

APPENDIX

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐i

Table of Contents
B4  Housing Resources and Opportunities ............................................................. B4-1 B4.1  Regional Housing Needs Allocation .............................................................................. B4-1 B4.2  Pending Projects .......................................................................................................... B4-2 B4.3  Sites Inventory .............................................................................................................. B4-5 B4.4  Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................... B4-33

Tables
Table B4-1  Cupertino’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation – 2023–2031 ............................ B4-2 Table B4-2  Pending Projects ........................................................................................................ B4-3 Table B4-3  Realistic Capacity Examples, Residential-Only .......................................................... B4-7 Table B4-4  Realistic Capacity Examples, Mixed-Use Zones ........................................................ B4-9 Table B4-5  RHNA Capacity Prior to Rezone .............................................................................. B4-12 Table B4-6  RHNA Capacity with Rezone ................................................................................... B4-12 Table B4-7  Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones .............................................................. B4-14 Table B4-8  Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details ........................ B4-15 Table B4-9  Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones .............................................................. B4-20 Table B4-10  Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones – Additional Site Details ........................ B4-22 Table B4-11  Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA .............................................. B4-28 Table 4-11A Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA .............................................. B4-29 Table B4-12  Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to the 6th Cycle RHNA ....................... B4-33

Figures
Figure B4-1  Priority Housing Sites Map ....................................................................................... B4-36 Figure B4-2  Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 1 ......................................................................... B4-37 Figure B4-3  Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 2 ......................................................................... B4-38 Figure B4-4  Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 3 ......................................................................... B4-39

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐1

B4 HOUSING RESOURCES AND OPPORTUNITIES
California law (Government Code Section 65583 (a)(3 )) requires that the Housing Element contain an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and nonvacan t (i.e., underutilized) sites having potential for redevelopment. State law also requires an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites.

B4.1 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is the State of California–required process that seeks to ensure cities and counties are planning for enough housing to accommodate all economic segments of the community. The process is split into the following three steps.

1. Regional Determination: The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provides each region with a Regional Determination of housing need, which includes a total number of units split into four income categories. The City of Cupertino is in the region covered by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). HCD allocated ABAG a Regional Determination of 441,176 units for the 6th cycle RHNA covering the years from 2023 to 2031. This is the total number of units that the 109 cities and counties in the ABAG region must collectively plan to accommodate.

2. RHNA Methodology: ABAG is responsible for deve loping a RHNA Methodology for allocating the Regional Determination to each city and county in their region. This methodology must specifically identify objectives, including, but not limited to, promoting infill, equity, and environmental protection; en suring jobs-housing balance; and affirmatively furthering fair housing. Of the 441,176 un its allocated to the ABAG region, 4,588 were allocated to Cupertino.

3. Housing Element Updates: Each city and county must then adopt a Housing Eelement that demonstrates how the jurisdiction can accommodate its assigned RHNA through zoning.

HCD reviews each jurisdiction’s Housing Element for compliance with State law.

ABAG is responsible for developing a RHNA Methodology for allocating the Regional Determination to each city and county in their region. This methodology must specifically state objectives, including but not limited to promoting infill, equity, an d environmental protection; ensuring jobs-housing balance; and affirmatively furthering fair housing. Of the 441,176 units allocated to the ABAG region, 4,588 were allocated to Cupertino.

Cupertino’s share of the regional housing need for the eight-year period from 2023 to 2031 is 4,588 units, which is a 431 percent increase over the 1,064 units required by during the 5th Cycle (20145 to 2023)2 RHNA planning period. The housing need is divided into the five four income categories of housing affordability. Table B4-1, Cupertino’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation – 2023–2031 , shows Cupertino’s RHNA for the 6th Cycle (2023–2031) planning period 2023 through 2031 in APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐2

comparison to the RHNA distributions for Santa Clara County and the Bay Area region.and the percentage of the city’s total RHNA that is allocated to each affordability category.

Table B4-1 Cupertino’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation – 2023–2031 Income Group Unit Allocation Percentage
Very Low Income (<50% of AMI)* 1,193 26.0%
Low Income (50%-80% of AMI) 687 15.0%
Moderate Income (80%-120% of AMI) 755 16.5%
Above Moderate. Income (>120% of AMI) 1,953 42.6%
Total 4,588 100.0%
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Final Methodology , 2021
*It is assumed that 50 percent of the very low- income category is allocated to the extremely low-income category. There are projected to be 596 new extremely low-income households during the 6th cycle planning period.

AMI = Area Median Income
B4.2 PENDING PROJECTS
Projects that have been approved, permitted, or received a certificate of occupancy since the beginning of the RHNA projected period may be credited toward meeting the RHNA based on the affordability and unit count of the development. For projects yet to receive their certificate of occupancy or final permit, the element can demonstrate that the project is expected to be built within the planning period.

For projects that have received their certificate of occupancy, affordability is based on the actual or projected sale prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability in the planning period of the units within the project.

Cupertino has a significant number of development projects that are seeking entitlements or that have been approved. Table B4-2, Pending Projects, summarizes the inventory of residential and mixed-use projects that are pending approval or that have current active entitlements. None of the projects listed in Table B4-2 have received a certificate of occupan cy or final permit. As of July 2023, of the more than 3,319400 units that the City has approved, th ere were an estimated 2,1191,618 housing units in the pipeline that couldassumed to meet a portion of the City’s RHNA. Of these units, 83586 units are affordable to lower-income households, 49 units are affordable to moderate-income households, and 1,233893units are market rate. Affordability for lo wer- and moderate-income units are based on tax credits and private funding.

Figure B4-1 provides a map of all approved and pending projects along with the sites that will be used to meet the RHNA. Sites in this map are designated by the RHNA affordability levels that are expected to be accommodated by the site.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐3

Table B4-2 Pending Projects
Site
ID
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Project Name Site Address/
Intersection
Existing
Units
Project Total Portion Counted Toward RHNA
Funding
Source Project Status
Total Lower Moderate Above
Moderate
Percentage/Phase
Assumed Lower Moderate Above
Moderate
P1
316201220
The Rise (Vallco)
10101 N Wolfe Road
0 2,669
2,402
890
1,201
00 1,779
1,201
Phase 1
349581
316
0 1,321444
393
Abu Dhabi
Investment
Authority.

Potential Low-
Income
Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC)
application.

Building permit application not yet submitted. Project
site soil remediation completed summer 2023. New
architect on board and value engineering in process.

Sand Hill Property Co.

The developer has completed demolition and the
process of cleaning up the west side of the site, which includes Phases 1 and 2 of the project (2,669 units).

The foundation permits have been issued, so
construction can begin. The City fully anticipates the
west side (1902 units total, 581 affordable) being
available in the planning period. The City is not relying on the east side of the project (Phase 32,: 833767
units total, 309 affordable) to meet the RHNA.
31620121 10330 N Wolfe Road Phase 2
(Not Counted
Toward RHNA)
185309
469
0 90458
391
P2 32627043 Westport 21267 Stevens Creek
Boulevard 0 259 48 0 211 100% 48 0 211 LIHTC.

Building permits have been issued and construction is
ongoing for 48- unit below-market rate (BMR) portion
and 88 townhomes/rowhomes. Construction for senior
living is anticipated to begin winter 2023.

P3 34216087 Canyon Crossing 10625 S. Foothill Boulevard 1 18 1 3 14 100% 1 3 14 --- Demolition permits issued. Building permits submitted in early summer 2023.

P4
36610126 Coach House/
1655 S. De Anza
7357 Prospect Road
0 34 3 1 30 100% 3 1 30 --- Entitlement approved late spring 2023. Applicant to submit building permits by winter 2023. 36610061 1655 S. De Anza P5
32634066
Marina Food
10118-10122 Bandley Drive
0 206 0 36 170 100% 0 36 170 --- Entitlements granted in 2022. Project being value engineered currently. 32634043 10145 N. De Anza
Boulevard
P6
34214066
Bateh Brothers 22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard 0 10 0 2 8 100% 0 2 8 --- Under construction. Anticipated completion late winter 2023. 34214104
34214105
P7 35907021 Bianchi
Townhomes 10040 Bianchi Way 2 7 0 1 6 100% 0 1 6 --- Application under review.

P8 35920030 McClellan LLC 20860 McCclellan Road 1 12 0 6 6 100% 0 6 6 --- Demolition permit issued in summer 2023. Building permits under review.

P9 362 31 003 Cleo 20638 Cleo Avenue 1 4 0 0 4 100% 0 0 4 --- Pre-application. Ready to submit.

Total 5 3,219
2,952 9421,253 49 2,2281,650 --- 633 49 17701,233 --- --- Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐4

This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐5

B4.2B4.3 SITES INVENTORY

AVAILABILITY OF LAND
State Housing Element law emphasizes the importance of adequate land for housing and requires that each Housing Element “…identify adequate sites … to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels…” (California Government Code Section 65583(c)(1)).

To allow for an adequate supply of new housing, land must be zoned at a variety of densities to ensure that development is feasible for a wide range of income levels. The identified land must also have access to appropriate services and infrastructure, such as water, wastewater, and roads.

To demonstrate the City’s capacity to potentially meet its RHNA, an adequate-sites inventory was conducted. The inventory must identify adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types for households of all income levels. The analysis of the relationship of suitable sites to z oning provides a means for determining the realistic number of dwelling units that could be constructed on those sites in the current planning period.

SITES APPROPRIATE FOR LOWER-INCOME HOUSING
Housing Element law requires jurisdictions to provid e an analysis showing that zones identified for lower-income households are sufficient to encour age such development. The law provides two options for preparing the analysis: (1) describe ma rket demand and trends, financial feasibility, and recent development experience; or (2) use defaul t density standards deemed adequate to meet the appropriate zoning test. According to Sta te law (California Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)), the default density standard for Cupertino is 30 dwelling units per acre. The City has included several sites, listed in Tables B4-7 and B4-9, that allow for densities up to 80 units per acre, that well exceed the City’s default density.

SITES IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583.2(c), a nonvacant site identified in the previous planning period and a vacant site identifi ed in two or more previous consecutive planning periods cannot be used to accommodate the lower-income RHNA unless the site is subject to an action in the Housing Element that requires rezoni ng within three years of the beginning of the planning period that will allow residential use by right for housing developments with at least 20 percent units affordable to lower-income households. The City is not relying on any sites that were previously used to meet the lower income RHNA.

REALISTIC CAPACITY
In determining the realistic capacity for the City’s inventory of sites, the City considered land use controls and site improvements and assumed an 80 percent adjustment to reflect developable acreage due to on-site improvements, including sidewalks, utility easements, and infrastructure improvements (roadway access, water, sewer, and stormwater). All si tes are served by or planned to be served by infrastructure, with no constraints identified that would reduce capacity beyond the 80 percent adjustment. To further determine an appropriate re alistic capacity assumption, the City considered and evaluated the implementation of its current multifamily development standards (e.g., setbacks, building height, parking, density requirements, land use controls, water and wastewater access, and APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐6

open space requirements) as well as project exampl es to determine approximate density and unit capacity so as to not over-project unit potential . The city also reviewed both residential and mixed- use project examples to further determine the appropriate realistic capacity for the sites inventory.

Realistic Capacity for Residential Sites
Table B4-3 shows project examples in Cupertino from 2016 to 2023. Overall, projects show a very high realistic capacity, ranging from 8380 to 136more than 100 percent of the site. On example sites where the total exceeded 100 percent of the maximum number of units permitted by the base General Plan and zoning density, a density bonus was use d. Proposed projects must achieve 100 percent of the maximum density prior to applying for density bonus units. When determining the realistic capacity that should be applied to the sites listed in Table B4-7, the City looked at both the 80 percent adjustment for land use controls and site improvements, and project examples. To ensure capacity is not over projected, the city assumed a 95 percent rea listic capacity on all residentially zoned sites in Table B4-7.

There is one exception. For Site 10, due to an active 100 percent affordable housing proposal, not yet entitled, the City assumed the realistic capacity and affordability based on the tentative plans for this project.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐7

Table B4-3 Realistic Capacity Examples, Residential-Only Project
Name Acres Project Status Unit
Affordability
General Plan/
Zoning
Total
Project
Units
Max.

Allowable
Units
Realistic
Capacity
Percentage
Proposed
Use Prior Use
Hamptons 12.44 Entitlements
granted in 2016
871 AM, 30 M, 41
Lower. Affordable
units from
inclusionary
program
High-Density
Residential
(35+ dwelling
units/acre)
942 942 >100% 100%
residential
342 units. The plan
is to demolish all
units and construct
942 new
apartments.

McClellan
subdivision 1.25
Entitled in
October 2022.

Demolition
permit issued.

Building permits
in review.
6 AM, 6 ADUs Low-Density
Residential 6 6 100% 100%
residential
One home and a
barn/large storage
shed. The plan is to
demolish existing
uses and redevelop
entire site.

Cleo Small Lot
SFR 0.23
Project
Application in
review as of
2023.

BMR in-lieu of fee
Medium
(10-20 du/ac);
P(R3).
4 5 80%
4 residential
units
One single family
home. The plan is to
demolish existing
use and redevelop
entire site.

Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐8

Realistic Capacity for Commercial/Residential (Mixed- Use) Sites In Cupertino, Planned Development (P) zoning districts with a residential component (e.g., P(Res)) in the Housing Sites inventory, allow horizontal and vertical mixed-use development by right.

Additionally, Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (2) provides special density rules for what it terms “Priority Housing Sites.” According to the code:
“If a [mixed-use] site is listed as a Priority Housing Site in the City’s adopted Housing Element of the General Plan, then residential development that does not exceed the number of units designated for the site in the Housing Element shall be a permitted use.”
Table B4-4 summarizes three approved mixed-use deve lopments, Marina Plaza, Westport, and Vallco. These projects range in realistic capacity from 83 to 344 percent, with most coming in around 135113 percent. This suggests that mixed-use pr ojects in Cupertino develop at greater than 100 percent of the permitted density. For example sites where the total number of units exceeded 100 percent of the maximum number of units permitted by the base General Plan and zoning density, a density bonus was used. Proposed projects must achi eve 100 percent of the maximum density prior to applying for density bonus units Since the City still needs to account for the unlikely possibility of non-residential uses on mixed-use sites in the current market, while the trends over the past decade indicates development on most large sites at close to or over 100 percent of the maximum allowable density, the City conservatively estimates a 75 percent realistic capacity for sites with mixed- use zoning in the sites inventory.

Additionally, out of all development projects over the past three years within a P(Com/Res) zoning, two were 100 percent residential, three included a mix of uses, while none developed with 100 percent commercial uses. This track record further shows the high potential for residential to develop on sites that allow for commercial uses.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐9

Table B4-4 Realistic Capacity Examples, Mixed-Use Zones Project Name Acres Project Status Unit Affordability General Plan/Zoning Total
Project
Units
Max.

Allowable
Units
Realistic
Capacity
Percentage
Proposed Use Prior Use
Marina Plaza 5.12 Entitled 2022 170 AM, 18 M, 18
LowerMedian
Commercial/Residential; Planned Development with
Commercial and Residential Uses (P(CG/Res)).

Includes density bonus.
206 179 115% Mixed-use
100% commercial, 45-50k sf retail center. Scrape
and rebuild and a standalone restaurant building.

The structures were constructed in the 1970s.The
plan is to demolish existing use and redevelop the
entire site. As of 2022, the combined site had an
ILV of 0.45, with the two individual parcels having
ILVs of 0.11 and 1.26.

Westport 7.76 Entitled 2020. 136 Building
Permits Issued as of 2022.
88 AM, 123 AM Senior
Assisted Living, 48 Lower
senior units
Commercial/Residential -Planned Development with
Commercial and Residential uses (P(CG/,Res).

Includes density bonus and waivers.
259 237 109% Mixed-use (+/- 20ksf,
259 residential)
100% commercial, (72k sf village shopping
center). The existing structures, constructed in the
1970s, were demolished to allow plan is to
demolish the existing use and redevelopment of
the entire site. Prior to entitlement, Ssome spaces
were occupied. Under construction now.

Vallco 50.82
Entitled 2018. Demolition and
Foundation permits issued in
2019 and 2020
1,201779 AM, 1,201267
VLI, Lower623 Low
Regional Commercial/ Planned Development with
commercial uses (entitled when residential uses were
allowed on site). Includes density bonus, concessions
and waivers
2,401669 1,779 13550%
Mixed-use (2mn office,
4200k +/- sf comm,
24022,669 residential)
100% commercial, (1.27k s.f. regional mall). The
plan is to demolish the existing use and redevelop
the entire site. There were few existing tenants.

Canyon Crossing 1.38 Entitled 2022. Demolition permits
issued in 2022.
1 VLI, 1 LI, 1 M, 1 median,
14 AM
Commercial/Residential at 15 du/ac. Planned
Development with Commercial and Residential uses
(P(CG/Res). No Density Bonus
18 20 90% Mixed-use (4500 s.f. plus
18 units)
100% commercial strip mall and one residential
unit. The structures were developed in the 1950s
and 1960s. PlanThe site is currently vacant, as
the prior use was demolished is to demolish
existing use andto redevelop the entire site. Prior
to demolition, ILV was 0.01.
1655 S. De Anza 1.68 Entitled 2023 1 medianM, 1 LowerLI, 3 VLI, 29 AM
Commercial/Residential at 5-15 du/ac. Planned
Development with Commercial and Residential uses
(P(CG/Res 5-15)).

Includes Density Bonus and waivers.
34 25 136% Mixed-use (7600 s.f. and
34 units)
100% commercial, 11,650 s.f strip mall and
adjoining parcel with parking lot improvements
constructed in the early 1960s. The plan is to
demolish the existing use and redevelop the
entire site. There were/are existing tenants. The
ILV as of 2022 was 0.28.

Verandas 0.55 Built in 2019 19 lower (SROs) Commercial/Residential; P(CG/Res) Includes Density Bonus and reduced parking standards 19 14 135% 100% residential Vacant Alan Row/Bateh
Brothers 0.78 Building Permit Issued 2022 8 AM, 2 M Commercial/Residential; P(CG/Res) No Density Bonus 10 12 83% 100% residential
100% commercial, ~2800 sf standalone liquor
store constructed in the 1960s with two adjacent
undeveloped properties. The plan is to demolish
the existing use and redevelop the entire site.

Store was owner -operated.

Bianchi Townhomes 0.34 Project Application in review as of 2023. 1 Median, 6 AM
Commercial/Office/Residential, P(CG/Res).

No bonus units, but waivers, concession and a reduced
parking standard
7 8 88% 100% residential (7 units)
Existing four-plex built in the 1950s2 residential
units. Plan is to demolish existing use and
redevelop the entire site. As of 2023, the site had
an ILV of 0.11.

Stevens Creek
Residential 1.63 Project Application in review as of
2023.
29 LI, 111 Above
Moderate (20% LI - mix
not established)
Commercial/Office/Residential, P(CG/Res).

Builder's Remedy project 141 41 344% 100% residential
100% commercial. Strip mall type development.

The plan is to demolish the existing use and
redevelop the entire site. There are existing
tenants in some of the buildings.

Source: City of Cupertino, 2023
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐10

This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐11

UNIT ALLOCATION
For determining capacity, the City assumed a mixed- income approach for each site to not only provide for a more realistic assumption, but to ensure the city is affirmatively furthering fair housing. The City used the percentage of the RHNA category to dist ribute the units on each site and has distributed accordingly. For most sites, the City assumed that 41 percent of each site will be affordable to lower- income households, 16 percent will be affordable to moderate-income households, and 43 percent will be affordable to above moderate- income househol ds. For sites that do not allow for at least 16 units per site (Sites 12, 18, 19, 25, 31, 33, 34, 35, and 43) and for sites that were also smaller than 0.5 acres but still met the 16-unit threshold (2, 4, 11, 12, 17, 21, 45, and 54), capacity was allocated towards the moderate- and above moderate-income categori es. On Site 10, there is an active 100 percent affordable housing proposal that has not yet been entitled, so all estimated units were assigned to the lower-income category. Similarly, on Sites 36 and 37, the realistic capacity was based on a pending Senate Bill (SB) 330 application. Site 27 is ow ned by Santa Clara Count y and in December 2023 released a Request For Offers (RFO) for an afford able housing development on the site. In January 2024, the County selected Eden Housing as the developer for the site, with the objective of having a fully-entitled project prior to the end of the 2024 calendar year. The County included the City in the RFO and developer selection process and Eden Housing has, as of February, begun having regular meetings with the City on its community outreach stra tegy and refining their plans to develop an all affordable housing project with units affordable to lower and moderate-income households. Based on this the City has allocated the capacity on the site accordingly.

PROPOSED REZONE CAPACITY
All of the sites within the City’s inventory have been identified for either rezoning, a change in General Plan land use designation to allow for increased density, or both. As shown in Table B4-5,3 and , the City does not currently have sufficient capacity to meet the RHNA. As part of Strategy HE-1.3.2, the City commits to completing changes to the land use designation and rezoning by January 31, 2024.

The rezoning and changes in General Plan land use designation will increase the maximum density on many sites to as much as 6580 dwelling units per ac re. This will allow the City to cover the shortfall identified and allow for a surplus in all income categories Table B4-6. Additionally, per Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(2), and as shown in Table B4-6, 50 percent of the very low- and low- income shortfall (432 534 units) is being met on sites that allow for exclusively residential development. Also note, not all residential capacity in the city is identified in the priority housing sites list and therefore, the shortfall is most likely even lower.

Tables B4-7 through B4-10 provide further information and detail on each of the priority housing sites in the City’s inventory list. Please note that the site numbers listed here are added only as an additional way to reference the site, and do not indicate any preference or priority. Figures B4-1 – B4-4, maps the housing priority sites potential sites.

Additionally, to comply with Government Cod e section 65583.2, subd. (c)(4), AB 725, for Metropolitan jurisdictions, Cupertino must accommodate at least 25 percent of the moderate and 25 percent above moderate RHNA on sites that allow at least four units of housing. As shown in Table B4-7 and B4-9, all sites listed are large enough to accommo date at least 5 housing units. Therefore, the City is meeting the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2, subd. (c)(4).

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐12

Table B4-5 RHNA Capacity Prior to Rezone
RHNA Category 2023-2031
RHNA
Pending
Project
Capacity
Current
Residential
Sites Capacity
Current
Mixed- Use
Sites
Capacity
Projected
Accessory
Dwelling Units
Total
Capacity Shortfall
Very Low 1,193 633 151 49 116 813 1067 Low 687
Moderate 755 49 2972 411 57 1020 59
Above Moderate 1,953 9831,770 1733 61 19 1821 70132
Total 4,588 2,452 485490 315520 192 3,654 1,199939
SOURCE: City of Cupertino, 2023
1 Sites allowing 30 du/acre or more
2 Sites allowing 20-29 du/acre
3 Sites allowing less than 20 du/acre
Table B4-6 RHNA Capacity with Rezone
RHNA Category 2023-2031
RHNA
Pending
Projects
Capacity
Residential
Site Capacity
with Rezone
Mixed Use Site
Capacitys with
Rezone
Projected
ADUs
Total
Capacity Surplus
Very Low 1,193 633 833 596 116 217821962,15
0 298316270 Low 687
Moderate 755 49 360311 436 57 9090 1475
Above Moderate 1,953 9831,770 66262819 695 19 3166553,3238 6 1193,131,370
3 Total 4,588 2,452 185555917 17271,772 192 6226716,3336, 00 1638831,745
41 SOURCE: City of Cupertino, July 2023
NOTE: While the City assumes that ADUs will provide capacity to meet the RHNA, the City is not relying on ADU capacity to meet the RHNA targets.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐13

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐14

Table B4-7 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones
Site ID APN Acres Existing
General Plan Designation
Existing Zoning
Designation
Current
Maximum
Allowed
Density
Proposed General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Minimum
Density
Proposed
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Maximum Unit
Capacity (100%)
Realistic Unit
Capacity (95%)
Lower
Income Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
1 31623027 0.64 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 42 35 14 6 15 2 36903005 0.47 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 31 29 12 5 12 3 32634047 1.09 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 71 67 27 11 29 4 35907006 0.32 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 21 20 8 3 9 5 37506006 1.71 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 137 130 53 21 56 6 37506007 0.96 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 77 73 30 12 31 7 31621031 1.81 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 118 112 46 18 48 8 31623026 1.78 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 116 110 45 18 47 9 32632050 0.83 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 54 51 21 8 22 10 32627053 0.75 Transportation T 0 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 49 40 40 11 32336018 0.42 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 35 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 27 26 11 4 11 12 31604064 0.44 Res Low 1-5 A1-43 5 MD - Medium Density R3/TH 10.01 20 9 8 4 4 13 32607022 1.64 Commercial P(CG) 15 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 131 125 51 20 54 14 32607030 0.92 Commercial BQ 15 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 74 70 29 11 30 15 32607031 0.24 Commercial P(CG) 15 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 19 18 7 3 8 16 32607036 1.74 Commercial P(CG) 15 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 139 132 54 21 57 17 36937022 0.39 Medium (10-20 DU/Ac) R3 20 VHD - Very High Density R4 50.01 65 25 24 10 4 10 18 36937023 0.22 Medium (10-20 DU/Ac) R3 20 MHD - Medium High DensityHD - High Density R3/THR3 20.0135.01 3550 811 710 12 68 19 36937024 0.17 Medium (10-20 DU/Ac) R3 20 MHD - Medium High DensityHD - High Density R3/THR3 20.0135.01 3550 69 68 11 57
20 36934053 0.54 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 15 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 19 18 7 3 8 21 35918044 0.26 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 17 16 7 3 6 22 36610121 1.34 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 MHD - Medium High Density R4 3/TH 20.01 35 47 45 18 7 20 23 36610137 0.92 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 MHD - Medium High Density R4 3/TH 20.01 35 32 31 13 5 13 24 36619047 2.33 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 151 144 59 23 62 25 36619078 0.08 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 5 5 1 4 26 35909017 1.00 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 65 62 25 10 27 27 31620088 5.16 Reg Shopping CG 0 VHD - Very High Density R4 50.01 65 335 319 207 112 0 28 35913019 0.99 Res Low 1-5 R1-10 5 MD - Medium Density R3 10.01 20 20 19 8 3 8 29 35606001 0.73 Res Low 1-5 R1-7.5 5 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 26 24 10 4 10 30 35606002 0.69 Res Low 1-5 R1-7.5 5 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 24 23 9 4 10 31 35606003 0.25 Res Low 1-5 R1-7.5 5 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 9 8 5 3 32 35606004 0.87 Res Low 1-5 R1-7.5 5 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 30 29 12 5 12 33 36231001 0.25 Res Medium 10-20 P(R3) 20 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 9 8 1 7 34 36231030 0.23 Res Medium 10-20 P(R3) 20 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 8 8 1 7 35 32720034 1.34 Res Low 1-5 R1-10 5 LM - Low Medium R3/TH 5.01 10 13 13 2 11 Total 1,963 1855928 833 360311 651819
SOURCE: City of Cupertino, September 2023.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐15

Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
1 316 23 027 20149 Stevens
Creek Blvd
Commercial building and
unpermitted warehouse
(Sun Design Center)
Yes n/a 1957, aged
Site 1 is located in the Heart of the City – Central Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd and approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include two commercial structures. One of the commercial structures, a concrete tilt-up, currently a kitchen and bathroom remodel store, was built in 1957 and is in very aged condition, with no exterior improvement made, but not dilapidated condition, and the other is a wooden warehouse that is unpermitted. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.72 so development on this site is considered feasible.
2 369 03 005 20010 Stevens
Creek Blvd Commercial building Yes n/a 1955. Aged building Site 2 is located in the Heart of the City – Central Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd. Site 2 is located in the central core area approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include a commercial structure, currently a breakfast restaurant. The building was constructed in 1955 and while not dilapidated, is not in good shape. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial and multi-family residential buildings. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.17 so development on this site is considered feasible. 3 326 34 047 10125 Bandley Dr Restaurant Yes n/a 1979. Aged building Site 3 is a 1.09-acre site located in the Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Center, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd and approximately 0.5 mile east of De Anza College. The site currently has a commercial building that was constructed in 1979 that is aged but not dilapidated. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial and multi-family residential uses. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.41 so development on this site is considered feasible.
4 359 07 006 20950 Stevens
Creek Blvd Single tenant retail Yes n/a
1966, Aged
borderline
dilapidated
Site 4 is a 0.32-acre site located in the Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Center, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd. and is approximately 0.5 mile east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include a commercial structure. The existing structure was constructed in 1966 and is borderline dilapidated. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial and multi-family residential uses. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.17 so development on this site is considered feasible.
5 375 06 006 19220 Stevens
Creek Blvd Commercial Offices Yes n/a 1970, aged and
dated
Sites 5 and 6 are two parcels totaling 2.67 acres located in the Heart of the City – East Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd. Existing uses on the site include two commercial structures. Site 5 includes an office building that was constructed in 1970, currently occupied by a childcare facility. Site 6 is developed with an office building, currently occupied by law offices, that was constructed in 1969. The owner of the two parcels has expressed continued interest in redeveloping the sites. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for these parcels are 0.38 (Site 5) and less than 0.01 (Site 6) so development on this site is considered feasible. 6 375 06 007 19300 Stevens
Creek Blvd Commercial Offices Yes n/a 1969, aged and
dated
7 316 21 031 19875 Stevens
Creek Blvd
Cort Furniture and
childcare. Yes n/a 1964
Site 7 is a 1.81-acre parcel located in the Heart of the City Special Area – Central Special Center, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses located approximately 1.25 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on Site 7 include a commercial building with a furniture rental store and a day care center, and associated parking. The building was constructed in 1964 and is a concrete tilt up with very little improvements on the exterior. Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. Several developers have expressed interest in redeveloping the site and discussed potential with City staff. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.43 so development on this site is considered feasible.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐16

Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
8 316 23 026 20111 Stevens
Creek Blvd Office building.

No response
received Yes,
active
conversation
with property
owner,
conversations
with interested
developer in
Fall 2023.
n/a 1982
Site 8 is a 1.78-acre parcel located in the Heart of the City Special Area – Central Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. Site 8 is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, approximately one mile east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include a dentist’s office and associated parking, adjacent to Site 1. The building was constructed in 1982 and has had minimal upgrades.

Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. The property is on the same block 11051 N, Blaney, which has an application on file for a 5-story, 85-unit/acre apartment development. Developers have contacted the City about the possibility of redeveloping this site. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement- land value ratio for this site is 0.80 so development on this site is considered feasible. 9 326 32 050 20883 Stevens
Creek Blvd Office building. No response
received n/a 1981
Site 9 is a 0.83-acre parcel located in the Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. Site 9 is located approximately 0.25 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include an office building. The building is occupied by a tech company and was constructed in 1981. The site is across the street from a pipeline project (Bianchi) and two vacant commercial buildings (former Fontana’s Restaurant and Pizza Hut) that are strong redevelopment candidates. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, with single-family uses and amenities in close proximity. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 19.72 so development on this site may be a challenge; however, due to the nearby presence of a pipeline project and the potential for redevelopment of other nearby parcels in this corridor, it is estimated that this will not be a barrier to redevelopment. Current trends are showing there is a lot of interest in developing near this site. Redevelopment of small, dated buildings is occurring across the street which includes an SB330 preliminary application to redevelop three existing buildings (two restaurants and one larger format commercial building) with associated parking lots and an approved townhome development in the vicinity.
10 326 27 053 Mary Ave site Vacant Yes. City
Owned n/a n/a
Site 10 is located in the Garden Gate neighborhood and is located east of Highway 85. Presently, the site is a new parcel carved out from unused right-of-way, owned by the City of Cupertino, adjacent to Highway 85 that includes some on-street parking. Neighboring uses include multi-family residential uses, a dog park, condominiums and Highway 85.

In response to an October 2022 RFP for projects for this property, the site has an active proposal for a 40-unit, two-story affordable (100% Low and Very Low Income) housing project developed by Cupertino Rotary Housing Corporation, Housing Choices Coalition, and Charities Housing. The project will include 18 units for residents with intellectual or developmental disabilities.

This site does not have a current assessed land or improvement value, so an improvement-land value ratio could not be calculated for this site.
11 323 36 018 11025 N De Anza
Blvd Vacant Yes n/a 1960
Site 11 is a 0.42-acre parcel located in the Homestead Road Special Area, which is predominantly multi-family homes and commercial uses.

Site 11 is located north of Interstate 280 at the northwest corner of Homestead Road and Sunnvale-Saratoga Road. The small commercial structure that previously occupied this site was recently demolished and the site is now vacant. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include multi-family homes and a variety of commercial structures. The property is close to the Apple Campus and close to bus lines on De Anza and Homestead Rd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0 due to the lack of improvements on the site, so development is considered feasible.
12 316 04 064 19820 Homestead
Rd Single Family Residential Yes n/a 1954, borderline
dilapidated
Site 12 is a 0.44-acre site located in the Homestead Road Special Area, which is predominantly multi-family homes and commercial uses located immediately north of Interstate 280. Existing uses on Site 12 include a single-family home that was built in 1954 and is borderline dilapidated. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include similar single-family homes. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.02 so development is considered feasible.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐17

Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
13 326 07 022 [no address] Church - tennis courts Yes n/a Sites 13 and 16 are 1.64 and 1.74-acre parcels, respectively, that are located in the Homestead Road Special Area, as are Sites 14 and 15.

Sites 14 and 15 are two adjacent parcels totaling 1.16 acres. This area is predominantly multi-family homes and commercial uses located immediately north of Interstate 280. Existing uses on the site include tennis courts, parking, and a vacant lot. The parcels have the potential to either develop separately or as a consolidated lot, though it is likely that sites 14 and 15 would develop as a consolidated lot due to their sizes and arrangement. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping these four sites together. Neighboring uses include a church sanctuary and parking lot, a new bank building, older office buildings and an electrical power substation. Additionally, a neighborhood center is located across Homestead Road in the City of Sunnyvale. The sites would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for all four parcels is 0 as there is no assessed improvement value.
14 326 07 030 [no address] Church parking lot Yes n/a
15 326 07 031 [no address] Church parking lot Yes n/a
16 326 07 036 [no address] Outdoor sand courts on
Church property. Yes n/a
17 369 37 022 20421 Bollinger Rd Vacant lot Yes n/a Vacant lot Sites 53 (see mixed-use zoning inventory), 17, 18 and 19 are adjacent parcels, owned by the same property owner, located on the north side of Bollinger Road just east of South DeAnza Boulevard. The South Blaney Neighborhood includes a mix of single- and multi-family housing and commercial use. Existing uses on the sites include a commercial structure and residential/duplex uses. Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. Site 17 is currently vacant. The owner of sites 18 and 19 has expressed interest in developing townhomes on all or part of this site Sites 18 and 19. Site 19 currently has a single-family house constructed in 1940 that appears aged but not yet dilapidated. The current use of Site 18 is a duplex that is aged but not yet dilapidated; the age of this house is unknown. Site 53, which is adjacent to Sites 17, 18, and 19, is a vacant commercial building (former Taco Bell – with no interest in re-leasing this building from the property owner) that was built in 1991 and is in need of repair, though not yet dilapidated and is a site that is generating regular code enforcement inquiries due to its unmaintained appearance. The property owner has expressed consistent and strong interest in developing the properties and has met with City staff to discuss potential and options. The site has excellent access to amenities and bus service on De Anza Blvd and Bollinger Rd. The sites would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for Site 17 is 0 as there is no assessed improvement value. Sites 18 and 19 have improvement-land value ratios of 2.00 and 2.44, respectively. While this is higher than the default assumption of redevelopment feasibility, the owner’s proactive interest in redevelopment is considered sufficient to overcome this high improvement value ratio. 18 369 37 023 20411 Bollinger Rd Duplex Yes n/a Mid-1950s/60s, Aged
19 369 37 024 20431 Bollinger Rd Single Family Home (legal non-conforming) Yes n/a Mid-1950s/60s,
Aged
20 369 34 053 10891 S Blaney
Ave Strip Mall Yes n/a 1961, GoodAged
condition
Site 20 is a 0.54-acre parcel in the South Blaney Neighborhood, which is a mix of single- and multi-family housing and commercial uses located immediately north of Bollinger Road at the intersection of Bollinger Road and S. Blaney Ave. The site is 0.4 miles from De Anza Blvd and 0.6 miles from Miller Ave, both of which have amenities at the intersection. Existing uses on the site include a commercial structure that was built in 1961 and is in fair condition. Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. There have been multiple developer/broker contacts regarding this site since late 2022. This site and Site 52 have the same owner and the two properties couldwill likely be consolidated or redeveloped jointly with site 52. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.28 so development is considered feasible. 21 359 18 044 10619 South De
Anza Blvd Strip mall Yes n/a 1966, Aged
Site 21 is a 0.26-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on the Site 21 include commercial uses, including a hair salon, small café, and massage store. There is also an associated parking lot. The building was constructed in 1966 and is in aged but not in dilapidated condition. The owner has expressed interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and De Anza Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.34 so development is considered feasible.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐18

Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
22 366 10 121 1505 S De Anza
Blvd
Commercial, Kelly-Moore
Paints No. Yes For sale 1965
Site 22 is a 1.34-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, and is very underutilized. The site is developed with a dated industrial building, originally a lumber yard, that has had a succession of short-term commercial tenants and is now vacant. The most recent current occupant wais a paint store. The property has a large surface parking area with worn paving that has few cars present during business hours (Site 23). The site is located along a stretch of De Anza Blvd. where most sites are redevelopment candidates. The east side of DeAnza Blvd. Is in the City of San Jose, where strip malls and similar under-performing commercial sites are currently being redeveloped with residential uses. The building was constructed in 1965. The owner has been contacted, but the City has not yet received a response regarding their interest in redeveloping the property. However, a recent entitlement for property approximately 750 feet south of this property at 1655 S.

De Anza was approved in 2023 by the City, in which a strip mall was redeveloped with a mixed-use residential development. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, multi-family uses, and De Anza Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.25 so development is considered feasible.

Site 22 is located adjacent to site 23 which is currently surface parking. City staff attended two meeting with a Long Beach based developer, Linc Housing, in March 2024. The developer expressed interest in doing a 100 percent affordable project and informed staff that the owner is aggressively marketing the site for housing development. Staff has an additional meeting with the prospective developer’s team later in March. 23 366 10 137 [no address] Parking lot behind
KinderCare
Yes. The
property owner
has been
interested in
developing
with residential
in the past 2
years.
n/a n/a
Site 23 is a 0.92-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, adjacent to Site 22, which hais active interest to develop an affordable housing project. The surrounding area is predominantly low-intensity commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. The existing use on Site 23 is a parking lot located behind a day care center, the site does not have any structures of its own but provides parking for adjacent low-density uses. Neighboring uses include commercial and residential uses and De Anza Blvd. The owner has been contacted regarding their interest in redeveloping this site, but a response has not yet been received. In the past, however, this property owner has been interested in redeveloping this property with residential uses. However, a recent entitlement for adjacent property at 1655 S. De Anza was approved in 2023 by the City, in which a strip mall was redeveloped with a mixed-use residential development. While the site is not eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) due to frontage requirements of the law, the property is adjacent to other property which are eligible for such development and therefore, contiguous development is anticipated. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0 as there is no assessed improvement value.
24 366 19 047 1361 S De Anza
Blvd Yamagami's Nursery Yes n/a
1960
Sites 24 and 25 are a 2.33-acre parcel and a 0.08-acre parcel, respectively, located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses, a dated nursery building, located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on Sites 24 and 25 include a nursery and an associated parking lot. The nursery was constructed in 1960 and is a dated building. The owner has expressed ana strong interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, single-family units, townhome units, and De Anza Blvd, and new residential development in the City of San Jose. The site has fair access to amenities and bus service along De Anza Blvd. While the site is not eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) due to proximity to freeway limitations of the law, the property owner interest for redevelopment is strong. The improvement-land value ratio for Site 24 is 0.11 and 0 for Site 25 (no assessed improvement value), so development is considered feasible.
25 366 19 078 No address Portion of Yamagami's
site Yes n/a
26 359 09 017 10105 S De Anza
Blvd Commercial Offices Yes n/a
1977, older building
with no significant
improvements
Site 26 is a one-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on Site 26 include a commercial building and parking lot. The current commercial building was constructed in 1977 and remains in goodfair condition. The site is located 0.5 miles from De Anza College and Apple’s Infinite Loop Campus. There are several offices located within walking distance of the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, multi-family units, and De Anza Blvd. The owner has expressed an active interest in redeveloping this property. The site has excellent access to amenities and rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd and other bus service along De Anza Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.42 so development is considered feasible.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐19

Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
27 316 20 088 [no address] Vacant site with parking
lot, north of Vallco site Yes n/a n/a
Site 27 is a 5.16-acre parcel located in the Vallco Shopping District, which is predominantly commercial uses located south of Interstate 280 along Wolfe Road. The site is presently a vacant lot. The owner has expressed interest in transferring this property to Santa Clara County to allow the redevelopment of this site with affordable housing development, including teacher housing. Neighboring uses include single-family uses, Wolfe Road, and the Interstate 280 corridor. The site has excellent access to planned amenities, is adjacent to a significant pipeline project (Vallco/The Rise), and is in close proximity to rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd and other bus service along Wolfe Road.

While the site is not eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) due to proximity to freeway limitations of the law, the property owner interest for redevelopment is strong. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0 due to a lack of assessed improvement value, so development is considered feasible. The site is owned by Santa Clara County and in December 2023 released an Request For Offers (RFO) for an affordable housing development on the site. In January 2024, the County selected Eden Housing as the developer for the site, with the objective of having a fully-entitled project prior to the end of the 2024 calendar year. The County included the City in the RFO and developer selection process and Eden Housing has, as of February, begun having regular meetings with the City on its community outreach strategy and refining their plans to develop an all affordable housing project with units affordable to lower and moderate-income households.

Based on this the City has allocated the capacity on the site accordingly. 28 359 13 019 20865 Mcclellan Rd Single Family Residential Yes n/a 1957, Aged
borderline
dilapidated
Site 28 is a 0.99-acre parcel located in the Jollyman Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately south of the De Anza College campus and east of the Highway 85 corridor. Site 29 currently includes a single-family home built close to the McClellan Road right-of-way with a large rear yard. Neighboring uses include single-family housing. A developer has made contact with the City regarding the development of townhomes on this property since 2021, with continued interest for development in 2023. The site has good access to amenities within 0.25-0.5 miles of the site and has fair access to bus service at De Anza College. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.02 so development is considered feasible. 29 356 06 001 10857 Linda Vista
Dr Single Family Residential Yes n/a
1947- 1954, Aged
Borderline
Dilapidated
Sites 29 through 32 are contiguous parcels located in the Monta Vista North Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately east of the foothills. The individual parcels range in size from 0.25 acres to 0.87 acres. Existing uses on the site include four occupied single-family homes built between 1947 and 1957. Neighboring uses include tennis courts, a golf course, and single-family homes. The current physical condition of these houses is borderline dilapidated. The four parcels are adjacent to each other and have common ownership, and there has been active developer interest in developing this area into townhomes. The existing cul-de-sac (Evulich Ct.) could also be incorporated into the development and the City could consider selling this right of way to the developer for development purposes to allow a cohesive and contiguous site planning. Property owners have attended almost all housing element meetings to ensure parcels are included on the sites inventory list. The improvement-land value ratio for these sites are 0.84 (Site 29), 1.01 (Site 30), 0.89 (Site 31), and 0.51 (Site 32), for a combined ratio of 0.80, so development is considered feasible. 30 356 06 002 10867 Linda Vista
Dr Single Family Residential Yes n/a
1947- 1954, Aged
Borderline
Dilapidated
31 356 06 003 10877 Linda Vista
Dr Single Family Residential Yes n/a
1947- 1954, Aged
Borderline
Dilapidated
32 356 06 004 10887 Linda Vista
Dr Single Family Residential Yes n/a
1947- 1954, Aged
Borderline
Dilapidated
33 362 31 001 20666 Cleo Ave Single Family Residential Yes n/a 1951, good condition
Site 33 is a 0.25-acre site located in the Monta Vista South Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately southwest of SR 85. Site 34 is currently developed with an occupied one single-family residence that was constructed in 1951. This lot is similar in size to another lot on this street where a Habitat for Humanity development was developed on a site and another lot where a developer is proposing 4 townhomes. The existing structure on the property is legal non-conforming and any improvements must comply with existing multi-family zoning, which the property owner is unwilling to do. THowever, the current property owner is interested in redeveloping the site in its entirety and as a result the zoning is being updated to allow townhome development on the site to make the site more attractive for development, similar to the one being considered approximately 200 feet to the east of this site.. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.02 so development is considered feasible.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐20

Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
34 362 31 030 [no address] Also
on Cleo Vacant Yes. n/a 1950's, good
condition
Site 34 is a 0.23-acre parcel located in the Monta Vista South Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately west of Highway 85. The irregularly-shaped parcel is currently undeveloped and vacant. Neighboring uses include single-family and duplex homes. This lot is similar in size to another lot on this street where a Habitat for Humanity development was developed on a site and another lot where a developer is proposing 4 townhomes. The zoning is being updated to allow townhome development on the site to make the site more attractive for development, similar to the one being considered approximately 60 feet to the south of this site. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0 due to a lack of improvements, so development is considered feasible. 35 3276 20 034 10231 Adriana Ave Single Family Residential Yes n/a Single Family Residential
Site 35 is a 1.34 acre-parcel currently occupied with a Single-Family Residential unit. The property owner recently inherited the property and is very motivated to redevelop the site with higher density residential. The owner most recently reiterated the intention to develop the property in September 2023. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 4.44. However, due to the owner’s recent interest, this is not considered a barrier to development.

SOURCE: City of Cupertino, September 2023
Table B4-9 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones
Site
ID APN Acres Existing General Plan
Designation
Existing Zoning
Designation
Current
Maximum
Allowed
Density
Proposed General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Minimum
Density
(du/acre)
Proposed
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Maximum
Unit
Capacity
Realistic
Unit
Capacity
(75%)
Lower-
Income Units
Moderate-
Income Units
Above
Moderate-
Income Units
36 316 23 093 1.35 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 88 132 30 102 37 316 23 036 0.24 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 38 369 06 002 0.9 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 72 54 31 23 39 369 06 003 0.53 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 42 32 18 14 40 369 06 004 1.29 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 103 77 44 33 41 359 10 015 1.18 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 77 58 24 9 25 42 359 10 060 0.98 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 64 48 20 8 20 43 359 10 044 0.18 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 12 9 5 4 44 359 08 025 0.83 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 54 40 16 6 18 45 359 08 026 0.45 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 29 22 9 4 9 46 359 08 027 0.87 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 57 42 17 7 18 47 359 08 028 0.85 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 55 41 17 7 17 48* 359 08 029 0.92 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 60 45 18 7 20 49 326 09 052 0.74 Commercial P(CG) 35 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 59 44 18 7 19 50 326 09 060 2.75 Commercial P(Rec/Enter) Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 220 165 68 26 71 51 326 09 061 1.12 Commercial P(CG) 35 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 90 67 27 11 29 52 369 34 052 2.70 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 15 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 176 132 54 21 57 53 369 37 028 0.56 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 36 27 11 4 12 54 366 19 055 0.40 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 Commercial/Residential - MH P (CG/R3/TH) 20.01 35 14 11 7 4 APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐21

Table B4-9 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones
Site
ID APN Acres Existing General Plan
Designation
Existing Zoning
Designation
Current
Maximum
Allowed
Density
Proposed General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Minimum
Density
(du/acre)
Proposed
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Maximum
Unit
Capacity
Realistic
Unit
Capacity
(75%)
Lower-
Income Units
Moderate-
Income Units
Above
Moderate-
Income Units
55 366 19 053 0.56 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 Commercial/Residential - MH P (CG/R3/TH) 20.01 35 20 15 6 2 7 56 366 19 054 1.75 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 Commercial/Residential - MH P (CG/R3/TH) 20.01 35 61 46 19 7 20 57 316 05 050 1.02 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 82 61 25 10 26 58 316 05 051 0.62 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 50 37 15 6 16 59 316 05 052 0.73 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 58 44 18 7 19 60 316 05 053 0.92 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 74 55 23 9 23 61 316 05 056 6.94 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 555 416 171 67 178 62 316 05 072 0.54 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 43 32 8 24 63 359 20 028 0.75 Quasi-Public BQ 0 Commercial/Residential - MH P (CG/R3) 20.01 35 26 20 8 3 9 Total 2,276 1,772 596 614 436 443 695 715
SOURCE: City of Cupertino, September 2023
NOTE: *The City is not relying on site 48 to accommodate the RHNA and capacity is not reflected in Table B4-12.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐22

Table B4-10 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones – Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
36 316 23 093 20007 Stevens Creek
Blvd Commercial buildings Yes n/a 1978. Sites 36 and 37 are two parcels located in the Heart of the City - Central Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. These sites are approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College and located about halfway between Apple’s Infinite Loop and Apple Park campuses. The parcels are 1.35 and 0.24 acres, respectively. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and multi-family residential. Existing uses on the site include a childcare center in one building and two vacant commercial buildings. The building was constructed in 1978. In May 2023 the property owner expressed an interest in redeveloping the site.

The City is currently reviewing a project application under Builder’s Remedy for a 141 unit rental development. Based on the pending application, it is estimated that 141 units, with 20% lower income units, in a 5-story building, could be developed on this site. The site has excellent access to amenities and rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for Site 36 is 0.22 and 0.40 for Site 37, so development is considered feasible. 37 316 23 036 10051 N Blaney Ave Childcare center Yes n/a 1969. Tenant
improvements in
2020.
38 369 06 002 19610 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Strip Mall (House of
Falafel)
Yes n/a
1960, aged. No
improvements made
to structures since
construction.

Sites 38, 39, and 40 are a set of three parcels totaling 2.72 acres located in the Heart of the City – East Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. The Sites are located 1.5 miles east of De Anza College and a little under 1 mile south of the Apple Park campus, and range in size from 0.53 acres to 1.29 acres. Existing uses on the site include commercial buildings built in the 1960s and are aged, but not yet dilapidated. The strip mall portion has vacancies. Neighboring uses include a variety of commercial buildings and single-family homes. As of September 2023, the parcels are under contract negotiations with Toll Brothers, an established residential developer with the intent to develop townhomes for a mix of income levels. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The site has excellent access to amenities and rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd and lends development at densities greater than townhome densities. The improvement-land value ratios for these sites are 0.03 (Site 38), 0.05 (Site 39), and less than 0.01 (Site 40) so development is considered feasible.
39 369 06 003 10071 E Estates Dr Commercial building
(United Furniture)
40 369 06 004 10075 E Estates Dr United Furniture parking lot
41 359 10 015 10133 S De Anza Blvd
Strip mall north of Vardy's
Shopping Center (S&G
Carpet)
Yes n/a
1952, with some
improvements in
1970. No additional
improvements since.

Aged.

Site 41 is a 1.18-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. The site is located approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College and about 1 mile south of the Apple Infinite loop campus. Site 42 is located approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include a bank, restaurant, and assorted commercial uses along with associated parking. The owner has recently expressed an interest in redeveloping the site.

Neighboring uses include commercial uses and single-family uses. It is anticipated that the site cwould be designed with live/work units fronting S. De Anza Blvd to retain the “commercial” look along South De Anza Blvd corridor. The site has excellent access to amenities and is close to rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd and other bus service along De Anza Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 2.30; however, due to the lack of improvements over the past 50 years it is estimated that this will not be a barrier to redevelopment.
42 359 10 060 10211 S De Anza Blvd Vardy'’s shopping center.

No. There has
been interest
expressed
from
developers
and brokers
regarding
developing the
site with
housing or a
mixed-use
project.
n/a 1960, aged
Site 42 is a 0.98-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. Site 42 is located approximately 0.65 miles east of De Anza College and about 1 mile south of the Apple Infinite loop campus. The site is developed with an older, partially occupied shopping center, including one vacancy and a sandwich shop and associated parking. Neighboring uses include both commercial and single-family uses. It is anticipated that Live/Work type units cwould be designed on the site, given its location on the South DeAnza Boulevard corridor. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. There has been interest expressed from developers and brokers regarding in developing the site with housing or a mixed-use project. The site has excellent access to amenities and is close to rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd and other bus service along De Anza Blvd. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 1.30, but due to the potential for co-development with Site 43, it is not estimated that this will be a barrier to redevelopment. Current trends are showing there is a lot of interest for these types of sites, older shopping centers with a high turnover rate. Neighboring site 41 is for sale and there is a developer interested in a 100 percent affordable project. This site has a similar make up to sites 42 and 43. The owner of sites 42 is elderly and runs a family-owned business.

There is a currently vacant storefront which occupies a big portion of the center.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐23

Table B4-10 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones – Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
43 359 10 044 10201 S. De Anza Blvd Acupuncture Clinic No. There has
been
expressed
interest from
developers
interested in
developing the
site.
n/a 1953, aged
Site 43 is a 0.18-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Site 43 is located approximately 0.65 miles east of De Anza College and about 1 mile south of the Apple Infinite loop campus. Existing uses on Site 43 include a standalone commercial building occupied by an acupuncture clinic and associated parking lot. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, single-family uses, and De Anza Blvd. Could develop in conjunction with Site 4342 and it is anticipated that this could be developed with live/work units. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. There has been expressed interest from developers interested in developing the site. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.21 so development is considered feasible. Current trends are showing there is a lot of interest for these types of sites, older shopping centers with a high turnover rate. Neighboring site 41 is for sale and there is a developer interested in a 100 percent affordable project. This site has a similar make up to sites 42 and 43. Based on the developer interest in this area, there is a high probability of this site developing in conjunction with site 42.
44 359 08 025 20840 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Commercial building
(former Fontana’s
restaurant)
No
n/a 1996
Sites 44 through 48 are a set of five parcels totaling 13.73 acres, of which only the western most 3.92 acres are expected to be redeveloped. In particular, only a portion of site 47 is anticipated to be rezoned to allow residential units. These parcels are located in the Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Center, which consists of predominantly commercial uses located both north and south sides of Stevens Creek Blvd. The sites are located within 0.3 mile of De Anza College to the east and within 0.8 miles of Apple’s Infinite Loop and Bandley campuses to the north. Existing uses on the Sites 44 through 48 include commercial buildings and associated surface parking areas. At least one commercial building (former Pizza Hut) on these sites has been vacant for the past seven years and is in dilapidated condition near the Stevens Creek right-of-way, and another commercial business (Fontana’s Restaurant) in this development closed during the COVID-19 pandemic and has remained unoccupied since that time. The City Council, Planning Commission and many residents have indicated support for the redevelopment of the western portion of this site with housing during the extensive public hearings and community outreach done for the Housing Element update in 2022-23. The extant buildings are of mixed quality, but some are in very poor condition. While site 48 has a newer building, due to the proximity of the site to potential neighboring development, the site could be redeveloped together with the adjacent sites as a mixed-use development. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, with single-family uses in close proximity. The site has excellent access to amenities and is close to rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. Improvement- land value ratios for these parcels are 0.65 (Site 44), 0 (Site 45), 4.20 (Site 46), 2.79 (Site 47), and 2.60 (Site 48), for a combined ratio of 2.38. However, because only portions of the more developed sites are expected to redevelop, it is not estimated that the existence of these improvements will be a barrier to redevelopment. As of January 2024, sites 44 through 47 have a preliminary SB 330 application on file, which indicates interest in development, but the project has not yet been finalized or approved. As previously mentioned, the sites are part of a larger property that is owned by the same long term ownership group. There is interest in beginning to divest some of their interests. Additionally, there has been another project in the vicinity already approved for a townhome development within a few hundred yards of Site 48. 45 359 08 026 20830 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Parking lot in front of
Staples n/a n/a
46 359 08 027 No address Staples building n/a 1996
47 359 08 028 20690 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Crossroads Shopping
Center (Former Pizza Hut
building and surrounding
parking lots, and western
parking lot only)
n/a n/a
48* 359 08 029 20750 Stevens Creek
Blvd Dish’n’Dash Restaurant No n/a 2012
49 326 09 052 20916 Homestead Rd Strip Mall
No. Developer
interest as of
Dec. 2023.
n/a 1984, Aged not
dilapidated
Sites 49, 50, and 51 are three parcels totaling 4.61 acres, lo cated on the east side of Stelling Road, immediately south of Homestead Road. The parcels range in size from 0.74 to 2.75 acre s and are located directly across Stelling Road from Sites 13- 16, establishing a large swath of redevelopment sites at a major intersection and gateway to the City from neighboring Sunnyvale.

The sites are located 1 mile north of De Anza College and within 0.8 miles of Apple’s Infinite Loop and Bandley campuses to the southeast. There has not been any reinvestment in the properties and there is a high turnover rate of the current businesses. There are no long-term establishments. The surrounding area is pred ominantly single- and multi-family homes, including adjacent 50 326 09 060 20990 Homestead Rd Strip Mall and Bowling Alley
No. Developer
interest as of
Dec. 2023.
n/a 1976, Aged not
dilapidated
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐24

Table B4-10 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones – Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
51 326 09 061 20956 Homestead Rd Strip Mall
No. Developer
interest as of
Dec. 2023.
n/a 1979, dated
apartment complexes, along with commercial uses located north of Interstate 280. Current uses include retail buildings constructed in 1984, 1979 and 1976. The buildings are aged but not dilapidated, though it is expected that the commercial uses would be redeveloped along with the parking area. There have been no façade improvements to the structures since the 1980s. Site 50, the largest of the four sites, is owned by a large housing developer and is currently occupied by a bowling alley located on the property which has not had any improvements since the late 1990s. Due to shared parking easements and the fact that the properties are not owned by the same owner, the parcels have the potential to either develop separately or as a consolidated site. The two strip centers are occupied by several ethnic food uses and there is frequent turnover in the tenancy. Neighboring uses include residential and commercial uses. There have been multiple developers interested in these sites as of September 2023. The site has excellent access to most amenities, with only fair access to parks located within the City of Cupertino city limits, and is close to bus service on Homestead Road and De Anza Blvd. Two of the three parcels would be eligible for by-right residential development under AB2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone and due to adjacency of the third parcel, it makes sense to consider this a s one site. This site is across the street from Sites 13 and 14 for which there is owner interest. Improvement-land value ratios for these parcels are 0.30 (Site 49), 0.03 (Site 50), and 0.75 (Site 51), so development is considered feasible.

In summary, Sites 49, 50, and 51 are viewed by real estate agents and developers as one site for redevelopment, and although this is made of up three separate parcels, would develop as one. The City will also incentivize lot consolidation through program HE-1.3.7 to assist with the development of affordable housing on this site and make development more financially feasible. Site 51 is 1.12 acres, irregularly-irregularly shaped, landlocked with only a drive aisle out to Stelling Road. Given its configuration and access it cannot redevelop independently. Site 50, presently occupied with a derelict bowling alley and bar, is 60 percent of the total site area and was acquired by Barry Swenson, a major Northern California home developer, in late 2021. In order to redevelop the overall 4.61-acre site access to Homestead Road from Sites 50 and 51 will be needed, which requires the inclusion of Site 49, the smallest of the three parcels. The tenants on Sites 49 and 51 are a mix of underperforming restaurants and a nail salon, typical of the strip commercial centers located along the City’s major transportation corridors that City staff has been receiving inquiries about for redevelopment as higher-density housing. There have been two broker inquiries since December 2023 regarding the potential for housing development on this site, including all of the three parcels (49,50, and 51). 52 369 34 052 10787 S Blaney Ave Strip Mall
No. City staff
has had three
conversations
with
developers
regarding this
site over the
past 6 months.
n/a 1961, Aged not
dilapidated
Site 52 is a 2.70-acre parcel located adjacent to Site 20. Sites 52 and 20 are under the same ownership. The site is 0.4 miles from De Anza Blvd and 0.6 miles from Miller Ave, both of which have amenities at the intersection. Existing uses on the site include commercial structures. There is a strip mall on the site, but the owner and several developers have expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. The site has access to bus service on Bollinger Road. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio is 0.36, so development is considered feasible. This site has had numerous ongoing inquiries from developers and brokers about redeveloping. The majority of the strip mall is in poor condition and dated beyond renovation. 53 369 37 028 10710 S De Anza Blvd Vacant Taco Bell building Yes n/a 1991, Aged not dilapidated
Site 53 is a 0.56-acre parcel located adjacent to Sites 17, 18 and 19. Existing uses on the site include a vacant commercial building which was formerly occupied by Taco Bell. The property owner has expressed an interest in 2022 and 2023 in redeveloping the site and has remained committed to not re-leasing the property for commercial uses. The site has excellent access to amenities and bus service on De Anza Blvd and Bollinger Rd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio is 0.04, so development is considered feasible.
54 366 19 055 1471 S De Anza Blvd
Commercial Building (red
barn). Same owner as
Summerwinds Nursery
Yes n/a
Sites 54, 55, and 56 are located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Sites 55 and 56 are 0.56- and 1.75-acre parcels, respectively, and are the site of Summerwinds Nursery. The nursery was built in 1978 and is aged but not yet dilapidated. Other locations (Sunnyvale and the Almaden area of San Jose, both cities neighboring Cupertino) of the Summerwinds chain of nurseries have recently closed and have redeveloped with housing. Site 54 is a 0.40-acre parcel owned by the same owner as the Summerwinds nursery but is operated independently.

Existing uses on Site 54 include a commercial use and parking lot. The current building was constructed in 1968, and, like the nursery, is aged but not yet dilapidated. Due to its proximity to the other sites, it is expected to redevelop at the same time as the 55 366 19 053 1491 S De Anza Blvd Summerwinds Nursery Yes n/a 1978, Aged not dilapidated
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐25

Table B4-10 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones – Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
56 366 19 054 1491 S De Anza Blvd Summerwinds Nursery Yes n/a 1978, Aged not dilapidated
nursery site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and De Anza Blvd. The owner of these sites has reached out in recent years. This site has also been of interest to housing developers. Sites 22-25 are adjacent to the south and north of this property.

The site has fair access to amenities and bus service on De Anza Blvd. Two of the three sites (Sites 54 and 56) would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. Improvement-land value ratios for these sites are 0.07 (Site 54), 0 (Site 55, with no assessed improvement value), and 0.06 (Site 56), so development is considered feasible.
57 316 05 050 10989 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center
Yes
n/a 1969, Aged not
dilapidated
Site 57 to 62 are located in the North Vallco Park Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located north of Interstate 280 and immediately west of the Apple Park Campus. The six parcels range in size from 0.54 acres to 6.87 acres. All six parcels are owned by the same entity, and the owner has expressed a strong interest in redeveloping a portion of this this site to include residential uses while maintaining much of the commercial portions of the development and is planning to pursue entitlements once the site has been rezoned. Existing uses on the site include commercial uses, many of which were constructed in the late 1960s. Neighboring uses include existing apartments, single-family uses, a Church, some commercial buildings in the City of Sunnyvale and the Apple Park Campus. The existing 99 Ranch commercial building and a standalone commercial (bank/Starbucks) building is are expected to be demolished and replaced with a new building with the 99 Ranch store on the first floor and apartments above at the northeast corner of the site. In a later phase, the owner intends to demolish an older building adjacent to a parking garage and build an all-residential structure. The owner has indicated an interest in the development of just over 300 units and a minimum of 115,000 s.f. of commercial uses. It is anticipated that a maximum of between 2.75 and 3 acres of the existing property, in two different locations will be rezoned to allow the maximum of 310 residential units that the property owner anticipates constructing on this site. The site has excellent access to amenities but less access to park space and has access to bus service along Homestead Road and Wolfe Road. Neighboring uses include single-family and Wolfe Road. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone.

Improvement-land value ratios for these sites are 1.34 (Site 57), 4.57 (Site 58), 3.05 (Site 59), 3.70 (Site 60), 0.57 (Site 61), and

1.61 (Site 62), for a combined ratio of 1.38. However, because only part of the site will be redeveloped and the current owner is managing the planned redevelopment, this is not considered a barrier to development. 58 316 05 051 10961 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 1968, Aged not
dilapidated
59 316 05 052 10871 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 1968, Aged not
dilapidated
60 316 05 053 10883 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 1968, Aged not
dilapidated
61 316 05 056 10805 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 2016, Good condition
62 316 05 072 11111 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 1999, Aged not
dilapidated
63 359 20 028 20920 Mcclellan Rd St. Jude’s Church parking lot and orchard Yes n/a n/a
Site 63 is located in the Jollyman Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located south of the De Anza College campus and east of the Highway 85 corridor. The site is located immediately south of the De Anza College campus and approximately 0.5 miles east of the Apple Results Way/Bubb Campus. The primary current use of the site is a church and associated buildings. Neighboring uses include multi-family housingtownhomes, single-family housing, and commercial usesDe Anza College. The City last spoke to the Church in September 2022, and they expressed an active interest in developing the portion of their property, limited to approximately 0.75 acres with affordable residential uses, the existing Church buildings would remain. However, some of the parking area and open green space on the northwest corner of the lot may be redeveloped. The zoning on the site would be changed to allow residential uses on 0.75 acres of the site. The site is eligible to develop with affordable housing pursuant to new state laws prior to the completion of the rezone. The site has fair access to amenities and is in close proximity to bus service at De Anza College. The improvement-land value ratio is 5.78; however, because only part of the site will be redeveloping and the church building will not be removed from the site, it is not estimated that these improvements will be considered a barrier to development.

SOURCE: City of Cupertino, September 2023
NOTE: *The City is not relying on site 48 to accommodate the RHNA and capacity is not reflected in Table B4-12.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐26

This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐27

DEVELOPMENT OF NON-VACANT SITES
As shown in Tables B4-3 and B4-4, the city has a track record of developing affordable and market- rate housing on non-vacant sites. Based on this track record, the City believes the priority housing sites are prime candidates for redevelopment. Non-vacant sites were evaluated for suitability based on a combination of their improvement-land value ratio (ILV), age and condition, and owner interest in redevelopment. Sites with an improvement-land valu e ratio less than 1.0, whic h is to say sites where the value of current improvements is lower than that of the land on its own, were deemed to be suitable for redevelopment. While land and impr ovement values prior to redevelopment were not available for some older projects, where this data was available, project examples shown in Table B4- 4 indicate that most recent non-vacant sites that have redeveloped have had improvement-land value ratios of less than 1.0, though one parcel of Marina Plaza had an ILV of 1.26, suggesting that an ILV higher than 1.0 was not inherently a barrier to rede velopment, even with existing tenants. Access to amenities was also considered when identifying potential redevelopment sites. Additionally, buildings in poor condition or without recent improvements, along with buildings older than 40 years, were considered suitable for redevelopment. Recent examples of mixed-use development projects on non- vacant sites shown in table B4-4 show that buildings that are more than 40 years old (built before 1983) were able to be redeveloped due to buildin g age and condition even where the building had tenants prior to redevelopment, so in these cases existing tenancy or active use is not considered a barrier to redevelopment. Owner interest was also considered an important factor in evaluating suitability, particularly in cases where the owner has taken proactive steps to seek out redevelopment or is directly managing the site’s redevelopment, as was a long-term lack of tenants in the case of Sites 44 and 47. These factors were all considered jointl y along with building condition when determining the development potential of sites described in B4-8 and B4-10. The majority of non-vacant sites identified for redevelopment have some combination of factors including having been built more than 40 years ago, lack of ongoing maintenance or poor condition, having an ILV less than 1.0, and having active owner interest in redevelopment. In cases where buildings are not anticipated to be removed as part of redevelopment, building age, existing building conditions and ILV were given lower consideration.

As is shown in Table B4-4 , the City’s existing policy of pr oviding development waivers and concessions, along with the density bonus program, have been helpful in facilitating development on non-vacant land. Additionally, to promote the development of non-vacant sites, the City has included Strategy 1.3.4 to establish an outreach and coordinati on program to connect developers, builders, and owners of non-vacant sites.

DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL SITES AND POTENTIAL LOT CONSOLDIATION Small Site Development
A small site is classified as a site that is smaller than one-half acre in size. The City is relying on 16 sites to meet a portion of the RHNA on sites that are smaller than one-half acre, as shown in Table B4-11. The City is assuming that 84 units would be affordable to moderate-income households and 146 units would be affordable to above moderate-income households. The City has not allocated lower-income units to any of the small sites in the inventory. Additionally, while the City is planning to rezone these parcels to provide for housing opportunities, these small sites are not needed to meet the RHNA. Strategy 1.3.7 has been included to help facilitate lot consolidation to encourage affordable housing development.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐28

Table B4-11 Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA Site
Number Acreage Total
Capacity
Realistic
Capacity
(95%)
Lower-
Income
Capacity
Moderate-
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate-
Income
Capacity
2 0.47 31 29 11 18
4 0.32 21 20 7 13
11 0.42 27 26 10 16
12 0.44 9 8 4 4
15 0.24 19 18 7 11
17 0.39 25 24 9 15
18 0.22 11 10 2 8
19 0.17 9 8 1 7
21 0.26 17 16 4 12
25 0.08 5 5 1 4
31 0.25 9 8 5 3
33 0.25 9 8 1 7
34 0.23 8 8 1 7
43 0.18 12 9 5 4
45 0.45 29 22 9 13
54 0.40 14 11 7 4
Total 255 230 0 84 146
Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023.

Lot Consolidation
Due to the large number of smaller sites in the Ci ty (90 percent of the sites in the City are less than

0.33 acre in size), the City encourages lot consolidation and has a track record of lot consolidation, as shown in Table B4-11A. Table B4-11A illustrates th at there is a precedence of residential projects developing on property that previo usly had commercial uses, whether as a mixed-use project or as solely residential development. Trends also show that lot consolidation occurs frequently for this type of development. Table B4-11A also reflects that lo t consolidations approved by the City vary with regard to the number of parcels included in the project. The City has approved smaller consolidations with two or three parcels merging into one, as we ll as larger consolidations with 11 parcels being consolidated into two. Due to the size and configur ation of parcels in the City, lot consolidation is common for redevelopment of existing commercia l converting to mixed use or residential development. While consolidation is not required of any sites, in the sites inventory (Table B4-8 or B4-10), Sites 49, 50 and 51 would benefit from lot consolidation due to the fact that the sites are irregularly shaped and have limited access with only one access point. It is important to note, that the City does not have control over market conditions and can present hypothetical consolidation scenarios, however it is possible that further cons olidation could occur or that a developer proposes a dense residential project on a small parcel. As previously mentioned, the City has included Strategy

1.3.7 to help facilitate lot consolidation to encourage affordable housing development.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐29

Table 4-11A Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA Project Name/
Address
Year Approved/
Year Built
Project Type/
Affordability
Original #
of Parcels
Final # of
Parcels After
Consolidation
Common
Owner
(Y/N)
Redevelopment Project
(Y/N) Additional Details
Marina Plaza

10145 N. De Anza,
20118 Bandley Dr
Approved 2022.

Extended 2023
Mixed Use Project (206
residential units)/Above
moderate, moderate
income
2 1 N Yes – Currently a center
with grocery store and a
standalone restaurant, with
associated surface parking
lots. Current uses will be
demolished.

Developed under
existing zoning and
density bonus.

Hamptons

19500 Pruneridge
Ave
Approved 2016 Residential Project (942
residential units)/Above
moderate, moderate, and
lower income
3 1 Y Yes – Currently has 342
residential units.

Current uses will be
demolished.

General Plan
Amendment and
Zoning approved as
part of 5th Cycle
Housing Element
Vallco
10101 and 10330 N
Wolfe Road
Approved
2018/Amended
2024
Mixed Use Project (2,669
residential units, 890
lower income, retail and
office uses)
11 2 Y Yes – Site had an existing
mall and anchors (Macy’s,
JC Penney and Sears). The
current property owner
acquired property from
anchors and the mall from
a different entity. Half the
site has been demolished
and site remediation has
been completed. The site
will be redeveloped with
mixed use development
Used SB35
streamlining and
Density bonus under
existing zoning at
time of project
application.

Canyon Crossing

10625 S. Foothill
Boulevard
Approved 2022.

Demolition
completed
Mixed Use Project (18
residential units)/Above
moderate-, moderate- and
lower-income units,
commercial uses
2 14 N Yes – Site had an existing
strip center and one home.

Uses were demolished.

Built under existing
zoning
Alan Row Approved 2022.

Demolition
complete, units
under
construction
Residential Project (9
units)/ Above moderate-
and moderate-income
units
3 8 Y Yes – Site had an existing
liquor store and associated
parking. Uses were
demolished.

Built under existing
zoning
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐30

Table 4-11A Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA Project Name/
Address
Year Approved/
Year Built
Project Type/
Affordability
Original #
of Parcels
Final # of
Parcels After
Consolidation
Common
Owner
(Y/N)
Redevelopment Project
(Y/N) Additional Details
1655 S. De Anza Approved 2023 Mixed Use Project (34
units) Above Moderate
with moderate- and
lower-income level
2 12 Y Yes – Currently an
existing strip center with
associated parking.

Current uses will be
demolished.

Existing zoning and
density bonus
Builder’s Remedy
(Shan Restaurant
etc.)
N/A Residential (142 units)
above moderate-, lower-
income
3 1 Y Yes – Currently two
existing strip malls and
one standalone commercial
building and associated
parking. Current uses will
be demolished.

Builder’s remedy
Source: City of Cupertino, March 2024
Note: Where the number of final parcels exceeds the number of original parcels, existing lots were consolidated by the developer to make a unified development site and subsequently subdivided.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐31

NO NET LOSS
This section provides the formal inventory of sites that the City of Cupertino will rely on in the 6th housing element planning cycle. Per state law, the City is required to maintain “no net loss” of the housing capacity represented by this list of parcels and the sites they comprise. To facilitate this, the inventory presented below has been designed with excess capacity.1 This allows some degree of flexibility in decision making for individual development projects as they come forward for approval by City Council.

In short, with With some limited flexibility, the City is committed to permitting housing on each of the parcels listed in Tables B4-7, and B4-9,the table below, and in so doing ensuring that the number of units listed for each parcel in the table--“planned capacity”—is achieved. Should the City approve development that is inconsistent with the parcel’s planned capacity, it is then required as part of that approval to:

1. Find, based on quantitative evidence, that the re maining inventory of housing sites is still sufficient to meet the City’s 6th-Cycle RHNA, or

2. Identify one or more available sites with the realistic development capacity to replace the housing that would have otherwise been de veloped had consistency with planned capacity been achieved.

TWTH OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS
To estimate capacity for sites in jurisdictions that have adopted form-based codes, the element should describe the relationship between general plan land -use designation and the form-based code and density assumptions used to determine capacity. Specifically, describe where residential development is allowed, how density requirements found within the general plan are incorporated, how the zoning designations under the form-based code relate to the land-use designations of the general plan, identify potential densities, and consider developmen t standards such as bulk, height, and building requirements, buildings types, and use requirements. The element could include examples of recently

SITES IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583.2(c), a nonvacant site identified in the previous planning period and a vacant site identifi ed in two or more previous consecutive planning periods cannot be used to accommodate the lower-income RHNA unless the site is subject to an action in the Housing Element that requires rezoni ng within three years of the beginning of the planning period that will allow residential use by right for housing developments with at least 20 percent units affordable to lower-income households. There are no sites included on Tables B4-7 or B4-9 that were previously included to meet the lower income RHNA. However, as a part of the rezoning process, all sites assumed to meet the lower income RHNA will comply with Government Code Sections 65583, (c)(1) and 65583.2(h) and 65583.2(i).

1 Excess capacity is primarily comprised of the development potential created by SB9, which allows owners of a single-family property to divide their property into two parcels. Each of these parcels would then have the capacity for three units each—the main residence, plus and ADU and a Junior ADU.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐32

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
None of the sites identified in the sites invent ory are within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain, though sites near Calabazas Creek are adjacent to the boundary of this floodplain. None of the sites are in a California Office of Emergency Services Dam Inundation Area. Only one site, Site 21, is partially within a California Geological Service (CGS) Seismic Hazards Program liquefaction zone. Because they are adjacent to a more mountainous area of the city, Sites 30 through 33 are partly in an area with class seve n landslide susceptibility. This CGS classification is graded on a scale from zero to 10, where 10 signifies areas where landslides have occurred or have the highest level of susceptibility. The remainder of the sites are in class zero areas.

The entirety of Cupertino is within a CalFire Loca l Responsibility Area, and therefore does not have an assigned Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUS AND JUNIOR ADUS)
California Government Code Section 65583.1(a) states that a town, city, or county may identify sites for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) based on the nu mber of ADUs developed in the prior Housing Element planning period, whether the units are permitted by right, the need for ADUs in the community, the resources or incentives available for their development, and any other relevant factors.

Based on recent changes in State law reducing th e time to review and ap prove ADU applications, requiring ADUs that meet requirements to be allowed by right, eliminating discretionary review for most ADUs, and removing other restrictions on ADUs, it is anticipated that the production of ADUs will increase in the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period.

The City issued the following ADU building permits over the last four five years:
 2018 – 15 ADUs received building permits
 2019 – 15 ADUs received building permits
 2020 – 19 ADUs received building permits
 2021 – 41 ADUs received building permits
 2022 – 30 ADUs received building permits
Therefore, based on the most recent five-year period, there are about 24 building permits for ADUs approved each year. This analysis assumes that the annual average of 24 per year will be projected over the next eight years, for a total of 192 ADUs duri ng the planning period. While ADUs provide an affordable housing option, the city does not need this capacity to meet the RHNA. To promote ADUs, the City has included Strategy HE-1.3.8 to promote the construction of affordable ADUs through several actions.

To determine assumptions on ADU affordability in the ABAG region, ABAG conducted a regional analysis of existing ADU rents and prepared a draf t report in September 2021. The analysis resulted in affordability assumptions that allocate 30 perc ent of ADUs to very low-income households, 30 percent to low-income households, 30 percent to moderate-income households, and 10 percent to above moderate-income households. Affordability of AD Us projected to be built in the city during the planning period were based on the ABAG analysis.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐33

Address: Various Locations
Target Number of Housing Units: 200
Rationale: Accommodating new ADUs and Junior ADUs would not require rezoning.

Constraints: None
B4.3B4.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Table B4-12, RHNA Summary, summarizes Cupertino’s sites inventory, including the proposed rezone capacity for the 2023-2031 planning period.

Table B4-12 Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to the 6th Cycle RHNA RHNA
Category
2023-
2031
RHNA
Pending
Projects
Capacity
Residential
Site
Capacity
with
Rezone
Mixed Use Site
Capacity with
Rezone
Projected
ADUs Total Capacity Surplus
Very Low 1,193
633 833 614 596 116
2178
21962,150
298
316270 Low 687
Moderate 755 49 360311 443 57 9090 1545
Above
Moderate 1,953 9831,770 65162819 715 19 3166553,32386 1,213021,3703 Total 4,588 2,452 184455917 1,6041,7721754 192
6226
716,3336,00
1638
831,74541
Source: ABAG 2021, City of Cupertino, 2023
Table B4-2 Vacant/Partially Vacant and Available Sites
Housing
Resource
Very Low-
Income
Capacity
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above Moderate-
Income Capacity
Total
Capacity
ADUs 60 60 60 20 200
Total 1,364 1,396 769 2,208 5,3751
RHNA 1,193 687 755 1,953 4,588
Diff 171 709 14 255 787
SOURCE: City of Cuperti no; EMC Planning Group Inc.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐34

The vacant, partially vacant, andpipeline projects and underutilized sites identified in this report are sufficient to accommodate approximately 117 125 percent of the Cupertino’s Regional Housing Needs AllocationRHNA for the 6thth-Cycle planning period. This 117 25 percent “cushion” is highly recommended because of the Sstate’s no-net-loss policy, which precludes jurisdictions from approving development that results in an overall housing site deficit. The “cushion” essentially provides a degree of flexibility for policy makers as they make development decisions.

With exception of the Vallco site (Pipeline Project P1), which accounts for 2,4041,569 units (over half of Cupertino’s RHNA), and a small handful of other propertiessites, the sites identified in this report have existing uses that would need to be demolished before new housing could be constructed.

In some cases, existing apartments would have to be demolished to make room for new higher- density units. This raises two issues:
 First, these older apartments probably a source of affordable housing and the residents living there may be economically vulnerable; and
 Second, development of these sites would have to include at least temporary accommodations for displaced residents.

B4.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Table B4-3 Vacant/Partially Vacant and Available Sites
Housing
Resource
Very Low-
Income
Capacity
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above Moderate-
Income Capacity
Total
Capacity
ADUs 60 60 60 20 200
Total 1,364 1,396 769 2,208 5,3751
RHNA 1,193 687 755 1,953 4,588
Diff 171 709 14 255 787
SOURCE: City of Cuperti no; EMC Planning Group Inc.

Every effort has been made to protect Cupert ino’s existing single-family neighborhoods, yet the impacts of the proposed plan will be borne by everyone. Residents will learn to deal with more people, more cars, and more social need. Nonetheless, while the transformation from suburban adolescence to urban adulthood can be challenging, such tr ansformation can, with careful planning, make Cupertino a shining example of how the most innovative and creative society on the face of the planet leads the way to urban excellence.

INVENTORY OF VACANT/PARTIALLY VACANT AND AVAILABLE SITES This section provides the formal inventory of site s that the City of Cupertino will rely on in the 6 th housing element planning cycle. Per state law, the City is required to maintain “no net loss” of the APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐35

housing capacity represented by this list of parcels and the sites th ey comprise. To facilitate this, the inventory presented below has been designed with excess capacity. 2 This allows some degree of flexibility in decision making for individual development projects as they come forward for approval by City Council.

In short, with some limited flexibility, the City is committed to permitting housing on each of the parcels listed in the table below, and in so doing ensuring that the number of units listed for each parcel in the table--“planned capacity”—is achiev ed. Should the City approve development that is inconsistent with the parcel’s planned capacity, it is then required as part of that approval to:

3. Find, based on quantitative evidence, that the remaining inventory of housing sites is still sufficient to meet the City’s 6th-Cycle RHNA, or

4. Identify one or more available sites with the realistic development capacity to replace the housing that would have otherwise been developed had consistency with planned capacity been achieved.

Objective Development and Design Standards
To estimate capacity for sites in jurisdictions that have adopted form-based codes, the element should describe the relationship between general plan land -use designation and the form-based code and density assumptions used to determine capacity. Specifically, describe where residential development is allowed, how density requirements found within the general plan are incorporated, how the zoning designations under the form-based code relate to the lanB4-use designations of the general plan, identify potential densities, and consider develo pment standards such as bulk, height, and builB4-to requirements, buildings types, and use requirements. The element could include examples of recently built projects and densities to support the analysis. End Table B4-3, Vacant/Partially Vacant and Available Sites, provides details and capacity estimates for each of the housing sites identified in the section above.

2 Excess capacity is primarily comprised of the development potential created by SB9, which allows owners of a single-family property to divide their property into two parcels. Each of these parcels would then have the capacity for three units each—the main residence, plus and ADU and a Junior ADU.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

Figure B4-1 Priority Housing Sites Map

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

Figure B4-2 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 1

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

Figure B4-3 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 2

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

Figure B4-4 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 3

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐40

The City staff, in coordination with EMC, have held numerous meetings related to the Housing Element update., To finalize the site inventory for the Housing Element, the City Staff and EMC held two study sessions, on September 28 and November 16, 2021 focused on the overall Housing Element update process. During the 2022 calendar year, th e Planning Commission held four public meetings on January 25, February 22, April 26, and May 2 4, 2022. Each of these meetings focused citywide discussion on selecting sites at specified densities for potential housing sites inventory.

At the January and February Planning Commission study sessions, the staff and EMC provided overviews of the housing sites selection process an d identified nearly 400 properties citywide that could potentially be placed on the City’s housing sites inventory. The sites inventory is the list of City Council-approved properties that identifies where housing will be developed during the 2023-2031 planning period. The majority of these properties fe ll within the property size range, 0.5-10 acres, recommended by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the State agency that oversees the Housing Element update process and ultimately certifies all city and county Housing Elements. The City’s Planning Commission had following recommendations: 1) That the 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 shou ld avoid or minimize displacement of existing uses, particularly existing residential uses that wo uld necessitate the relocation of residents; 3) The Housing Element should avoid significantly “up-zoning” 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 Planning Commissions’ recommendation, the City staff and EMC revised the site inventory and presented a reduced, more focused list of po tential housing sites at the April 26 Planning Commission meeting. In the revised inventory, po tential sites were grouped by neighborhood and special area to better illustrate the locations of th e properties. Extensive comments were received at the April 26 th Planning Commission meeting, where in the 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 the City Council. The Planni ng Commissions’ sites inventory recommendation largely coincided with the 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 other recommendat ions also included that the development standards be established that allow for more intensive development along the street frontage portions of the DeAnza and Stevens 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.

Due to the significant amount of pipeline and unit s, the City is already exceeding its RHNA for the Low and Above-Moderate income categories for the 2023-2031 planning period. The City, however, was unable to meet its Very-Low and Moderate income RHNA requirements through the pipeline projects, resulting in a need of 1,488 Very-Low and Moderate income units beyond those provided by APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐41

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 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:
 The properties are not clustered in the Heart of the City/Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor. The four Stevens Creek Boulevard properties on the re commended inventory are all located east of DeAnza Boulevard;
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;The recommended sites minimize or avoid potential displacement of existing residents through future redevelopment of the sites for housing.

Generally, the Recommended Sites Inventory 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.

OUTREACH


SITES DETAILS
This section provides information on each of the 40 sites selected for inclusion in the inventory of vacant/partial vacant and available sites. City st aff held numerous meetings related to the Housing Element update. To finalize the site inventory for the Housing Element, the City Staff and EMC held two study sessions, on September 28 and November 16, 2021 focused on the overall Housing Element update process. During the 2022 calendar year, the Planning Commission held four public meetings on January 25, February 22, April 26, and May 24, 2022. Each of these meetings focused on a citywide discussion ton selecting sites at specified densities for a potential housing sites inventory.

Creston‐Pharlap Neighborhood
Figure B4-2, Creston-Pharlap Neighborhood, show s an aerial view of the Creston-Pharlap neighborhood.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐42

Figure B4-1 Creston-Pharlap Neighborhood
Site 01a: Creston-Pharlap
Address: 10231 Adriana Ave
Target Number of Housing Units: 13
Description: The Creston-Pharlap 01a site is located in the Creston-Pharlap neighborhood, which is south and west of the Highway 85/Interstate 280 interchange. The neighborhood is predominantly residential with businesses operating throughout but particularly along Steven Creek Blvd and Foothill Blvd. Existing uses on the site include a single-family home and open space. Neighboring uses include a rail corridor and single-family homes.

This site has been targeted for rezoning to R1-7.5 , which would allow a total of 14 units built at a minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre. There is one existing unit on the site that would be lost; the number of net new units would be 13 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required; noise from rail corridor Figure B4-3 shows an aerial view of the Creston-Pharlap 01a Site.

Figure B4-2 Creston-Pharlap (Site 01a)

Site 01b: Creston‐Pharlap
Address: 22273 Cupertino Road
Target Number of Housing Units: 7
Description: The Creston-Pharlap 01b site is located in the Creston-Pharlap neighborhood, which is south and west of the Highway 85/Interstate 280 interchange. The neighborhood is predominantly residential with businesses operating throughout but particularly along Steven Creek Blvd and Foothill Blvd. Existing uses on the site include a large sing le-family home. Neighboring uses include a single- family home. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R1-5, which would allow a total of eight (8) units built at a minimum of five (5) dwelling units per acre. There is one existing unit on the site that would be lost; the number of net new units would be seven (7) units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-4, Creston-Pharlap (Site 01b), shows an aerial view of the Creston-Pharlap 01b Site.

Figure B4-3 Creston-Pharlap (Site 01b)
Site 01c: Creston‐Pharlap
Address: 10050 N Foothill Blvd
Target Number of Housing Units: 8
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐43

Description: The Creston-Pharlap 01c site is located in the Creston-Pharlap neighborhood, which is south and west of the Highway 85/Interstate 280 interchange. The neighborhood is predominantly residential with businesses operating throughout but particularly along Steven Creek Blvd and Foothill Blvd. Existing uses on the site include a single-fam ily home. Neighboring uses include a single- and multi-family homes. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R3, which would allow a total of nine (9) units built at a minimum of 15 dwelling units pe r acre. There is one existing unit on the site that would be lost; the number of net new units would be eight (8) units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-5, Creston-Pharlap (Site 01c), shows an aerial view of the Creston-Pharlap 01c Site.

Figure B4-4 Creston-Pharlap (Site 01c)
Homestead Villa Neighborhood
Figure B4-6, Homestead Villa Neighborhood prov ides an overview of the Homestead Villa Neighborhood.

Figure B4-5 Homestead Villa Neighborhood
Site 04a: Homestead Villa
Address: 10860 Maxine Ave
Target Number of Housing Units: 12
Description: Homestead Villa site 04a is located in the Homestead Villa Neighborhood, which is predominantly single-family housing and located north and west of the Highway 85/Interstate 280 interchange. Current use on the site includes a duplex housing unit. Neighboring uses include single- and multi-family housing and the Highway 85 corrid or. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which would allow a total of 14 units built at a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. There are two existing units on the site that would be lost; the number of net new units would be 12 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required; noise and air contaminants from Highway 85 corridor Figure B4-7, Homestead Villa (Site 04a), shows an aerial view of the Homestead Villa Site.

Figure B4-6 Homestead Villa (Site 04a)
Jollyman Neighborhood
Figure B4-8, Jollyman Neighborhood, provides an overview of the neighborhood.

Figure B4-7 Jollyman Neighborhood
Site 1: Heart of the City – Central
Address: 20149 Stevens Creek Blvd
APN: 316-23-027
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐44

Target Number of Housing Units: 40
Description: Site 1 site is a 0.64 acre parcel located in the Heart of the City – Central Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd. Site 1 is located in the central core area approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include two commercial structures. One of the commercial structures was built in 1957 and is in aged but not dilapidated condition, and the other is a wooden warehouse that is believed to be unpermitted. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses. This site has been targeted for rezoni ng to P(Res) with a general plan land use of Very High Density with a minimum density of 50.01 du/ac, which would allow a total of 42 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percent of the total, it is estimated that 40 units will develop on the site.

Figure B4-2, Heart of the City – Central (Site 1), shows an aerial view of Site 1.

Heart of the City – Central (Site 1)
urce: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023Site 2: Heart of the City – Central Address: 20010 Stevens Creek Blvd
APN: 369-03-005
Target Number of Housing Units: 29
Description: Site 2 is located in the Heart of the City – Central Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stev ens Creek Blvd. Site 2 is located in the central core area approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include a commercial structure. The building was constructed in 1955 and while is not dilapidated, but is not in good shape. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial and multi-family residential buildings. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res) with a land use designation of Ve ry High Density with a minimum density of 50.01 units per acre, which would allow a total of 31 units built at a maximum density of 65 units per acre. At an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 29 units could develop on this site.

Figure B4-3, Heart of the City – Central (Site 2) shows an aerial view of Site 2.

Heart of the City – Central (Site 2)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 3: Heart of the City – Crossroads
Address: 10125 Bandley Drive
APN: 326-34-047
Target Number of Housing Units: 67
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐45

Description: Site 3 is a 1.09 acre site located in the He art of the City – Crossroads Special Center, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd. Site 3 is approximately 0.5 mile east of De Anza Colle ge. The site currently has a commercial building that was constructed in 1979 that is aged but not d ilapidated. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include co mmercial and multi-family residential uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res) and a land use designation of Very High Density with a minimum density of 50.01 units per acre, which would allow a total of 71 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. Assuming an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percent of the maximum, the site is estimated to develop 67 total units.

Figure B4-4, Heart of the City – Crossroads (Site 3) , shows an aerial view of Site 3 along with the nearby project P5 and several other sites in the same corridor.

Heart of the City – Crossroads (Site 3)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 4: Heart of the City – Crossroads
Address: 20950 Stevens Creek Blvd
APN: 359-07-006
Target Number of Housing Units: 20
Description: Site 4 is a 0.32 acre site located in the He art of the City – Crossroads Special Center, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd. Site 4 is approximately 0.5 mile east of De Anza Colle ge. Existing uses on the site include a commercial structure. The existing structure was constructed in 1966 and is borderline dilapidated. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial and multi-family residential uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res) with a land use designation of Very High Density with a minimum density of 50 units per acre, which would allow a total of 21 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. At an estimated realistic capa city of 95 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that the site could develop 20 units.

Figure B4-5, Heart of the City – Crossroads (Site 4), shows an aerial view of Site 4 along with nearby project P7 and Site 44.Heart of the City – Crossroads (Site 4) Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 223 Sites 5 and 6: Heart of the City – East
Address: 19220 Stevens Creek Blvd (et al)
APN: 375-06-006, 375-06-007
Target Number of Housing Units: 106
Description: Sites 5 and 6 are two parcels totaling 2.67 ac res located in the Heart of the City – East Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐46

Blvd. Sites 5 and 6 are located east of the centra l core areatoward the eastern border of the City.

Existing uses on the site include two commercial structures. On sSite 5 includes an office building that was constructed in 1970, currently occupied by a child care facility. On sSite 6 is developed with an office building that was constructed in 1969. The owner of the parcel ha s expressed interest in redeveloping the site. The owner of the parcel ha s expressed interest in redeveloping the site.

Neighboring uses include commercial uses. Both parcels have been targeted for rezoning to R4 with a land use designation of Very High Density with a minimum density of 50.01 units per acre, which would allow a total of 174 units built at a maximu m density of 65 dwelling units per acre. At an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 106 units could develop on the site.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-6, Heart of the City – East (Sites 5 and 6), shows an aerial view of Sites 5 and 6.

Heart of the City – East (Sites 5 and 6)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 7:  Heart of the City
Address: 19875 Stevens Creek Blvd
APN: 316-21-031
Target Number of Housing Units: 112
Description: Site 7 is a 1.81-acre parcel located in the Heart of the City Special Area – Central Special Center, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses located approximately 1.25 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the Ssite 7 include a commercial building with a furniture rental store and a, day care center, and associated parking. The building was constructed in 1964. Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R-4 with a land use designation of Very High Density with a minimum density of 50.01 units per acre, which would allow a total of 118 units built at a maximu m of 65 dwelling units pe r acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 112 units will develop on this site.

Figure B4-7, Heart of the City (Site 7), shows an aerial view of Site 7.

Heart of the City (Site 7)
ource: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023

Site 8: Heart of the City
Address: 20111 Stevens Creek Blvd
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐47

APN: 316-23-026
Target Number of Housing Units: 110
Description: Site 8 is a 1.78-acre parcel located in the Heart of the City Special Area – Central Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. Site 8 is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, approximately one mile east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include a dentist’s office and associated parking, adjacent to Site 1. The building was constructed in 1982. Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R-4 with a land use designation of Very High Density with a minimum density of 50.01 units pers acre which would allow a total of 116 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 110 units will develop on this site.

Figure B4-8, Heart of the City (Site 8), shows an aerial view of Site 8 as well as adjacent Site 1 and nearby Site 37 and 38.

Heart of the City (Site 8)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 9: Heart of the City
Address: 20883 Stevens Creek Blvd
APN: 326-32-050
Target Number of Housing Units: 51
Description: Site 9 is a 0.83-acre parcel located in the Heart of the City Special Area – Crossroads Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. Site 9 is located approximately 0.25 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include an office building. The building was constructed in 1981. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, with single-family uses in close proximity. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R-4 with a land use designation of Very High Density with a minimum density of 50.01 units per acre which would allow a total of 54 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 51 units will develop on this site.

Figure B4-9, Heart of the City (Site 9), shows an aerial view of Site 9.

Heart of the City (Site 9)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 10: Heart of the City – WestGarden Gate Neighborhood Address: Mary Avenue former ROW
APN: 326-27-053ROW (Right of Way, no APN)
Target Number of Housing Units: 40
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐48

Description: Site 10 is located in the Heart of the City – West Special CenterGarden Gate neighborhood, which is the home of De Anza College lSite 10 is ocated east of Highway 85. The area is bisected by Stevens Creek Blvd. Presently, Existi ng uses on the site include is a new parcel carved out from unused right-of-way, owned by the City of Cupertino, adjacent to Highway 85 that includes and some on- street parking. Neighboring uses incl ude multi-family residential uses, a dog park, condominiums and Highway 85. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R4 with a land use designation of Very High Density with a minimum density of 50.01 units per acre, which would allow a total of 49 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. At an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percent of the maximum this would equal 46 units. However, this site has been estimated at 40 units due to an active project proposal for this site.

In response to an October 2022 RFP for projects for this property, Aas of October 2022, the site has an active proposal for a 40-unit, two-story affo rdable (100 % Low and Very Low Income) housing project developed by Cupertino Rotary Housing Corporation, Housing Choices Coalition, and Charities Housing. The project will include 18 units for residents with intellectual or developmental disabilities.

Figure B4-10, Heart of the City WestGarden Gate neighborhood (Site 10), shows an aerial view of Site 10.

Heart of the City WestGarden Gate neighborhood (Site 10) Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 11: Homestead
Address: 11025 N De Anza Blvd
APN: 323-36-018
Target Number of Housing Units: 26
Description: Site 11 is a 0.42-acre parcel located in the Homestead Road Special Area, which is predominantly single- and multi-family homes and commercial uses. Site 11 is located immediately north of Interstate 280 at the northwest corner of Homestead Road and Sunnvale-Saratoga Road. The small commercial structure that previously occupied this site was recently demolished.. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include multi-family homes and a variety of commercial structuresthe Sunnyvale Saratoga Road. This site has been targeted for rezoning toR4 with a land use designation of Very High Density with a minimum de nsity of 50.01 units per acre, which would allow a total of 27 units built at a maximum density of 65 dwelling units per acre.

Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percen t of the maximum, it is estimated that 26 units could develop on this site.

Figure B4-40, Homestead (Site 11), shows an aerial view of Site 11.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐49

Homestead (Site 11)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 12: Homestead
Address: 19820 Homestead Road
APN: 316-04-064
Target Number of Housing Units: 8
Description: Site 12 is a 0.44 acre site located in the Homestead Road Special Area, which is predominantly single- and multi-family homes an d commercial uses located immediately north of Interstate 280. Existing uses on Site 12 the site include a single-family home that was built in 1954 and is borderline dilapidated. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include similar single-family homes. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R3R1C or TH? with a land use designation of Medium Density, wh ich would allow a total of nine units built at a maximum of 20 units per acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percent of the total, it is estimated that eight units will develop on the site.

Figure B4-12, Homestead (Site 12), shows an aerial view of the Site 12.

Homestead (Site 12)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Sites 13 through 16: Homestead Special Area ‐ Stelling Gateway Address: 21040 Homestead Rd (et al)
APNs: 326-07-022, 326-07-036, 326-07-030 and 326-070-31 Target Number of Housing Units: 280
Description: Sites 13 and 16 are 1.64 an d 1.74-acre parcels, respectively, that are located in the Homestead Road Special Area, as are Sites 14 and 15. Sites 14 and 15 are two adjacent parcels totaling

1.16 acres. This area is predominantly single- an d multi-family homes and commercial uses located immediately north of Interstate 280. Existing uses on the site include tennis courts, parking, and a vacant lot. The parcels have the potential to either develop separately or as a consolidated lot, though it is likely that sites 14 and 15 would develop as a consolidated lot due to their sizes and arrangement.

The owner has expressed an interest in redevelopi ng this site and adjacent parcels Neighboring uses include a church, an electrical power substation, and tennis courts.

All four parcels on these sites have been targeted for rezoning to R4 with a land use designation of Very High Density which would allow a combined total of 295 units to be built across both parcels at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 280 units could develop on this site.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐50

Figure B4-13 Stelling Gateway (Sites 13 through 16), shows an aerial view of Sites 13 through 16 along with nearby sites 49 through 51.

Stelling Gateway (Sits 13 through 16)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 17, 18, 19, and 53: South Blaney
Address: 10710 S. De Anza Blvd (et al)
APNs: 369-37-022, 369-37-023, 369-07-024, 369-37-028
Target Number of Housing Units: 69
Description: These South Blaney Neighborhood sites are four adjacent parcels located oin the north side of Bollinger Road just east of South DeAnza Boulevard. The South Blaney Neighborhood, includes which is a mix of single- and multi-family housing and commercial uses located immediately north of Bollinger Road. Existing uses on the Ssites include a commercial structure and single-family uses. The parcels range in size from 0.17 to 0. 56 acres. Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. Site 17 has been targeted for rez oning to R4 with a Very High Density land use designation. Sites 18 and 19 have been targeted for rezoning to R3 with a High Density land use designation. Site 53 has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG/Res) and a land use of Commercial/Very High Density Residential on site 53. This rezone wo uld allow a total of 81 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. At an estimated realis tic capacity of 95 percent for sites 17 through 19 and 75 percent for site 42, the total realistic capacity is estimated to be 69 units for the four parcels combined. Site 17 is currently vacant. The owner of sites 18 and 19 has expressed interest in developing townhomes on all or part of this si te. Site 19 currently has a single-family house constructed in 1940 that appears ag ed but not yet dilapidated. The curre nt use of Site 18 is a duplex that is aged but not yet dilapidated; the age of this house is unknown. The current use of Site 53 is a vacant commercial building that was built in 1991 and is in need of repair, though not yet dilapidated.

Figure B4-14, South Blaney (Site 17, 18, 19, and 53 ), shows an aerial view of the South Blaney sites 17, 18, 19, and 53.

South Blaney (Sites 17, 18, 19, and 53)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Sites 20 and 52: South Blaney
Address: 10787 S. Blaney Ave 10891 S Blaney Ave
APN: 369-34-052 and 369-34-053
Target Number of Housing Units: 18 units (Site 20) and 134 units (Site 52) Description: Site 20 is a 0.54-acre parcel in the South Blaney Neighborhood, which is a mix of single- and multi-family housing and commercial uses located immediately north of Bollinger Road. Existing uses on the site include a commercial structure that was built in 1961 and is in goodfair condition.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐51

Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R3 with a Medium High Density land use designation. This rezone would allow a total of 19 units built at maximum of 35 dwelling units per acre. At an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percent for of the maximum density, the total realistic capacity is estimated to be 18 units.

Site 52 is a 2.70-acre parcel located adjacent to Site 20. Existing uses on the site include commercial structures. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG-Res) with a land use designation of Commercial/Very High Residential, which would allow a total of 176 units built at a maximum density of 65 dwelling units per acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 75 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 134 units will develop. There is an active strip mall on the site, but the owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. As a commercial site, the site would also be eligible for affordable housing development even without rezoning under AB 2011 (2022).

Figure B4-15, South Blaney (Sites 20 and 52), shows an aerial view of Sites 20 and 52.

South Blaney (Sites 20 and 52)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 21: South De Anza Blvd
Address: 10619 S De Anza Blvd
APN: 359-18-044
Target Number of Housing Units: 16
Description: Site 21 is a 0.26-acre parcel located in th e South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on the Ssite 21 include a commercial use and parking lot. The building was c onstructed in 1966, and is in aged but good condition. The owner has expressed interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and De Anza Blvd. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R4 with a land use designation of Very High Density, which would a llow a total of 17 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. Based on a realistic capacity assumption of 95 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 16 units could develop on this site. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone.

Figure B4-16, South De Anza Blvd (Site 21), shows an aerial view of the Site 21 South De Anza Blvd (Site 21)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 22: South De Anza Blvd
Address: 1505 S De Anza Blvd
APN: 366-10-121
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐52

Target Number of Housing Units: 83
Description: Site 22 is a 1.34 acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De An za Blvd. Existing uses on the Ssite 22 include a commercial building use and parking lot. The building was constructed in 1965. The owner has been contacted, but the City has not yet received a respons e regarding their interest in redeveloping the property. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, multi-family uses, and De Anza Blvd. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R-4 with a land use designation of Very High Density, which would allow a total of 87 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percent of maximum, it is estimated that 83 units could develop on this site.

Figure B4-17, South De Anza Blvd (Site 22), shows an aerial view of Site 22 along with adjacent sites 56 and 23.

South De Anza Blvd (Site 22)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 23: South De Anza Blvd
Address: [no address]
APN: 366-10-137
Target Number of Housing Units: 57
Description: Site 23 is a 0.92-acre parcel located in th e South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. The existing use on this Ssite 23 is a parking lot located behind a day care center. Neighboring uses include commercial and residential uses and De Anza Blvd. The owner has been contacted regarding their interest in redeveloping this site, but a response has not yet been received. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R4 with a land use designation of Very High Density which would allow a total of 60 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percent of the maximum density, it is estimated that 57 units could develop on this site.

Figure B4-18, South De Anza Blvd (Site 12), shows an aerial view of Site 23 along with adjacent Site

22. South De Anza Blvd (Site 23)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 24 and 25: South De Anza Blvd
Address: 1361 S De Anza Blvd (et al)
APNs: 366-19-047, 366-19-078
Target Number of Housing Units: 149
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐53

Description: Sites 24 and 25 are a 2.33 acre parcel and a 0.08 acre parcel, respectively, located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is pred ominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on the Ssites 24 and 25 include a nursery and an associated parking lot. The nursery was constructed in 1960 and is a dated building. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, single-family units, townhome units, and De Anza Blvd. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R- 4 with a Very High Density land use designation, which would allow a total of 156 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 149 dwelling units could develop on this site.

Figure B4-19, South De Anza Blvd (Sits 24 and 25), shows an aerial view of Sites 24 and 25.

South De Anza Blvd (Sites 24 and 25)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 ite 26: South De Anza Blvd
Address: 10105 S De Anza Blvd
APN: 359-09-017
Target Number of Housing Units: 62
Description: Site 26 is a one-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De An za Blvd. Existing uses on the Ssite 26 include a commercial building and parking lot. The current commercial building was constructed in 1977, andbut remains in good condition. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, multi-family units, and De Anza Blvd. This site will remain be rezoned at R-4 with a land use designation of Very High density, which would allow a total of 65 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 62 units could be developed on this site. The owner has expressed an active interest in redeveloping this property .

Figure B4-20, South De Anza Blvd (Site 26), shows an aerial view of Site 26.

South De Anza Blvd (Site 26)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 27: Vallco Shopping District
Address: No Address, Wolfe Road
APN: 316-20-088
Target Number of Housing Units: 319
Description: Site 27 is a 5.16 acre parcel located in the Vallco Shopping District, which is predominantly commercial uses located south of Interstate 280 along Wolfe Road. The site is presently Existing uses on the site include a vacant lot., an d Tthe owner has expressed interest in developing APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐54

the site.. Neighboring uses include single-family us es, Wolfe Road, and the Interstate 280 corridor.

This site has been targeted for rezoning to R4 with a land use designation of Very High Density which would allow a total of 335 units built at a maximu m of 65 dwelling units per acre. At an assumed realistic capacity of 95 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 319 units could develop on this site.

Figure B4-21, Vallco Shopping District (Site 27), shows an aerial view of Site 27.

Vallco Shopping District (Site 27)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 28: Jollyman
Address: 21050 McClellan Rd

APN: 359-05-133

Target Number of Housing Units: 26

Description: Site 28 is a 0.78 acre parcel located in the Jollyman Neighborhood, which is predominately defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately south of the De Anza College campus and east of the Highway 85 corridor. Current development use on Site 28 includes a structure that appears to be may be in used as a Buddhist templeretreat/office. The structure was built in 1977 and is considered dilapidatedin fair condition with recent tenant improvements. The City has not yet received an expression of owner interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include single-family housing. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R-3 with a land use designation of Medium High Density, which would allow a total of 20 units built at a maximum of 27 dwelling units per acre. At a realistic capacity of 95 percent of the maximum, it is assumed that 26 units might develop on this site.

Figure B4-22, Jollyman (Site 28), shows an aerial view of Site 28.

Jollyman (Site 28)

Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 06a 29: Jollyman
Address: 20865 McClellan Road
APN: 359-13-019
Target Number of Housing Units: 20 19
Description: The Jollyman 06a siteSite 29 is a 0.99 acre parcel located in the Jollyman Neighborhood, which is predominately defined by single-family re sidential homes and located immediately south of the De Anza College campus and east of the Highway 85 corridor. Current use Site 29 is currently APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐55

includes a single-family home built close to the Mc Clellan Road right-of-way with a large rear yard.

Neighboring uses include single-family housing. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R1-7.5R- 3R1C (or TH??) with a land use designation of Medium Density, which would allow a total of 20 units built at a minimum maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre. There is one existing unit single-family home on the site, but Aa developer has been in recent contact with the City with preliminary plans to build as many as 20 townhomes on this property. that would remain; the number of net new units would be 20 units. At a realistic capacity of 95 pe rcent of the maximum, it is assumed that 19 units might develop on this site. It is estimated that the majority, 15 units, will develop with an above moderate-income level of affordability, but that 4 of the units may deve lop for moderate-income households. Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-9, Jollyman (Site 06a23), shows an aerial view of the Jollyman 06a sitSite 29.e.

Figure B4-8 Jollyman (Site 06a29)

Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023

Sites 30‐33: Monta Vista North
Address: 10857 Linda Vista Dr (et al)
APNs: 356-06-001, 356-06-002, 356-06-003, 356-06-004
Target Number of Housing Units: 84
Description: Sites 30 through 33 are located in th e Monta Vista North Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately east of the foothills.

The individual parcels range in size from 0.25 ac res to 0.87 acres. Existing uses on the site include four single-family homes. Neighboring uses include tennis courts, a golf co urse, and single-family homes. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R3/TH with a land use designation of Medium High Density which would allow a maximum of 89 un its built at a maximum of 35 dwelling units to the acre. Based on an assumed realistic capacity of 95 percent of the maximum density, it is estimated that 84 units could develop on this property. There are presently four units of housing on the property that were built between 1947 and 1957. They curren t physical condition of these houses ihas been deemed borderline dilapidated. The four parcels are adjacent to each other and have common ownership, and there has been active developer interest in developing this area into townhomes. The owner has indicated an interest in developing it at a density of 20-25 units pe r acre. Let’s adjust the realistic capacity on this.

Figure B4-24, Monta Vista North Site (Sites 30-33), shows an aerial view of the sites 30-33.

Monta Vista North Site (Sites 30-33)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐56

Site 34: Monta Vista South
Address: 20666 Cleo Avenue
APN: 362-31-001
Target Number of Housing Units: 8
Description: Site 34 is an 0.25-acre site located in the Monta Vista South Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residentia l homes and located immediately eassouthtwest of SR 85 of the foothills. Site 34 Existing uses on the site is currently developed include with one single- family residence that was constructed in 1951... Si te 34 has been targeted for rezoning to R3, which would allow up to 35 units per acre. With an estimated realistic capacity of 95 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that eight units could develop on this parcel. There is one existing unit on the site, which was built in 1951 The existing residence and appe ars to be in good condition externally,. Hhowever, the owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the parcel.

Figure B4-25, Monta Vista South Site (Site 34), s hows an aerial view of Site 34 and nearby Sites 35 and P9.

Monta Vista South Site (Site 34)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 35: Monta Vista South
Address: [no address] Cleo Ave.

APN: 362-31-030
Target Number of Housing Units: 8
Description: Site 35 is a 0.23-acre parcel located in the Monta Vista South Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately weast of Highway 85 the foothills. The irregularly-shaped parcel is currently undevelope d vacant. Neighboring uses include single-family and duplex homes. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R3, which would allow a total of eight units built at a maximum of 35 dwelling units per acre.

Figure B4-26, Monta Vista South Site (Site 35), shows an aerial view of Site 35.

Monta Vista South Site (Site 35)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐57

Site 06b: Jollyman
Address: 21050 McClellan Road
Target Number of Housing Units: 23
Description: The Jollyman 06b site is located in the Jollyman Neighborhood, which is predominately defined by single-family residential homes and lo cated immediately south of the De Anza College campus and east of the Highway 85 corridor. Cu rrent use includes an underutilized commercial structure. Neighboring uses include single-family housing and commercial uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(R3), which would allow a total of 23 units built at a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 23 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-10, Jollyman (Site 06b), shows an aerial view of the Jollyman 06b site.

Figure B4-9 Jollyman (Site 06b)
Site 36: Heart of the City [REMOVE FROM INVENTORY]
Address: 10080 N Wolfe Rd
APN: 316-20-086
Target Number of Housing Units: 216
Description: Site 36 is a 4.44-acre parcel located in the Heart of the City – East (S. Vallco Park) Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and re sidential uses located east of De Anza College.

Existing uses on the site include an office building, commercial uses, and associated parking. The building was constructed in 1972. Neighboring uses include office and commercial uses. The site could be redeveloped as a higher-rise mixed-use developm ent. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG/Res) with a land use designation of Very High Density which would allow a total of 289 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 75 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 216 units will develop on this site. This site is also considered developable for residential uses under AB 2011 prior to rezoning.

Figure B4-27, Heart of the City (Site 36), shows an aerial view of Site 36.

Heart of the City (Site 36)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023

Site 37 and 38: Heart of the City
Address: 20007 Stevens Creek Blvd (et al)
APN: 316-23-093, 316-23-036
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐58

Target Number of Housing Units: 132
Description: Sites 37 and 38 are two parcels located in the Heart of the City - Central Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. Sites 37 and 38 are located approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College. The parcels are 1.35 an d 0.24 acres, respectively. Existing uses on the site include commercial buildings that were constructed in 1978. As of May 2023 tThe property owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site, and a project application is currently under preliminary review. Neighboring uses include commercia l uses and multi-family residential. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG/Res) with a land use designation of Commercial/Very High Residential, which would allow for a maximum dens ity of 65 units per acre. The site has a pending application undergoing review under SB 330 guidelines, so based on the project units in this pending application, it is estimated that 1342 units could be developed on this site.

Figure B4-28, Heart of the City (Site 37 and 38), shows an aerial view of Sites 37 and 38 along with nearby Sites 1 and 8.

Heart of the City (Site 37 and 38)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Sites 39, 40, and 41: Heart of the City
Address: 19610 Stevens Creek Blvd (et al)
APNs: 369-06-002, 369-06-003, 369-06-004
Target Number of Housing Units: 44
Description: Sites 39, 40, and 41 are a set of three par cels totaling 2.72 acres located in the Heart of the City – East Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. The Sites are located

1.5 miles east of De Anza College and . The parcels range in size from 0.53 acres to 1.29 acres. Existing uses on the site include commercial buildings that wer e built in the 1960s, and are aged but not yet dilapidated. Neighboring uses include a variety of commercial buildings uses and single-family homes.

The parcels were recently acquired by an established residential developer with the intent to develop townhomes. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG/Res) with a land use designation of Commercial/Very High Residential which would allo w a total of 59 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. Based on an estimated realisti c capacity of 75 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 44 units could develop on this site.

Figure B4-29, Heart of the City (Sites 39, 40, and 41), shows an aerial view of Sites 39, 40, and 41.

Heart of the City (Sites 39, 40, and 41)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 42: Heart of the CitySouth De Anza
Address: 10133 S De Anza Blvd
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐59

APN: 359-10-015
Target Number of Housing Units: 58
Description: Site 42 is a 1.18-acre parcel located in the Heart of the City SpecialSouth De Anza Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. Site 42 is located approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include a commercial development and associated parking. The owner has recently expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and single-family uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG/Res) with a land use designation of Commerc ial/Very High Residential which would allow a total of 77 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelli ng units per acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 75 percent of the maxi mum, it is estimated that 58 units could develop on this site. It is anticipated that the site could be designed with live/work units fronting S. De Anza Blvd.

Figure B4-30, Heart of the City (Site 42), shows an aerial view of Site 42 along with nearby Site 26, 57, and 43.

Heart of the CitySouth De Anza (Site 42)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Site 43: Heart of the CitySouth De Anaza
Address: 10211 S De Anza Blvd
APN: 359-10-060
Target Number of Housing Units: 48
Description: Site 43 is a 0.98-acre parcel located in the Heart of the City Special South De Anza Special Area, which is a mix of co mmercial and residential uses. Site 43 is located east of De Anza College. Existing uses on Tthe site is developed with include a partially-occupied shopping center and associated parking. Neighboring uses include both commercial uses and single-family uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG/Res) with a land use designation of Commercial/Very High Density which would allow a total of 64 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 75 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 48 units could develop on this site. It is anticipated that Live/Work type units could be designed on the site, given its location on the South DeAnza Boulevard corridor.

Figure B4-31, Heart of the City (Site 43), shows an aerial view of Site 43 along with adjacent Site 57.

Heart of the CitySouth De Anza (Site 43)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Sites 44 through 48: Heart of the City – Crossroads
Address: 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd
APNs: 359-08-025 through 359-08-029
Target Number of Housing Units: 190

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐60

Description: Sites 44 through 48 are a set of five parcels totaling 13.73 acres, of which 3.92 acres are expected to be redevelopedable. In pParticularly, on a portion of site 47 is anticipated to be rezoned to allow residential units. These parcels are loca ted in the Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Center, which consists is of predominantly comm ercial uses located both north and south sides of Stevens Creek Blvd. Existing uses on the Ssites 44 through 48 include commercial buildings and associated surface parking areas. At least one co mmercial building (former Pizza Hut) on these sites has been vacant for the past seven years, and a nother commercial business (Fontana’s Restaurant) in this development closed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The extant buildings are of mixed quality, but some are in very poor condition. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, with single-family uses in close proximity. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG/Res) with a land use designation of Commercial/Very High Residential wh ich would allow a total of 255 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 75 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 190 units could develop on this site.

Figure B4-32, Heart of the City – Crossroads (Sites 44 through 48), shows an aerial view of Sites 44 through 48.

Heart of the City – Crossroads (Sites 44 through 48)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023Sites 49 through 51: Homestead Special Area ‐ Stelling Gateway
Address: 20916 Homestead Rd (et al)
APNs: 326-09-052, 326-09-060, and 326-09-061
Target Number of Housing Units: 225
Description: Sites 49 through 51 are three parcels tota ling 4.61 acres, located on the east side of Stelling Road immediately south of Homestead Road . The parcels range in size from 0.74 to 2.75 acres. The surrounding area is predominantly single- and multi-family homes along with nd commercial uses located immediately north of Interstate 280. Development Existing uses on the Ssites 49 through 51 includes retail buildings uses that were constructed in 1984 and 1976.,The buildings and are aged but not dilapidated. However, though it is not expected that the commercial uses would redevelop along with , but that the associated parking area would be redeveloped as a mixed-use development. Since tThe shared parking easements and properties are not owned by the same owner. tThe parcels have the potential to either develop separately or as a consolidated sitelot. Neighboring uses include residential and commercial uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P (CG/Res) with a land use designation of Very High Density which would allow a combined total of 300 units to be built across both parcels at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 75 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 225 units could develop on this site.

Figure B4-33 Stelling Gateway (Sites 49 through 51) shows an aerial view of Sites 49 through 51 along with neighboring sites 13 through 16.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐61

Stelling Gateway (Sites 49 through 51)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Sites 54, 55, and 56 : South De Anza Blvd
Address: 1471 S De Anza Blvd (et al)
APN: 366-19-053, 366-19-054, 366-19-055
Target Number of Housing Units: 132
Description: The South De Anza Blvd Ssites 454, 4655 , and 576 are located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Sites 55 and 56 are 0.56 and 1.75 acre parcels, respectively, and are the site of Summerwinds Nursery. The nursery was built in 1978 and is aged but not yet dilapida ted. Other locations (Sunnyvale and the Almaden area of San Jose, both cities neighbor Cupertino) of the Summerwinds chain of nurseries have been recently closed in order to redevelop for housing. Si te 54 is a 0.40 acre parcel owned by the same owner as the Summerwinds nursery, but is operated as an independent use. Existing uses on the site include a commercial use and parking lot. The current building was constructed in 1968, and, like the nursery, is aged but not yet dilapidated. Due to it s proximity to the other sites, it is expected to redevelop at the same time as the nursery site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and De Anza Blvd.

These sites have been targeted for rezoning to P(CG/Res) with a land use designation of Very High Density, which would allow a total of 176 units bu ilt at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre.

Based on an estimated realistic capa city of 75 percent, it is estima ted that 132 units may develop on this site.

Figure B4-34, South De Anza Blvd (Site 54, 55, and 56), shows an aerial view of Sites 54, 55, and 56.

South De Anza Blvd (Sites 54, 55, and 56)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023Site 57: South De Anza Blvd Address: 10201 S. De Anza Blvd
APN: 359-10-044
Target Number of Housing Units: 9
Description: Site 57 is a 0.18-acre parcel located in th e South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De An za Blvd. Existing uses on the Ssite 57 include a small shopping center and associated parking lot. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, single- family uses, and De Anza Blvd. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG/Res) and a land use designation of Commercial/Very High Residential, which would allow a total of 12 units built at a maximum of 65 dwelling units per acre. At an es timated realistic capaci ty of 75 percent of the maximum, it is estimated that 9 units could deve lop on the site. Could develop in conjunction with Site 43 and it is anticipated that this could be developed with live/work units.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐62

Figure B4-35, South De Anza Blvd (Site 61), shows an aerial view of Site 57 along with adjacent Site

43. South De Anza Blvd (Site 57)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023Sites 58 to 63: North Vallco Park Address: 10989 N Wolfe Road (et al)
APNs: 316-050-50, 316-050-51, 316-050-52, 316-050-53, 316-050-56, 316-050-72 Target Number of Housing Units: 282
Description: Site 58 to 63 are located in the North Vallco Park Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located north of Interstate 280 and west of the Apple Park Corporation Campus.

The six parcels range in size from 0.54 acres to 1.02 acres. All six parcels are owned by the same entity, and the owner has expressed a strong interest in redeveloping this site to include residential uses while maintaining the commercial portions of the development, and is pursuing entitlements. Existing uses on the site include commercial uses, many of which were constructed in the late 1960s. The existing 99 Ranch commercial building is expected to be de molished and replaced with a new building with the 99 Ranch store on the first floor and apartments above. In a later phase, the owner intends to demolish an older building adjacent to a parking gara ge and build an all-residential structure. The owner has indicated an interest in development of over up to X 300 units and a minimum of 115,000 s.f. oOf commercial uses. Neighboring uses include single-family and Wolfe Road. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG/Res) with a land use designation of Commercial/Residential, which would allow a total of 377 units built at a maxi mum of 35 dwelling units per acre. Based on an estimated realistic capacity of 75 percent of the ma ximum, it is estimated that 282 units could be developed on this site. These are subject to AB2011 should we look at a higher density? Higher density could be considered but Kimco’s plan should guide the estimate.

Figure B4-36, North Vallco Park (Sites 58 to 63), shows an aerial view of Site 58 to 63.

North Vallco Park (Sites 58 to 63)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023Site 06c: Jollyman Address: 7540 McClellan Road
Target Number of Housing Units: 3
Description: The Jollyman 06c site is located in the Jollyman Neighborhood, which is predominately defined by single-family residential homes and lo cated immediately south of the De Anza College campus and east of the Highway 85 corridor. Current use includes a single-family home. Neighboring uses include single-family housing. This site has b een targeted for rezoning to R1-C, which would allow a total of four (4) units built at a minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre. There is one existing unit on the site that would be lost; the number of net new units would be three (3) units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐63

Figure B4-11, Jollyman (Site 06c), shows an aerial view of the Jollyman 06c site.

Figure B4-10 Jollyman (Site 06c)

Site 06d64: Jollyman
Address: 20920 McClellan Road
Target Number of Housing Units: 2120
APN: 359-20-028
Description: The Jollyman 06d siteSite 64 is located in the Jollyman Neighborhood, which is predominately defined by single-family residentia l homes and located immediately south of the De Anza College campus and east of the Highway 85 corridor. The primary cCurrent use of the site is includes a church and associated buildings. Neighboring uses include multi-family housing and commercial uses. This A portion of this site has been targeted for rezoning to P(ResR3) with a General Plan designation of Medium Density Commercial/Re sidential, which would allow a total of 21 26 units built at a minimum of 30 20.01 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 35 dwelling units per acre. At an estimated realistic capacity of 75 percent of the maximum, it is assumed that 20 units may develop on this property. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 21 units.The church has recently expressed an active interest in developing the portion of their property without church buildings, approximately 0.75 acres. This may include some of the parking area as well as some of the open green space on the northwest corner of the lot.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-1237, Jollyman (Site 06d64), shows an aerial view of the Jollyman 06d site.Site 64 along with nearby Site 28 and project P8.

Figure B4-11 Jollyman (Site 06d64)
Source: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity); City of Cupertino, 2023 Monta Vista North Neighborhood

Figure B4‐13, Monta Vista North Neighborhood, provides an overview of the neighborhood.

Site 07a: Monta Vista North
Address: 10857 Linda Vista Dr (et al)
Target Number of Housing Units: 47
Description: The Monta Vista North 07a Site is located in the Monta Vista North Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately east of the foothills. Existing uses on the site include four single-family homes. Neighboring uses include tennis courts, a golf course, and single-family homes. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(R-3), APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐64

which would allow a total of 51 units built at a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. There are four (4) existing units on the site that would be lost; the number of net new units would be 47 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-14, Monta Vista North Site (Site 07a), shows an aerial view of the Monta Vista North 07a site.

Figure B4-12 Monta Vista North Site (Site 07a)

Monta Vista South Neighborhood
Figure B4-15, Monta Vista South Neighborhood, provides an overview of the neighborhood.

Figure B4-13 onta Vista North Neighborhood

Figure B4-14 Monta Vista South Neighborhood
Site 08a: Monta Vista South
Address: 20666 Cleo Avenue
Target Number of Housing Units: 8
Description: The Monta Vista South 08a Site is loca ted in the Monta Vista South Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately east of the foothills. Existing uses on the site include one si ngle-family home. Neighboring uses include single- and multi-family homes. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which would allow a total of nine (9) units built at a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre. There is one (1) existing unit on the site that would be lost; the number of net new units would be eight (8) units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-16, Monta Vista South Site (Site 08a), sh ows an aerial view of the Monta Vista South 08a site.

Figure B4-15 Monta Vista South Site (Site 08a)

Site 08b: Monta Vista South
Address: [no address]
Target Number of Housing Units: 6
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐65

Description: The Monta Vista South 08b Site is loca ted in the Monta Vista South Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately east of the foothills. Existing uses on the site include vacant acreage. Neighboring uses include single-family and duplex homes. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which would allow a total of six (6) units built at a minimum of 30 dwelling units pe r acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be six (6) units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-17, Monta Vista South Site (Site 08b), s hows an aerial view of the Monta Vista South 08b site.

Figure B4-16 Monta Vista South Site (Site 08b)

Site 08c: Monta Vista South
Address: 21710 Regnart Road (et al)
Target Number of Housing Units: 23
Description: The Monta Vista South 08c Site is located in the Monta Vista South Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately east of the foothills. Existing uses on the site include one single-family home and open space. Neighboring uses include single-family homes. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R1-5, which would allow a total of 23 units built at a minimum of 15 dwelling units per acre. There is one (1) existing unit on the site that would be lost; the number of net new units would be 22 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-18, Monta Vista South Site (Site 08c), shows an aerial view of the Monta Vista South 08c site.

Figure B4-17 Monta Vista South Site (Site 08c)

Site 08d: Monta Vista South
Address: 21530 Rainbow Drive
Target Number of Housing Units: 2
Description: The Monta Vista South 08d Site is located in the Monta Vista South Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately east of the foothills. Existing uses on the site include one single-family home. Neighboring uses include single- and multi-family homes. This site has been targeted for rezoning to R1-7.5, which would allow a total of three (3) units built at a minimum of five (5) dwelling units per acre. There is one (1) existing unit on the site that would be lost; the number of net new units would be two (2) units.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐66

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-19, Monta Vista South Site (Site 08d), shows an aerial view of the Monta Vista South 08d site.

Figure B4-18 Monta Vista South Site (Site 08d)
North Blaney Neighborhood
Figure B4-19 Figure B4-20, North Blaney Neighborhood, provides an overview of the neighborhood.North Blaney Neighborhood
Site 09a: North Blaney
Address: 10730 N. Blaney Avenue
Target Number of Housing Units: 61
Description: The North Blaney 09a site is located in the North Blaney Neighborhood, which is a mix of single- and multi-family housing located immediately south of Interstate 280. Existing uses on the site include mini storage and a caretaker unit. Neighboring uses include multi-family housing and the Interstate 280 corridor. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which would allow a total of 62 units built at a minimum of 35 dwelling units per acre. There is one (1) existing unit on the site that would be lost; the number of net new units would be 61 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required; noise and air contaminants from Interstate 280 Figure B4-21, North Blaney (Site 09a), shows an aerial view of the North Blaney 09a site.

Figure B4-20 North Blaney (Site 09a)

South Blaney Neighborhood
Figure B4-22, South Blaney Neighborhood, provides an overview of the neighborhood.South Blaney Neighborhood
Site 11a: South Blaney
Address: 10787 S. Blaney Ave (et al)
Target Number of Housing Units: 98 units
Description: The South Blaney 11a site is located in the South Blaney Neighborhood, which is a mix of single- and multi-family housing and commercial uses located immediately north of Bollinger Road.

Existing uses on the site include commercial st ructures. Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG-Res), which would allow a total of 98 units built at a minimum of 30 dwelling unit s per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 98 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐67

Figure B4-23, South Blaney (Site 11a), shows an aerial view of the South Blaney 11a site.

Figure B4-21 South Blaney (Site 11a)
Site 11b: South Blaney
Address: 10710 S. De Anza Blvd (et al)
Target Number of Housing Units: 64
Description: The South Blaney 11b site is located in the South Blaney Neighborhood, which is a mix of single- and multi-family housing and commercial uses located immediately north of Bollinger Road.

Existing uses on the site include a commercial st ructure and single-family uses. Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which would allow a total of 67 units built at a minimum of 50 dwelling units per acre. There are three (3) existing units on the site that would be lost; the number of net new units would be 64 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-24, South Blaney (Site 11b), shows an aerial view of the South Blaney 11b site.

Figure B4-22 South Blaney (Site 11b)
Bubb Road Special Area
Figure B4-25, Bubb Road Special Area, provides an overview of the neighborhood.Bubb Road Special Area
Site 13a: Bubb Road
Address: 21431 McClellan Road
Target Number of Housing Units: 22
Description: The Bubb Road 13a site is located in the Bubb Road Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and industrial uses located immediately west of Highway 85. Existing uses on the site include a single-family home. Neighboring uses incl ude commercial and single-family uses and the Highway 85 corridor. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which would allow a total of 23 units built at a minimum of 50 dwelling units per acre. There is one (1) existing unit on the site that would be lost; the number of net new units would be 22 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required; noise and air contaminants from Highway 85 Figure B4-26, Bubb Road (Site 13a), shows an aerial view of the Bubb Road 13a Site.

Figure B4-23 Bubb Road (Site 13a)
Heart of the City – West Special Area
Figure B4-27, Heart of the City – West Special Area, provides an overview of the neighborhood.

Heart of the City – West Special Center
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐68

Site 14a: Heart of the City – West
Address: Mary Avenue ROW
Target Number of Housing Units: 38
Description: The Heart of the City – West 14a site is located in the Heart of the City – West Special Center, which is the home of De Anza College loca ted east of Highway 85. The area is bisected by Stevens Creek Blvd. Existing use s on the site include unused right-of-way adjacent to Highway 85.

Neighboring uses include multi-family residential us es and Highway 85. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which would allow a total of 38 units built at a minimum of 50 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 38 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required; noise and air contaminants from Highway 85 Figure B4-28, Heart of the City West (Site 14a), shows an aerial view of the Heart of the City West 14a site.

Figure B4-24 Heart of the City West (Site 14a)

Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Area
Figure B4-29, Heart of the City – West Special Area, provides an overview of the neighborhood.

Site 15a: Heart of the City – Crossroads
Address: 10125 Bandley Drive
Target Number of Housing Units: 33
Description: The Heart of the City – Crossroad 15a site is located in the Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Center, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd. Existing uses on the site include a commercial structure. Neighboring uses include commercial and multi‐family residential uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which would allow a total of 33 units built at a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 33 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4‐30, Heart of the City – Crossroads (Site 15a), shows an aerial view of the Heart of the City – Crossroads 15a site.

Figure B4-25 Heart of the City – Crossroads (Site 15a)
Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Area
Site 15b: Heart of the City – Crossroads
Address: 20950 Stevens Creek Blvd
Target Number of Housing Units: 10
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐69

Description: The Heart of the City – Crossroad 15b si te is located in the Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Center, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd. Existing uses on the site include a commercial structure. Neighboring uses include commercial and multi-family residential uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which would allow a total of 10 units built at a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 10 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-31, Heart of the City – Crossroads (Site 15b), shows an aerial view of the Heart of the City – Crossroads 15b site.

Figure B4-26 Heart of the City – Crossroads (Site 15b)

Heart of the City – Central Special Area
Figure B4-32, Heart of the City – Central Special Area, provides an overview of the neighborhood.

Site 16b: Heart of the City – Central
Address: 20010 Stevens Creek Blvd
Target Number of Housing Units: 14
Description: The Heart of the City – Central 16b site is located in the Heart of the City – Central Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd located in the central core area. Existing uses on the site include a commercial structure.

Neighboring uses include commercial uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which would allow a total of 14 units built at a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 14 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-33 shows an aerial view of the Heart of the City – Central 16b site.

Figure B4-27 Heart of the City – Central (Site 16b)
Figure B4-28 Heart of the City – Central Special Area
Site 16c: Heart of the City – Central
Address: 20149 Stevens Creek Blvd
Target Number of Housing Units: 19
Description: The Heart of the City – Central 16c site is located in the Heart of the City – Central Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd located in the central core area. Existing uses on the site include two commercial structures.

Neighboring uses include commercial uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐70

would allow a total of 19 units built at a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 19 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-34, Heart of the City – Central (Site 16c) , shows an aerial view of the Heart of the City – Central 16c site.

Figure B4-29 Heart of the City – Central (Site 16c)
Heart of the City –East Special Area
Figure B4‐35, Heart of the City – Central Special Area, provides an overview of the neighborhood.

Site 18c: Heart of the City – East
Address: 19220 Stevens Creek Blvd (et al)
Target Number of Housing Units: 93
Description: The Heart of the City – East 18c site is lo cated in the Heart of the City – East Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses loca ted both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd located east of the central core area. Existi ng uses on the site include a commercial structure.

Neighboring uses include commercial uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which would allow a total of 93 units built at a minimum of 35 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 93 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-36 shows an aerial view of the Heart of the City – East 18c site.

Figure B4-30 Heart of the City – East (Site 18c)

Figure B4-31 Heart of the City – East Special Area
Site 18d: Heart of the City – East
Address: 19400 Stevens Creek Blvd
Target Number of Housing Units: 42
Description: The Heart of the City – East 18d site is lo cated in the Heart of the City – East Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses loca ted both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd located east of the central core area. Existi ng uses on the site include a commercial structure.

Neighboring uses include commercial uses. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which would allow a total of 42 units built at a minimum of 35 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 42 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐71

Figure B4-37, Heart of the City – East (Site 18d), shows an aerial view of the Heart of the City – East 18d site.

Figure B4-32 Heart of the City – East (Site 18d)

Homestead Road Special Area
Figure B4-38, Homestead Road Special Area, provides an overview of the neighborhood.

Site 19a: Homestead
Address: 19820 Homestead Road
Target Number of Housing Units: 6
Description: The Homestead 19a site is located in the Homestead Road Special Area, which is predominantly single- and multi-family homes an d commercial uses located immediately north of Interstate 280. Existing uses on the site include a single-family home. Neighboring uses include single- family homes. This site has been targeted for rezoni ng to P(Res), which would allow a total of seven (7) units built at a minimum of 15 dwelling units pe r acre. There is one existing unit on the site that would be lost; the number of net new units would be six (6) units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-39, Homestead (Site 19a), shows an aerial view of the Homestead 19a site.

Figure B4-33 Homestead (Site 19a)

Figure B4-34 Homestead Road Special Area
Site 19b: Homestead
Address: 11025 N De Anza Blvd
Target Number of Housing Units: 21
Description: The Homestead 19b site is located in the Homestead Road Special Area, which is predominantly single- and multi-family homes an d commercial uses located immediately north of Interstate 280. Existing uses on the site include a small commercial structure. Neighboring uses include multi-family homes and the Sunnyvale Saratoga Road . This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG-Res), which would allow a total of 21 units built at a minimum of 50 dwelling units per acre.

There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 21 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-40 shows an aerial view of the Homestead 19b site.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐72

Figure B4-35 Homestead (Site 19b)

Stelling Gateway
Site 20a: Stelling Gateway
Address: 10885 N Stelling Rd
Target Number of Housing Units: 45
Description: The Stelling Gateway 20a site is located in the Homestead Road Special Area, which is predominantly single- and multi-family homes an d commercial uses located immediately north of Interstate 280. Existing uses on the site include a parking lot. Neighboring uses include a church, an electrical power substation, and tennis courts. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which would allow a total of 45 units built at a minimum of 50 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 45 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-41, Stelling Gateway (Site 20a), shows an aerial view of the Stelling Gateway 20a Site.

Figure B4-36 Stelling Gateway (Site 20a)

Site 20c: Stelling Gateway
Address: 21040 Homestead Rd (et al)
Target Number of Housing Units: 167
Description: The Stelling Gateway 20c site is located in the Homestead Road Special Area, which is predominantly single- and multi-family homes an d commercial uses located immediately north of Interstate 280. Existing uses on the site include tennis courts and vacant lot. Neighboring uses include a church, an electrical power substation, and tennis courts. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which would allow a total of 167 units built at a minimum of 50 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 167 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-42 Stelling Gateway (Site 20c), shows an aerial view of the Stelling Gateway 20c Site.

Figure B4-37 Stelling Gateway (Site 20c)
Figure B4-38 South De Anza Blvd Special Area
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐73

Figure B4-39 South De Anza Blvd Special Area (Part 2)
South De Anza Special Area
Site 23a: South De Anza Blvd
Address: 10105 S De Anza Blvd
Target Number of Housing Units: 50
Description: The South De Anza Blvd 23a site is located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on the site include a commercial use and parking lot. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, multi-family units, and De Anza Blvd. This site will remain zoned at P(CG -Res), which would allow a total of 50 units built at a minimum of 50 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 50 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-45, South De Anza Blvd (Site 23a), show s an aerial view of the South De Anza Blvd 23a site.

Figure B4-40 South De Anza Blvd (Site 23a)

Site 23b: South De Anza Blvd
Address: 10291 S De Anza Blvd
Target Number of Housing Units: 66
Description: The South De Anza Blvd 23b site is located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on the site include a commercial use and parking lot. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, multi-family units, and De Anza Blvd. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG-Res), which would allow a total of 66 units built at a minimum of 50 dwelling units pe r acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 66 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-46, South De Anza Blvd (Site 23b), show s an aerial view of the South De Anza Blvd 23b site.

Figure B4-41 South De Anza Blvd (Site 23b)

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐74

Site 23c: South De Anza Blvd
Address: 10619 S De Anza Blvd
Target Number of Housing Units: 8
Description: The South De Anza Blvd 23c site is located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on the site include a commercial use and parking lot. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and De Anza Blvd. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG-Res), which would allow a total of eight (8) units built at a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre. There ar e no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be eight (8) units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-47, South De Anza Blvd (Site 23c), shows an aerial view of the South De Anza Blvd 23c site.

Figure B4-42 South De Anza Blvd (Site 23c)
Site 23d: South De Anza Blvd
Address: 1361 S De Anza Blvd (et al)
Target Number of Housing Units: 121
Description: The South De Anza Blvd 23d site is located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on the site include a commercial use and parking lot. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, single-family units, and De Anza Blvd. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG-Res), which would allow a total of 121 units built at a minimum of 50 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 121 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-48, South De Anza Blvd (Site 23d), shows an aerial view of the South De Anza Blvd 23d site.

Figure B4-43 South De Anza Blvd (Site 23d)
Site 23g: South De Anza Blvd
Address: 1451 S De Anza Blvd (et al)
Target Number of Housing Units: 26
Description: The South De Anza Blvd 23g site is located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on the site include a commercial use and parking lot. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and De Anza Blvd. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG-Res), which would allow a total of 26 units built at a APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐75

minimum of 50 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 26 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-49, South De Anza Blvd (Site 23g), show s an aerial view of the South De Anza Blvd 23g site.

Figure B4-44 South De Anza Blvd (Site 23g)

Site 23h: South De Anza Blvd
Address: 1471 S De Anza Blvd
Target Number of Housing Units: 20
Description: The South De Anza Blvd 23h site is located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on the site include a commercial use and parking lot. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and De Anza Blvd. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG-Res), which would allow a total of 20 units built at a minimum of 50 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 20 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-50, South De Anza Blvd (Site 23h), show s an aerial view of the South De Anza Blvd 23h site.

Figure B4-45 South De Anza Blvd (Site 23h)

Site 23i: South De Anza Blvd
Address: 1505 S De Anza Blvd
Target Number of Housing Units: 67
Description: The South De Anza Blvd 23i site is located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on the site include a commercial use and parking lot. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, multi-family uses, and De Anza Blvd. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG-Res), which would allow a total of 67 units built at a minimum of 50 dwelling units pe r acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 67 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐76

Figure B4-51, South De Anza Blvd (Site 23i), shows an aerial view of the South De Anza Blvd 23i site.

Figure B4-46 South De Anza Blvd (Site 23i)

Site 23j: South De Anza Blvd
Address: 1515 S De Anza Blvd
Target Number of Housing Units: 43
Description: The South De Anza Blvd 23j site is located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on the site include a commercial use and parking lot. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and De Anza Blvd. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG-Res), which would allow a total of 43 units built at a minimum of 50 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 43 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-52, South De Anza Blvd (Site 23j), shows an aerial view of the South De Anza Blvd 23j site.

Figure B4-47 South De Anza Blvd (Site 23j)

Site 23k: South De Anza Blvd
Address: [no address]
Target Number of Housing Units: 46
Description: The South De Anza Blvd 23k site is located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on the site include a commercial use and parking lot. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and De Anza Blvd. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(CG-Res), which would allow a total of 46 units built at a minimum of 50 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 46 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-53, South De Anza Blvd (Site 23k), show s an aerial view of the South De Anza Blvd 23k site.

Figure B4-48 South De Anza Blvd (Site 23k)

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐77

Site 23l: South De Anza Blvd
Address: 20555 Prospect Road
Target Number of Housing Units: 24
Description: The South De Anza Blvd 23l site is located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on the site include a commercial use and parking lot. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, single-family uses, and De Anza Blvd. This site has been targeted for rez oning to P(Res), which would allow a total of 24 units built at a minimum of 50 dwelling units pe r acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 24 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-54, South De Anza Blvd (Site 23l), shows an aerial view of the South De Anza Blvd 23l site.

Figure B4-49 South De Anza Blvd (Site 23l)
Figure B4-50 Vallco Shopping District
Vallco Shopping District
Site 24a: Vallco Shopping District
Address: 10333 N Wolfe Road
Target Number of Housing Units: 257
Description: The Vallco Shopping District 24a site is located in the Vallco Shopping District, which is predominantly commercial uses located south of Interstate 280 along Wolfe Road. Existing uses on the site include a vacant lot. Neighboring uses include single-family uses, Wolfe Road, and the Interstate 280 corridor. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which would allow a total of 257 units built at a minimum of 50 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 257 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required; noise and air contaminants from Interstate 280 Figure B4-56, Vallco Shopping District (Site 24a), shows an aerial view of the Vallco Shopping District 24a site.

Figure B4-51 Vallco Shopping District (Site 24a)

Vallco Park North Special Area
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐78

VALLCO PARK NORTH SPECIAL AREA
Site 26a: North Vallco Park
Address: 10989 N Wolfe Road (et al)
Target Number of Housing Units: 323
Description: The North Vallco Park 26a site is located in the North Vallco Park Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located north of Interstate 280 and west of the Apple Corporation Campus. Existing uses on the site include commercial uses. Neighboring uses include single-family and Wolfe Road. This site has been targeted for rezoning to P(Res), which would allow a total of 323 units built at a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre. There are no existing units on the site; the number of net new units would be 323 units.

Constraints: Rezoning required
Figure B4-58, North Vallco Park (Site 26a), shows an aerial view of the North Vallco Park 26a site.

Figure B4-52 North Vallco Park (Site 26a)

Housing Constraints B.5

APPENDIX

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐i

Table of Contents
B5  Housing Constraints ........................................................................................... B5-1 B5.1  Governmental Constraints ............................................................................................ B5-1 B5.2  Nongovernmental Constraints .................................................................................... B5-38 B5.3  Opportunities for Energy Conservation ....................................................................... B5-41 Tables
Table B5-1.  Residential Land Use Density Classifications .................................................... B5-1 Table B5-2.  Residential Development Standards .................................................................. B5-4 Table B5-3.  Parking Requirements ........................................................................................ B5-6 Table B5-4.  Cumulative Impacts Analysis, by Zone .............................................................. B5-9 Table B5-5.  Permitted Uses in Residential Zones ............................................................... B5-11 Table B5-6.  Cupertino Development and Planning Fees (July 2022) .................................. B5-18 Table B5-7.  Comparison of Single-Family Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County .......................................................................................... B5-21 Table B5-8.  Comparison of Small Multifamily (10 units) Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County .......................................................................................... B5-22 Table B5-9.  Comparison of Large Multifamily (100+ Units) Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County .................................................................................................... B5-23 Table B5-10.  Comparison of Permit Processing Times (Months) .......................................... B5-26 Table B5-11.  Single-Family Development Process ............................................................... B5-29 Table B5-12.  Multifamily and Planned Development Process ............................................... B5-29 Table B5-13.  PG&E Programs and Incentives for Residential Properties ............................. B5-43

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐1

B5 HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
State law requires that Housing Elements include an analysis of governmental and nongovernmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels.

Governmental constraints include land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, fees and exactions, and permitting procedures. Nongovernmental constraints are primarilyinclude market- driven and include land costs, construction costs , and the availability of financing , as well as environmental hazards, such as wildfires, earthquakes, and flooding.

B5.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

GENERAL PLAN LAND USES
The General Plan provides the policy and program direction necessary to guide land use decisions in the first two decades of the 21st century.. The existing General Plan is current and legally adequate and is not considered an impediment to housing production. Table B5-1, Residential Land Use Density Classifications, lists the General Plan land use cl assifications that allow residential development. As required by state law, the General Plan includes a land use map indicating the allowable uses and densities at various locations in the City. The Land Use/ Community Design section identifies five categories of residential uses based on dwelling unit density, expressed as the number of dwelling units permitted per gross acre, as summarized below in Table B5-1, Residential Land Use Density Classifications.

Table B5-1. Residential Land Use Density Classifications Residential HillsideVery Low
Density2 Density1 Hillside Single-Family Housing See Note Low Density Single-Family Housing 1 –-5 du/ac
Low/Medium Density Single-Family Housing 5.01–-10 du/ac High/Medium Density Multifamily Housing 10.01–-20 du/ac Medium/High Density Multifamily Housing 20.01–-35 du/ac High Density Multifamily Housing Current–-35.01+ du/ac
Planned -– 35.01 -– 50 du/ac 2
High/Very High Density Multifamily Housing 50.01 -– 65 du/ac 2 Very High Density Multifamily Housing 65.01 – 80 du/ac 32 Commercial/Residential –- MH Commercial/Residential 20.01–-35 du/ac 2 Commercial/Residential –- H Commercial/Residential 35.01–-50 du/ac 2 Commercial/Residential – HVH Commercial/Residential 50.01–-65 du/ac 2 Commercial/Residential – VH Commercial/Residential 65.01–-80 du/ac 2 Classification Development Category Maximum Density1
(dwelling units per acre)
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐2

Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.

Notes: 1. Density shown as dwelling units per acre (du/ac). 2 1 -– Residential Hillside Classification is, intended to protect environmentally sensitive areas from extensive development and to protect human life from hazards associated with floods, fires, and unstable terrain., It applies one of four slope-density formulaes to determine allowable residential density. 2 -– The City is planning to create new and modify existing General Plan Land Use Designations (see Strategy 1.3.3). 3. Very High Density General Plan Land Use Designation as well
In addition to the four residential categories, th e General Plan allows for residential uses in the “Industrial/Residential,” “Office/Commercial /Residential,” “Commercial/Residential,” and “Neighborhood Commercial/Residential” land use categories. None of the City’s General Plan policies have been identified as housing constrai nts. The General Plan does not define whether residential units are to be rented or owned or whether they are to be attached or detached.

NEW AND REVISED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The City is in the process of creating two new General Plan Land Use designations – High/Very High Density (HVH), which will allow for 50.01 to 65 units per acre and Very High Density (VH), which will allow for 65.01 to 80 units per acre. The City will also modify the Commercial/Residential (C/R) designation to apply different densities to sites with the C/R land use designation. The City will also allow solely residential uses to be permitted if the project is 100 percent affordable. ( Strategy HE-

1.3.3). These new designations will allow for increased housing capacity in Cupertino.

ZONING CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE
Title 19, Zoning, of the The Cupertino Zoning OrdinanceMunicipal Code establishes development standards and densities for new housing in the city. These regulations include minimum lot sizes, maximum number of dwelling units per acre, lot width, setbacks, lot coverage, maximum building height, and minimum parking requirement s. These standards are summarized in Table B 53-2, Residential Development Standards . As required by State law, the City’s Zoning Map is consistent with the General Plan. The development standards for the City’s zoning district that permit residential zoning districts and their respective permitted densities and development standards development are summarized in Table B5-2. below. All zoning and developm ent standards, as well as list of fees, are available on the City’s website, consistent with tr ansparency requirements pursuant to Government Code Section 65940.1, subsections (a )(1)(A)) and (a)(1)(B)).Residential development is permitted by right in residential zones.

Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (E)(2) provides special density rules for what it terms “Priority Housing Sites.” According to the code:
“If a [mixed-use] site is listed as a Priority Housing Site in the City’'s adopted Housing Element of the General Plan, then residential development that does not exceed the number of units designated for the site in the Housing Element shall be a permitted use.” It should be noted that Cupertino is built out and most new development is infill development, unlike in communities where greenfields or large single -family tracts are still being developed. Most development in Cupertino is either attached multifamily or townhome/row home style developments on redeveloped property. To the extent that the City is rezoning properties, these are to accommodate APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐3

developments that are higher in density than single family developments. The Cupertino 6 th Cycle Housing Element has been designed to take adva ntage of these special density rules for Priority Housing Sites. Selected site listed in Table B4-3 (see Appendix B4) have been designated as “Priority Housing Sites” (see Policy HE-1.3). To ensure that all Priority Housing Sites (not just mixed-use sites) benefit from this special density rule, a new pr ogram has been added to amend the language of Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (E) so that Subsection Cupertino Zoning Code Section

19.80.030 (E)(2) applies to all sites zoned for Pla nned Development, not just mixed-use sites (see Program HE-1.3.7).

NEW ZONING DISTRICT
The City is in the process of creating a new R4 Zoning District that will align with the two new General Plan Land Use designations, High/Very High Densi ty, and Very High Density allowing 50.1 to 65 units per acre and 65.01 to 80 units per acre, respectively (Strategies HE-1.3.3 and HE-1.3.9). The City will create development standards, looking at he ight, setbacks, lot coverage, etc., to ensure that maximum densities can be achieved.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐4

Table B5-2. Residential Development Standards
Zoning
Minimum
Lot Area
(square
feet)
Setbacks (feet) Maximum
Height (feet)
(stories)
Maximum
Structural Lot
Coverage
Maximum Floor-
Area Ratio Front ---Side Interior Side Street Side Rear A1 215,000 30 20 each -20 -20 25 28 40% -
A-1 43,000 -
215,000 30 20 each 20- -20 20 28 40-45% 45%
R-1 5,000-20,000 20 10-15
-Varies, no less
than 5 feet on 1st
floor (combined 10
– 15 depending on
zoning district) and
no less than 10 feet
on 2nd floor
(combined 25 feet)
12 - 20 28 (two stories)
45% (plus 5% for
overhangs, patios,
porches, and similar
unenclosed features)
45%
R-22 8,500-15,000 20 6-12 -20% of lot width,
no less than 6 feet 12 -
20 or 20% of the
lot depth,
whichever is
greater.
15-30 (two
stories) 40% -
R-32
9,300
(1st 3 units)
2,000
(each add.)
20 6-18
1st Floor – 6
2nd Floor – 9
> 24 feet’ tall – 18-
12- > 24 feet’
tall – 18
2020 feet or 20%
of the lot depth,
whichever is
greater.
30 (two stories) 40% -
RHS 120,000-
4400,000 120-25 10-2015
--1st Floor – 10
2nd Floor – 15
3rd Floor - 20
-1st Floor – 15
2nd Floor – 15
3rd Floor - 20
20-25 30 -45%
Lesser of 6,500 sq. ft.
or (4,500 + ((Net Lot
Area - 10000)/1000)
(59.59)) x (Slope
Adjustment Factor)
R-1C No
minimumN/A
N/AUnits adjacent to development boundary - Same setbacks as required in the adjacent zones. N/A
30 (two stories)
30 N/A N/A-
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐5

Source: City of Cupertino, Municipal Code Tile 19: Zoning Notes: 1. Setback may vary depending on the number of floors per residential structure.

2. Minimum rear yard setback is 20 ft./20% lot depth, whichever is greater.

N/A = Not Applicable/Available
Note: Standards in planned development districts are consistent with the applicable residential zone. For example, P(CG, R-3) would indicate a mixed-use planned development for which the commercial use would follow Commercial General development standards and the residential component would be subject to the development standards of the R-3 zone. For residential projects in Planned Development zoning districts, the P zoning allows flexibility in proposing their own standards depending on the types of units being proposed.

Table B5-2. Residential Development Standards
Zoning
Minimum
Lot Area
(square
feet)
Setbacks (feet) Maximum
Height (feet)
(stories)
Maximum
Structural Lot
Coverage
Maximum Floor-
Area Ratio Front ---Side Interior Side Street Side Rear CG
No minimum
lot area or
coverage.

Per
General
or
Special
Plans-
0-12 ft 0-12 ft 20 ft 30 No minimum lot area
or coverage. N/A
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐6

PARKING REQUIREMENTS
In California, providing sufficient parking for vehicles is an essential part of good planning. At the same time, however, excessive parking requirements can detract from the feasibility of developing new housing at a range of densities necessary to facilitate affordable housing. The City’s Zoning Code establishes residential parking standards, as sum marized in Table B5-3, Pa rking Requirements. The City has included Strategy HE-1.3.9 to analyze parking standards in comparison to those of neighboring jurisdictions, reduce parking requirements in response to this analysis, review and revise all residential parking standards to ensure parking is not a constraint to the development of housing.

Table B5-3. Parking Requirements
R-1 Single-Family 4 / Dwelling Unit (DU) (2 garage, 2 open) R-2 Duplex 3 / DU (1.5 enclosed, 1.5 open)
R-3 High- Density Multif-amily (all size units) 2 / DU (1 covered, 1 open) RHS Single-Family 4 / DU (2 garage, 2 open)
A-1 Single-Family 4 / DU (2 garage, 2 open)
P
Single-Family
High- Density Multif-amily
Small Lot Single-Family, Townhouse
4 / DU (2 garage, 2 open)
2 / DU (1 covered, 1 open)

2.8 / DU (2 garage, 0.8 open)
BQ Permanent emergency shelter Minimum of one parking space for each non- resident employee
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023 Housing Element Technical Report.

The requirement for two parking spaces for studios and single room occupancies (SROs) in the R-3 Zoning District constitutes an undo constraint on the development of affordable housing. A program has been included to lower the number of required parking spaces for studio and SRO units (see Strategy HE-1.3.11).

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

MULTI-FAMILY UNITS
State law requires the City to consider the impacts of development standards on the cost of housing, and further to consider the cumulative impacts of development standards on the cost and supply of housing. The City has historically tried to be crea tive in allowing multiple forms of residential developments in its Planning Development and R1 Cluster zoning, such as row homes, townhomes, condominiums, and small lot single-family etc. Within single-family neighborhoods, the City has required a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. This standard is not a constraint on the development of housing, since other forms of development and zoning allowed much smaller lot sizes.

Furthermore, since the City is built out, there is little to no potential for development of further single Zoning
Designation Housing Type Parking Requirement
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐7

family tracts/developments. Further, the passage both of Senate Bill (SB) 9, which allows for lot splits and duplexes by-right, and of new accessory dwelling unit (ADU) legislation, which allows up to two ADUs and one junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) by-right, in addition to the primary residence on the single-family lot, has lessened the constrai nts on what are traditionally single-family zoned properties.

Similarly, the primary development standard affecting housing costs for multifamily units is typically the maximum allowable density. The R-3 District pe rmits multifamily residential development. This district requires a minimum lot area of 9,300 square feet for a development with three dwelling units and an additional 2,000 square feet for every additional dwelling unit. The minimum lot width in the R-3 District is 70 feet, and lot coverage may not ex ceed 40 percent of net lot area. For single-story structures, required setbacks are 20 feet in the front yard, 6 feet in the side yard, and the greater of 20 feet or 20 percent of lot depth in the rear yard; the minimum side yard setback for two-story structures is 9 feet. The maximum height of any building is two stories and may not exceed 30 feet. This height limit is used because many R-3 districts are cont iguous to single-family residential neighborhoods.

Basements submerged entirely below grade, except for lightwells required for light, ventilation, and emergency egress, which may have a maximum exterior wall height of two feet between natural grade and ceiling, are permitted and are not counted towa rds the height requirements. For these reasons, the building height standards in the R-3 District are not considered a constraint to housing production.

Furthermore, the development standards for the R-3 District are on par with standards present in neighboring jurisdictions and do not unreasonably constrain the development of multifamily housing.

Multifamily residential uses are permitted uses in the R-3 District without the need for a Use Permit.

Developments are able to achieve the maximum allowable densities under existing development standards, including the height limit and maximum lot coverage. For example, looking at the number of developable units on a one-acre parcel, the maxi mum density allowed on a one-acre parcel is 20 units. With a maximum lot coverage of 40 pe rcent and assuming two stories of residential development, approximately 35,000 square feet of residential development can be achieved. Using conservative assumptions of 20 percent common area space and large unit sizes of 1,400 square feet, 20 units can be developed under this scenario. This analysis demonstrates that projects would be able to achieve the maximum allowable density in the R-3 District under the development standards.

Other zoning districts where residential devel opment is allowed includes Planned Development Residential or P(Res) zoning districts. These are typically higher- density zoning districts with densities of up to 35 dwelling units per acre. Building height s typically range from two to three stories (higher along transportation corridors such as Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard). There are no maximum floor- area ratio limits and this zoning district allows a multitude of development types ranging from multi-family apartments, condomin ium developments to small lot single-family, rowhomes/townhomes to cluster developments. Th e City has seen great success in developing a variety of housing types with this zoning designation and has been able to meet (and with Sstate density law bonuses, exceed) the maximum density for a site.

In addition, the designation of selected ho using sites as Priority Housing Sites (see Policy HE-1.3) ensures that the designated number of units assigned to sites in Tables B4-7 and B4-9 of this 6th APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐8

Cycle Housing Element can be readily achieved, re gardless of the specific development standards of the R-3 and other multifamily-allowing districts.

ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY ZONE
The City evaluated the cumulative impact of its land use controls on the cost and supply of housing, including development standards that limit sites’ building envelope (setbacks, private open space, and parking) and lot coverage restrictions. Based on this evaluation, none of the land use controls in conventional residential zoning districts would pr event an applicant from reaching the maximum density allowed for single-family development in single family-zones and multifamily developments in all zones, including Planned Development zoning districts, where multifamily is allowed, or otherwise constrain housing development. Current development standards for the residential zones that permit multifamily housing were applied to RHNA inventory sites of varying size that are listed in Tables B4-7 or B4-9, or hypothetical sites representing common pa rcel sizes in each respective zone when an inventory site was not available. The results co nfirmed the above conclusion, and each scenario achieved the respective zone’s maximum allowable density (Table B5-4).

In the R-2 zone (maximum 20 units per acre), the City analyzed development feasibility on the minimum parcel size, 8,500 square feet, and on an approximately one-half acre parcel. Sites larger than one-half acre were not evaluated, as development standards do not become more restrictive as parcel size increases. In both scenarios, the maximum density can be achieved with a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units served by the required covered/garaged and uncovered (screened) parking.

The R-3 and Planned Development zones (maximum 35 units per acre) isare the City’s existing multifamily designation and is intended to allow more conventional stacked residential product types.

Development feasibility on the minimum parcel si ze, approximately 9,300 square feet for the R-3 zone, was evaluated. To represent development on a larger site, the City combined three adjacent parcels identified in the sites inventory (sites 17, 18, and 19) to create an approximately single three- quarter acre lot. In both scenarios, the maximum de nsity can be achieved with a mix of studio, one-, and two-bedroom units served by the required cove red/garaged and uncovered (screened) parking.

Similarly, in the Planned Development zoning dist rict, there are no minimum parcel sizes – the only development regulation that dictates number of units allowed is density. These Planned Development zoning districts are located mainly along the City’s arterials and an analysis of the previously approved projects in the 5 th Cycle production period indicates that the adopted standards are not barriers to development.

As part of Strategy HE-1.3.3, the City is proposing an R-4 zone (maximum 80 units per acre) to allow even higher density development to occur, in appropriate areas. As presently drafted, the standards are comparable to those applicable to development in the R-3 zone, with the exception of maximum height and lot coverage. The R-4 zone will permit development up to a maximum of 70 feet (5 floors) instead of 30 feet (2 floors) and allo ws for a lot coverage maximum of 0.55 instead of

0.4. The City evaluated development feasibility on a 1 .6-acre parcel identified in the sites inventory (site 13), which represents a lot size commonly found in the R-4 zone, and on a 1-acre lot to represent development at the smaller end of the parcel size spectrum. In both scenarios, the maximum density can be achieved with a mix of studio, one-, an d two-bedroom units in a five-floor podium-style APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐9

product with the first two floors reserved exclusively for parking. As lot size increases, developers may develop wrap-style products to reduce building footprint and increase space for community amenities without sacrificing livable square footage.

The first step in the analysis was to determine the allowable building footprint given the site size and the maximum lot coverage. The next step was to determine the maximum allowed developable envelope given the lot coverage, setback, open sp ace, and parking requirements. Private open space was accommodated within the developable envelope and was not assumed to encroach into setback areas. Covered parking was subtracted from th e maximum building footprint to determine the occupiable area on the first floor. Occupiable area on the second floor, and additional floors, was set equal to the first floor building footprint, includ ing parking area, less additional setback/step-back requirements. Average unit size was calculated by dividing the total occupiable building area by the permitted number of units (site acreage multiplie d by density). Density bonus units are not factored into the calculations.

Table B5-4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis, by Zone
Scenario 1  Scenario 2
R‐2 Zone
APN:  N/A  N/A
Square footage:   8,500  22,000
Length (feet):   100  200
Width (feet):   85  110
Lot coverage:   0.4  0.4
Number of stories (30 ft max):  2  2
Maximum building footprint, given lot coverage
requirements:  3,400  8,800
Maximum building envelope given setbacks and parking
(see below for spaces per unit)  3,060  8,800
Covered parking spaces per unit:  2  2
Area required for covered parking (sqft):  1,760  4,400 Parking type:  Garage  Garage
Maximum occupiable building square footage:  4,000  12,800 Number of units:  4  10
Average unit square footage:  1,000  1280
Achievable Density (units per acre):  20  20
Permitted Density (units per acre):  20  20
R‐3 Zone
Sites 17, 18, 19  Scenario 2
APN:  369‐37‐022‐024  N/A
Square footage:   33,750  9,450
Length (feet):   225  105
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐10

Table B5-4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis, by Zone
Scenario 1  Scenario 2
Width (feet):   150  90
Lot coverage:   0.4  0.4
Number of stories (30 ft max):  2  2
Maximum building footprint, given lot coverage
requirements:  13,500  3,780
Maximum building envelope given setbacks, parking (see
below for spaces per unit) and private open spaces (10‐ 20% of unit size):
22,080  4,992
Covered parking spaces per unit:  1  1
Area required for covered parking (sqft):  5,400  1,600 Parking type:  Garage / Carport  Garage / Carport
Maximum occupiable building square footage:  21,060  5,772 Number of units:  27  8
Average unit square footage:  780  722
Achievable Density (units per acre):  35  35
Permitted Density (units per acre):  35  35
New R‐4 Zone
Site 13  Scenario 2
APN:  32607022  N/A
Square footage:   71,500  43,750
Length (feet):   325  250
Width (feet):   220  175
Lot coverage:   0.55  0.55
Number of stories (70 ft max):  5  4
Maximum building footprint, given lot coverage
requirements:  39,325  24,063
Maximum building envelope given setbacks, parking (see
below for spaces per unit) and private open spaces (10% of unit size):
49,920  29,340
Covered parking spaces per unit:  1  1
Area required for covered parking (sqft):  39,300  24,000 Parking type:  Structured
garage
Structured
garage
Maximum occupiable building square footage:  118,000  69,408 Number of units:  131  80
Average unit square footage:  901  868
Achievable Density (units per acre):  80  80
Permitted Density (units per acre):  80  80
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐11

In addition, the designation of selected ho using sites as Priority Housing Sites (see Policy HE-1.3) ensures that the designated minimum number of units assigned to sites in Tables B4-3 7 and B4-9 of this 6thth Cycle Housing Element can be readily achi eved, regardless of the specific development standards of the R-3 and other multi-family-allowing districts.

ZONING FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING
Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions m ust identify adequate sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standa rds to encourage the development of various types of housing for all economic segments of th e population. This includes single-family housing, multifamily housing, manufactured housing, mobile homes, emergency shelters, and transitional housing, among others. See Table B5-4, Permitted Uses in Residential Zones, for permitted and conditionally permitted uses by land use in residential zones.

Table B5-5. Permitted Uses in Residential Zones
Land Use A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 BQ
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P -
Single-family dwelling unit P P P P P P -
Dwelling, multi-family - - - - - - P -
Manufactured Housing P P P P P P P -
Residential Care Facility
(6 or fewer) P P P P P P P -
Residential Care Facility
(7 or more)
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
Transitional and Supportive
Housing P P P P P P P -
Emergency Shelter - - - - - - - P
Employee Housing
(36 Beds or 12-unit spaces) P P - CUP-
Admin. - - - -
Employee Housing
(6 or fewer employees) P P P P P P P P
Source: City of Cupertino Zoning Code
Notes: P – Permitted Use, - – Not Allowed, CUP - Admin. – Condi tional Use Permit issued by the Director of Community Development, CUP - PC – Conditional Use Permit iss ued by the Planning Commission.,

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs), also called “second units” in the Zoning Code, are attached or detached residential dwellings that provide compl ete, independent living fac ilities for one or more persons. That is, they include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐12

on the same parcel as a single-family dwelling. To comply with Government Code Section 65852.2, ADUs must be permitted ministerially subject to objective design standards.

Junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) are ADUs of less than 500 square feet and must be permitted within the walls of the proposed or existing single -family dwelling. An existing bedroom or interior entry into the single-family home is not requi red for JADUs. Currently, ADUs and JADUs are permitted within all zones where single-family and multifamily dwellings are permitted.

ADUs and JADUs offer an opportunity for homeowners to earn additional income and provide an opportunity for affordable housing units.

An Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) is an attached or detached, self-contained unit on a single-family residential lot. These units are often affordable du e to their smaller size. To promote the goal of affordable housing within the City, Cupertino’s Zoning Ordinance permits ADUs on lots in Single- Family Residential (R-1), Residential Hillside (RHS), Agricultural (A), and Agricultural Residential (A- 1) Districts. ADUs on lots of 10,000 square feet or more may not exceed 800 square feet, while units on lots smaller than 10,000 square feet cannot exceed 640 square feet. All ADUs must have direct outside access without going through the principal dwelling. If the residential lot encompasses less than 10,000 square feet, the ADU must be atta ched to the principal dwelling unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development through Architectural Review.

ADUs are subject to an architectural review by the Director of Community Development. The design and building materials of the proposed second unit must be consistent with the principal dwelling. In addition, the ADU may not require excessive grading which is visible from a public street or adjoining private property. The architectural review is done at the ministerial (building permit) level and is intended to ensure that the second unit is consistent with the architecture, colors, and materials of the primary house. This architectural review requireme nt constitutes an undo constraint on the development of this important form of affordable housing and is inconsistent with new state law governing the development of ADUs.

One additional off-street parking space must be providedis required if the principal dwelling unit has less than the minimum off-street parking spaces for the residential district in which it is located. ADUs must also comply with the underlying site development regulations specified by the zoning district. In most cases, State law exempts ADU development from having to provide parking, except in Residential hillside zoning districts far from transit lines. The City routinely reviews its ADU ordinance to ensure compliance with State law and will continue to do so. ADUs must also comply with the underlying site development regulations specified by the zoning district.

In February 2024, The City adopted an updated ADU ordinance to comply with state law, and to go above and beyond the State requirements. The updated ordinance includes the following:
 Permit up to three streamlined ADUs of any kind (three detached, three attached or three JADUs, or three conversion ADUs);
 In duplexes, permit streamlined ADUs similar to single family but up to a maximum of four units total: two detached, two attached, two JADUs or two conversion ADUs.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐13

The City has included Strategy HE-1.3. 2 8 to review and revise ADU requirements to ensure compliance with State law. Strategy HE-1.3.8 also included several actions the city plans to take to promote the development of ADUs. has been a dded to the Goal and Policy section of this 6 th Cycle Housing Element to address this problem.

TRANSITIONAL AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
Transitional housing is defined in Section 50675.2 of the Health and Safety Code as rental housing for stays of at least six months but where the units ar e recirculated to another program recipient after a set period. Transitional housing may be designated for a homeless individual or family transitioning to permanent housing. This housing can take ma ny structural forms, such as group housing and multifamily units and may include supportive services to allow individuals to gain necessary life skills in support of independent living.

Supportive housing is defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50675.14 as housing with linked on- site or off-site services with no limit on the length of stay and occupied by a target population as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 53260 (i.e ., low-income person with mental disabilities, AIDS, substance abuse, or chronic health conditions, or persons whose disabilities originated before the age of 18). Services linked to supportive ho using are usually focused on retaining housing, living and working in the community, and/or health improvement.

Government Code Section 65583 requires that transitional and supportive housing types be treated as residential uses and subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Additionally, according to Government Code Section 65651 (a), supportive housing must be permitted by-right in multifam ily zones and mixed-use and nonresidential zones allowing multifamily. Both transitional and supportive housing types must be explicitly permitted in the Municipal Code. Additionally, Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) requires that jurisdictions change their zoning to provide a “by-right” process and expedited review for supportive housing. The City currently permits Transitional and Supportive housing consistent with State law but has included Strategies HE-1.3.12 and 2.3.10 to assist with the development of these housing types.

RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES
Pursuant to State law, licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer residents are permitted by right in all residential districts (including A, A-1, R-1, R-2, R-3, RHS, and R-1C). Licensed small group homes are not subject to special development requirements, policies, or procedures that would impede such uses from locating in a residential district. Furthermore, small group homes (with six or fewer persons) with continuous 24-hour care are permitted by right in all residential districts. Large group homes (with more than six residents) are conditionally permitted uses in the R-1 District, subject to Planning Commission approval. Strategy HE-5.1.5 has been included to ensure compliance with State law and allow facilities for seven or more persons only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.

EMERGENCY SHELTERS
The Zoning Ordinance allows for permanent and rotating homeless shelters in the Quasi-Public Building (BQ) zone by-right without discretionary review . Rotating homeless shelters are permitted APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐14

within existing church structures in the BQ zone for up to 25 occupants. The operation period of rotating shelters cannot exceed two months in any one-year span at a single location. Permanent emergency shelter facilities are permitted in the BQ zone . if the facility is limited to 25 occupants, provides a management plan, and if occupancy is limited to six months or fewer.

To ensure compliance with Government Code Secti on 65583 (a)(4) (Assembly Bill [AB] 2339), the City will amend the Zoning Code to also permit emergency shelters in the new R4 zoning district by- right without discretionary review and update the definition of emergency shelter. The R4 zone is close to services and grocery stores and has sufficient capacity for an emergency shelter. The R4 zone has 22 parcels totaling 26.72 acres, ranging in size from 0.24 to 5.16 acres, with the majority of the parcels ranging from 0.05 to 1.75 acres. These parcels assumed to accommodate a potential emergency shelter are all non-vacant sites and the suitability and development potential of these sites is discussed in conjunction with the sites inventory, including in Table B4-4 and associated discussion. Based on the identified need in Appendix B2, Housing Needs Assessment, the City is required to identify sites with capacity for 102 persons experiencing homelessness. Based on an estimate of 200 square feet per person of lot space, 0.47 acres would need to develop with an emergency shelter use. Redevelopment of this amount of R4-zoned land from the inventory would not cause the RHNA inventory to enter a capacity shortfall. Strategy HE-5.1.1 has been included to allow emergency shelters in the R4 zoning district and review; amend the definition of emergency shelter to include other interim interventions, including but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care; and revise managerial standards to ensure compliance with State law including AB 2339.

SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPANCY
Single- Room Occupancy (SRO units) units are one-room units intended for occupancy by a single individual. They are distinct from a studio or efficien cy unit, in that a studio is a one-room unit that must contain a kitchen and bathroom. Although SRO units are not required to have a kitchen or bathroom, many SROs have one or the other. The Cupertino Zoning Ordinance does not currently define or identify where SRO units are permitted, but, contain specific provisions for SRO units. SRO units are treated as a regular multi -family use, subject to the same restrictions that apply to other residential uses in the same zone. However, to add clarity around th e permissibility of these units, Strategy HE-2.3.10 has been included to define SROs and allow them in the R4 zoning district.

LOW-BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS
AB 101, adopted in 2019, requires approval “by right” of low- barrier navigation centers that meet the requirements of State law. “Low Barrier Navigati on Center” means a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. If the City receives applications for these uses, it will process them as required by State law. To ensure compliance with State law, Strategy HE-5.1.4 has been included. A program has been included to allow the development of low-barrier navigation centers by right (see Strategy HE-1.3.8).

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐15

FARMWORKER AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING
Pursuant to the State Employee Housing Act, any employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarter or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household shall be deemed an agricultural land use. No Conditional Use Permit (CUP), zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of this employee housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone. The permitted occupancy in employee housing in a zone allowing agricultural uses shall include agricultural employees who do not work on the prope rty where the employee housing is located. The Employee Housing Act also specifies that housing for six or fewer employees shall be treated as a residential use. In 2014, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the State Employee Housing A ct, permitting employee housing fo r six or fewer residents in all residential zoning districts and employee group qua rters in the A and A-1 districts, and in the RHS district with approval of an Administrative CUP.

MANUFACTURED HOUSINGMOBILE HOMES PARKS
Manufactured housing and mobile homes can be an affordable housing option for low- and moderate- income households. According to the Department of Finance, as of 2013, there are no mobile homes in Cupertino. Pursuant to State law, a mobile home built after Ju ne 15, 1976, certified under the National Manufactured Home Construction and Saf ety Act of 1974, and built on a permanent foundation may be located in any residential zo ne where a conventional single-family detached dwelling is permitted subject to the same restrictions on density and to the same property development regulations. Currently, the City permits mobile homes for purposes of a caretaker unit in the Park and Recreation zone by right. Strategy HE-5.1.6 has been included to amend the Zoning Code to permit manufactured homes, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.3, in the same manner and in the same zoning districts as a conventional or stick-built structures are permitted.

SB 35 STREAMLINING
SB 35 requires jurisdictions that have failed to meet their Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation (RHNA) to provide a streamlined, ministerial entitlement process for housing developments that incorporate affordable housing. The City Council adopted procedures for processing Streamlined Projects on September 3, 2019. The SB 35 Checklist in Resolution No. 19- 113 has been updated to reflect amendments to Ssta te law by AB 1485 and is available online. This procedure has an established process that specifies the SB 35 streamlining approval process and standards for eligible projects. The City has also processed the Vallco Town Center (The Rise) Development, which included 2,4012,669 residential units, 485226,0500 square feet. of retail uses, and approximately 1,91055,000 square feet. of office devel opment, under SB 35. Government Code section 65913.4 allows qualifying development pr ojects with a specified proportion of affordable housing units to move more quickly through the lo cal government review process and restricts the ability of local governments to reject these proposals. The bill creates a streamlined approval process for qualifying infill developments in localities th at have failed to meet their RHNA, requiring a ministerial approval process, removing the re quirement for CEQA analysis, and removing the requirement for discretionary entitlements.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐16

SENATE BILL 330 PROCESSING PROCEDURE
SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, esta blished specific requirements and limitations on development application procedures. Housing devel opments for which a preliminary application is submitted that complies with applicable General Pl an and zoning standards is subject only to the development standards and fees that were applicable at the time of submittal. This applies to all projects unless the project square f ootage or unit count changes by more than 20 percent after the preliminary application is submitted. The deve loper must submit a full application for the development project within 180 days of submitting the preliminary application. The City has established an application process related to SB 330 and makes the preliminary application available on the City’s website.

SB 9 CALIFORNIA HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND MORE EFFICIENCY (HOME) ACT
SB 9, also known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, is a State bill that requires cities to allow one additional re sidential unit onto parcels zoned for single-dwelling units. Since the adoption of this section of the Government Code, the City has adopted regulations , that allow development beyond that allowed under State law, to permit duplexes in qualifying single- family zoning districts . and is actively working to furthe r update its Zoning Code to facilitate subdivision under SB 9. A program has been includ ed to allow SB 9 subdivision (see Strategy HE-

1.3.9).

CONSTRAINTS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
California SB 520, passed in October 2001, requires local housing elements to evaluate constraints for persons with disabilities and develop programs th at accommodate the housi ng needs of disabled persons. Additionally, in public comments to City Council, community members expressed a need for the City to explore ways to increase housing opportunities for the developmentally disabled population and reducing barriers to accessing below-market ra te units. The City does this with the adopted Reasonable accommodation procedure and will be removing the CUP pr ocess for larger residential care facilities through implementation of Strategy HE-5.1.5.

Reasonable Accommodation Procedure
Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the Califor nia Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities and do not impose significant administrative or financial burdens on local government or undermine the fundamental purpose of the z oning law. Reasonable accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to particular policie s that facilitate equal access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or to height limits to permit elevators.

The City of Cupertino adopted an ordinance in Ap ril 2010 for people with disabilities to make a reasonable accommodations request. Chapter 19.25 provides a procedure to request reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Federal Fair Housing Amendm ents Act of 1988, and the California Fair APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐17

Employment and Housing Act. A reasonable accommodation may be approved by the City’s Director of Community Development Services, only after the director first finds:
 The proposed improvements are necessary to provide housing access for persons with disabilities.
 The reasonable accommodation granted is one that will accomplish the purpose with the least modification to the development or land use regulations from which reasonable accommodation is being requested.
 The granting of the reasonable accommodation will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title.

The City’s requirements for approval of a re asonable accommodation conform to the State’s requirements and therefore do not serve as a constraint on housing for individuals with disabilities.

Separation Requirements: The City’s Zoning Ordinance requires residential care facilities located in the A, A-1, R-1, RHS, R1C, R-2, and R-3 zones wi th seven or more persons must have a minimum distance of 500 feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility, provided that the facility obtains any license.

Site Planning Requirements: Site planning requirements are no different for these uses than other residential uses in the same zone.

Zoning and Other Land Use Regulations: The In conformance to state law,City provides for a variety of housing types intended to care for the sp ecial needs of individuals with disabilities. The City’s Zoning Ordinance defines residential care facilities in residential dwellings where non-medical care is provided. Small or large community resident ial care facilities include counseling, recovery planning, medical, or therapeuti c assistance facilities for the elderly; facilities for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped;, alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities; and other similar care facilities. Licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer individuals are allowed by right in all residential districts, while large ca re facilities are subject to a CUP in all residential districts. The City has included Strategy HE-5.1.5 to allow residential care facilities for seven or more persons subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer residents are permitted by right in all residential districts (including A, A-1, R-1, R-2, R-3, RHS, R-1C). Licensed small group homes are not subject to special development requirements, policie s, or procedures which would impede such uses from locating in a residential district. Furtherm ore, small group homes (with six or fewer persons) with continuous 24-hour care are permitted by right in all residential districts, as are transitional and supportive housing. Large group homes (with more than six residents) are conditionally permitted uses in the R-1 District, subject to Planning Commission approval.

Definition of Family: The Zoning Ordinance contains a broad and inclusive definition of family. A family means an individual or group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide single APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐18

housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. Families are distinguished from groups occupying a hotel, lodging club, fraternity or sorority house, or institution of any kind. This definition of family does not limit the number of people living together in a household and does not require them to be related.

Therefore, the City’s definition of “family” is not a constraint on housing for individuals with disabilities.

BUILDING CODES AND PERMITTING
The City’s Building Code does not include any amendments to the California Building Code that might diminish the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities.

DEVELOPMENT FEES AND EXACTIONS
Housing development is subject to permit processing and impact fees. These fees help to compensate the public for any impact associated with the new development. Like cities throughout California, Cupertino collects development fees to recover the capital costs of providing community services and the administrative costs associated with proce ssing applications. New housing typically requires payment of school impact fees, sewer , and water connection fees, building permit fees, wastewater treatment plant fees, and a variety of handling and service charges. Typical development and planning fees collected are outlined in Table B5-53, Cupertino Development and Planning Fees (July 2022) .

The total cost of permits, City fees, and other pr ofessional services fees (such as project-specific architecture and engineering designs and schematics) has been estimated to equate to 20 percent of construction costs, or approximately 10 percen t of total project costs. A more complete list of applicable planning and development fees can be found on the City’s website under Fee Schedule C – Planning.

Table B5-4.Table B5-6. Cupertino Development and Planning Fees (July 2022) Parcel Map $19,190
Tentative Map $31,919
Temporary Use Permit $4,256
Administrative Conditional Use Permit $7,048
Minor1 $19,305
Major2 $32,169
Minor1 $8,868
Major2 $16,196
Minor Duplex / Residential3 $6,782
Minor4 $13,355
Major54 $19,878
Subdivisions
Conditional Use Permit
Amendment to Conditional Use/Development Permit
Architectural and Site Approval Permit
Single Family (R-1) Residential Permits
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐19

Minor Residential Permit $3,482
Two‐Story Permit without Design Review $4,522
Two‐Story Permit with Design Review $5,427
Director Minor Modification6 $4,757
Miscellaneous Ministerial Permit $3,965
Environmental Impact Report
(Plus State & County Filing Fees)
Contract + Admin Fee
Estimated cost: $60,000 - $150,000, depending on the scope of the project
Negative Declaration ‐ Major
(Plus State & County Filing Fees)
Contract + Admin Fee
Estimated cost: $30,000 - $45,000
Negative Declaration ‐ Minor
(Plus State & County Filing Fees)
Contract + Admin Fee
Estimated cost: $20,000 - $35,000
Categorical Exemption
(Plus County Filing Fee)
$347 filling fee
Estimated cost: $5,000 - $25,000, depending on complexity of project/studies required
All Nonr‐Residential and Multif‐Family (per sq. ft.) $0.45 Residential Single- Family (per sq. ft.) $0.22
Source: City of Cupertino, Schedule C – Planning.

Notes:

1. For ten thousand 10,000 square feet or less of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other non‐ residential use, or six or less residential units (Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12).

2. Ffor more than ten thousand 10,000 square feet of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other non‐n residential use, or greater than six residential units (Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12).

3. Architectural approval of single-family homes in a planned development zoning district, redevelopment, or modification of duplexes, and associated landscaping, where such review is required (Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12).

4. Architectural approval of the following: minor building modifications, landscaping, signs, and lighting for new development, redevelopment, or modification in such zones where such review is required (Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12).

5. Architectural approval of all other development projects (Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12).

6. An application that is administratively reviewed by staff either at an advertised public hearing/meeting or in a non-hearing process (Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.164).

In the spring 2022, the Santa Clara County Planni ng Collaborative conducted a survey of fees and permit processing times in Santa Clara County. Fourteen of fifteen jurisdictions completed the survey.

The results indicated that Cupertino’s fees are on the higher end when looking at all Santa Clara County jurisdictions. Cupertino’s fees totaled $136,596 per single-family home (Table B5-6), $77,770 per unit of a hypothetical 10-unit multi-family development (Table B5-7), and $73,959 per unit of a 100-unit multi-family development ( Table B5-8 ). The median fees for other jurisdictions who completed the survey were $70,626 for a single-f amily home, $31,802 per unit for a 10-unit development, and $29,902 per unit for a 100-unit development. The f ees also represent a relatively low percentage of the overall cost to develop housing in Cupertino. Based on the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative survey results and an anal ysis on housing development costs performed by Century Urban, a San Francisco- based real estate consulting firm, Cupertino’s fees represent 2.9 percent of total development costs for a single-fam ily home, 10.3 percent for a 10-unit multi-family development, and 10.5 percent for a 100-unit mult i-family development. While the current fee Ministerial Residential Permits
Environmental Assessment
Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code Fees
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐20

structure is on the high end and could be a constraint on development, City fees represent a very small percentage of the overall cost of developing housing within the city. The City has included Strategy HE-2.3.9 to review and revise impact fees as needed.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐21

Table B5-7. Comparison of Single- Family Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County Campbell $4,062 $43,300 $25,194 $72,556 2,600 2.6%
Cupertino $5,271 $18,179 $113,146 $136,596 5,000 2.9%
Gilroy $4,747 $11,105 $53,367 $69,219 5,000 1.5%
Los Altos Hills $4,880 $108,659 $33,092 $146,631 5,000 3.1% Los Gatos $11,202 $16,718 $4,538 $32,458 2,600 1.2%
Milpitas $17,360 $23,110 $0 $36,728 $77,198 2,600 2.8%
Monte Sereno $2,900 $16,928 $7,894 $5,723 $33,445 5,000 0.7% Morgan Hill $0 $13,760 $42,143 $55,903 2,600 2.0%
Mountain View $0 $14,720 $71,347 $4,356 $90,423 2,600 3.3% San Jose $312 $9,607 $9,919 2,600 0.4%
Santa Clara $1,816 $13,675 $56,543 $72,034 2,600 2.6%
Saratoga $7,811 $35,033 $21,428 $64,272 5,000 1.4%
Sunnyvale $456 $14,322 $99,268 $19,343 $133,389 2,600 4.8% Unincorporated County $10,984 $14,182 $25,166 2,600 0.9% Source: Santa Clara County Regional Planning Collaborative, 2022..

Jurisdiction Entitlement
Fees
Construction
Fees Impact Fees Other Fees Total Total Fees/DU % of Dev.

Costs
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐22

Table B5-8. Comparison of Small Multif-Family (10 units) Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County Campbell $22,887 $4,027 $179,075 $205,989 $20,599 2.7% Cupertino $84,275 $44,478 $648,951 $777,704 $77,770 10.3% Gilroy $8,107 $17,904 $375,938 $401,949 $40,195 5.3%
Los Altos Hills N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Los Gatos $16,965 $27,935 $12,743 $57,643 $5,764 0.8%
Milpitas $36,714 $131,118 $485,068 $90,362 $743,262 $74,326 9.8% Monte Sereno $0 $27,675 $15,065 $5,411 $48,151 $4,815 0.6% Morgan Hill $28,052 $45,798 $339,890 $413,740 $41,374 5.5% Mountain View $2,841 $137,000 $550,770 $4,356 $694,967 $69,497 9.2% San Jose $65,000 $61,600 $107,500 $234,100 $23,410 3.1% Santa Clara $37,929 $29,239 $5,826 $72,995 $7,299 1.0% Saratoga $7,811 $51,302 $111,520 $170,633 $17,063 2.3% Sunnyvale $19,768 $35,918 $1,095,000 $116,043 $1,266,729 $126,673 16.8% Unincorporated County N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: Santa Clara County Regional Planning Collaborative, 2022.

Jurisdiction Entitlement
Fees
Construction
Fees Impact Fees Other Fees Total Total Fees/DU % of Dev.

Costs
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐23

Table B5-9. Comparison of Large Multif-Family (100+ Units) Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County Campbell $28,802 $53,594 $1,771,670 $1,854,066 $18,541 2.6% Cupertino $84,275 $1,453,082 $5,858,542 $7,395,899 $73,959 10.5% Gilroy $33,787 $129,816 $3,749,871 $3,913,474 $39,135 5.6% Los Altos Hills N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Los Gatos $16,965 $189,996 $119,936 $326,897 $3,269 0.5% Milpitas $36,714 $616,695 $4,858,789 $461,772 $5,973,970 $59,740 8.5% Monte Sereno $0 $193,741 $129,164 $92,729 $415,634 $4,156 0.6% Morgan Hill $98,913 $141,780 $3,398,900 $3,639,593 $36,396 5.2% Mountain View $45,000 $278,900 $7,899,900 $35,250 $8,259,050 $82,591 11.8% San Jose $650,000 $616,000 $1,075,000 $2,341,000 $23,410 3.3% Santa Clara $84,156 $161,009 $59,633 $304,798 $3,048 0.4% Saratoga $12,211 $429,705 $1,097,200 $1,539,115 $15,391 2.2% Sunnyvale $21,545 $240,807 $8,510,640 $1,056,257 $9,829,249 $98,292 14.0% Unincorporated County N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: Santa Clara County Regional Planning Collaborative, 2022.

Jurisdiction Entitlement
Fees
Construction
Fees Impact Fees Other Fees Total Total Fees /
DU
% of Dev.

Costs
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐24

As a comparison, Table 5BB5-74, Comparison of Development Fees, below, lists estimated fees from neighboring communities within Santa Clara County.

Table B5-5. Comparison of Development Fees
Campbell $72,556 $20,599 $18,541
Cupertino $136,596 $77,770 $73,959
Gilroy $69,219 $40,195 $39,135
Los Altos Hills $146,631 N/A N/A
Los Gatos $32,458 $5,764 $3,269
Milpitas $77,198 $74,326 $59,740
Monte Sereno $33,445 $4,815 $4,156
Morgan Hill $55,903 $41,374 $36,396
Mountain View $90,423 $69,497 $82,591
San Jose $9,919 $23,410 $23,410
Santa Clara $14,653 $6,733 $2,156
Saratoga $64,272 $17,063 $15,391
Sunnyvale $133,389 $126,673 $98,292
Unincorporated County $25,166 N/A N/A
SOURCE: Santa Clara County Constraints, Fees, & Processing Times Survey Quick Summary, 2022 NOTE: Total Fees (includes entitlement, building permits, and impact fees) per Unit; and City staff.

Total fees in Cupertino are among the highest in the Santa Clara County jurisdictions for all housing developments. The above average rate of planning and development fees can be considered a constraint to the development of affordable housing. While such reducti on of such fees can be complicated because they are often tied to specific development financing, the City must make every effort to bring these fees into line to provide a more comparable cost in relation to the surrounding region. A program has been included to lower permi tting fees for multi-family housing projects (see Strategy HE-1.3.10).

REVIEW OF LOCAL ORDINANCES

SHORT-TERM RENTALS
On September 15, 2020, City Council adopted an Ordinance No. 20-2200 with new rules to regulate short- term rentals (STRs),- residential rentals of 30 days or less, such as those conducted through or VRBO. As of January 2021, all STRs must be regi stered with the City, pa y a $211 STR registration fee, and must comply with the rules, such as those listed here:
 STRs must be an incidental use and operated by a primary resident.

Jurisdiction Single Family Small Multi-Family Large Multi-Family APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐25

 Stays are limited to 60 days for un-hosted stays (no host/operator present on- site).  Limit of one STR per parcel and one rental agreement per night.  Guest occupancy is limited to two times the number of bedrooms within the STR, or two for a studio unit.
 Must provide the minimum parking spaces required by the zoning district in which it is located , and designate at least one on-site parking space for the STR.  Must have a local contact that can respond to any complaint within 60 minutes.  May not be used for commercial purposes or even ts that are likely to result in violation in traffic, parking, noise, or other standard regu lating the residential use and character of the neighborhood. Must comply with quiet hours from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m.  Must provide a guest manual to the guest u pon booking and in a prominent place within the STR. The guest manual must include information on noise, quiet hours, trash collection, vehicle parking, and any relevant regulations from the Municipal Code. A sample Guest Manual Template can be found here.
 Must maintain a license plate registry of all guest vehicles. A sample vehicle registration log can be found here.
 Must retain records documenting compliance for three years.  May not occur in any ADU.

STR platforms are required to:
 Prevent bookings of any STR that does not have a valid registration number with the City;  Collect the Transient Occupancy Tax and remit it to the City; and  Retain records for three years, in case they are needed to verify compliance. .

Cupertino’s STR ordinance is not seen as a constraint but rather a way to preserve the rental stock to ensure rental units are available for current and future Cupertino residents.

BELOW-MARKET RATE MITIGATION PROGRAM
The City’s BMR Residential Mitigation Program requi res all new residential developers to either provide below market rate units or pay a mitigation fee, which is placed in the City’s Below Market- Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). The BMR Mitigation Program is based on a nexus study prepared by the City that demonstrated that all new developments create a need for affordable housing. Under this program, developers of for-sa le housing where units may be sold individually must sell at least 15 percent of units at a price affordable to median- and moderate-income households. Projects of seven or more units must provide on-site BMR units. Developers of projects of six units or fewer can either build a unit or provide pay the Housing Mitigation fee. The City treats its BMR units the same as density bonus affordable unit, meaning the provision of BMR units can APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐26

count as density bonus affordable units. Density bonus units that are counted toward thee BMR unit total also have to meet the other requirements of the BMR program related to affordability. The City also accepts density bonus affordable units of a deeper affordability than the required BMR units would have been as units counting toward the BMR unit requirements. The City’s BMR program is a way to ensure affordable units are built in the city and has not been seen as a constraint to housing development.

PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES
As a comparison, Table B5-9 5, Comparison of Permit Processing Times (Months), lists estimated permitted processing time from neighborin g communities within Santa Clara County. Cupertino’s review times are similar to approval times for surrounding jurisdictions and not seen as a constraint to development. However, in response to feedback received from developers in a focus group, the City has included Strategy 2.3.1 through which the City will give priority in permit processing for projects providing 100 percent affordable housing throughout the city, including projects for special- needs groups, in order to encourage housing affordability and address the desire for expedited processing times.

Table B5-6.Table B5-10. Comparison of Permit Processing Times (Months) Jurisdiction ADU
Process
Ministerial
By-Right
Discretionary
By-Right
Discretionary
(Hearing
Officer if
Applicable)
Discretionary
(Planning
Commission)
Discretionary
(City Council)
Cupertino 1-3 1-6 2-4 2-4 3-6 6-12
Gilroy 1-2 1-2 2-4 N/A 4-5 5-6
Los Altos Hills 1-2 0.5-2 2-3 3-4 4-6 5-8
Los Gatos No Data 3-6* 1-2 2-4 4-6 6-12
Milpitas 3-5 4-6 2-3 6-18 N/A 12-24
Monte Sereno 0.75 0.75 1 1-2 N/A 1-2
Morgan Hill 1-2 1-3 2-3 2-3 4-6 4-6
Mountain View 3-5 4-6 2-3 6-18 N/A 12-24
San Jose 2 1-3 7 7 7-11 5-12
Santa Clara 0-1 0-1 0-3 4-9 6-9 6-12
Saratoga 1 1-2 2-3 N/A 4-6 6-12
Sunnyvale 1-3 1-3 3-6 6-9 9-18 9-18
Unincorporated
County 4-6 6-8 9-12 12-15 15-18 15-18
Source: Santa Clara County Constraints, Fees, & Processing Times Survey Quick Summary, 2022.

Note: Permit processing times indicated in months
*Time to first review; and City staff time.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐27

APPROVAL PROCESS
The Housing Element must examine the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits. The time between application approval and building permit issuance is influenced by a number of factors, none of which are directly impacted by the City. Factors that may impact the timing of building permit issuance include: required technical or engineering studies; completion of construction drawings and detailed site and landscape design; securing construction and permanent financing; and retention of a building contractor and subcontractors.

The majority of residential permits in Cupertino are for single-family homes, with building permit issuance generally taking 8 to 14 months after Pl anning approvals. In Cupertino, most approved projects are constructed in a reasonable time period following approval.

As is shown in Table B5-10 , projects for ADUs and single-family review (building permit only) requiring ministerial review are usually reviewed with in two to four weeks. Discretionary approvals, such as two-story single-family homes, subdivisions involving multiple homes, townhomes, or small- lot homes, have longer processing time frames (three to nine months depending on the scope of the project), as is shown in Table B5-11 . Larger housing developments requiring multiple approvals involve joint applications and permits that are processed concurrently and may require additional environmental review. All approvals for a partic ular project are reviewed in a single Planning Commission and/or City Council meeting. The typical permit processing times in Cupertino are similar to or lower than those in other jurisdictions and do not pose a major constraint to new development in the city. Cupertino is able to pro cess applications in a timely manner because City staff works closely with applicants during a pre-ap plication process. The pre-application is currently free of charge and its duration may vary depending on the completeness or complexity of the project.

The typical pre-application process may consist of the following:
 Initial preliminary consultation with property owners/developers to go over project objectives and City development standards.
 Submittal and review of conceptual development plans.  Preliminary consultations with relevant City departments (i.e., Fire, Building, Public Works), as deemed necessary.
 Submittal and review of pre-submittal materials and final plans.

One-story, single-family homes in properly zone d areas do not require entitlements from the Community Development Department and are reviewed concurrently with building permit review.

However, two-story single-family homes require a two-story permit, which is approved by the Director of the Community Development Department and takes two to three months to process.

Two- story homes very seldom require a meeting unless they are requesting an exception or a variance.

Residential subdivisions require a tentative parcel map or tentative subdivision map, depending on the number of units in the development, and take two to four months to receive approvals. Multi-family residential developments in R3 Districts are typically approved in two to four months.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐28

Multifamily projects with more than six units requi re major development permits, while those with fewer than six units require minor development perm its. In the case of minor development permits, only an administrative review is required unless a decision is appealed. For major development permits, the Planning Commission is the final review body for developments of up to 49 units, except in cases where their decision is appealed, at which point the final approval is within the authority of the City Council. Developments with 50 or more units are approved by the City Council. Appeals may be made when it is alleged there is an error in any requirement, decision, or determination made. In either case, a public meeting is required but not a public hearing (i.e. only mailed notices within 300 feet of the project are required, but not a published notice in the newspaper), unless a subdivision is proposed, in which case, they are reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.

Review of the development proposal requires the following findings:

1. The proposed development and/or use, at the pr oposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;

2. The proposed development and/or use will be lo cated and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Pl an, underlying zoning regulations, and the purpose of this title and complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Finding 2 does not preclude alterations for reasonable accommodation requests or group homes. The City applies these findings in a manner compliant with the Housing Acco untability Act using the “specific, adverse impact” standard outlined therein. The City also regularly provides information to the Planning Commission about the Housing Accountability Act findings which must be made by the decision making body in order to deny a project to remind the acting body about the high bar for being able to reduce the density or deny the project. Additionally, these findings are not considered a barrier to development, as the City has not denied any housing development projects in over fifteen years.

To ensure approval findings are not a constraint on the development of housing, Strategy HE-1.3.9 commits the City to removing the bolded text from approval finding 1 for residential developments:
“The proposed development and/or use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or im provements in the vicinity , and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. “
Building Permit
Standard plans check and building permit issuance for single-family dwellings in Cupertino takes approximately 20 business days. Plan checks for large additions, remodels, and major structural upgrades for single-family homes are also reviewed within 20 business days. If a second review is necessary, the City will take approximately 15 business days to complete the review.

Over-the-counter plan checks are available for simple home remodels and small residential additions of 250 square feet or less. Building Department sta ff typically review these projects in less than 30 minutes during normal business hours. Any projects with more than 10 units might take 30 business days to review. Cupertino’s building permit proc edures are reasonable and comparable to those in APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐29

other California communities. Tables B5-10 and B5-11 provide the typical process for a single- family and multifamily development. These timeframes assume the applicant meets all development regulations.

Post-entitlement phase permit applications are provided with determinations of application completeness within 15 days of receipt, and perm its for complete post-entitlement applications are issued within 30 days (for buildings with 25 units or fewer) or 60 days (for 25+ units) in compliance with SB 2234.

Table B5-11. Single-Family Development Process
Step 1: Application intake 2 days Staff and applicant
Step 2: Plan review Up to 30 days Staff
Step 3: Noticing and comment period 2 business days plus 2 weeks Staff Step 4: Finalizing approval letter Up to 2 business days Staff Estimated Total Processing Time 7-9 weeks Staff
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.

Table B5-12. Multifamily and Planned Development Process Step 1: Project intake 2 business days Staff and applicant Step 2: Plan review and distribution 30 business days Staff Step 3: Environmental and
architectural review
Categorical Exemption no studies needed
– 2 weeks
Staff and consultants
EIR – 9-12 months
Categorical Exemption but needs some
studies – 2 months
MND – 4-6 months
Architectural review (Concurrent) – 2-3
weeks
Step 4: Plan review (second cycle) 30 days Staff
Step 5: Schedule hearings 3 weeks Staff
Step 6: Schedule Planning
Commission/City Council hearing, if
needed
3 – 6 weeks
Staff/Planning
Commission/ City
Council
Estimated Total Processing Time 20 – 26 Months Staff
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.

DESIGN GUIDELINES AND OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
Cupertino has not adopted citywide residential design guidelines. However, all Planned Development Zoning Districts, the R1 District, RHS District, th e Heart of the City Specific Plan Area, and the Type of Approval or Permit Time to complete (days/months) Approval Body Type of Approval or Permit Time to complete (days/months) Approval Body APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐30

North De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan Area are subject to design guidelines. These design guidelines pertain to features such as landscaping, building and roof forms, building entrances, colors, outdoor lighting, and building materials.

The Heart of the City Specific Plan design guidel ines are intended to promote high-quality private- sector development, enhance property values, and ensure that both private investment and public activity continues to be attracted to the Stevens Creek Boulevard Special Area. Design guidelines promote retention and development viability of sing le-family residential- sized lots and enable a transition from these smaller single-family neighbor hoods to the larger, multi-family residential and mixed-use properties fronting Stevens Creek Boulev ard. The City requires design review for certain residential developments to ensure that new development and changes to existing developments comply with City development requirements and policies. These include:
 Variances in the R-1 District.
 Two-story residential developments in the R-1 District where second- floor to first- floor area ration is greater than 0.66:1:00 and/or where second- story side yard setback(s) are less than 15 feet to a property line.
 Two-story addition, new two-story home, and/or second- story deck in the R1-a zone.  Any new development or modifications in pl anned development residential or mixed-use residential zoning districts.
 Single-family homes in a planned development residential zoning district.  Modifications to buildings in the R1-C or R-2 zoning districts.;  Signs, landscaping, parking plans, and modifications to buildings in the R-3 zoning district.

For Single-Family Residential, the design guidelines for all projects include the following:1, 2:
 There should not be a three-car- wide driveway curb cut.  No more than 50 percent of the front elevation of a house should consist of garage area.  In the R1-a zone, the maximum width of a garage on the front elevation should be 25 feet, which will accommodate a two-car garage. Addi tional garage spaces should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a deta ched accessory structure at the rear of the property.2
 Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more.  All roofs should have at least a one-foot overhang.
 Porches are encouraged.

1 Refer to the Eichler Design Handbook- Fairgrove Neighborhood for additional design guidelines in the R1-6e zone. 2 Nonconformance with the design guidelines in the R1-a zone shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐31

 In the R1-a zone, the following porch design guidelines apply:2  When viewed from the street, a porch should ap pear proportionately greater in width than in height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a proportionately greater height than its width.
 Structural supports should be designed such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive.
 The use of large columns or pillars is discouraged.
 The eave height for a front porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical single-story elements in the neighborhood.
 Porch elements should have detailing that em phasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements.
 In R1-6e and R1-a zones, entry features should not be higher than 14 feet from natural grade to plate.2
The City has detailed two-story design principles incorporated in the R-1 District. These design principles help integrate new homes and additions to existing homes into existing neighborhoods by providing a framework for the review and approval process. Two-story homes with a second story to first- floor ratio greater than 0.66:1.00 and homes with second- story side setbacks less than 15 feet must offset building massing with designs that encompass higher- quality architectural features and materials. For Two-Story Design Guidelines, the ma ss and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. All new construction should not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, th e neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights. Additionally, the design should use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume in interior spaces.

In the R1-a zone, all second- story wall heights grea ter than six feet, as measured from the second- story finished floor, should have building wall offs ets at least every 24 feet, with a minimum 4-foot depth and 10-foot width. The offsets should compri se the full height of the wall plane. The current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained. When possible, doors, windows, and architectural elements should be aligned with one another vertically and horizontally and symmetrical in number, size, and placement. In the R1-a zone, windows on the side elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of five feet above the second floor and have permanent exterior louvers to a height of five feet above the second floor, or have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor’'s privacy.

Two-story homes that are subject to Design Review required by Section 19.28.040(E) in the Zzoning Ordinance (except in R1-a zones) must include:
 An identifiable architectural style.
 Design features, proportions, and details consistent with the architectural style selected.  Visual relief deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Development.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐32

 Materials of high quality.
 Appropriate building mass and scale.
 Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure  Reflect symmetry, proportion, and balance in design.

The design guidelines are intended to ensure development is consistent with the existing neighborhood character and are generally not cons idered significant constraints to housing production. These design guidelines currently contain non-objectivesubjective design standards, which are inconsistent with State housing law. While much of the design guidelines are applicable to only single- family development, the City is in th e process of developing objective design standards for other forms of residential development. The City has included these guidelines constitute an undo constraint on the development of affordable housing. Strategy HE-1.3.4 9 to review and revise design and development standards to ensure they are objective in nature, while preserving existing neighborhood character without crea ting any undue constraints on new housing development . has been revised to address this problem. This will also address feedback received from developers during a focus group, during which participants expressed a desire for certainty and consistency in the review process. It should be noted that single family or duplex developments are not expected to generate any significant housing options during the 6th Housing Element cycle since the City is largely built out and most housing will be infill development with attached multifamily or townhome developments in R3 and R4 zoning districts.

No discretionary design review is required to perm it multifamily housing in the R-3 zone. Design review is not required for projects in the R-3 zone, where multifamily housing is permitted by-right.

The City is in the process of adopting Objective De sign standards for all multifamily and mixed use development.

The Heart of the City Specific Plan design guidel ines are intended to promote high-quality private- sector development, enhance property values, and ensure that both private investment and public activity continues to be attracted to the Stevens Creek Boulevard Special Area. Design guidelines promote retention and development viability of single -family residential sized lots in the transition area between Stevens Creek Boulevard fronting development and single-family neighborhoods.

The City requires design review for certain residential developments to ensure that new development and changes to existing developments comply with City development requirements and policies. These include:
 Variances in the R-1 District;
 Two-story residential developments in the R-1 Di strict where second floor to first floor area ration is greater than 66 percent and/or where second story side yard setback(s) are less than 15 feet to a property line;
 Two-story addition, new two-story home, and/or second story deck in the R1-a zone; APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐33

 Any new development or modifications in pl anned development residential or mixed-use residential zoning districts;
 Single-family homes in a planned development residential zoning district;  Modifications to buildings in the R1-C or R-2 zoning districts; and  Signs, landscaping, parking plans, and modifications to buildings in the R-3 zoning district.

The City has detailed Two-Story Design Principles incorporated in the R-1 District. These design principles help integrate new homes and additions to existing homes with existing neighborhoods by providing a framework for the review and approval process. Two-story homes with a second story to first floor ratio greater than 66 percent and homes wi th second story side setbacks less than 15 feet must offset building massing with designs that encompass higher quality architectural features and materials.

Design Review may occur at the Staff or Design Review Committee level, depending on the scope of the project. Staff and the Design Review Committee, consisting of the Planning Commission Vice Chair and one other Planning Commissioner, consider factors such as building scale in relation to existing buildings, compliance with adopted height limits, setbacks, architectural and landscape design guidelines, and design harmony between new and existing buildings to determine design compliance.

REQUESTS TO DEVELOP AT DENSITIES BELOW THOSE PERMITTED
New State Housing Element law now requires th e non-governmental constraints analysis to evaluateDuring the previous Housing Element cycle, the city did not approve any projects proposed at developer requests to build at densities below the density identified in the Housing Element sites inventory.

None of the approved projects proposed densities lower than those proposed in the Housing Element.

Three out of the five projects requested the maximum allowable under State law at time of entitlement) based on the amount of affordability proposed (35 percent for two projects and 15 percent for one); and the 600-unit Hampton Apartment Homes received approval to build to the maximum anticipated in the Housing Element.

It should be noted that Cupertino is built out and most new development is infill development, unlike in communities where greenfields or large single -family tracts are still being developed. Most development in Cupertino is either attached multifamily or townhome/row home style developments on redeveloped property. To the extent that the City is rezoning properties, these are to accommodate developments that are higher in density than single family developments.

To incentivize development that better implements densities planned in the Housing Element sites inventory, the Housing Element sets forth a program ( Strategy HE-1.3.12) to ensure that there are adequate sites available throughout the planning period to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs allocation, or RHNA.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐34

LENGTH OF TIME BETWEEN APPLICATION APPROVAL AND BUILDING

PERMIT ISSUANCE
New Housing Element law now also requires an examination of the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits. The time between application approval and building permit issuance is influenced by a number of factors, none of which are directly impacted by the City. Factors that may impact the timing of building permit issuance include: required technical or engineering studies; completion of construction drawings and detailed site and landscape design; securing construction and permanent financing; and retention of a building contractor and subcontractors.

The majority of residential permits in Cupertino are for single-family homes, with building permit issuance generally taking 8-14 months after Planning approvals. In Cupertino most approved projects are constructed in a reasonable time period.

BUILDING CODES AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
The City of Cupertino has adopted the 2022 Ed ition of the California Building Code, the 20 2219 California Electrical Code and Uniform Administrative Code Provisions, the International Association of Plumbing Officials Un iform Plumbing Code (202 21 Edition), the California Mechanical Code 202219 Edition, the 2022019 California Fire Code, and the 2022 Green Building Standard Code. The City also enforces the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Housing Code, the 1998 Uniform Code for Building Conservation, and the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code.

Cupertino has adopted several amendments to the California Building Code. The City requires sprinkler systems for new and expanded one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses; underhanging appendages enclosed with fire-resistant materials; roof coverings on new buildings and replacement roofs complying with the standards established for Class A roofing, the most fire-resistant type of roof covering. The amendments also esta blish minimum standards for building footings, seismic reinforcing on attached multi -family dwellings, and brace wall panel construction. These amendments apply more stringent requirements than the California Building Code. The California Building Code and the City’s amendments to it have been adopted to prevent unsafe or hazardous building conditions. The City’s building codes are reasonable and dowould not adversely affect the ability to construct housing in Cupertino.

The City’s code enforcement program is an important tool for maintaining the housing stock and protecting residents from unsafe or unsightl y conditions. The Code Enforcement Division is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code and various other related codes and policies. Code Enforcement Division staff work to achieve compliance through intervention, education, and enforcement, part nering with the community to enforce neighborhood property maintenance standards.

Code Enforcement staff investigate and enforce City codes and State statutes based on complaints received. Violation of a code regulation can resul t in a warning, citation, fine, or legal action , if not corrected over time . If a code violation involves a potential emergency, officers will respond immediately; otherwise, Code Enforcement sta ff responds to complaints through scheduled APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐35

inspections. Since 2007, out of the approximately 21,000 total housing units in the cCity, Code Enforcement The City has had to declared only three housing units unfit for human occupancy since 2007, and most residential complaints are resolved readily resolved. Code Enforcement activities are, therefore, not considered a constraint to development of housing in Cupertino.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐36

ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS
Residential developers are responsible for cons tructing road, water, sewer, and storm drainage improvements forn new housing sites. Where a project has off-site impacts, such as increased runoff or added congestion at a nearby intersection, addi tional developer expenses may be necessary to mitigate these impacts. Accordingly, developers pass tThese expenses may be passed on to consumers.

Chapter 18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (the Subdivision Ordinance) establishes the requirements for new subdivisions, including the provision of on- and off-site improvements. The ordinance requires that subdivisions comply with lot frontage requirements and stormwater runoff be collected and conveyed by an approved storm drain system. Furthermore, each unit or lot within the subdivision must be served by an approved sanitary sewer system, domestic water system, and gas, electric, telephone, and cablevision facilities. All utilities within the subdivi sion and along peripheral streets must be placed underground.

Typical residential streets are 40 feet wide curb-to-curb (60-foot right- of- way width) unless a project is adjacent to arterial and /or major roadways. Str eet widths within private development are subject to Fire Department requirements related to fire safety, staging, and fire truck turnaround. Typical internal streets with no parking along the street are 20 to 22 feet wide. Common residential street widths in Cupertino range from 20 feet (for streets with no street park ing) to 36 feet (for those with parking on both sides). The City works with developers to ex plore various street design options to meet their needs and satisfy public safety requirements. Developers are typically required to install curbs, gutters, and sidewalks ;, however, there is a process where the City Council can waive the se requirements. The City prefers detached sidewalks with a landscaped buffer in between the street and the pedestrian walk to enhance community aesthetics and improve pedestrian safety. However, the City does works with developers to explore various frontage improvement options depending on the project objectives, taking into consideration factors such as tree preservation, land/design constraints, pedestrian safety, and neighborhood pattern/compatib ility. This is especially true in Planned Development projects, where the City works with the developers to achieve creative and flexible street and sidewalk designs to maximize the project as well as community benefits.

The Subdivision Ordinance also includes land dedication and fee standards for parkland. The formula for dedication of park land for residential develo pment is based on a standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. The developer must either dedicate parkland based on this formula or pay an in-lieu fee based on the fair- market value of the land being developed.

In addition to parkland dedication, the City Council may require a subdivider to dedicate lands to the school district(s) as a condition of approval of the final subdivision map. If school site dedication is required and the school district accepts the land within 30 days, the district must repay the subdivider the original cost of the dedicated land plus the co st of any improvements, taxes, and maintenance of the dedicated land. If the school district does not accept the offer, the dedication is terminated.

The developer may also be required to reserve land for a park, recreational facility, fire station, library, or other public use if such a facility is shown on an adopted specific plan or adopted general plan. The public agency benefiting from the reserved land sh all pay the developer the market value of the land at the time of the filing of the tentative map and any other costs incurred by the developer in the APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐37

maintenance of the area. The ordinance states that the amount of land to be reserved shall not make development of the remaining land held by the developer economically unfeasible.

The City of Cupertino’s site improvement requirements for new subdivisions are consistent with those in surrounding jurisdictions and do not pose a significant constraint to new housing development.

SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The City of Cupertino maintains development regulations that are consistent with Sstate law and that do not pose undo constraint s on the development of affordable housing. To continue this into the 6th Cycle Housing Element, new strategies have been incorporated. There are some notable exceptions that have been discussed in the above sections, and in each case a new policy or program has been added to address the problem. The problems that have been addressed include the following:
 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). As of February 2024, Cupertino in compliance with State law as of submittal of this draft, though an amended ADU ordinance is pending. The City has included Strategy HE-1.3.8 to review and revise ADU requirements to ensure compliance with State law. Strategy HE-1.3.8 also included several actions the City plans to take to promote the development of ADUs and. has been added to the Goal and Policy section of this 6th Cycle Housing Element to address this problem.requires architectural review for ADUs, and this constitutes a constraint on the development of this important form of affordable housing. It is also inconsistent with new st ate law governing the development of ADUs.

Strategy HE-1.3.2 has been added to the Goal and Policy section of this 6 th Cycle Housing Element to address this problem;
 Residential Design Guidelines. Cupertino maintains a requirement for design review of multi-family residential projects. These design guidelines currently contain subjective design standards, which are inconsistent with State housing law. The City has included Strategy HE-

1.3.9 to review and revise design and development standards to ensure they are objective.These design guidelines currently contain non-objective design standards, which are inconsistent with new state housing law. As such, these guidelines constitute an undo constraint on the development of affordable housing. Strategy HE -1.3.4 has been revised to address this problem;
 Priority Housing Sites. Cupertino’s Zoning Code in some cases does not provide the densities required to achieve the designated number of units assigned to sites in Table B4-3 (Appendix B, Part 4 of this 6 th Cycle Housing Element). This does not constitute an undo constraint on the development of affordable housing, but in this specific circumstance it prevents the City from achieving it RHNA. Rather than retool specific zoning districts or create new ones, a policy has been added to designate selected housing sites as Priority Housing Sites (see Policy HE-1.3). This ensures that the desi gnated minimum number of units assigned to sites in Table B4-3 of this 6th Cycle Housing Element can be readily achieved, regardless of the specific development standards of the R-3 and other multi-family-allowing districts;The City will continue to implement Housing Element Policy HE-1.3, which states: -- Sites assumed to meet the City Regional Housing Needs Allocation ( Tables B4-7 and B4-9 ) are designated APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐38

“Priority Housing Sites” in the Cupertino Z oning Code Section 19.80.030 and the maximum number of units listed for each site shall be permitted uses.3  Low-Barrier Navigation Centers. AB 101, adopted in 2019, requires approval “by right” of low-barrier navigation centers that meet the requirements of State law. A program has been included to allow low-barrier navigation centers by right in appropriate zoning districts (see Strategy HE-1.3.85.1.4).
 California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act. SB 9, also known as the California Housing Opportunity an d More Efficiency (HOME) Act, is a State bill that requires cities to allow one additional resident ial unit onto parcels zoned for single-dwelling units. A program has been included to allow SB 9 subdivision (see Strategy HE-1.3.9).;  Development Fees. Total fees in Cupertino are among the higheston the higher end of in the Santa Clara County jurisdictions for all housing developments. A program has been included to lower permitting review and revise fees for single and multi-family housing projects (see Strategy HE-1.3.102.3.9).; and
 Parking Standards. The requirement for two parking spaces for studios and single - room occupancy unitsies (SROs) in the R-3 Zoning District constitutes an undocould be a possible constraint on the development of affordable housing. A program has been included to review and revise all residential parking standards and specially reduce lower the number of required parking spaces for studio and SRO units (see Strategy HE-1.3.119).

B5.2 NONGOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
In addition to governmental constraints, non -governmental factors may constrain the production of new housing. These could include economic and market - related conditions , such as land and construction costs, as well as environmental hazards such as wildfires, earthquakes, and flooding.

LAND AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Land costs in Cupertino are very high due to high demand and an extremely limited supply of available land. Cupertino has seen a number of smaller de tached infill housing projects where single-family homes are constructed on remnant lots or lots that have previously been developed with older homes.

Multifamily development often requires lot consolidation and/or removing existing uses. A review of available real estate listings indicated several vaca nt properties for sale as of September 2022. The available properties varied in size from 1,920 squ are feet to 11.19 acres with prices ranging from $825,000 to $7,000,000 depending on the size and location of the property.

Construction costs vary significantly depending on building materials and the quality of finishes.

Parking structures for multifamily developments represent another major variable in the development cost. In general, below-grade parking raises costs significantly. Soft costs (architectural and other

33 Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (E)(2). “If a site is listed as a Priority Housing Site in the City's adopted Housing Element of the General Plan, then residential development that does not exceed the number of units designated for the site in the Housing Element shall be a permitted use.”
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐39

professional fees, land carrying costs, transaction costs, construction period interest, etc.) comprise an additional 10 to 40 percent of the construction and land costs. Owner-occupied multifamily units have higher soft costs than renter-occupied units due to the increased need for construction defect liability insurance. Permanent debt financing, site prepar ation, off-site infrastructure, impact fees, and developer profit add to the total development cost of a project. Construction costs run about $100 per square foot for Type 5 construction (wood and stucco over parking) fo r multifamily units and $110 per square foot for single-family units. Residential developers indicate that construction costs in the Bay Area far exceed these nationa l averages and can reach $200 pe r square foot for larger (four- to six-story) developments.

Key construction costs have risen nationally in conjunction with economic recovery and associated gains in the residential real estate market.

AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING
As a stable and affluent community, private housi ng mortgage financing is readily available in Cupertino. There are no mortgage-deficient areas in the city and no identifiable underserved groups in need of financing assistance. At the time th is Housing Element was drafted, interest rates for homebuyers were increasing from a low of 2.75 per cent in 2020 to 5.75 percent in 2022 for a fixed- rate, 30-year mortgage. The current economic clim ate is uncertain and still affected by the COVID- 19 pandemic, increasing inflation, and supply chain disruptions.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The majority of Cupertino’s land area has been urbanized and now supports roadways, structures, other impervious surfaces, areas of turf, and ornamental landscaping. In general, urbanized areas tend to have low to poor wildlife habitat value due to replacement of natural communities, fragmentation of remaining open space areas and parks, and intens ive human disturbance. There are no significant wetland or environmental resource issues of con cern that would constrain development in the urbanized areas designated for residential development in Cupertino.

INFRASTRUCTURE
WATER
Three water suppliers provide service to the City of Cupertino: the California Water Company serviced through the Los Altos Suburban District, San Jose Water Company, and Cupertino Water. The San Jose Water Company also has a lease agreement to operate and maintain the City of Cupertino’s water system until 2022. The lease was extended for two more years and included an extension of the current lease for up to three years. Both of these provider s derive the vast majority of their water from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SVWD). Accordin g to the 2022 Urban Wa ter Management Plan (UWMP), SVWD has developed demand projections from 2020 to 2045 based on population growth, land use changes, trends in per- capita water use, and considerations of upcoming mandates in water conservation. Based on projected demand for single -family development for 2035, the demand is 17,657 mg for single-family and 11,505 mg for multi- family in the areas serviced by San Jose Water.

The projected water supply for 2035 is 44,629 mg, which meets the need for future development for the next eight years for both single-family and multi-family water demands. Additionally, the Pacheco APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐40

Reservoir is undergoing improvements that would act as a surface bank for SVWD’s existing supplies and diversify its reserve storage by increasing the vo lume of locally banked reserves. In addition, by increasing locally available storage, SWVD’S may be better positioned to respond to future water supply emergencies. The supply increase associated with this reservoir is to be determined and depends on imported water assumptions, dema nds, permit requirements, and operational requirements. However, there is current capaci ty to meet the City’s 2023-2031 RHNA on sites identified in Appendix B4.

WASTEWATER
Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) serves as the main provider of wastewater collection and treatment services for Cupertino, while the City of Sunnyva le serves a small portion of the Cupertino Urban Service area on the east side of the city. The City of Sunnyvale Wastewater Treatment Plant has a daily treatment capacity of 29 million gallons per day (mgd ), of which, approximately 12 mgd were being utilized in 2022. According to the Donald M. Somers Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), over the next 30 years, almost every process and buildin g in the WPCP will be rehabilitated or replaced.

This will be accomplished through up to 35 individual projects, each including several major elements and some involving multiple facilities. The improvements identified include rehabilitation of existing facilities, new primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment facilities, support facilities and upgrades to power, automation, and heating. The projects are grouped into five phases, correlating with the timing and types of improvements. It projects that proje cts in Phases 1 through 3 will be needed by 2030.

The cost for these projects is budgeted at $456 million and includes design, permitting, program management, construction management, and construction. The estimates for future years have been escalated to account for price inflation. These improvements are expected to ensure capacity for future buildout for the wastewater collection demand th roughout the 2023-2031 planning period on sites identified in Appendix B4.

Priority Water and Wastewater Procedure
Consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 65589.7, the City will immediately forward its adopted Housing Element to its water and wastewater providers so they can grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower-income households (Strategy 4.1.4).

AVAILABLE DRY UTILITIES
Dry utilities, including cable, electricity, and telephone service, are available to all areas in the city.

There is sufficient capacity to meet the current need and any future need. Service providers are:
 Electricity: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Silicon Valley Clean Energy  Telephone: AT&T and other providers available
 Internet Service: Comcast and other provider available APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐41

CONTINUING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS As residential developments are approved by the City and building permits have not been obtained, the City will make diligent efforts to contact applicants to learn why units have not been constructed within two years after approval. If these impedi ments are due to nongovernmental constraints, such as accelerating construction costs, shortages of labor or materials, or rising interest rates, to the extent appropriate and legally possible, the City will seek to identify actions that may help to remove these constraints. In addition, the City will aim to work with stakehol ders to identify nongovernmental constraints or other circumstances that may impe de the construction of ho using in Cupertino and work collaboratively to find strategies and actions th at can eliminate or reduce identified constraints (Strategy HE-3.3.7).

B5.3 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
Energy conservation is a major priority in Cupertino. The City prepared a climate action plan in 2015, which provided a roadmap to actions the City w ill take to reduce energy consumption and lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The plan is entitled: City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) and was prepared by the City of Cupertino.

The City’s CAP defines Cupertino’s path toward creating a healthy, livable, and vibrant place for its current and future residents to live, learn, work, and play. The strategies outlined in this CAP seek to not only reduce GHG emissions, but also provide energy, water, fuel, and cost savings for the City, its community members and businesses, further impr oving Cupertino’s already high quality of life.

The plan also represents another example of a successful partnership between engaged community members and City staff to jointly plan for Cupertino’s sustainable future and continue to lead by example on important environmental issues.

The CAP identifies five objectives:
 To demonstrate environmental leadership – Cupertino as a community can rise to the difficult challenge of reducing the impact of climate change by defining measurable, reportable, verifiable climate actions to reduce its contri bution to local and global GHG emissions that can serve as a model for small cities in the state and nationwide;  To save money and promote green jobs – Residents, businesses, and government can reduce their utility costs through increased energy and water efficiency, and a focus on efficiency can create job opportunities within the community that contribute to protecting our shared environmental resources;
 To comply with the letter and spirit of state environmental initiatives – California is taking the lead in tackling climate change while driving new energy markets and fostering new environmental services. As coordination with ci ties serves as the keystone to achieving statewide greenhouse gas emissions reductions, Cupertino has a responsibility to help the state address emissions sources that arise in our geography and meet its goals to reduce these emissions;
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐42

 To promote sustainable development – By developing this Climate Action Plan to reinforce General Plan policies and align with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District guidelines, a new class of sustainable development projec ts, such as mixed use and transit-oriented developments, can be fast-tracked (i.e., “str eamlined”) through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process by not re quiring GHG emissions for proposed projects consistent with the CAP; and
 To support regional climate change efforts – Cupertino developed its CAP through a county-wide effort that established consistency in the local response to climate change, and created a framework to collaborate regionally on implementation of different CAP programs.

This partnership elevates the credibility of local climate action planning by allowing transparency, accountability, and comparability of the plan ’s’ actions, performance, and commitments across all participating jurisdictions.

The City of Cupertino is currentlyupdated updating its CAP in 2022. and is expected to have its revisions complete in 2023.

SILICON VALLEY CLEAN ENERGY
Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) is the community electricity provider for 13 communities in Santa Clara County, including Cupertino, and is governed by local elected officials serving on the Board of Directors. SVCE was formed with the mission to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by providing carbon-free, affordable, and reliable electricity and innovative programs within the community.

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ENERGY-EFFICIENCY PROGRAMMING PG&E, which provides energy-efficiency services in Cupertino, offers public information and technical assistance to homeowners regarding ener gy conservation. PG&E also provides numerous incentives for energy efficiency in new construction and home remodeling. For example, remodeling rebates exist for projects installing three or more upgrades from a flexible menu of options that earn points towards incentives and rebates. This program’s incentives range between $1,000 and $4,500.

One of the more recent strategies in building ener gy-efficient homes is following the U.S. Green Building Council’s guidelines for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification. The LEED for Homes program in cludes standards for new single-family and multifamily home construction.

Additionally, PG&E provides residents with information regarding energy- saving measures, including various incentives and programs available to developers and residential property owners. Table 5B5- 127, PG&E Programs and Incentives for Residential Properties, on the following page, includes a description of the various financ ial and energy-related assistance that PG&E offers low-income customers.:

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐43

Table B5-7.Table B5-13. PG&E Programs and Incentives for Residential Properties Energy Savings
Assistance Program
PG&E’s Energy Savings Assistance program offers free weatherization measures and energy-efficient appliances to qualified low-income households. PG&E determines qualified households through the same sliding income scale used for CARE. The program includes measures such as attic insulation, weather stripping, caulking, and minor home repairs. Some customers qualify for replacement of appliances, including refrigerators, air conditioners, and evaporative coolers.

Energy Efficiency for
Multifamily Properties
The Energy Efficiency for Multifamily Properties program is available to owners and managers of existing multifamily residential dwellings containing five or more units. The program encourages energy efficiency by providing rebates for the installation of certain energy-saving products.

Multifamily Properties
The Energy Efficiency for Multifamily Properties program is available to owners and managers of existing multifamily residential dwellings containing five or more units. The program encourages energy efficiency by providing rebates for the installation of certain energy-saving products.

California Alternate
Rates for Energy
(Care)
PG&E offers this rate-reduction program for low-income households. PG&E determines qualified households by a sliding income scale based on the number of household members.

The CARE program provides a discount of 20% or more on monthly energy bills.

Reach (Relief for
Energy Assistance
Through Community
Help)
The REACH program is sponsored by PG&E and administered through a non-profit organization. PG&E customers can enroll to give monthly donations to the REACH program.

Qualified low-income customers who have experienced uncontrollable or unforeseen hardships, which prohibit them from paying their utility bills may receive an energy credit.

Eligibility is determined by a sliding income scale based on the number of household members. To qualify for the program, the applicant’s income cannot exceed 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines.

Medical Baseline
Allowance
The Medical Baseline Allowance program is available to households with certain disabilities or medical needs. The program allows customers to get additional quantities of energy at the lowest or baseline price for residential customers.

Source: PG&E, 2022.

As part of this Housing Element update, the City of Cupertino will implement Program Q to continue to promote and encourage energy conservation in residential developmen t. This program will encourage energy conservation practices for new and existing reside ntial dwelling units by enforcing State and local regulations and encouraging incen tives for energy conservation “best practices,” including:
 Continuing to offer streamlining and reduced permitting fees for solar panel installations;  Continuing to implement the CALGreen building code requirements;  Continuing to evaluate require “Reach Codes” for all-electric building requirements;  Providing information regarding rebate programs and energy audits available through PG&E; and
 Providing resource materials regarding green building and conservation programs.

Program Description
Review of Previous Housing Element B.6

APPENDIX

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐i

Table of Contents
B6  Review of Previous Housing Element ............................................................... B6-1 B6.1 Effectiveness of the Element ........................................................................................ B6-1 B6.2 Progress Toward Meeting Q uantifiable Objectives ....................................................... B6-2 B6.3 Efforts to Address S pecial Housing Needs ................................................................... B6-3 B6.4 Preservation of “At Risk” Units ...................................................................................... B6-5 B6.5 Rehabilitation of Existing Units ..................................................................................... B6-5 B6.6 Progress in Implementation of Housing Element Programs ......................................... B6-5 B6.7 Appropriateness in Goals, Objectives and Policies ..................................................... B6-27 B6.8 Su mmary .................................................................................................................. .. B6-27 Tables
Table B6-1  Regional Housing Needs Allocation Compared to Permits Issued 2015 – 2022 (5th Cycle Housing Element) ......................................................... B6-2 Table B6-2  Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs .......................................... B6-6

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐ii

This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐1

B6 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT
To effectively plan for the future, it is important to reflect back on the goals of the previous Housing Element and to identify those areas where progress was made and those areas where continued effort is needed. State Housing Element guidelines require communities to evaluate their previous Housing Element according to the following criteria:
 Effectiveness of the Element;
 Progress in Implementation; and
 Appropriateness in Goals, Objectives, and Policies.

B6.1 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ELEMENT
The City’s 2015 Housing Element identified the following goals:
 Goal HE-1: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for all Economic Segments;  Goal HE-2: Housing that is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households;  Goal HE-3: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods;
 Goal HE-4: Energy and Water Conservation;
 Goal HE-5: Services for Extremely Low-Income Households and Special Needs Neighborhoods;
 Goal HE-6: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities; and  Goal HE-7: Coordination with Regional Organizations and Local School Districts.

To achieve these goals, the 2015 Housing Element listed a series of policies and actions. The policies covered a range of housing concerns, including a ppropriate zoning for lower- and moderate-income households, assisting in developing affordable housing, removing governmental constraints, conserving the existing affordable housing stock, preventing the conversion of affordable units to market rate, and promoting equal housing opportuniti es for all persons. The policies comply with State Housing Law guidelines.

B6.2 PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION
To assess the City’s progress in implementing th e 2015 Housing Element, the following key areas were reviewed:
 Adopted Programs;
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐2

 Production of Housing;
 Preservation of “At Risk” Units; and
 Rehabilitation of Existing Units.

Each of these areas is discussed in detail below.

B6.2 PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING QUANTIFIABLE OBJECTIVES
The 2015–2023 Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation (RHNA) prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined that zoning to accommodate 1,064 additional housing units needed to be in place in Cupertino during the prior planning period to meet regional housing needs. ABAG disaggregated this allocation into four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. Table B6-1 compares the 5th Cycle RHNA to the building permits issued during 2015 to 2022.

Table B6-1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Compared to Permits Issued 2015 – 2022 (5th Cycle Housing Element)
Income Group 2015 – 2022
RHNA
Building Permits
Issued
Percentage of RHNA
Accomplished
Very Low Income 356 048 4713.48%
Low Income 207 19 0%9.18%
Moderate Income 231 158 68%68.40%
Above Moderate. Income 270 3210 118.899%
Total 1,064 546 49%51.32%
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐3

B6.3 EFFORTS TO ADDRESS SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
California Government Code Section 65588 requires that local governments review the effectiveness of the housing element goals, policies, and rela ted actions to meet the community’s special housing needs. As shown in the Review of Previous 20154-202319 Housing Element Programs matrix (Table B6H-2), the City worked diligently to continuously promote housing for special-needs groups in a variety of ways.
 To ensure the housing stock has affordable housing options, the City approved 12158 building permits for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and created a pr e-approved ADU program to further incentivize the creation of ADUs as of 2021.
 To help facilitate residential development, the City approved:
 wWaivers for development standards and park ing standards for the 48 senior affordable living units, 123 assisted living units, and 35 memory care rooms as part of the Westport Project.
 Waivers for development standards and park ing standards for the 206 condominiums as part of the Marina Plaza Project.
 Incentives and concessions for the developmen t as part of the 2,402- unit mixed-use development as part of the Vallco Town Center (The Rise) development.  The City’s below-market rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) funded and supported affordable housing projects, strategies, and services, including, but not limited to:
 $305,615 to Project Sentinel for information and referral calls to 712 households.  $339,639 to WVCS Affordable Placement Program to assist in rental and ownership vacancies and BMR homeowner monitoring helping assist a total of 47 households.  $36,874 to Fair Housing – ECHO Housing for investigated fair housing cases assisting 21 households.
 $399,986 to WVCS Greenwood Court Renovat ion for rehabilitated units assisting 3 households.
 $175,000 to Hello Housing, which assisted 50 households while also assisting 49 households through Rise Housing.
 $783,049 to Vista Village Repair Project to rehabilitate BMR rental units.  To help incentivize Affordable Housing Development, the City received a total of $561,482 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley (RTSV).

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐4

 The City indirectly helped the Veranda Project ob tain a $999,906 through the Housing Trust Silicon Valley, to assist with land acquisition.
 The City provided a $3,672,000 loan to The Verand a to assist with the land acquisition of 19 extremely low-income units.
 The City also funded The Veranda Project by $500,000 through its share of HOME funds to assist with construction costs.
 The City also funded Faith in Action Rotating Shelter by providing $7,700 for job development programming that assisted 33 unhoused participants that were prepared to be resume and interview ready.
 The City provided $8,000 to fund United Way 211 Santa Clara for residents who called and accessed 211 Santa Clara County.
 In 2021, the City established the City Unhoused Task Force to address the needs of unhoused residents through resource referral and partnered with the West Valley Rotating Safe Car Park (RSCP) program and there is a max of 30 people at a time per safe parking site.  The City provided 5 households with low- inter est’s loans through MeriWest Credit Union Program to put towards rental assistance in the amount of $86,872.  The City assisted 3 households with emergency rental assistance loans in the amount of $6,000.  The City also funded the Rotating Safe Car Program providing $50,000 to 20 households in rental assistance grants.
 During the planning period, the City took va rious steps to provide supportive services for lower-income households and persons with special needs, including:
 Establishing the City Unhoused Task Force to address the needs of unhoused residents.  CDBG funds of $22,720.18 to Live Oak Adult Day Services, a senior adult day care.  CDBG funds of $164,807 to assist 274 senior households at Live Oak Adult Day Services, a senior adult day care.
 CDBG funds of $299,156 to West Valley Community Services (WVCS) CARE Program to provide supportive services to prevent homelessness.  CDBG funds of $224,184 to City-wide cCurb installation project for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible curb ramps installed throughout the city.  CDBG funds of $809,802 for Cupertino Housing for the Ddisabled Inc. to rehabilitate rental units.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐5

 CDBG funds of $234,672 for 10 homele ss residents who received supportive and sanitation services.
 CDBG funds of $24,142 that assisted 36 seniors to access meal deliveries.  CDBG funds of $185,000 providing $5,000 in grants to 37 small businesses.  Human Services Grant Program (HSG) $195,7 97 to MAITRI that assist transitional residents who receive case management.
 HSG $104,999 to SALA for seniors who received legal services.  HSG $266,788 to WVCS Haven Home program for people who received supportive services to prevent homelessness.
 The City developed and funded the Homeless Jobs Program to provide up to eight months of employment for two unhoused residents in Cupertino in the amount of $222,063.  The City also implemented the grants for De Anza students to provide $8,080 in housing assistance grants.

B6.3B6.4 PRESERVATION OF “AT RISK” UNITS
According to the 2015 Housing Element, there was one affordable project at risk of converting to market rate within 10 years from the beginning of the 2015–2023 planning period—Beardon Drive, which has eight affordable units. In 2019, the owner of Beardon Drive paid off the City’'s CDBG loan and indicated that the property would continue to operate as affordable housing.

B6.4B6.5 REHABILITATION OF EXISTING UNITS
The City had established a goal of rehabilitating 40 total housing units between 2015 and 2023.

B6.5B6.6 OVERVIEW PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF HOUSING

ELEMENT OF ADOPTED PROGRAMS
Table B6--12, Overview of AdoptedReview of th e 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs, identifies all of the actions the City committed to in the 2015 Housing Element. The table also includes a description of the progress that was made during the 2015–2023 planning period.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐6

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-1.3.1 Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions
To accommodate the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA), the City will
continue to:
 Provide adequate capacity through the
Land Use Element and Zoning
Ordinance to accommodate the RHNA
of 1,064 units
 Monitor development standards to
ensure they are adequate and
appropriate to facilitate a range of
housing in the community
 Monitor the sites inventory and make it
available on the City website
 Monitor development activity on the
Housing Opportunity Sites to ensure that
the City maintains sufficient land to
accommodate the RHNA during the
planning period. Identify alternative
site(s) as needed
The City cContinued to provide adequate capacity through the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance to accommodate the RHNA allocation. As a result of flexible land use controls as of 2021, four of the five Priority Housing Element sites from the 5th cycle used density bonuses, incentives, and/or waivers that were approved by the City between 2016-2022.
, monitor development standards, monitor sites inventory, and monitor development activity on Housing Opportunity Sites.

Continue, through Strategy HE-1.3.1, HE-1.3.2,
and HE-1.3.– 3. The City will commit to
rezoning and adding new zoning districts and
land use designations to accommodate RHNA.

HE-1.3.2 Second Dwelling Units
The City will continue to implement the
Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance and
encourage the production of second units
The City annuallyThe ordinance is regularly updated the Ordinance to comply with State law and. eEstablished a program to streamline the ADU review and production process as part of the City FY 2020-21 work program. In 2021, the City issued 41 building permits for ADUs and created a pre-
approved ADU program to further incenti vizeve the creation of ADUs. Since 2015, the City has issued 158 building permits for ADUs.

Continue, through Strategy HE-1.3.8. The City
will continue to address new State legislation
for ADU’s and expand on efforts to encourage
the development of these housing types.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐7

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-1.3.3 Lot Consolidation
To facilitate residential and mixed-use
developments, the City will continue to:
 Encourage lot consolidation
 Encourage master plans for such sites
with coordinated access and circulation
 Provide technical assistance
 Encourage intra- and inter-agency
cooperation
The City Continue to encouraged lot consolidation when contiguous smaller, underutilized parcels are to be
redeveloped. Encourage master plans for such sites with coordinated access and circulatio andn. provided technical assistance to property owners of adjacent parcels to facilitate coordinateed redevelopment where appropriate. Sand Hill Property Company filed an application with the City of Cupertino on March 27, 2018, entitled "Vallco Town Center Project Application pursuant to SB 35." On September 21, 2018, an approval letter was issued for the project. Vallco requested less commercial development with only 1 bedroom and studio BMR units and smaller 1 bedroom and studios than market rate and 1-bedroomm studios as BMR. The coordination included
Encourage intra- and inter-agency cooperation andin working with applicants. encouragement of master plans for sites with coordinated access and circulation.

Continue, through Strategy HE 1.3.7.

HE-1.3.4 Flexible Development Standards
The City recognizes the need to encourage a
range of housing options in the community.

The City will continue to:
 Offer flexible residential development
standards in planned residential zoning
districts
 Consider granting reductions in off-
street parking on a case-by-case basis
for senior housing
Continue to offer flexible residential development standards in planned residential zoning districts and consider granting reductions in off-street parking for senior housing. In 2021, the the 123 assisted living units and 35 memory care rooms
Westport Project was approved with waivers, an incentive forto development standards and a reduction in parking standards.

The Westport project is located within the Heart of the City Specific Plan and on a Housing Element site. The City had 4 of the 5 Housing Element sites use waivers and Density Bonus parking standards as part of their project within the Vallco, Marina, Verandas, and Westport Projects. The City also allowed 2 of the 5 projects to use incentives as part of their project - Westport and Vallco.

Continue for affordable units, through Strategy
HE-2.3.7. The City will also commit to other
strategies like density bonus incentives to
address Affordable Housing Development.

HE-1.3.5 Heart of the City Specific Plan Completed in May 2015. Completed. Delete, the action was completed.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐8

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete The City will review revisions to the Heart of
the City Specific Plan residential density
calculation requirement to eliminate the
requirement to net the non-residential portion
of the development from the lot area.

HE-2.3.1 Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation
Program
The City will continue to require that
developers of office, commercial, and
industrial space pay a mitigation fee for
affordable housing in the City of Cupertino.

To help offset the loss of land, the City cContinued to implement the Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program. The City rRequires developers of office, commercial, and industrial space to pay a mitigation fee to support affordable housing.

Mitigated fees are collected and deposited into the City's Below Market Rate ( BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) for the following fiscal years (FY) the following mitigation fees were collected and deposited and in the BMR and AFH funds:
 FY19: $159,178.
 FY20: $39,000
 FY21: $197,661
 FY22: $36,000
 FY23: $170,824
The Veranda project received BMR and AFH funds. This senior housing project, now complete and occupied, is a 19-unit affordable development on a vacant, 0.56-acre site, at 19160 Stevens Creek Boulevard. in Cupertino.

Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.2. This
program has proven successful and will
continue with only minor text updates.

HE-2.3.2 Residential Housing Mitigation Program
The City will continue to implement the
Residential Housing Mitigation Program to
mitigate the need for affordable housing
created by new market-rate residential
development. This program applies to new
The City cC ontinued to implement the Residential Housing Mitigation Program. The program applies to new residential development and . Mitigation includes either the provision of BMR units or the payment of the "Housing Mitigation" fee. The BMR Linkage Fees Update study was completed and adopted by City Council on May 19, 2020, which included an increased requirement from of 15%-20% for inclusionar y ownership Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.3. This
program has proven successful and will expand
on efforts to prioritize, provide rental
alternatives, develop for-sale and rental units,
and develop BMR units off-site.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐9

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete residential development. Mitigation includes
either the payment of the “Housing
Mitigation” fee or the provision of a Below
Market-Rate (BMR) unit or units.
projects. In 2021, the BMR AHF provided funding to the
following affordable housing projects, strategies, and services:
 BMR Program Administration:- 400 households sought
assistance, 12 new households were assisted.
 Fair housing services:- $305,615 to Project Sentinel
 City of Cupertino Housing Programs for De Anza College Students
HE-2.3.3 Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable
Housing Fund (AHF)
The City’s BMR AHF will continue to support
affordable housing projects, strategies and
services, including but not limited to:
 BMR Program Administration
 Substantial rehabilitation
 Land acquisition
 Acquisition of buildings for permanent
affordability, with or without
rehabilitation
 New construction
 Preserving “at-risk” BMR units
 Rental operating subsidies
 Down payment assistance
 Land write-downs
 Direct gap financing
Continue to maintain the BMR AHFThe City provided .
oOngoing technical assistance provided to non -
profits/developers, looking to develop affordable housin g, including providing data and information on properties for sale to non-profit partners and developers for their consideration. In 2017, the fund provided $175,000 to Hello Housing, which assisted five households purchase BMR for-sale units and 15 new rental households. Additionally, a $3,672,000 loan to The Veranda helped assist with the Land Acquisition of 19 extremely low-income units and very -low-income senior housing
development. Additional financial assistance included:
 A rehabilitation award of $399,986 to the Greenwood Court Renovation Project, assisting four former transitional
housing units that converted to BMR rental units.
 $561,482 in CDBG funds to Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, a low-income housing repair and rehabilitation
program.

Continue, through Stra tegy HE-2.3.4. This
program has proven successful and will
continue with additional focus on areas with
limited availability of rental housing and high
cost burden..

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐10

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete  Fair housing
To ensure the mitigation fees continue to be
adequate to mitigate the impacts of new
development on affordable housing needs,
the City will update its Nexus Study for the
Housing Mitigation Plan by the end of 2015
$783,049 in funds to Vista Village Renovation Project, a low- income affordable housing development.The City released the FY 21-22 BMR AHF Request for Proposal (RFP) from
November 2021-February 2022. In 2021, the BMR AHF
provided funding to the following affordable housing projects, strategies, and services:
•BMR Program Administration- 400 households sought
assistance, 12 new households were assisted.
 -•Fair housing services- $305,61550,000 to Project
Sentinel for fair housing services.
•City of Cupertino Housing Programs for De Anza College Students
 Emergency Assistance Funds for Cupertino Tenants
Impacted by COVID
 -$50,000 to Earnin
 $86,872 to Meriwest Credit Union and $50,000 to West
Valley Community Services (WVCS)
 - $8,080 to De Anza College   for the City of Cupertino Housing Program for De Anza Students
HE-2.3.4 Housing Resources
The City will continue to provide information
on housing resources and services offered
by the County and other outside agencies.

These include, but are not limited to:
 Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) –
Santa Clara County Housing and
Community Development Department
The Continue Cityto provided information on housing resources and services including, but not limited to:
 County Measure A Affordable Housing Bond
 County Mortgage Credit Certificate
 County IDevelopmental Disability Funding
 Housing Trust Silicon Valley First-Time Homebuyer
 Assistance and Developer Loans
Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.5. The City,
through the new strategy, will also continue to
identify and pursue various affordable housing
resources available to address needs in the
community.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐11

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete  First-Time Homebuyer Assistance and
Developer Loans for Multi-Family
Development -– Housing Trust Silicon
Valley (HTSV)
 Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) -–
Housing Authority of Santa Clara County
(HASCC)
 Affordable housing development -–
Santa Clara County HOME Consortium
The City will also continue to explore and
pursue various affordable housing resources
available at the local, regional, state, and
federal levels that could be used to address
housing needs in the community
 Project Sentinel Rental Support
 Housing Authority Section 8 Vouchers
 Destination: HOME Community Housing Fund
 West Valley Community Services
In addition, the Ci ty worked with non -profit organizations in providing programs and services for low-income households ; and private industry, in particular financial and development groups, to encourage the development of affordable housing opportunities regionally and in the city (see Program HE-2.3.3).

The City provided technical assistance to the public service agencies it funded . The City coordinated with a number of groups to engage in discussions about grant funding
opportunities, regional housing needs, and efforts to address homelessness. The City participated in the following groups:

Santa Clara County PLHA Consortium, Regional
CDBG/Housing Coordinators Group, SV@Home, Non-Profit
Housing of Northern CA. The participants in these groups, including the City, work togeth er to pool their knowledge and share expertise. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing helps to coordinate these efforts and provides the participants with invaluable technical assistance. Through the SCC PLHA Consortium, the City was awarded an allocation of PLHA
funding and is currently working towards implementing the funding for projects in Cupertino. and attended the bi-weekly CDBG/Housing Coordinators meeting. In 2021, the City created a pilot Homeless Jobs Program withfor two Cupertino unhoused residents participating in the program . The Homeless Jobs Program assists two people per year, plus their families by extension. The City Council did not prioritize the Plan to End Homelessness for the FY 2023-25 City Work Program. This item was concluded, and no final version of the Plan was APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐12

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete created. Unused funds will be returned to the General Fund. As part of the City's FY 21-22 work program, the City is developing a City Plan to End Homelessness.

HE-2.3.5 Surplus Properties for Housing
The City will explore opportunities on surplus
properties as follows:
 Work with local public agencies, school
districts and churches, to identify surplus
properties or underutilized properties
that have the potential for residential
development.
 Encourage long-term land leases of
properties from churches, school
districts, and corporations for
construction of affordable units
 Evaluate the feasibility of developing
special housing for teachers or other
employee groups on the surplus
properties
 Research other jurisdictions’ housing
programs for teachers for their potential
applicability in Cupertino
The City Continue to worked with local public agencies, school districts, and churches to identify surplus properties that have the potential for residential development and encourage long- term land leases of properties from churches, school districts, and corporations for construction of affordable units . There were no surplus properties available from any school districts or churches for the City to pursue. The City continued to support the Rotating Car-park program on church property.

Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.6. The City
will partner with local developers or
organizations to purchase surplus properties,
infill lots, and other green fields within the city
to use for the development of affordable
housing.

HE-2.3.6 Incentive for Affordable Housing
Development
The City will continue to offer a range of
incentives to facilitate the development of
affordable housing. These include:

The City Continue to offered a range of financial assistance through the City '’s BMR AHF, by partnering with CDBG and receiving a total of $64,000 in CDBG funds to Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, a low-income housing repair and rehabilitation program. To incentivize affordable housing development, the City and supported the funding application of qualified affordable housing developers for regional, state, and Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.7.

Development of housing for lower-income
households will be facilitated citywide, but extra
focus will be given to areas with currently low
percentages of renter-occupied households to
facilitate housing mobility and integration of
ownership and rental units.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐13

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete  Financial assistance through the City’s
Below Market-Rate Affordable Housing
Fund (BMR AHF) and CDBG funds
 Partner with CDBG and/or support the
funding application of qualified
affordable housing developers for
regional, state, and federal affordable
housing funds, including HOME funds,
Low Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTC), and mortgage revenue bonds.
 Density bonus incentives (see Strategy
HE-2.3.7)
 Flexible development standards
 Technical assistance
 Waiver of park dedication fees and
construction tax
 Parking ordinance waivers
 Expedited permit processing
federal affordable housing funds, density bonus incentives, flexible development standards, technical assistance, waiver of park dedication fees and construction tax, parking ordinance waivers, and expedited permit processing. As previously mentioned, the City approved waivers of development and parking standards for the Westport and Marina Plaza projects.

The City also approved density bonus incentives for the Westport and Vallco Town Center (The Rise) projects. In addition, the City also allowed flexible development standards and a reduced parking standard was approved for the
Hamptons Development under the Planned Development
zoning district. Technical assistance was provided for the Verandas project on an ongoing basis and the project was also provided expedited permit processing with entitlements on the project being completed in 6-7 months. In addition, the City provided approximately $3.7 million in funding for this 100% affordable housing project and supported funding applications for the project. With all residential developments, parkland dedication in lieu of fees and construction taxes were waived for all affordable units. The City has provided $8,172,000 .00 in BMR AHF and CDBG funds to facilitate the development of affordable housing (see Program HE-2.3.4).

In addition, the City participates in the Regional CDBG/Housing Coordinators group and provides technical assistance to the public service agencies it funds. The City also participates in the Santa Clara County HOME Consortium. In 2021, the City
entered into the Santa Clara County Permanent Local Housing (PLHA) Consortium and submitted an application to HCD for funding for the development of affordable housing. The City coordinated with a number of groups to engage in discussions about grant funding opportunities, regional housing needs, and efforts to address homelessness. The City participated in the following groups: Santa Clara County PLHA Consortium,
Regional CDBG/Housin g Coordinators Group, SV @Home,
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐14

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete Non-Profit Housing of Northern CA. The participants in these groups, including the City, work together to pool their knowledge and share expertise. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing helps to coordinate these efforts and provides the participants with invaluable technical assistance. Through the SCC PLHA Consortium, the City was awarded an allocation of PLHA
funding and is currently working towards implementing the funding for projects in Cupertino.

HE-2.3.7 Density Bonus Ordinance
The City will encourage use of density
bonuses and incentives, as applicable, for
housing developments
All the sites listed in the 5th cycl e table with the exception of (APNs: 316-06-059, ;316-06-060, and 316-06 -058) have been As of 2021, four out of the fiveawarded Priority Housing Element sites from the 5th cycle have utilized density bonuses, incentives, waivers, and/or reduction in parking standards. They were been approved by the City between 2016 and -20212.

Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.8.

Development will be citywide but extra focus
will be given to areas with currently low
percentages of renter-occupied households to
facilitate housing mobility.

HE-2.3.8 Extremely Low-Income Housing and
Housing for Persons with Special Needs
The City will continue to encourage the
development of adequate housing to meet
the needs of extremely low-income
households and persons with special needs,
including the following incentives:
 Provide financing assistance using the
Below Market-Rate Affordable Housing
Fund (BMR AHF) and Community
Development Block Grant funds
(CDBG).
 Allow residential developments to
exceed planned density maximums if
they provide special needs housing
The City cContinued to provide financing assistance using the BMR AHF and CDBG funds. ,A $3,672,000 loan to The Veranda to assist with the Land Acquisition of 19 extremely low-income units. Additional financial assistance included: allow residential developments to exceed planned density maximums for special needs housing, grant reductions in offstreetoff-street parking , and partner with and/or support the funding application of qualified affordable housing developers for regional, state, and federal affordable housing funds. The City worked with
developers and non-profit organizations to encourage the development of affordable housing opportunities regionally and in the City . The City coordinated with a number of groups to engage in discussions about grant funding opportunities, regional housing needs, and efforts to address homelessness.

The City participated in the following groups: Santa Clara County PLHA Consortium, Regional CDBG/Housing
Coordinators Group, SV@Home, Non-Profit Housing of
Northern CA. The participants in these groups, includin g the Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.10.

Additionally, Strategies HE-2.3.1 and HE-5.1.2
have been developed and supplement aspects
of this program.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐15

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete  Grant reductions in off-street parking on
a case-by-case basis
 Partner with and/or support the funding
application of qualified affordable
housing developers for regional, state,
and federal affordable housing funds
City, work together to pool their knowledge and share expertise.

The County’s Office of Supportive Housing helps to coordinate these efforts and provides the participants with invaluable technical assistance. Through the SCC PLHA Consortium, the City was awarded an allocation of PLHA funding and is currently working towards implementing the funding for projects in Cupertino. In addition, the City participates in the biweekly Regional CDBG/Housing Coordinators meeting and provides technical assistance to the public service agencies it funds. The City also participates in the Santa Clara County HOME
Consortium. The City is wor kedking with non -profits and developers to review the feasibilit y of residential uses on two potential affordable housing sites (Mary Avenue and Byrne Avenue) with the goal of assisting with the development of affordable housing for developmentally disabled adults . The City issued an RFP (request for proposals) for the site and received interest from one developer. Currently, the City is in the process of drafting an ENA *Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement (ENA)* to move the project forward. In 2021, the City entered into the Santa Clara County Permanent Local Housing (PLHA) Consortium. As part the FY 22-23 City of Work
Program, the City and submi tted an application to HCD for funding for the development of affordable housing. This is included in the FY 22-23 City Work Program.

HE-2.3.9 Employee Housing
The City permits employee housing in
multiple zoning distri cts. Pursuant to the
State Employee Housing Act, any employee
housing consisting of no more than 36 beds
in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces
designed for use by a single family or
household shall be deemed an agricultural
land use. No conditional use permit, zonin g
The City amended the zoning code in 2014Continue to
implement the City's zoning code to to allow employee housing in multiple zoning districts. . The Zoning Ordinance is regularly updated to comply with state law.

ContinueDeleted.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐16

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete variance, or other zoning clearance shall be
required of this employee housing that is not
required of any other agricultural activity in
the same zone. The permitted occupancy in
employee housing in a zone allowing
agricultural uses shall include agricultural
employees who do not work on the property
where the employee housing is located. The
Employee Housing Act also specifies that
housing for six or fewer employees be
treated as a residential use. The City
amended the Zoning Ordinance to be
consistent with the State law in 2014 and will
continue to comply with the Employee
Housing Act where it would apply.

HE-3.3.1 Residential Rehabilitation
The City will continue to:
 Utilize its Below Market-Rate Affordable
Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds to support residential
rehabilitation efforts in the community.

These include:
 Acquisition/rehabilitation of rental
housing
 Rehabilitation of owner-occupied
housing
 Provide assistance for home safety
repairs and mobility/accessibility
The City utilized BMR AHF and CDBG funds to
acquire/rehabilitate rental housing and rehabilitate owner- occupied housing. In 2021, the following CDBG funds were provided to the following rehabilitation efforts.: Continue to utilize BMR AHF and CDBG funds to
 A rehabilitation award of $399,986 to the Greenwood Court Renovation Project, assisting four former transitional
housing units that converted to BMR rental units.
 $561,482 in CDBG funds to Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, a low-income housing repair and rehabilitation
program.
 $783,049 to the Vista Village Renovation Project for
substantial rehabilitation. acquire/rehabilitate rental housing and rehabilitate owner occupied housing.
$1,500,000 in CDBG funds were provided to residential
rehabilitation efforts.

Continue, through Strategy HE-3.3.1.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐17

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete improvements to income-qualified
owner-occupants using CDBG funds
 Partner with and/or support the funding
application of qualified affordable
housing developers for regional, state,
and federal affordable housing funds
HE-3.3.2 Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units
One housing project – Beardon Drive (eight
units. The City will proactively contact the
property owner regarding its intent to remain
or opt out of the affordable program. In the
event the project becomes at risk of
converting to market-rate housing, the City
will work with the property owner or other
interested nonprofit housing providers to
preserve the units. The City will also conduct
outreach to the tenants to provide
information on any potential conversion and
available affordable housing assistance
programs.

The City will continue to monitor its entire
portfolio of affordable housing for-sale and
rental inventory annually. The City will
monitor its affordable for-sale inventory by
requiring Below Market-Rate (BMR)
homeowners to submit proof of occupancy
such as utility bills, mortgage loan
documentation, homeowner’s insurance,
and property tax bills. The City will further
monitor its affordable for-sale inventory by
ordering title company lot books, reviewing
property profile reports and updatin g its
In the event the project becomes at risk of converting to market- rate housing, the City will work with the property owner or other interested nonprofit housing providers to preserve the eight units. In 2017, the BMR AFH fund provided $175,000 to Hello Housing, which assisted five households purchase BMR for- sale units. In 2019, as part of the BMR AHF program, the owner of Beardon Drive paid off the City's CDBG loan and indicated that the 8 units making up the property would continue to operate as affordable housing.

Continue, through Strategy HE-3.3.2. The City
will continue to monitor and conduct outreach
to at-risk below-market rate housing units
throughout the City and will also implement
policy that provides tenants or mission-driven
nonprofits the right of first refusal to purchase a
property at market price.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐18

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete public database annually. The City will
monitor its affordable rental inventory by
verifying proof of occupancy and performing
annual rental income certifications for each
BMR tenant.

HE-3.3.3 Condominium Conversion
Condominium conversions are not allowed if
the rental vacancy rate in Cupertino and
certain adjacent areas is less than five
percent at the time of the application for
conversion and has averaged five percent
over the past six months. The City will
continue to monitor the effectiveness of this
ordinance in providing opportunities for
homeownership while preserving a balanced
housing stock with rental housing.

Continue The Cityto continued to monitor the effectiveness of this ordinance byin providing opportunities for homeownership while preserving a balanced housing stock with rental housing.

Continue, through Strategy HE-3.3.3. The
ordinance has proven successful and will be
carried forward with no modification or
additional language.

HE-3.3.4 Housing Preservation Program
When a proposed development or
redevelopment of a site would cause a loss
of multi-family housing, the City will grant
approval only if:
 The project will comply with the City’s
Below Market-Rate Program
 The number of units provided on the site
is at least equal to the number of existing
units, and
 Adverse impacts on displaced tenants,
in developments with more than four
units, are mitigated
The City cContinued to participate in studies of regional housing need and displacement . In collaboration with the Santa Clara County Consortium, the City’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) documents was completed in spring 2022. and consider policies or programs to address the indirect
displacement of low-income residents as appropriate
Continue, through Strategy HE-3.3.4. The
updated strategy also commits the City to
approving the redevelopment of existing
multifamily units if they are redeveloped at the
same or deeper affordability, with the
equivalent size and provides displaced tenants
with right of first refusal to rent new units at the
same rent.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐19

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete The City will participate, as appropriate, in
studies of regional housing need and
displacement, and consider policies or
programs to address the indirect
displacement of lower income residents
HE-3.3.5 Neighborhood and Community Clean-Up
Campaigns
The City will continue to encourage and
sponsor neighborhood and community
clean-up campaigns for both public and
private properties
The City cC ontinued to encourage and sponsor neighborhood and community clean-up campaigns for both public and private properties. The City promotes and/or staffs the following events available to the community:
 • Recology provides quarterly drop - off events for bulky items, construction waste, landscape waste, and
hazardous waste (due to COVID, the quarterly events were cancelled and resumed in mid-2021 ), construction waste, landscape waste, and hazardous waste.
 • The City staffs two annual creek clean ups- National River Clean Up Day and Coastal Clean Up Day.

ContinueDeleted.

HE-4.1.1 Enforcement of Title 24
The City will continue to enforce Title 24
requirements for energy conservation and
will evaluate utilizing some of the other
suggestions as identified in the
Environmental Resources/ Sustainability
element
The City continued to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation and evaluate u stilizing some of the other suggestions as identified in the Environmental
Resources/Sustainability element. In 202019, the City aadopted REACH codes, which were further amended in 2022, thatwhich will assist in achieving the City's sustainability goals. The City has Chapter 16.58, Green Building Standards Code , that requires certain projects to achieve LEED certification or similar.

Continue, through Strategy HE-4.1.1. The
program has proven successful and will be
carried forward with no modification or
additional language.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐20

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-4.1.2 Sustainable Practices
The City will continue to implement the
Landscape Ordinance for water conservation
and the Green Building Ordinance.

To further the objectives of the Green
Building Ordinance, the City will evaluate the
potential to provide incentives, such as
waiving or reducing fees, for energy
conservation improvements at affordable
housing projects (existing or new) with fewer
than ten units to exceed the minimum
requirements of the California Green
Building Code. This City will also implement
the policies in its climate action plan to
achieve residential-focused greenhouse gas
emission reductions and further these
community energy and water conservation
goals
The City Continue to the implemented the following ordinances:
 Landscape Ordinance,
Green Building Ordinance , and the City's Climate
The Climate Action Plan, which , including evaluatesing the potential to
provide incentives for energy conservation
improvements at affordable housing projects (e.g.,
waiving or reducing fees,) and continue to implement
 the policies in the climate action plan. Continue to
The City also adopted implement the eEnergy- efficiency reach codes that include requirements for electrification for certain types of buildings, water efficiency, and green materials to reduce energy use and lower greenhouse gas
emissions. These codes include reach codes which are a
component of the California Energy and California Green Building Codes and include requirements for water efficiency, green materials, and other items designed to encourage building electrification for certain types of buildings.

Continue, through program HE-4.1.2.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐21

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-5.1.1 Emergency Shelters
The City will continue to facilitate housing
opportunities for special needs persons by
allowing emergency shelters as a permitted
use in the “BQ” Quasi-Public zoning district.

The City will subject emergency shelters to
the same development standards as other
similar uses within the BQ zoning district,
except for those provisions permitted by
State law and provided in the Zoning
Ordinance for emergency shelters
The City Continue to facilitatede housing opportunities for special- lneeds persons groups by allowing emergency shelters as a permitted use in the "BQ" Quasi-Public Building zoning district. In 2021, the City established the City Unhoused Task Force to address the needs of unhoused residents through resource referral and . TheCity partnered with the West Valley Rotating Safe Car Park (RSCP) program. The RSCP program is an emergency homeless program made up of a network of local city governments, service organizations, and volunteer faith-based host sites that provide temporary overnight parking for homeless individuals/families living out of their cars. The RSCP program is still active, and there is a maximum of 30 people at a time per safe parking site.

The same year, the City created a pilot Homeless Jobs Program with two Cupertino unhoused residents participating in the program. The City Work Program is renewed on an annual basis by the City Council, and contains a variety of different projects, one of which being the City Plan To End Homelessness. The City Council did not prioritize the Plan To End Homelessness for the FY 2023-25 City Work Program. This item was
concluded, and no final version of the Plan was created. Unused funds will be returned to the General Fund.

RSCP program is an emergency homeless program made up
of a network of local city governments, service organizations, and volunteer faith-based host sites that provide temporary overnight parking for homeless individuals/families living out of thei cars. The City created a website and application process for the RSCP program.

Continue, through Strategy HE-5.1.1. The
updated strategy amends the Zoning Code to
permit in the Quasi-Public zoning district
without discretionary review and commits the
City to review and revise managerial standards.

HE-5.1.2 Supportive Services for Lower-Income
Households and Persons with Special
Needs
In 2021During the planning period , the City took various steps to provide supportive services for lower-income households and persons with special needs, including:

Continue, through Strategy HE 5.1.2. The
program has been a success and is carried
forward with added focus on areas along the
Interstate 280 corridor, in the areas abutting at
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐22

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete The City will continue to utilize its Below
Market-Rate Affordable Housing Fund,
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds, and General Fund Human
Service Grants (HSG) funds to provide for a
range of supportive services for lower-
income households and persons with special
needs
 Eestablishinged the City Unhoused Task Force to address the needs of unhoused residents.
 CDBG $164,807 to Live Oak Adult Day Services, a senior adult day care.
 CDBG $299,156 to West Valley Community Services
(WVCS) CARE Program, a community access to resource
and education program.
 HSG $66,189 to Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County, a long-term care ombudsman program.
 HSG $25,000 to MAITRI, a transitional housing direct client services program.
 HSG $105,999 to Senior Adult Legal Assistance, a legal assistance to elders program.

HSG- $266,778 to WVCS Haven to Home program, a
supportive services and housing resources program for the homeless.ts.

In 2021, $3,000,000 in BMR AHF, CDBG, and HSG funds
were
provided to supportive services for low-income
 households and persons with special needs.
 In 2021, the City established the City Unhoused Task Force to address the needs of unhoused residents through
resource referral. In FY 21-22 and FY 22-23, the City Work Program included a Homeless Jobs Program. The City
developed and funded the Homeless Jobs Program to
provide up to eight months of employment for two
unhoused residents in Cupertino.
the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens
Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard
(western edge of Creston-Pharlap
neighborhood), and along Miller Avenue north
of Creekside Park.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐23

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-5.1.3 Rotating Homeless Shelter
The City will continue to support the
operation of a Rotating Homeless Shelter
program
The City provided Faith in Action Rotating Shelter with space at City Hall to provide intake and registration for the community each night until it was shut down in 2017.

In 2021, the City partnered with the West Valley RSCP
program, . The RSCP program is an emergency homeless
program made up of a network of local city governments, service organizations, and volunteer faith-based host sites that provide temporary overnight parking for homeless
individuals/families living out of their cars. Through $299,156 in CDBG funding, the City assisted 887 households and provided services to prevent homelessness. As part of the City's FY 21- 22 work program, the City is developing a City Plan to End Homelessness.

Modify, through Stra tegy HE-5.1.3. The
Strategy has been updated based on previous
program outcomes. The City will continue to
support the Rotating Safe Car Park program.

Continue
HE-6.1.1 Fair Housing Services
The City will continue to:
 Provide fair housing services, which
include outreach, education, counseling,
and investigation of fair housing
complaints
 Retain a fair housing service provider to
provide direct services for residents,
landlords, and other housing
professionals
 Coordinate with efforts of the Santa
Clara County Fair Housing Consortium
to affirmatively further fair housing
 Distribute fair housing materials
produced by various organizations at
public counters and public events
Continue to provide fair housing services including outreach, education, counseling, and investigation of fair housing complaints. In 2020, the City coordinated with the Regional CDBG/Housing Coordinators group to begin drafting the City's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Plan. The City has provided a total of $of $ 850,000 in BMR AHF funds to fair - housing services and landlord/tenant rental mediation
programs.

Continue, through program HE-6.1.1. The
strategy will also include commitments to
partner with a local fair housing service
provider.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐24

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-7.3.1 Coordination with Outside Agencies and
Organizations
The City will meet with these
agencies/organizations periodically to
discuss the changing needs, development
trends, alternative approaches, and
partnering opportunities:
 School districts
 Housing providers
 Neighboring jurisdictions
 Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG)
 Air Quality Management District
 Housing Trust Silicon Valley
 Santa Clara County Fair Housing
Consortium
 Santa Clara County HOME Consortium
 Santa Clara County Continuum of Care
(COC)
 Housing Authority of Santa Clara County
(HASCC)
 Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
The City Continue to coordinated with these groups to apply for and receive grant funding, and engage in discussions about regional housing needs, and efforts to address homelessness. with school districts, housing providers, neighboring
jurisdictions, ABAG, Air Quality Management District, Housing Trust Silicon Valley, Santa Clara County Fair Housing
Consortium, Destination: Home, Santa Clara County HOME
Consortium, Santa Clara County Continuum of Care, Housing Authority of Santa Clara County, and ValleyTransportation Authority. The City participated in the following groups: Santa Clara County PLHA Consorti um, Regional CDBG/Housing
Coordinators, SV@Home, Non-Profit Housing of Northern
CA,.The participants in these groups, including the City, work together to pool their knowledge, share expertise, and provide each other technical assistance as needed. The City
coordinated with these groups to engage in discussions about grant funding opportunities, regional housing needs, and efforts to address homelessness. The City participated in the following groups: Santa Clara County PLHA Consortium, Regional
CDBG/Housing Coordinators Group, SV@Home, Non-Profit
Housing of Northern CA. The participants in these groups, including the City, work togeth er to pool their knowledge and share expertise. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing helps to coordinate these efforts and provides the participants with invaluable technical assistance. Through the SCC PLHA Consortium, the City was awarded an allocation of PLHA
funding and is currently working towards implementing the funding for projects in Cupertino. .

Housing CAA, Grounded Solutions, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, among others. In 2021, the City
provided referrals to COVID - related funding sources and services. As part of the FY 21-22 and 22-23 City Work Program, the City is developing a City Plan to End Homelessness . The Continue, through Strategy HE-7.3.1. The City
will commit to meet with these agencies and
organizations to periodically discuss the
changing needs, development trends,
alternative approaches, and partnering
opportunities.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐25

Table B6-1Table B6-2 Overview of AdoptedReview of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete City Council did not prioritize the Plan To End Homelessness for the Fiscal Year 2023-25 City Work Program. This item was concluded, and no final version of the Plan was created. The unused funds will be returned to the General Fund.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐26

B6.6 PRODUCTION OF HOUSING
The 2015 Housing Element identified a Regional Ho using Needs Allocation of 1,064 housing units in Cupertino between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2023. The RHNA was divided into the following income categories:
 356 units affordable to extremely low- and very low-income households;  207 units affordable to low-income households;
 231 units affordable to moderate-income households; and  270 units affordable to above moderate-income households.

As shown in Table B6-2, Housing Units Produced, 2015-2023, below, during the 2015–2023 planning period, 418 new units were added to the City’s housing stock, achieving approximately 39 percent of the City’s RHNA. This indicates that residential growth was slower than ABAGs projections. This may be in part due to the COVID pandemic, the cost of land and constructions costs.

Table B6-2 Housing Units Produced, 2015-2023
Affordability New Construction
Need
Housing Units
Produced Percent Achieved
Extremely Low 178 * *
Very Low 178 48 13.4%
Low 207 19 9.1%
Moderate 231 134 58.0%
Above Moderate 270 217 80.3%
Total 1,064 418 39.2%
SOURCE: HCD Annual Progress Report Dashboard (as of October 25, 2021).

NOTE: This table should be updated prior to fina lization to account for units through January 1, 2023.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐27

B6.7 APPROPRIATENESS IN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES The goals, objectives, and policies identified in the 2015 Housing Element were appropriate for the 2015-2023 timeframe because they directly relate to the program requirements listed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

As for new construction, the greatest progress wa s made in producing housing in the Moderate Income and Above Moderate-Income categorie s, where the City permitted approximately 58 68 percent and 80 119 percent of the needed units, respectively. The City permitted only about 13. 54 percent of its needed Very Low-Income units and 9. 21 percent of its Low-Income units. As was the case in the in prior years, the cost of housing land and construction continued to be high in Cupertino, making affordable housing difficult to develop in thise Cupertino market.

B6.8 SUMMARY
Like many communities, the City of Cupertino experienced less developmentconstruction than expected in its 2015–2023 planning period. Of the 1 ,064 units it identified in its table of quantified housing objectives (Table HE-6 on page H-19 of the 2015 Housing Element), the City was able to issue building permits forpermitted only 418 546 units (approximately 39.2 percent51.3 percent), most of them for Above Moderate-Income households, even though the City had entitled more than 3,400 units (including more than 1,201 lower income units) during this time frame.

Nonetheless, the goals, objectives, policies, and actions in the 2015–2023 Housing Element complied with State Housing Law that was in effect at th e time and provided proper guidance for housing development in the city. With the 2023-2031 Housing Element update, objectives for each of the goals will be modified as appropriate to more specifically respond to the housing environment in Cupertino.

Policies will also be modified as needed to respond to current Housing Element Law and existing and anticipated residential development conditions.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐28

This page intentionally left blank.

From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Written Communication for 4/16 Council meeting: Questions on HE Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:33:36 PM
I thought there will be supplemental report provided to answer these questions, so the questions will be in the meeting record.

But there is no supplement report provided.

So, I referenced these questions and brought some of them up at the 4/16 Council meeting with the limited time I have. But I still was not able to get answers for most of them.

Please enter this email into written communication for the meeting record.

Thanks!
Liang
Liang
Liang Chao​​​​
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 12:26 PM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Cc: Luke Connolly <[email protected]>; Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>; Matt Morley <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Debra Nascimento <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Questions on HE

Councilmember Chao, since there isn’t a staff report prepared for the Housing Element study session, we will address your questions below during the presentation tomorrow.

Thank you,
Pamela

Pamela Wu​​​​
City Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-1322

From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:58 AM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>
Cc: Luke Connolly <[email protected]>; Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>; Matt Morley <[email protected]>
Subject: Questions on HE

I have sent in a few questions on Wednesday after the prep session.

Please include the answers to those in the supplemental reports too. Thank you.

QQ1: Please provide a timeline of what's upcoming up to and after the HE is adopted by the Counci? In 6 months, what additional policies need to be adopted by the Council or staff? In one year, what other policies need to be adopted by the Council or staff.

QQ1A: When will the Council have a study session on Zoning Ordinance before final adoption?

QQ2: The 2015-2023 Housing Element had only 5 HE sites with about 1000 units. Since there are over 6200 units and 36 sites (on 63 parcels) in this 2023-2031 Housing Element, please provide a spreadsheet in order to understand how the over 6,200 units are calculated. (I meant I hope to get the tables in Appendix 4 in excel format, for example.)

QQ3: I see that we have projected 91 units from ADUs over the next 8 years. Did the projection take into account of new laws which would allow up to 3 ADUs for each R1 site?

QQ4: Some of the sites are eligible under AB 2011, which would automatically get upzoned (my understanding). For those which are not designated as Priority HE sites, did we project units on those sites and add them to our total capacity? Please remind us what AB2011 does and where they apply in Cupertino.

QQ5: The draft HE states "Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583.2(c), a nonvacant site identified in the
previous planning period and a vacant site identified in two or more previous consecutive planning
periods cannot be used to accommodate the lower-income RHNA unless the site is subject to an
action in the Housing Element that requires rezoning within three years of the beginning of the
planning period that will allow residential use by right for housing developments with at least 20
percent units affordable to lower-income households."
So, every Priority HE site identified in this 6th HE cycle cannot be used to count towards the capacity for the 7th HE cycle, starting in 2031. Does this mean If more Priority HE site identified than necessary in this 6th HE cycle, we will have less sites we could use for the next (7th HE cycle)?

QQ6:

For residential sites, the draft HE stated that Table B4-3 shows project examples in Cupertino from 2016 to 2023. Overall, projects show a very high realistic capacity, ranging from 80 to more than 100 percent of the site. ... To ensure capacity is not over projected, the city assumed a 95 percent realistic capacity on all residentially zoned sites. "
For mixed use sites, the draft HE Appendix 4 states "Table B4-4 summarizes three approved mixed-use developments, Marina Plaza, Westport, and Vallco. These projects range in realistic capacity from 83 to 344 percent, with most coming in around 113 percent. This suggests that mixed-use projects in Cupertino develop at greater than 100
percent of the permitted density. ... , while the trends over the past decade indicates development on most large sites at close to or over 100 percent of the maximum allowable
density, the City conservatively estimates a 75 percent realistic capacity for sites with mixed- use zoning
in the sites inventory." For residential sites, the past project examples show capacity between 80-100% and we estimate 95% realistic capacity. That makes sense. For mixed use sites, the past project examples show capacity between 83 to 344% with most at 113%, why do we estimate the realistic capacity to be only 75%? Lower than even the lowest from past examples?

QQ9: There are some sites without owner interest, can we remove them from the list so that we might designate those sites in the next HE cycle?

QQ10: Given that the HE sites selected has not been on the Council agenda since August 2022, can we still make minor changes to the HE sites selected and their density as long as we deliver about the same amount?

QQ11: Many community members care about the building heights, but they don't understand how units/acre correlate to building heights. Could you give some estimate on what's the potential max height means when a site is zoned 50-65 units/acre and what about the sites zoned 65-80 units/acre? What's unit size used in the estimation of height?

QQ12: Many community members care about traffic congestion and safety. Please summarize what's the traffic impact was from the Environment Assessment. What mitigation measures are identified to address those issues?

QQ13: Many community members care about the parking requirements since there is little transit coverage in Cupertino. Will this be discussed in the zoning ordinance discussion? What parking requirements are allowed?

QQ14: The HE sites have designated minimum density and also maximum density. Can they still propose projects at a density lower than the minimum density?

QQ15: The Density Bonus Law still applies to these HE sites, right? That means they can develop up to 35% of the current maximum density. Thus, a site zoned 60-85 units could develop up to 108 units/acre, right?

Liang Chao​​​​
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192

From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Written Communications Item 12 April 16, 2024
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:44:14 PM
Attachments: Air Quality 18-4326 - Q - Vallco Specific Plan FEIR - 8.2018.pdf Dear City Clerk,

Please include the attached air quality impacts presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Vallco Specific Plan 2018 which shows that many Bay Area Air Quality Management District emissions thresholds during construction and at operations and these violations of air quality standards were significant and unavoidable impacts with mitigation incorporated.

Notice these impacts are from about half of the 6,200 units proposed in the Housing Element. I request that in the Environmental Assessment we have the Air Quality impacts analyzed from our entire Housing Element, along with the impacts from surrounding jurisdictions, especially noting there is a buffer of 25%+. This should happen considering the Environmental Assessment which is a stipulation in the ‘Yimby Law’ v City of Cupertino lawsuit judgment, is supposed to follow the same considerations as a CEQA EIR. Lastly, the community has already had decades of air quality impacts, making it even more important to protect the health and safety of the current and future population.

Thank you,

Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore​​​​
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389