Cupertino City Council
May 14, 2024

Tuesday, May 14, 2024
6:45 PM

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Televised Special Meeting (6:45)
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber and via Teleconference City Council

SHEILA MOHAN, MAYOR
J.R. FRUEN, VICE MAYOR

LIANG CHAO, COUNCILMEMBER

KITTY MOORE, COUNCILMEMBER

HUNG WEI, COUNCILMEMBER

IN PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE MEETING
For more information:
(408) 777-3200 | www.cupertino.gov
AGENDA
1 CC 05-14-2024
1 of 1197
City Council Agenda May 14, 2024

IN-PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways:
1) Attend in person at Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue. 2) Tune to Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV. 3) The meeting will also be streamed live on and online at www.Cupertino.org/youtube and www.Cupertino.org/webcast
Members of the public wishing to comment on an item on the agenda may do so in the following ways:
1)Appear in person at Cupertino Community Hall.
2)E-mail comments by 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 14 to the Council at [email protected]. These e-mail comments will also be forwarded to Councilmembers by the City Clerk’s office before the meeting and posted to the City’s website after the meeting. Members of the public that wish to share a document must email [email protected] prior to the meeting.

Members of the public may provide oral public comments during the Special Meeting as follows:

Oral public comments may be made during the public comment period for each agenda item.

Members of the audience who address the City Council must come to the lectern/microphone, and are requested to complete a Speaker Card and identify themselves.

Completion of Speaker Cards and identifying yourself is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments.
3) Teleconferencing Instructions
To address the City Council, click on the link below to register in advance and access the meeting:

Online
Register in advance for this webinar:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_dtev1s8LRSi4vyKGI4oD5Q

2 CC 05-14-2024
2 of 1197
City Council Agenda May 14, 2024
Phone
Dial: 669-900-6833 and enter Webinar ID: 917 6661 5804 (Type *9 to raise hand to speak, *6 to unmute yourself). Unregistered participants will be called on by the last four digits of their phone number.

Or an H.323/SIP room system:

H.323:
162.255.37.11 (US West)
162.255.36.11 (US East)
Meeting ID: 917 6661 5804
SIP: [email protected]
[email protected]
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Please read the following instructions carefully:

1. You can directly download the teleconference software or connect to the meeting in your internet browser. If you are using your browser, make sure you are using a current and up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer.

2. You will be asked to enter an email address and a name, followed by an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. If you wish to make an oral public comment but do not wish to provide your name, you may enter “Cupertino Resident” or similar designation.

3. When the Mayor calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand,” or, if you are calling in, press *9. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.

4. When called, please limit your remarks to the time allotted and the specific agenda topic.

5. Members of the public that wish to share a document must email [email protected] prior to the meeting. These documents will posted to the City’s website after the meeting.

NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City Council is hereby

3 CC 05-14-2024
3 of 1197
City Council Agenda May 14, 2024
called for Tuesday, May 14, 2024, commencing at 6:45 p.m. in Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 and via teleconference. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters listed below under the heading, “Special Meeting."

SPECIAL MEETING

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Effective January 1, 2023, Government Code Section 65103.5 (SB 1214) limits the distribution of copyrighted material associated with the review of development projects. Members of the public wishing to view plans that cannot otherwise be distributed under SB 1214 may make an appointment with the Planning Division to view them at City Hall by sending an email to [email protected]. Plans will also be made available digitally during the hearing to consider the proposal.

1. Subject: 6th Cycle Housing Element and Associated General Plan Amendments Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 24-039 (Attachment 1) adopting proposed General Plan Amendments, including but not limited to, the Chapter 3 (Land Use and Community Character Element), Chapter 4 (Housing Element), Chapter 5 (Mobility Element), Appendix A (Land Use Definitions, Appendix B (Housing Element Technical Appendix), and Appendix G (Community Vision 2040 General Plan and Zoning Amendments Environmental Assessment).

Staff Report
1 - Draft Resolution
Exhibit GPA-1 - Ch 3 - Land Use Element amendments
Exhibit GPA-2 - Ch 4 - Housing Element - Draft for adoption Exhibit GPA-3 - Ch 5 - Mobility Element
Exhibit GPA-4 - App A - Land Use Definitions Amendments Exhibit GPA-5 - App B - HE Technical Report - Draft for adoption Exhibit GPA-6 - App G - Environmental Assessment
Exhibit GPA-7 - Draft General Plan Land Use Map
2 - Letter from HCD dated 4.10.2024

2. Subject: Fiscal Year 2024-25 Fee Schedule (continued from May 7, 2024) Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 24-040 approving FY 2024-25 Fee Schedules A, B, C, and D. If adopted, new fees will be effective by July 14, 2024.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 24-041 adopting User Fee Cost Recovery Policy

4 CC 05-14-2024
4 of 1197
City Council Agenda May 14, 2024
Staff Report
A – FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee Schedule A – General (Redline) B – FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee Schedule B – Engineering (Redline) C – FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee Schedule C – Planning (Redline) D – FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee Schedule D – Building (Redline) E – FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee Schedule A – General (Clean) F – FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee Schedule B – Engineering (Clean) G – FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee Schedule C – Planning (Clean) H – FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee Schedule D – Building (Clean) I – Draft Resolution No. 24-040 approving FY 2024-25 Fee Schedules A, B, C, and D J – User Fee Study 2023
K – Cost Allocation Plan and Fee Study Staff Report
L – User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
M – Draft Resolution No. 24-041 User Fee Cost Recovery Policy

CONSENT CALENDAR
Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine City business and may be approved by one motion. Typical items may include meeting minutes, awards of contracts, the ratification of accounts payable, and second readings of ordinances. Any member of the Council may request to have an item removed from the Consent Calendar based on the rules set forth in the City Council Procedures Manual. Members of the public may provide input on one or more consent calendar items when the Mayor asks for public comments on the Consent Calendar.

3. Subject: Consider accepting the City's Investment Policy Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 24-042 accepting the City's Investment Policy
Staff Report
A - Cupertino Investment Policy (clean)
B - Cupertino Investment Policy (redline)
C - Cupertino Investment Policy Statement Review Memo
D - Draft Resolution

ADJOURNMENT
Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Requirements: Individuals who influence or attempt to influence legislative or administrative action may be required by the City of Cupertino’s lobbying ordinance (Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.100) to register and report lobbying activity. Persons whose communications regarding any legislative or administrative are solely limited to appearing at or submitting testimony for any public meeting held by the City are not required to register as lobbyists.

For more information about the lobbying ordinance, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014; telephone (408) 777-3223; email [email protected]; and website: www.cupertino.org/lobbyist.

The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation

5 CC 05-14-2024
5 of 1197
City Council Agenda May 14, 2024
challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.

Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/cityclerk for a reconsideration petition form.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, during normal business hours; and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section

2.08.100 written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council, Commissioners or City staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. Do not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made publicly available on the City website.

6 CC 05-14-2024
6 of 1197

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
24-13176 Agenda Date: 5/14/2024
Agenda #: 1.

Subject: 6th Cycle Housing Element and Associated General Plan Amendments That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 24-039 (Attachment 1) adopting proposed General Plan Amendments, including but not limited to, the Chapter 3 (Land Use and Community Character Element), Chapter 4 (Housing Element), Chapter 5 (Mobility Element), Appendix A (Land Use Definitions, Appendix B (Housing Element Technical Appendix), and Appendix G (Community Vision 2040 General Plan and Zoning Amendments Environmental Assessment).

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/8/2024
powered by Legistar™ 7
CC 05-14-2024
7 of 1197

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: May 14, 2024
Subject
6 th Cycle Housing Element and Associated General Plan Amendments Recommended Action
That the City Council adopt a draft resolution (Attachment 1) adopting proposed General Plan Amendments, including but not limited to, the Chapter 3 (Land Use and Community Character Element), Chapter 4 (Housing Element), Chapter 5 (Mobility Element), Appendix A (Land Use Definitions, Appendix B (Housing Element Technical Appendix), and Appendix G (Community Vision 2040 General Plan and Zoning Amendments Environmental Assessment).

Background
The City has been preparing the 6th Cycle Housing Element update, which covers the planning period of 2023 to 2031, since April 2021. The Housing Element is one the required elements that makes up the Cupertino’s General Plan and identifies the policies and programs necessary to meet the housing needs of the City’s current and future residents, at all levels of income. State law requires that every city and county in California update its Housing Element every eight years, unlike other required General Plan elements. The Housing Element must identify adequate sites, with appropriate zoning and development standards, to accommodate the City’s share of the regional housing needs for each income level and identify housing policies, which support and encourage the development of housing, particularly affordable housing development, within the City.

In December 2021, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted the final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for each of the Bay Area’s 109 cities and counties. As background, the nine county ABAG region must accommodate approximately 441,000 housing units, of which Santa Clara County must accommodate 129,577 units (~30%). Cupertino must accommodate slightly more than one percent of ABAG region’s RHNA (4,588 units). The table on the following page shows Cupertino’s 6 th Cycle RHNA by income category.
8 CC 05-14-2024
8 of 1197
2 Income Group Units % of total
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 42.5
Total 4,588 100
The current draft Housing Element was prepared in compliance with state law, including extensive outreach efforts, which are more fully described in the Housing Element (Exhibits GPA-2 & GPA-5), and multiple revisions1to the initial Draft Housing Element, based on comments received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the public. On April 10, 2024, HCD informed the City (See Attachment 2) that the revised third draft of the Housing Element, submitted to HCD on March 28, meets the statutory requirements of state law, subject to rezoning of the sites that are listed in the Housing Element as Priority Housing Sites.

The deadline for ABAG jurisdictions to adopt a Housing Element compliant with state housing law was January 31, 2023, meaning Cupertino’s Housing Element has been out of compliance for over one year. Since the City is over one year late in adopting its updated Housing Element, completion of the rezoning is required to be found fully compliant with state law. Therefore, adoption of the Housing Element and completion of rezoning of the sites will bring the City into compliance with state housing law, preventing the City’s loss of land use local control, potential exposure to litigation, and other adverse consequences resulting from not having a compliant Housing Element.

Discussion:

The contents of the Housing Element are dictated by state law and include several analyses: specifically, housing needs, housing constraints and fair housing. These analyses result in the development of the two main components of the Housing Element, 1) Priority Housing Sites, and 2) Housing Policies, which have also been of the most interest to the community, as evidenced in the comments received at numerous public meetings and the required public comment periods for each of the Housing Element drafts.

Priority Housing Sites:

Priority Housing Sites indicate Cupertino’s commitment for where housing will most likely be developed to meet the City’s fair share of housing for the 6th Cycle planning period (Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA). The proposed identification of Priority Housing Sites also considers the “no net loss” provision of State Housing Element Law (SB 166). This provision provides that, at all times during the planning

1 Prior iterations of the Draft Housing Element are available online at www.cupertino.org/housingelement 9 CC 05-14-2024
9 of 1197
3 period, the City must have an inventory of Priority Housing sites to accommodate its RHNA by income level. If at any time during the planning period, housing does not develop at the income levels, or density, that are projected to be developed on the proposed sites, resulting in a shortfall, the City would be required to identify additional Priority Housing Sites. To avoid such a shortfall, the draft Housing Element includes a buffer of approximately 35%. Accordingly, the draft Housing Element identifies sites to accommodate approximately 6,200 units on 36 sites (62 parcels in total).

Consistent with direction from the Council in July 2023, Priority Housing Sites are located primarily along the arterials and major collectors in the City, such as Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevards, with a few sites located within established, predominantly singlefamily neighborhoods (e.g. the Evulich Ct./Linda Vista and Adriana Ave. sites) in the western portion of the City. The Housing Element process includes the establishment of minimum required densities and building heights on the Priority Housing Sites to ensure that the City can meet the RHNA requirements of the 6th Cycle. The list of Priority Housing Sites and relevant data, such as acreage, proposed densities, and zoning, is identified in Appendix B-4 of the General Plan (see Exhibit GPA-5).

About 70% of the 62 parcels that comprise the Housing Priority Sites have a minimum density of 50 units per acre, consistent with the parcels’ locations along major transportation corridors and state and regional policies related to linking land use, housing development and transportation. Therefore, the updated Housing Element requires the establishment of four new land use designations for residential densities greater than 35 dwelling units per acre – Residential - High Density (35.01 – 50 dwelling units/acre), Residential - High/Very High Density (50.01 – 65 dwelling units/acre), Residential - Very High Density (65.01 – 80 dwelling units/acre) and Residential - Highest Density (80.01 – 95 dwelling units/acre). It should be noted that because of the new density categories, additional refinements were made for the existing “commercial/residential” land use designation to incorporate some of these higher residential densities. Due to this, some properties, while not designated as Priority Housing Sites, are identified with a different land use designation on the land use map (see Exhibit GPA-7) to ensure internal consistency. However, these do not result in any change to development standards or residential density for any of these sites.

Other minor clarifying and conforming edits have been made in the Land Use and Community Character Element (see Exhibit GPA-3) and Appendix A Land Use Definitions (see Exhibit GPA-4).

Housing Policies:

Upon completion of the analysis related to housing needs within the community over the 2023-2031 planning period and an evaluation of the City’s performance on its 5 th Cycle
Housing Element goals and policies, updates have been made to the City’s existing 5 th
10 CC 05-14-2024
10 of 1197
4 Cycle housing policies and new policies have been added to address policy gaps necessary to address state law and/or the needs of the community.

Many of the updates to existing Housing Element policy revolve around compliance with state law on various housing types (e.g. supportive housing and emergency shelters), additional technical support to be provided by City staff to developers and housing services organizations, pursuit of grant funding to support affordable housing, adjusting the Below Market Rate program requirement to apply to for-sale developments with 5 or more new units and the review and update of development standards related to parking and parkland dedication fees. In addition to policies related to furthering housing development, the City must also comply with state law related to taking actions to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).

To that end, upon HCD review and input, a policy (Strategy HE-1.3.6) has been added to affirmatively further fair housing by allowing “missing middle” housing typologies within portions of the City’s primarily single-family neighborhoods. As a result, the City is looking to permit duplex development with two accessory dwelling units (ADUs) (for a total of four units) on all corner lots within the R1 zoning district and on all R1 zoned lots that abut property zoned and used for commercial uses. This strategy applies to approximately 1,680 parcels in the R1 zoning district, which would be eligible to develop using R2 – duplex – development standards, with two primary units and two ADUs. It is hoped that properties that have the option to develop, or redevelop, consistent with Strategy HE-1.3.6 will provide housing types with smaller floor areas that are more affordable by design, such as duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes to allow a gentle increase of density within established neighborhoods with compatible building forms.

Strategy HE-1.3.6 will not involve the rezoning of any properties. Only sites identified as Priority Housing Sites will be rezoned to implement the Housing Element’s adoption and comply with state housing law.

It should be noted that recent changes to the City’s ADU ordinance, adopted by the City Council in January 2024, allow the development of one primary unit and up to three ADUs on any parcel zoned R1 and two primary units and two ADUs on any parcel zoned R2. Therefore, in terms of the total number of units, the new policy would continue to allow a maximum of four units (just under slightly more flexible R2 development standards) on these specified lots within the R1 zoning district.

Mobility Element:

Updates have been made to the Mobility Element to ensure that the City is compliant with existing state law and locally adopted Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds by implementing policies that support reduced VMT including but not limited to, safety and convenience for alternative modes of travel (see Exhibit GPA-3). 11 CC 05-14-2024
11 of 1197
5 Planning Commission:

At a special meeting of the Planning Commission held on April 29, 2024, the Commission adopted PC Resolution No. 2024-05 recommending approval of the proposed changes, with a minor edit to remove one site from the Priority Housing Sites list, on a 3-2 vote (Madhdhipatla and Scharf: No). The Commission discussed two policies at length – the missing middle strategy related to duplex development on certain R1 lots and the parkland dedication fee study. Both policies were incorporated in the draft Housing Element to address HCD comments related to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and housing constraints. Ultimately, the Commission did not recommend any changes to these policies.

Eight members of the public spoke at the meeting. Comments included concerns about the validity of the RHNA numbers, the missing middle strategy and associated parking impacts, the continued use of Below Market Rate Affordable Housing Funds for residential rehabilitation projects without any specified income level restrictions, ensuring that the policies cover programs for seniors, a request to include prevailing wage requirements for development projects, and questions about environmental review. None of the comments received at the hearing warranted any changes to the draft Housing Element or the associated general plan amendments.

Next Steps
Staff will prepare a final version of the General Plan, which may include amendments to figures in Chapter 2, Planning Areas, for publication on the City’s website. In addition, as noted earlier, HCD’s April 10 determination that the City’s Housing Element is compliant with state law is contingent on the rezoning identified in the Housing Element being completed. This rezoning will be presented to the Planning Commission for its recommendation, and to the City Council for adoption, in order to ensure that the City will be fully compliant with state law, shortly. The zoning changes required to implement the Housing Element are described in the Housing Element policies and include, but are not limited to, the creation of new zoning districts for the higher density uses, regulations for emergency shelters and updating allowed uses in several zoning districts.

Sustainability Impact
None
Fiscal Impact
None
California Environmental Quality Act
On February 3, 2023, the California Housing Defense Fund and Yes in My Backyard (YIMBY) Law sued the City for missing the January 31, 2023 deadline for adoption of the 6 th Cycle Housing Element. In January 2024, the City entered into a stipulated judgment 12 CC 05-14-2024
12 of 1197
6 to settle the lawsuit. As a result, pursuant to Government Code Section 65759(a), any actions that the City takes to adopt a compliant housing element, including rezoning actions to implement the Housing Element, are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In lieu of CEQA compliance, Government Code section 65759 requires that an environmental assessment (EA) in the form of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared and adopted as part of the City’s General Plan. As required, the EA closely resembles a Draft EIR but, unlike a Draft EIR, the City is not required to circulate the document for public comment or prepare responses to comments received, or make corrections/edits to the Draft EIR, leading to the preparation of a Final EIR. The EA will be adopted, in accordance with state law, as Appendix G of the General Plan (see Exhibit GPA-6).

Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of Community Development Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

Attachment 1 – Draft City Council Resolution
Exhibit GPA-1 – Chapter 3: Land Use and Community Character Element Exhibit GPA-2 – Chapter 4: Housing Element
Exhibit GPA-3 – Chapter 5: Mobility Element
Exhibit GPA-4 – Appendix A: Land Use Definitions
Exhibit GPA-5 – Appendix B: Housing Element Technical Appendix (includes appendices B-1 through B-6)
Exhibit GPA-6 – Appendix G: Environmental Assessment
Exhibit GPA-7 – Land Use Map
Attachment 2 – Letter from HCD dated 4.10.2024
13 CC 05-14-2024
13 of 1197
RESOLUTION NO._________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING
ADOPTION OF THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT,

CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP, AND OTHER

AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOUSING

ELEMENT AND MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No: GPA-2022-001
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide/Various locations
SECTION II: RECITALS
WHEREAS, state law requires the City to prepare and adopt an updated Housing Element every eight years to accommodate its fair share of housing and identify housing needs, resources and opportunities;
WHEREAS, the City has been notified in December 2022 that the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for Cupertino is 4,588 units; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 4, Appendix A, and Appendix B have been prepared to address adoption of 6th Cycle (2023 – 2031) Housing Element; and WHEREAS, Chapters 3, 5 and the General Plan Land Use Map have been amended to address implementation of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the City entered into a Stipulated Judgement dated January 8, 2024 pursuant to a lawsuit related to adoption of the Housing Element which included requirements for coming into compliance with state housing element law and exempted the City from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Government Code section 65759; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code 65759, the General Plan Amendment to adopt the Housing Element and associated amendments to the General Plan zoning is fully described and analyzed in the Environmental Assessment, which is incorporated into the General Plan as Appendix G; and
WHEREAS, the existing uses on the sites identified in the site inventory to accommodate the lower income RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period, and therefore do not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element based on a variety of factors as described more fully in the Housing Element, including but not limited to property owner interest in 14 CC 05-14-2024
14 of 1197
redeveloping the site, age and condition of the structures on the property, vacant store fronts and/or, land to improvement values of the properties, apparent investments in the property.

WHEREAS, on April 29, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended on a 3-2 vote (No:

Madhdhipatla and Scharf) that the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment (GPA-2022-001), in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 2024-005) with an amendment to eliminate APN: 359 08 029; and WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, on May 14, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution.

SECTION III: RESOLUTIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

After careful consideration of the maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, and based on the preceding findings, the City Council hereby:

1. Directs staff to make modifications to the draft Housing Element after adoption, but before final submittal to HCD, to eliminate APN: 359 08 029 and all references to it from Draft Appendix B-4 since the site is not counted toward the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); and

2. Adopts amendments to the General Plan (Application No. GPA-2022-001), including amendments to Chapter 3 (Land Use and Community Character), Chapter 4 (Housing), and Chapter 5 (Mobility) and Appendices A (Land Use Definitions), and B (Housing Element Technical Report), and adoption of a new Appendix G (General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code Amendments Environmental Assessment) as shown in Exhibits GPA-1 – GPA-6, and as modified by #1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference as part of this resolution; and

3. Adopts changes to the Land Use Map as shown in Exhibit GPA-7, which is incorporated herein by reference as part of this resolution, to reflect the changes to the general plan land use designation, residential density - required minimum and maximum allowable, and allowable maximum heights of the parcels in the table on the following page, necessary to implement the Housing Element and to ensure internal consistency; and

4. Authorizes the staff to make any grammatical, typographical, numbering, and formatting changes in the amended Chapters, and any updates to figures in Chapter 2 (Planning Areas) to ensure internal consistency with the Land Use and Community Character Element, the General Plan Land Use Map, and the Housing Element, necessary to assist in production of the final published General Plan. 15 CC 05-14-2024
15 of 1197
APN Acres
Existing
General Plan
Designation
Existing
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Existing
Maximum
Height
(feet)
New General Plan
Designation
Required
Minimum
Density
Amended
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Amended
Maximum Height
(feet)
316 23 027 0.64 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70 369 03 005 0.47 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70 326 34 047 1.09 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70 359 07 006 0.32 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70 375 06 006 1.71 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - Very High Density 65.01 80 70 375 06 007 0.96 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - Very High Density 65.01 80 70 316 21 031 1.81 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70 316 23 026 1.78 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70 326 32 050 0.83 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70 326 27 053 0.75 Transportation 0 0 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70 323 36 018 0.42 Commercial /
Residential 35 30 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70 316 04 064 0.44 Res Low 1-5 5 30 Residential - Medium Density 10.01 20 No change 326 07 022 1.64 Commercial 15 30 Residential - Very High Density 65.01 80 70 326 07 030 0.92 Commercial 15 30 Residential - Very High Density 65.01 80 70 326 07 031 0.24 Commercial 15 30 Residential - Very High Density 65.01 80 70 326 07 036 1.74 Commercial 15 30 Residential - Very High Density 65.01 80 70 369 37 022 0.39 Medium (10-20
DU/Ac) 20 30 Residential - Very High Density 50.01 65 70 369 37 023 0.22 Medium (10-20
DU/Ac) 20 30 Residential - Medium Density 20.01 35 Multi-family – 60Townhomes - 30 16 CC 05-14-2024
16 of 1197
APN Acres
Existing
General Plan
Designation
Existing
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Existing
Maximum
Height
(feet)
New General Plan
Designation
Required
Minimum
Density
Amended
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Amended
Maximum Height
(feet)
369 37 024 0.17 Medium (10-20
DU/Ac) 20 30 Residential - Medium Density 20.01 35 Multi-family – 60Townhomes - 30 369 34 053 0.54 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Residential - Medium Density 20.01 35 Multi-family – 60Townhomes - 30 359 18 044 0.26 Commercial /
Residential 25 30 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70 366 10 121 1.34 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Residential - Medium Density 20.01 35 Multi-family – 60Townhomes – 30 366 10 137 0.92 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Residential - Medium Density 20.01 35 Multi-family – 60Townhomes – 30 366 19 047 2.33 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70 366 19 078 0.08 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70 359 09 017 1.00 Commercial /
Residential 25 30 Residential - High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70 316 20 088 5.16 Reg Shopping 0 60 Residential – High/Very High Density 50.01 65 70 359 13 019 0.99 Res Low 1-5 5 30 Residential - Medium Density 10.01 20 No change 356 06 001 0.73 Res Low 1-5 5 30 Residential – Medium/ High Density 20.01 35 No change 356 06 002 0.69 Res Low 1-5 5 30 Residential – Medium/ High Density 20.01 35 No change 356 06 003 0.25 Res Low 1-5 5 30 Residential – Medium/ High Density 20.01 35 No change 356 06 004 0.87 Res Low 1-5 5 30 Residential – Medium/ High Density 20.01 35 No change N/A (Evulich Ct) 0.43 Transportation 0 30 Residential – Medium/ High Density 20.01 35 No change 362 31 001 0.25 Res Medium 10-20 20 30 Residential – Medium/ High Density 20.01 35 No change 362 31 030 0.23 Res Medium 10-20 20 30 Residential – Medium/ High Density 20.01 35 No change 326 20 034 1.34 Res Low 1-5 5 30 Residential – Low/ Medium 5.01 10 No change 316 23 093 1.35 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70 316 23 036 0.24 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70 17 CC 05-14-2024
17 of 1197
APN Acres
Existing
General Plan
Designation
Existing
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Existing
Maximum
Height
(feet)
New General Plan
Designation
Required
Minimum
Density
Amended
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Amended
Maximum Height
(feet)
369 06 002 0.9 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70 369 06 003 0.53 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70 369 06 004 1.29 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70 359 10 015 1.18 Commercial /
Residential 25 30 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70 359 10 060 0.98 Commercial /
Residential 25 30 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70 359 10 044 0.18 Commercial /
Residential 25 30 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70 359 08 025 0.83 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70 359 08 026 0.45 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70 359 08 027 0.87 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70 359 08 028 1 0.85 Commercial/Office/
Residential 25 45 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70 326 09 052 0.74 Commercial 35 45 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70 326 09 060 2.75 Commercial 35 45 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70 326 09 061 1.12 Commercial 35 45 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70 369 34 052 2.70 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70 369 37 028 0.56 Commercial /
Residential 25 30 Commercial/Residential – High/Very High 50.01 65 70 366 19 055 0.40 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Commercial/Residential – Medium/High 20.01 35 Multi-family – 60Townhomes – 30 366 19 053 0.56 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Commercial/Residential – Medium/High 20.01 35 Multi-family – 60Townhomes – 30 18 CC 05-14-2024
18 of 1197
APN Acres
Existing
General Plan
Designation
Existing
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Existing
Maximum
Height
(feet)
New General Plan
Designation
Required
Minimum
Density
Amended
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Amended
Maximum Height
(feet)
366 19 054 1.75 Commercial /
Residential 15 30 Commercial/Residential – Medium/High 20.01 35 Multi-family – 60Townhomes – 30 316 05 050 1.02 Commercial /
Residential 25 60 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70 316 05 051 0.62 Commercial /
Residential 25 60 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70 316 05 052 0.73 Commercial /
Residential 25 60 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70 316 05 053 0.92 Commercial /
Residential 25 60 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70 316 05 056 6.94 Commercial /
Residential 25 60 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70 316 05 072 0.54 Commercial /
Residential 25 60 Commercial/Residential – Very High 65.01 80 70 359 20 028 2 0.75 Quasi-Public 0 30 Commercial/Residential – Medium/High 20.01 35 No change 1 Land Use designation and residential density changed only for a 178 feet by 208 feet portion of this site on the western portion closest to Stevens Creek Boulevard as shown in Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office’s records Book 359 Page 8 (Revised 2022-2023). 2 Land Use designation and residential density changed only for a 180.75 feet by 180.75 feet portion of the northwest corner of the site is rezoned as shown in Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office’s records Book 359 Page 20 (Revised 2022-2023). rezoned as shown in Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office’s records Book 359 Page 20 (Revised 2022-2023).
19 CC 05-14-2024
19 of 1197
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:

The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are included herein by reference as findings.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of May 2024, at a Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
________
Sheila Mohan, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________
Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
________________________
Date
20 CC 05-14-2024
20 of 1197
Land Use Element
GOAL LU‐1
Create a balanced community with a mix of land uses that supports thriving businesses, all modes of transportation, complete neighborhoods, and a healthy community.

LU‐1.2.1: Planning Area AllocationsPOLICY LU‐1.2: NON‐RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION.

The City shall maintain non‐residential dDevelopment allocations, which are assigned for by various Planning Areas. However, sSome flexibility may be allowed for transferring non‐residential allocations among between Planning Areas provided that no significant environmental impacts are identified beyond those already studied in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Community Vision 2040.

STRATEGIES:

LU‐1.2.1: Planning Area Allocations. Maintain and update the non‐residential development allocation table (Table LU‐1) to ensure that the allocations for various land uses adequately meet Ccity goals for economic vitality, financial stability, and placemaking.

LU‐1.2.2: Major Employers. Reserve an office development allocation for major companies with sales offices and corporate headquarters in Cupertino. Prioritize expansion of office space for existing major companies. New office development must demonstrate that the development positively contributes to the fiscal well‐being of the city.

LU‐1.2.3: Unused Non‐Residential Development Allocation. Unused non‐residential development allocations may be re‐assigned to the citywide allocation table per Planning Area, when development agreements and development permits expire.

LU‐1.2.4: Neighborhood Allocation. Allocate residential units in neighborhoods through the building permit process unless subdivision or development applications are required.

Table LU‐1: Citywide Non‐Residential Development Allocation Between 2014‐2040
commercial (s.f.) office (s.f.) hotel (rooms) residential (units) current
built
(Oct
7,2014)
build
out
availa
ble
current
built
(Oct
7,2014)
buildou
t
availa
ble
current
built
(Oct
7,2014)
build
out
availa
ble
current
built
(Oct
7,2014)
build
out
availa
ble
Hear
tof
the
1,351,73
0 214,50
0 793,270 2,447,50
0 2,464,61
3 17,113 404 526 122 1,336 1,805 469
21 CC 05-14-2024
21 of 1197
City
Vallco
Shoppin
g
District**
1,207,77
4 1,207,77
4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 148 339 191 ‐ 389 389
Homeste
ad
291,40
8 291,40
8 ‐ 69,550 69,550 ‐ 126 281* 155 600 750 150
N. De
Anza
56,708 56,708 ‐ 2,081,02
1 2,081,02
1 ‐ 126 126 ‐ 49 146 97
N.Vallco 133,14
7 133,14
7 ‐ 3,069,67
6 3,069,67
6 ‐ 123 308 185 554 1,154 600
S.De
Anza
352,28
3 352,28
3 ‐ 130,70
8 130,708 ‐ 315 315 ‐ 6 6 ‐
Bubb ‐ ‐ ‐ 444,75
3 444,753 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Monta
Vista
Village
94,051 99,698 5,647 443,14
0 456,735 13,595 ‐ ‐ ‐ 828 878 50
Other 144,96
4 144,96
4 ‐ 119,89
6 119,896 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 18,039 18,166 127
Major
Emplo
yers
‐ ‐ ‐ 109,93
5 633,053 523,11
8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Citywid
e
3,632,06
5 4,430,98
2 798,917 8,916,17
9 9,470,00
5 553,82
6 1,116 1,769 653 21,412 23,294 1,88
2 POLICY LU‐1.3: LAND USE IN ALL CITYWIDE MIXED‐USE DISTRICTS Encourage land uses that support the activity and character of mixed‐use districts and economic goals.

STRATEGIES:

LU‐1.3.1: Commercial and Residential Uses. Review the placement of commercial and residential uses based on the following criteria:

1. All mixed‐use areas with commercial zoning will require retail as a substantial component. The North De Anza Special Area is an exception.

2. All mixed‐use residential projects should be designed onshall comply with the “mixed ‐use village” concept discussed earlier later in this Element.

3. On sites with a mixed‐use residential designation, residential densities are established in Figure LU‐2 with specifics inby the land use map, where required, with land use designations defined in Appendix Ais a permitted use only on Housing Element sites and in the Monta Vista Village Special Area.

4. Conditional use permits will be required on mixed‐use Housing Element sites that 22 CC 05-14-2024
22 of 1197
propose units above the allocation in the Housing Element, and on non‐Housing Element mixed‐use sites.100% residential development is allowed on mixed‐use sites, if at least 40% of the total units are affordable, including at least 20% of the total units affordable to lower income households.

Figure LU‐2: Community Form Diagram
Edits at end of Exhibit GPA‐1.1
Mixed‐Use Urban Villages
Many of the City’s Priority Housing Element sSites are located alongin major corridors to reduce traffic and environmental impacts and preserve neighborhoods (Figure LU‐2).

Priority Housing Element sSites, which are further identified and defined in the Housing Element, represent the City’s priority for residential development. Residential uses on sites with mixed‐use zoning shall should be designed oncomply with the “mixed‐use village” concept discussed below.

4. Uses. Include a substantial viable, retail component.Uses shall be consistent with the underlying land use district as defined by Land Use Definitions (Appendix A). Retail and active uses such as restaurants, outdoor dining, and features like entries are required along the ground floor of main street frontages, and such uses are optional on the ground floor of residential buildings within the Regional Shopping/Residential designation.

Live/work units shall be oriented with active commercial, or office uses along the street frontage with the residential component of the unit located behind or above the commercial or office space. Developments are encouraged to provide aM mix of unit types for households of varying income levels and household types, including, but not limited to, young professionals, couples, families, and/or active seniors who like to liveto allow housing choices in an active “mixed‐use village” environment. Office uses, if allowed, should must provide active uses on the ground floor street frontage, including restaurants, cafes, entries, lobbies, etc.

Neighborhood Commercial Centers
Neighborhood Commercial Centers serve adjacent neighborhoods and provide shopping and gathering places for residents…Housing Element sites represent the City’s priority for residential development. Residential uses should beshall comply with designed on the “mixed‐use village” concept discussed in this Element.

GOAL LU‐3
Ensure that project site planning and building design enhance the public realm through a high sense of identity and connectivity.
23 CC 05-14-2024
23 of 1197
POLICY LU‐3.3: BUILDING DESIGN
Ensure that building layouts and design are compatible with the surrounding environment and enhance the streetscape and pedestrian activity.

STRATEGIES:

Strategy LU‐3.3.4: Compatibility. Ensure that the floor area ratios of multi‐family residential developments are compatible with buildings in the surrounding area. Include a mix of unit types and avoid excessively large units.

LU‐3.3.45: Building Location. Encourage building location and entries closer to the street while meeting appropriate landscaping and setback requirements.

LU‐3.3.56: Architecture and Articulation. Promote high‐quality architecture, appropriate building articulation and use of special materials and architectural detailing to enhance visual interest.

LU‐3.3.67: Street Interface. Ensure that development enhances pedestrian activity by providing active uses within mixed‐use areas and appropriate design features within residential areas along a majority of the building frontage facing the street. Mixed‐use development should include retail, restaurant, outdoor dining, main entries, etc.

Residential development should include main entrances, lobbies, front stoops and porches, open space, and other similar features.

LU‐3.3.78. Drive‐up Services. Allow drive‐up service facilities only when adequate circulation, parking, noise control, architectural features, and landscaping are compatible with the expectations of the Planning Area, and when residential areas are visually buffered. Prohibit drive‐ up services in areas where they conflict with pedestrian oriented activity and design are highly encouraged, such as Heart of the City, North De Anza Boulevard, Monta Vista Village, and neighborhood centers.

LU‐3.3.89: Specific and Conceptual Plans. Maintain and update Specific/ Conceptual plans and design guidelines for Special Areas such as Heart of the City, Crossroads, Homestead Corridor, Vallco Shopping District, North and South De Anza corridors, and Monta Vista Village.

LU‐3.3.910: Entrances. In multi‐family projects where residential uses may front on streets, require pedestrian‐scaled elements such as entries, stoops, and porches along the street.

LU‐3.3.101: Multiple‐Story Buildings Taller Than 30 Feet and in Residential DistrictsNeighborhoods. Allow construction of multiple‐story buildingsbuildings taller than 30 feet in Neighborhoods only if the buildings abut an arterial or major collector or 24 CC 05-14-2024
24 of 1197
if allowed by State law. it is found that nearby residential districts will not suffer from privacy intrusion or be overwhelmed by the scale of a building or group of buildings.

POLICY LU‐3.5: LIGHT POLLUTION
Reduce light pollution and other adverse effects associated with night lighting from streets and urban uses.

STRATEGIES:

LU‐3.5.1: Dark Sky Ordinance. Maintain Glass and Lighting Standards in the City’s Municipal Code and require new development and other applicable projects to comply with the adopted ordinance standards, which provide Dark Sky regulations to reduce light pollution.

POLICY LU‐3.6: BIRD SAFETY
Enhance bird safety and reduce bird mortality from windows, other glass features, and certain lighting elements that are known to increase the risk of bird collisions.

STRATEGIES:

LU‐3.6.2: Bird Safe Design Ordinance. Maintain Glass and Lighting Standards in the City’s Municipal Code and require new development and other applicable projects to comply with the adopted ordinance standards, which provide Bird Safe Design regulations to reduce the potential risk of bird collisions.

GOAL LU‐4
Promote the unique character of planning areas and the goals for community character, connectivity, and complete streets in streetscape design.

POLICY LU‐4.1: STREET AND SIDEWALKS
Ensure that the design of streets, sidewalks, and pedestrian and bicycle amenities are consistent with the vision for each Planning Area and Complete Streets policies.

STRATEGIES:

LU‐4.1.1. Streetscape Improvements. Retain, and require implementation of sidewalk and streetscape design standards established in any approved Specific Plan, Concept Plan, Zoning, or other area plans.

GOAL LU‐8
Maintain a fiscally sustainable city government that preserves and enhances the quality of life for its residents, workers, and visitors.

POLICY LU‐8.3: INCENTIVES FOR REINVESTMENT
Provide incentives for reinvestment in existing, older commercial areas. 25 CC 05-14-2024
25 of 1197
STRATEGIES:

LU‐8.3.3. Infrastructure and Streetscape Improvements. Consider Improve infrastructure and streetscape improvements in areas, such as the Crossroads or South Vallco area to encourage redevelopment as a pedestrian‐oriented area that meets community design goals.

GOAL LU‐12
Preserve and protect the City’s hillside natural habitat and aesthetic values.

POLICY LU‐12.5: DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTY JURISDICTION
Development in the County, particularly if located near Cupertino’s hillsides and urban fringe area, should consider the goals and policies in Community Vision 2040.

STRATEGIES:

LU‐12.5.1. County Development. Require Ddevelopment in these areas should be compatibleto comply with Cupertino’s hillside policies of low‐intensity residential, agricultural or open space uses, and to preserve. Preservation of the natural environment through, clustering development sites to minimize impact and dedication of open space are encouraged. Visual impacts, access, traffic and other impacts, and service demands should shall be assessed in consultation with Cupertino’s goals and policies.

PLANNING AREA GOALS AND POLICIES
As outlined in the Planning Areas chapter, Community Vision 2040 organizes the city into 21 distinct Planning Areas, divided into two categories: (1) Special Areas that are expected to transition over the life of the General Plan and (2) Neighborhoods where future changes are expected to be minimal. The following goals, policies, and strategies are specific to the Planning Areas and provide guidance for future change in accordance with the community vision. Figure LU‐2 shows maximum heights and residential densities allowed in each Special Area. Certain sites may be allowed a different maximum height or maximum, and minimum, density as identified in Resolution 24‐XXXX.

GOAL LU‐16
Maintain a mixed‐use and civic district that will enhance community identity and activity, and support the crossroads subarea.

POLICY LU‐16.1: CITY CENTER NODE.

Establish Maintain the City Center Node as a moderately‐scaled, medium‐density mixed‐ use office, hotel, retail and residential area, with an integrated network of streets and open space.
26 CC 05-14-2024
26 of 1197
GOAL LU‐19
Create a distinct and memorable mixed‐use ʺtown centerʺ that is a regional destination and a focal point for the community.

POLICY LU‐19.1: ALLOWED LAND USES
The following uses are allowed in the Vallco Shopping District Special Area (see Figure LU‐2 for residential densities and criteria and Figure LU‐4 for location of allowable land uses):

1. Residential: Permit residential and ground floor commercial development within the portion of the site designated for Regional Shopping/Residential uses in advance of creating a specific plan, at a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre and a minimum density of 29.7 dwelling units per acre by right, with maximum heights as shown in Figure LU‐2. Limited ground floor commercial uses are permitted, but not required, in connection with residential development in the Regional Shopping/Residential portion of the Special Area. Residential uses are permitted within the portion of the sites designated for Residential – High/Very High Density uses, at a maximum density of 65 dwelling units per acre and a minimum density of 50.01 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum height of 70 feet.

Figure LU‐4: Vallco Shopping District Allowable Uses
Edits at end of Exhibit GPA‐1.1
GOAL LU‐20
Support a sustainable campus‐like environment that is served by a mix of pedestrian‐ oriented retail and commercial uses in a walkable and bikeable environment.

POLICY LU‐20.2. STREETSCAPE AND CONNECTIVITY.

Future roadway improvements on Wolfe Road, Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue should shall be coordinated with planned improvements to improve pedestrian, bike and transit connections. Streetscape improvements will enhance the pedestrian environment with street trees, attractive bus shelters and street furniture. The campus site should shall continue to provide an attractive landscaped edge along the street. Future improvements to the Wolfe Road bridge should be coordinated to preserve the vision for this area.

GOAL LU‐25
Retain and enhance Monta Vista Villageʹs small townvillage‐like character as a pedestrian oriented, small scale, mixed‐use residential, neighborhood commercial and industrial area.

POLICY LU‐ 25.2. LAND USE.

Encourage Require the commercial district to serve as a neighborhood commercial center 27 CC 05-14-2024
27 of 1197
for Monta Vista Village and its adjoining neighborhoods. Mixed‐use with residential is encouraged. The industrial area should be retained to provide small‐scale light industrial and service industrial opportunities, while remaining compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial uses. See General Plan Figure LU‐ 2 for residential densities and criteria.

GOAL LU‐26
Retain commercial areas adjacent to neighborhoods and retrofit or encourage redevelopment as neighborhood centers in a pedestrian‐oriented and bike‐friendly environment.

POLICY LU‐26.2: BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN (FOR OTHER NON‐ RESIDENTIAL/MIXED‐USE SPECIAL AREAS)
Encourage Require buildings to be designed in a pedestrian‐oriented format. Buildings should shall be located along the street with pedestrian‐scale architecture and retail and active uses on the ground floor. Parking should shall be located to the sides or rear of buildings. Buildings may be one to two stories in height. In some instances where taller hHeights are as allowed, buildings may be three stories in height, unless otherwise specified by Figure LU‐2 and/or the Land Use Map, with one to two story heights preferred closest to lower density residential uses.

GOAL LU‐27
Preserve neighborhood character and enhance connectivity to nearby services to create complete neighborhoods.

POLICY LU‐27.6: MULTI‐FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
Maintain an attractive, livable environment for multi‐family dwellings.

LU‐27.6.2: Ordinance Updates. Update the Planned Development (residential) and R‐3 ordinances to achieve the policies and strategies applicable to multi‐family development in neighborhoods.
28 CC 05-14-2024
28 of 1197
Hillside
ion it Transition
280
280
280
85 85

SARATOGA

SUNNYVALE

SANTA CLARA

STEVENS CREEK BLVD

WOLFE RD

DE ANZA BLVD DE ANZA BLVD

HOMESTEAD RD
Maximum Residential Density
20 units per acre
Bubb Road Special Area
Maximum Height
45 feet
Vallco Shopping District Special Area
Regional Shopping/Residential
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre in areas
identified in Figure LU-4
Minimum Residential Density

29.7 units per acre in areas
identified in Figure LU-4
Maximum Height* Up to 60 feet
Regional Shopping
Maximum Residential Density
N/A - residential is not a
permitted use
Maximum Height* Up to 60 feet
Residential – High/Very High
Maximum Residential Density*
65 units per acre in areas
Maximum Height*
Up to 70 feet
Homestead Special Area
Maximum Residential Density*
15 units per acre (two parcels at
southeast corner of Homestead
Road and Blaney Avenue)
All other areas - Maximum density
as indicated in the General Plan
Land Use Map or 35 units per acre
where none indicated.

Maximum Height*
30 feet, or 45 feet (south side
between De Anza and Stelling)
North Vallco Park Special Area
Maximum Residential Density*
25 units per acre, or as indicated
in North Vallco Gateway
Maximum Height*
60 feet
Maximum Residential Density*
South Vallco - 35 units per acre
All other areas - Maximum density
as indicated in each subarea the
Heart of the City Land Use Map and,
if none indicated, 25 units per acre
Heart of the City Special Area
Maximum Height*
45 feet, or 30 feet where
designated by hatched line
Maximum Residential Density*
Maximum density is25 units per acre
North De Anza Special Area
Maximum Height*
45 feet
Maximum Residential Density*
North of Bollinger Rd. - maximum
density is 25 units per acre
South of HWY 85 - maximum
residential is 5-15 units per acre
South De Anza Special Area
Maximum Height*
30 feet
Maximum Residential Density*
Maximum density as indicated in
the General Plan Land Use Map, and
if none indicated, 15 units per acre
Monta Vista Village Special Area
Maximum Height*
30 feet
Maximum Residential Density*
Maximum density as indicated in
the General Plan Land Use Map; 15
units per acre for Neighborhood
Commercial Centers
Neighborhoods
Maximum Height*
30 feet
North De Anza Gateway
Maximum Residential Density* 35 units per acre
Maximum Height* 45 feet
Hotel Development for APN 326-10-061:

Maximum Height
85 feet (The City will reconsider this height limit if building permits for the hotel project approved on March 3, 2020 are not issed by March 3, 2025.)
Stelling Gateway
West of Stelling Road:

Maximum Residential Density*
15 units per acre (southwest
corner of Homestead and
Stelling Roads) and 35 units
per acre (northwest corner of
I-280 and Stelling Road)
Maximum Height*
30 feet
East of Stelling Road:

Maximum Residential Density*
35 units per acre
Maximum Height*
45 feet
Oaks Gateway
Maximum Residential Density
3025 units per acre
Maximum Height*
45 feet
North Crossroads Node
Maximum Residential Density*
25 units per acre, except 35 units
per acre for APN 326 34 066
Maximum Height*
45 feet
South Vallco Park
Maximum Residential Density*
35 units per acre
Maximum Height*
45 feet, or 60 feet with retail
North Vallco Gateway
West of Wolfe Road:

Maximum Residential Density* 25 units per acre
Maximum Height* 60 feet
East of Wolfe Road:

Maximum Residential Density* 825 units per acre
Maximum Height*
75 feet (buildings located within 50 feet of the property lines abutting Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue and Apple Campus 2 site shall not exceed 60 feet)
City Center Node
Maximum Residential Density*
25 units per acre
Maximum Height*
45 feet or as previously approved with past
height exceptions for existing taller
buildings
*Density and Height: Unless a different minimum and maximum density and/or height is established through Resolution 24-XXXX. The Vallco Shopping District Special Area shall be subject to the heights and densities shown above, with residential uses permitted in the Regional Shopping/Residential designation and Residential High/Very High Density designation as shown in Figure LU-4.

Building Planes (does not apply to housing development projects on sites listed in Resolution 24-XXXX):
• Maintain the building below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the arterial/boulevard curb line or lines except for the Crossroads Area.
• For the Crossroads area, see the Crossroads Streetscape Plan. • For projects outside of the Vallco Shopping District Special Area that are adjacent to residential areas: Where slope lines or other applicable height and setback limits for projects adjacent to residential areas are not established in a specific plan, conceptual zoning plan or land use plan and in any adopted design guidelines, project review shall be required. • For projects within the Vallco Shopping District Special Area that are adjacent to the North Blaney/Portal neighborhood:

Maintain the building below a 2:1 slope line drawn from the adjacent residential property line.

Legend
City Boundary
Special Areas
Homestead
North Vallco Park
Vallco Shopping District
North De Anza
South De Anza
Bubb Road
Monta Vista Village
Avenues (Major Collectors)
Boulevards (Arterials)
Key Intersections
Neighborhood Centers
Heart of the City Hillside Transition
Urban Service Area
Sphere of Influence
Urban Transition
Avenues (Minor Collectors)
Neighborhoods
Neighborhoods
• For the North and South Vallco Park areas: Maintain the building below a 1.5:1 (i.e., 1.5 feet of setback for every 1 foot of building height) slope line drawn from the Stevens Creek Blvd. and Homestead Road curb lines and below 1:1 slope line drawn from Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue curb line. • Parcel APN 326-10-061 within the N. De Anza Gateway: For hotel development, maintain the building below the variable slope lines as shown in Figure LU-5. For all other developments, the 1:1 slope line shall be maintained.

Rooftop Mechanical Equipment: Rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures may exceed stipulated height limitations if they are enclosed, centrally located on the roof and not visible from adjacent streets.

Priority Housing Sites: Notwithstanding the heights and densities shown above, the maximum heights and densities for Priority Housing Sites identified in the adopted Housing Element other than the Vallco Shopping District Special Area shall be as reflected in the Housing Element. The Vallco Shopping District Special Area shall be subject to the heights and densities shown above, with residential uses permitted in the Regional Shopping/Residential designation as shown in Figure LU-4.

Figure LU-2

COMMUNITY FORM DIAGRAM
29 CC 05-14-2024
29 of 1197

13.1 ACRES

LEGEND WOLFE RD
Regional Shopping
Regional Shopping/Residential
High/Very High Density

50.01-65 Units per Acre
Figure LU-4: Vallco Shopping
District Allowable Land Uses
30 CC 05-14-2024
30 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING | cupertino community vision 2040
City of Cupertino
2023-2031 Housing Element
Adoption Draft
May 2024
31 CC 05-14-2024
31 of 1197

32 CC 05-14-2024
32 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐i
Table of Contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. HE-1 Role and Content of the Housing Element ................................................................................. HE-1 California’s Housing Crisis .......................................................................................................... HE-2 Summary of Key Facts ............................................................................................................... HE-2 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ......................................................................................... HE-4 Regional Housing Needs Allocation ........................................................................................... HE-5

2. Goals, Policies, and Strategies ............................................................................... HE-9 Quantified Objectives ............................................................................................................... HE-55 Tables
Table H-1 Regional Housing Need Allocation - Cupertino ............................................... HE-5 Table H-2 Quantified Objectives Summary ....................................................................... HE-55 33 CC 05-14-2024
33 of 1197
34 CC 05-14-2024
34 of 1197
H‐1

1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Cupertino (herein after “City”) is a community with a high quality of life, a renowned school system, and a robust high-technology economy. The long-term vitality of the City and the local economy depend upon the availability of all types of housing to meet the community’s diverse housing needs. As Cupertino looks towards the future, increasing the range and diversity of housing options will be integral to the City’s success. Consistent with the goal of being a balanced community, this Housing Element continues the City’s commitment to ensuring new opportunities for residential development, as well as for preserving and enhancing our existing neighborhoods.

This 2023-2031 Housing Element represents the City of Cupertino's intent to plan for the housing needs of the Cupertino community while meeting the State's housing goals as set forth in Article 10.6 of the California Government Code. The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every Californian as the State's major housing goal. The Cupertino Housing Element represents a sincere and creative effort to meet local and regional housing needs within the constraints of being a fully established built-out community with limited land availability and extraordinarily high costs of land and housing.

ROLE AND CONTENT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
This Housing Element is a comprehensive eight-year plan to address the housing needs in Cupertino.

The Housing Element is the City’s primary policy document regarding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population.

Per State Housing Element law, the document must be periodically updated to:
 Outline the community’s housing production objectives consistent with State and regional growth projections;
 Describe goals, policies and implementation strategies to achieve local housing objectives;  Examine the local need for housing with a focus on special needs populations;  Identify adequate sites for the production of housing serving various income levels;  Analyze potential constraints to new housing production;  Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other General Plan elements; and  Evaluate Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

This 6th Cycle Housing Element covers an eight-year planning period, from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031 and replaces the City's 5th Cycle Housing Element that covered January 31, 2015 through January 31, 2023 planning period.
35 CC 05-14-2024
35 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐2
CALIFORNIA’S HOUSING CRISIS
The 6th Cycle Housing Element update comes at a critical time because California is experiencing a housing crisis, and as is the case for all jurisdictions in California, Cupertino must play its part in meeting the growing demand for housing. In the coming 20-year period, Santa Clara County is projected to add 169,450 jobs,1
which represents a 15 percent increase. These changes will increase demand for housing across all income levels, and if the region can’t identify ways to significantly increase housing production, it risks worsening the burden for existing lower-income households, many of whom don’t have the luxury or skill set to move to new a job center but that are nonetheless faced with unsustainable increases in housing cost.

If the region becomes less competitive in attracting high-skilled workers and increasingly unaffordable to lower-income workers and seniors, then social and economic segregation will worsen, only exacerbating historic patterns of housing discrimination, racial bias, and segregation. This potentiality has become so acute in recent years that the California Legislature addressed the issue with new legislation in 2018. SB 686 requires all state and local agencies to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of housing segregation to foster more inclusive communities.

This is commonly referred to as Affirmative Furthering Fair Housing, or AFFH.

Cupertino has had modest success in meeting its housing needs. During the 2015–2023 planning period, Cupertino added 546 new units to its housing stock, achieving approximately 51 percent of the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which called for the construction of 1,064 housing units. Of the units built, approximately 41 percent (225 units) were affordable to lower- and moderate-income households,2
and 59 percent were affordable to above moderate-income households.

SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS
Cupertino is renowned as a center of innovation in Silicon Valley that far surpasses its moderate size.

Around the world, Cupertino is famous as the home of high-tech giant Apple Inc. In the San Francisco Bay Area, Cupertino is known as one of the founding cities of Silicon Valley and as a city with excellent public schools. Quality schools and closeness to technology jobs make Cupertino a desirable address for a highly educated and culturally diverse population. The following is a summary of key demographic and economic facts about Cupertino:

POPULATION
 Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The population of Cupertino increased by 17.7 percent from 2000 to 2020, which is above the growth rate of the Bay Area, primarily due to annexations of large portions of County unincorporated areas; 1 Source: Plan Bay Area, Projections 2040. Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, November 2018.
2 Source: City of Cupertino post construction surveys.
36 CC 05-14-2024
36 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐3
 Population growth in Cupertino began leveling off in 2014, with the county and regional growth index rates increasing, albeit slowly, while Cupertino’s growth has stagnated;  Cupertino has a higher Asian population compared to the county (68 percent of residents identify as Asian). The City’s residents have grown less racially diverse since 2000 with the Asian population increasing by 22 percentage points.

EMPLOYMENT
 Cupertino residents most commonly work in the Financial & Professional Services industry.

From January 2010 to January 2021, the unemployment rate in Cupertino decreased by 5.0 percentage points. Between 2010 and 2018, the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction increased by 19,322 (59.1 percent).

HOUSEHOLDS
 Most households in Cupertino earn more than 100 percent of the regional Area Median Income (AMI), and this is true across most racial and ethnic groups. Hispanic and non-Hispanic White households have the most income diversity.
 Poverty rates highlight the disparity in income and opportunities by race, with the Hispanic (16.7 percent) and Black/African American (16.9 percent) populations experiencing disproportionately higher poverty rates. No other group is above 7 percent.  The City is home to very high performing schools. According to educational opportunity indices, every census tract in Cupertino scores higher than 0.75—indicating the highest positive educational outcomes.

HOUSING STOCK
 Close to 550 residential permits were issued between 2015 and 2022. Jobs have grown significantly since 2004, with nearly all of the growth due to a boost in manufacturing and wholesale jobs (likely technology related jobs), which increased by 19,322 since 2010. At two jobs per household, housing these new workers would have required construction of more than 9,000 housing units. Cupertino’s jobs to household ratio is 2.60—higher than Santa Clara County overall (1.71) or the Bay Area (1.47).
 Access to Cupertino is limited by housing pricing and supply. Eighty-three percent (83 percent) of houses in the area are valued over $1 million. Zillow reports an average market value of $2.25 million, significantly above the county’s and Bay area’s market values. Fifty-seven percent (57 percent) of Cupertino’s housing units are single family units. The next closest share is multifamily at 21 percent of units, followed by 12 percent attached units and 10 percent du/tri/fourplexes. While owners mostly occupy 3- to 4-bedroom homes (72 percent), 68 percent of renters occupy 1- or 2-bedroom units.
 Renters, who make up 40 percent of all households in the City, are facing the same cost pressures as owners with 87 percent of units renting for more than $2,000 per month, and 52 percent renting for $3,000 and more. Just 14 percent of the City’s rental units rent for $2,000 37 CC 05-14-2024
37 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐4
per month and less. The County has almost three times the proportion of rentals priced under $2,000 than the City.
 Regionally, mortgage denial rates are modest (14 percent to 17 percent of loans denied) and vary little across races and ethnicities except for Black/African American applicants, who are more frequently denied.

OVERPAYMENT
 There are disparities in housing cost burden in Cupertino by race and ethnicity—and minimally by tenure (renters/owners). Hispanic households experience by far the highest rates of cost burden in the City (43.8 percent) followed by Asian households at 28.1 percent, White households at 26.6 percent, and Black/African American households at 11 percent. CHAS data did not report any American Indian and Alaska Native households overpaying for housing.  Barriers to housing choice are largely related to the City’s very high costs of housing and lack of production of sufficient affordable housing. Since 2015, while the City has not denied any housing developments, housing for which building permits have been requested to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate-income households (321 units or 58.8 percent of all units), followed by moderate income households (158 or 28.9 percent). Forty-eight (48) building permit applications were received and issued for lowincome units and 19 building permit applications were received and issued for very low-income units, totaling 546 permits.

SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS
 Cupertino has a lower proportion of residents with disabilities than the county. However, unemployment among residents with disabilities is higher relative to those without a disability, with 16 percent of Cupertino residents with a disability unemployed, compared to 3 percent of residents without a disability.

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
In 2018, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686), signed in 2018, established an independent state mandate to AFFH. AB 686 extends requirements for federal grantees and contractors to “affirmatively further fair housing,” including requirements in the federal Fair Housing Act, to public agencies in California.

Affirmatively furthering fair housing is defined specifically as taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity by replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns; transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity; and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.

AB 686 requires public agencies to:
 Administer their programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing;
38 CC 05-14-2024
38 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐5
 Not take any action that is materially inconsistent with the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing;
 Ensure that the program and actions to achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element affirmatively further fair housing; and
 Include an assessment of fair housing in the Housing Element.

The AFFH requirement AFFH is derived from The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex—and was later amended to include familial status and disability. The 2015 U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and California Assembly Bill 686 (2018) mandate that each jurisdiction takes meaningful action to address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity. AB 686 requires that jurisdictions incorporate AFFH into their Housing Elements, which includes inclusive community participation, an assessment of fair housing, a site inventory reflective of AFFH, and the development of goals, policies, and programs to meaningfully address local fair housing issues.

REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584, the State, regional councils of government (in this case, ABAG), and local governments must collectively determine each locality’s share of regional housing need allocation (RHNA). In conjunction with the State mandated housing element update cycle that requires Bay Area jurisdictions to update their elements by January 31, 2023, ABAG has determined housing unit production needs for each jurisdiction within the Bay Area. These allocations set housing production goals for the planning period that runs from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031 (Table H-1).

Table H-1 Regional Housing Need Allocation - Cupertino
Income Group Unit Allocation Percent
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 Mod. 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 (596 units) is allocated to the extremely low-income category.

AMI = Area Median Income
39 CC 05-14-2024
39 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐6

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE SITES FOR HOUSING
The purpose of the adequate sites analysis is to demonstrate that a sufficient supply of land exists in the City to accommodate the fair share of the region’s housing needs during the Housing Element planning period (January 31, 2023 – January 31, 2031). The Government Code requires that the Housing Element include an “inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment” ((Section 65583[a][3]). It further requires that the Element analyze zoning and infrastructure on these sites to ensure housing development is feasible during the planning period.

Figure HE-1 indicates the potential opportunity sites to meet the identified regional housing need pursuant. More detailed maps are available in Appendix B4. 40 CC 05-14-2024
40 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐7
Figure HE-1 Priority Housing Sites Map
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023 Note: Maps reflect the current parcel boundaries rather than the developable area assumed for redevelopment. 41 CC 05-14-2024
41 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐8
This page intentionally left blank.
42 CC 05-14-2024
42 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐9

2. GOALS, POLICIES, AND STRATEGIES
The City is responsible for enabling the production of housing by reducing regulatory barriers, providing incentives, and supporting programs that create or preserve housing, especially for vulnerable populations. To enable the construction of quality housing, the City has identified the following goals:

Goal HE-1: An adequate supply of residential units for all economic segments; Goal HE-2: Housing is affordable for a diversity of Cupertino households; Goal HE-3: Stable and physically sound residential neighborhoods; Goal HE-4: Energy and water conservation;
Goal HE-5: Special services for lower-income and special-needs households; Goal HE-6: Equal access to housing opportunities; and
Goal HE-7: Coordination with regional organizations, local school districts, and colleges. 43 CC 05-14-2024
43 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐10
GOAL HE-1 AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR ALL

ECONOMIC SEGMENTS
Policies
Policy HE-1.1 Provision of Adequate Capacity for New Construction Need. Designate sufficient land at appropriate densities to accommodate Cupertino’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 4,588 units for the 2023-2031 planning period. (Formerly Policy HE-1.1)
Policy HE-1.2 Housing Densities. Provide a full range of densities for ownership and rental housing.
(Formerly Policy HE-1.2)
Policy HE-1.3 Mixed-Use Development. Encourage mixed-use development near transportation facilities and employment centers.
(Formerly Policy HE-1.3)
44 CC 05-14-2024
44 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐11
Strategies
Strategy 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 while maintaining a balanced land use plan that offers opportunities for employment growth, commercial/retail activities, services, and amenities.
 Amend development standards for housing as required to provide objective standards that are adequate and appropriate to facilitate a range of housing in the community.
 Monitor the sites inventory and make it available on the City’s website.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing;
Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: 4,588 units (596 extremely low-, 597 very low-, 687 low-, 755 moderate-, and 1,953 above moderate-income units). Prioritize projects for lower-income households in areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side, and areas with high risk for displacement, such as the South Blaney
neighborhood, and the Garden Gate neighborhood if sites become available. Additionally, target development for lower-income households in high-opportunity areas, such as the Rancho Rinconada and Oak Valley neighborhoods, as well as lowerdensity neighborhoods, as sites become available. (Formerly HE1.3.1) Strategy HE-1.3.2 Rezoning to Achieve RHNA. To ensure that the City has sufficient sites zoned appropriately to achieve the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), rezone sites listed in Table B4-7 and B4-9 (Appendix B4). The rezone will include 33.52 acres of residential land that will allow for a realistic capacity of 1,855 units, and 32.67 acres of commercial/residential land that will allow for a realistic capacity of 1,727 units.
45 CC 05-14-2024
45 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐12
The City will ensure compliance with Government Code Sections 65583 (c)(1) and 65583.2(h) and 65583.2(i), as listed below.
 Permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by right and not require a conditional use permit or other discretionary review or approval for developments in which 20 percent or more of the total units are affordable to lower-income households.
 Ensure that each site can accommodate at least 16 units per site and require that all residential development achieve a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre on sites designated for lower income housing.  Ensure (a) at least 50 percent of the shortfall of low- and very low-income regional housing need can be accommodated on sites designated for exclusively residential uses, or (b) if accommodating more than 50 percent of the low- and very low-income regional housing need on sites designated for mixed uses, all sites designated for mixed uses must allow 100 percent residential use and require residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of the floor area in a mixed-use project.

Ensure sites will be available for development during the planning period where water and sewer can be provided.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Complete rezoning concurrently with adoption of the Housing Element.

Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: Create opportunity for 4,588 units, including 1,880 units for lower-income households that will be within close proximity to services, employment opportunities, frequent transit and other resources in high-opportunity areas, such as in the Heart of the City Special Area.

Strategy HE-1.3.3 New Residential Zoning Districts and Land Use Designations. To ensure the City can meet the RHNA, the following actions will be taken:

Zoning. Create a new R4 Zoning District that will align with the two new General Plan Land Use designations, High/Very High Density allowing 50.01 to 65 units per acre, and Very High Density allowing 65.01 to 80 units per acre.

The City will create development standards that will allow the maximum 46 CC 05-14-2024
46 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐13
density of this district to be achieved. This will include increased height limits to allow at least three stories, reduced setbacks, reduced lot coverage, and reduced parking requirements.

General Plan Land Use Designations. Create two new General Plan Land Use Designations – High/Very High Density, which will allow for 50.01–65 units per acre, and Very High Density, which will allow for 65.01–80 units per acre. The City will also revise the Commercial/Residential designation to identify different densities at which residential development could occur on property zoned for Residential mixed uses for clarity, and allow 100 percent residential on sites with a General Plan Land Use designation of Commercial/Residential, if the project is affordable.

Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Create new R4 Zoning District and General Plan Land Use designations and development standards concurrently with adoption of the Housing Element.

Funding Sources: General Fund
Quantified Objective: Create opportunity for 600 units, including 300 units for lowerincome households that will be within close proximity to services and other resources in high-opportunity areas. Prioritize projects for lowerincome households in areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side, and areas with high risk for displacement, such as the South De Anza Special Area, Homestead Special Area, Heart of the City Special Area, and in the South Blaney neighborhood, and, if sites become available, in the Garden Gate and Rancho Rinconada neighborhoods.

Strategy HE-1.3.4 Development on Nonvacant Sites. Establish an outreach and coordination program to connect developers, builders, and owners of nonvacant sites. The program shall:
a. Emphasize reaching out to owners of nonvacant sites to discuss any interest in redeveloping and available incentives.
b. Market and advertise these sites to the development community along with any incentives that might be available.
47 CC 05-14-2024
47 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐14
c. Establish biennial meetings with developers and builders to discuss development opportunities.

If no projects are proposed on non-vacant sites within the first half of Housing Element planning period, the City will provide additional incentives, which will include, but are not limited to:
a. Priority project processing
b. Waive development impact or delay permit fees for affordable units c. Flexibility in development standards, such as parking, setbacks, and landscaping requirements
d. Support grant application requests for funding made by developers for infrastructure upgrades.
e. Assist developers of 100 percent affordable housing developments with securing additional financing.

Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division Timeframe: Initiate by June 2024 and maintain throughout planning period on a biennial basis.

Funding Source: None required.

Quantified Objective: Engage with three property owners of high-potential nonvacant sites each year. Create opportunity for 500 units, including 300 units for lower-income households that will be within close proximity to services, frequent transit and other resources in high-opportunity areas.

Prioritize sites in areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side, and areas with high risk for displacement, such as the South Blaney neighborhood, and, if sites become available, in the Garden Gate and Rancho Rinconada neighborhoods and other lowerdensity neighborhoods. Additionally, target sites with high unit potential, such as sites in the De Anza Boulevard corridor and the sites with the highest allowable densities. If no projects are proposed on non-vacant sites within the first half of the Housing Element planning period, the City will adopt additional incentives as described above beginning in the third year.

Strategy HE-1.3.5 Encourage Mixed-Use Projects and Residential in Commercial Zones.

The City will incentivize development of residential units in mixed-use projects that include affordable units (at least 20 percent), by providing incentives, which will include, but are not limited to:
48 CC 05-14-2024
48 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐15
 Priority project processing
 Delay payment of development impact or permit fees for affordable units  Flexibility in development standards, such as parking, setbacks, and landscaping requirements
 Support grant application requests for funding made by developers for infrastructure upgrades.
 Assist developers of 100 percent affordable housing developments with securing additional financing.

Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Annually reach out to developers to inform them of the available incentives and obtain feedback by December 2025 on the provided incentives, review annually and amend as needed. Offer alternative incentives within six months of receiving feedback.

Funding Source: None required.

Quantified Objective: 150 extremely low-income units, 150 very low-income units, and 300 low-income units. Prioritize projects for lower-income households in areas with close proximity to job opportunities, such as the Heart of the City Special area; areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in the proximity of the Homestead Special Area); and areas with high risk for displacement, such as the South Blaney neighborhood and the Garden Gate neighborhood if sites become available.

Strategy HE-1.3.6 Encourage Missing-Middle Housing Developments to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. The City will encourage the development of missingmiddle housing types that are affordable by design that can provide opportunities for housing that can accommodate the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of current and future residents in terms of different housing types, tenures, density, sizes, and costs.

Missing middle housing is typically multiple rental units on a single parcel (whether attached or detached) that are compatible in scale and form with traditional single-family homes with one- or two- story forms. Examples include duplexes, triplexes, courtyard apartments. Allowing the development of units in this form will help the incorporation of rental housing within the 49 CC 05-14-2024
49 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐16
existing, primarily single-family ownership units within neighborhoods. The City will accomplish this by:
 Allowing corner lots in R1 zoning districts to develop as multi-family rental housing using R23 zoning regulations to encourage missing-middle developments.
 Allowing lots zoned for single-family residential uses that abut (either shares a property line or is directly across the street from) property that fronts an arterial or major collector and is zoned and used for commercial or mixed-use development, to develop with rental multi-family housing using R23 zoning regulations to encourage missing middle housing.  Pursuing the establishment of maximum average unit size as a tool to moderate unit sizes for such developments.

The City will promote the missing middle strategy through City publications and online newsletters, and via the City’s website
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Complete zoning code changes by December 2025, outreach at least twice in the planning period, and track annual planning applications received.

Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: Facilitate the development of 250 lower- and 250 moderateincome households, prioritizing projects in areas with high levels of renter overpayment, including the Creston-Pharlap and South Blaney neighborhoods and lower-density neighborhoods.

Strategy HE-1.3.7 Lot Consolidation. The City will help facilitate lot consolidations to combine small residential lots (lots 0.5 acres or smaller) into larger developable lots. The City will continue the following actions to accomplish this:
 Facilitate and approve lot consolidation when contiguous smaller, underutilized parcels are to be redeveloped.
 Encourage master plans for such sites with coordinated access and circulation.
 Provide technical assistance to property owners of adjacent parcels to facilitate coordinated redevelopment where appropriate. 50 CC 05-14-2024
50 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐17
 Facilitate intra- and interagency cooperation in working with applicants at no cost prior to application submittal for assistance with preliminary plan review.
 Provide information on the City’s website about development opportunities and incentives for lot consolidation to accommodate affordable housing units and discuss these opportunities and incentives with interested developers. As developers/owners interested in lot consolidation and the development of affordable housing projects on small lots approach the City, the City will offer the following incentives:
o Allow affordable projects to exceed the maximum height limits, o Reduce setbacks,
o Reduce parking requirements, and/or
o Offset fees (when financially feasible) and offer concurrent/fast tracking of project application reviews to developers who provide 100 percent affordable housing.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Identify incentives by December2025, offer incentives by June 2026. Ongoing thereafter, as projects are processed through the Planning Department. Annually meet with local developers to discuss development opportunities and incentives for lot consolidation.

Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: 27 moderate-income units, and 48 above moderate-income units.

Prioritize projects for lower-income households in areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in proximity of the Homestead Special Area), and areas with high risk for displacement, such as the South Blaney
neighborhood and the Garden Gate neighborhood if sites become available. Additionally, target development for lower-income households in high-opportunity areas, such as the Homestead, Heart of the City Special Area, South De Anza Special Area, and North and South Monta Vista Village neighborhoods, as well as other lower-density neighborhoods.
(Formerly HE-1.3.3)
51 CC 05-14-2024
51 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐18
Strategy HE-1.3.8 Accessory Dwelling Units. The City will encourage the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) throughout the city through the following actions, which are aimed at providing an increased supply of units affordable to very low, low, and moderate-income households and therefore provide affordable housing in high opportunity neighborhoods and help reduce displacement risk for low-income households resulting from overpayment:
 Amend the municipal code to be consistent with the latest State legislation related to ADUs, in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2 et seq.
 Continue to provide guidance and educational materials for building ADUs on the City’s website, including permitting procedures.

Additionally, the City will biennially present homeowner associations with information about the community and neighborhood benefits of ADUs, and inform them that covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) prohibiting ADUs are contrary to State law.
 To increase mobility for lower income households, proactively advertise the benefits of ADUs by distributing multilingual informational materials in areas of high opportunity and a limited number of renter households, including the Monta Vista North and Oak Valley neighborhoods, to increase mobility for low-income households by posting flyers in community gathering places and providing information to community groups and homeowners’ associations at least annually.
 Continue to offer the pre-approved ADU program and post links to approved plans as available.
 Annually monitor ADU production and affordability as a part of the Annual Progress Report process and adjust or expand the focus of the education and outreach efforts.
 Apply annually, if grants are available, for funding to provide incentives, for homeowners to construct ADUs affordable to very low, low, and moderate-income tenants.
 Permit up to a maximum of three, 800 s.f. attached or detached ADUs, JADUs, or conversion ADUs on all single family zoned properties and a maximum of up to two 800 s.f. attached or detached ADUs, JADUs or conversion ADUs on all duplex zoned properties, which is in excess of the number of ADUs allowed under state law.
52 CC 05-14-2024
52 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐19
 Identify incentives for construction of affordable ADUs with new development, which may include deferring collection of impact fees for the square footage associated with the ADU until issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning and Housing Divisions.

Timeframe: Amend the municipal code by June 2024 and update ADU materials available by June 2024. Allow ADUs ongoing beyond State law requirements, Present proposed code amendment within six months of Housing Element adoption. Identify incentives by June 2025, and apply annually for funding to support ADU incentives. Evaluate effectiveness of ADU approvals annually, starting April 2024, and identify additional incentives within one year if ADU targets are not being met.

Funding Sources: Below Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund Objectives: 60 ADUs to improve housing mobility and improve proximity to services and employment opportunities for lower- and moderateincome households, with targeted outreach in high-opportunity areas with high rates of renter overpayment, such as the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood, and areas in close proximity to jobs, such as the North Blaney and Garden Gate neighborhoods, as well as lower-density neighborhoods. (40 ADUs are assumed to address the displacement risk).
(Formerly HE-1.3.2)
Strategy HE-1.3.9 Review Development Standards. The City recognizes the need to encourage a range of housing options in the community. The City will review and revise its zoning code to:
 Review and revise design and development standards (setbacks, height limits, lot coverage, etc.) and guidelines for multifamily housing, specifically in the R4 Zone and the Priority Development Area (PDA) to ensure standards are objective and that maximum densities can be achieved.
 Provide flexibility in development standards to accommodate new models and approaches to providing housing, such as live/work housing to allow housing to adapt to the needs of occupants.
53 CC 05-14-2024
53 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐20
 Offer flexible residential development standards in planned residential zoning districts, such as smaller lot sizes, lot widths, setbacks, and higher floor-area ratios particularly for higher-density and attached housing developments.
 Consider granting reductions in off-street parking for senior housing.

Analyze local parking standards compared to those of neighboring jurisdictions with similar characteristics and reduce parking standards to ensure parking is not a constraint on development. Specifically, reduce parking requirements for studio apartments, senior housing, and singleroom occupancy (SRO) units and others as required by the analysis.  Require implementation of universal design standards for new multifamily development to provide disabled access. These standards would require the adoption of features like at least one “no-step” entry point, interior and exterior doors with 32 inches of clear passage, and one bathroom on the main floor that is able to be maneuvered in a wheelchair. Encourage the implementation of universal design standards for new single-family homes.  Remove the following bolded text from the major development permit findings. The proposed housing developments and/or use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Analyze parking standards by December 2025 and revise standards by June 2025. Review and revise standards by June 2025; annually review objective design standards and amend as needed.

Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: Development of 150 units for lower-income households, 150 units for moderate-income households, and 500 for abovemoderate income households by revising development standards. (Formerly HE-1.3.4)
54 CC 05-14-2024
54 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐21
Strategy HE-1.3.10 Innovative and Family-Friendly Housing Options. Explore innovative and alternative housing options that provide greater flexibility and affordability in the housing stock that would address housing needs for intergenerational households, students, special-needs groups, and lower-income households.

The City will implement the following:
 Promote housing designs and unit mix to attract multigenerational households by encouraging housing features and more bedrooms (including four-bedroom units), as well as other on-site amenities, such as usable outdoor open space for multigenerational use to promote placebased revitalization, and multipurpose rooms that can be used for afterschool homework clubs, computer, art, or other resident activities.

Facilitate at least one partnership with social service organizations to provide programming in community spaces within a 100 percent affordable project during the planning period.
 Research the possibility of a Home Sharing program that would help to match “providers” with a spare room or rooms with “seekers” who are looking for an affordable place to live. This could either be done at a countywide level or the City could consider partnering with De Anza Community College to facilitate a home-sharing program to account for the high number of empty rooms across Cupertino’s single-family home supply. If the program is determined to be feasible, implement within one year of feasibility determination. Priority outreach for program implementation will focus on the city’s lower-density neighborhoods including, but not limited to, Ranchonada, Fair Grove, Monta Vista North, and Inspiration Heights.

The City will use the findings of this program to target development of a variety of housing types in areas of concentrated overpayment to reduce displacement risk as well as promote inclusion and support integration of housing types based on income to facilitate mobility opportunities in high resource areas and areas of high median income.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning and Housing Divisions
Timeframe: Explore innovative and alternative housing options to help further housing production by December 2025, amend the
zoning code as needed by October 2024.

Funding: None required.
55 CC 05-14-2024
55 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐22
Quantified Objective: 200 lower-income units to improve housing mobility and reduce displacement risk, aiming for at least 50 in close proximity to jobs, transit, open space, and other services and 50 integrated into predominantly single-family, and higher-income areas, and 10 – 4 bedroom units.

Strategy HE-1.3.11 Replacement Housing. To facilitate place-based revitalization for households at risk of displacement due to new development, the City will require replacement housing units subject to the requirements of Government Code, Sections 66300.5, 65583.2, and 65915(c)(3), on all sites in the City when any new development (residential, mixed-use, or nonresidential) occurs on a site that has been occupied by or restricted for the use of lower-income households at any time during the previous five years. This requirement applies to nonvacant sites and vacant sites with previous residential uses that have been vacated or demolished.

Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: The replacement requirement will be implemented immediately and applied as applications on identified sites are received and processed.

Funding Source: None required.

Quantified Objective: Replace any units identified in the sites inventory if:
(a) they are planned to be demolished or have been demolished in the past 5 years, and
(b) they are ”protected units” as defined in the statutes. Ensure that housing development projects create at least as many total units as are planned to be demolished.

Strategy HE-1.3.12 Track Housing Production. The City will monitor housing production throughout the planning period and ensure the Pipeline Projects (Table B4- 2) and sites identified to meet the RHNA (Tables B4-7 and B4-9,) maintain sufficient housing capacity to meet the RHNA target by income level. The city will not adopt reductions in allowable residential densities for Pipeline Projects in the Appendix B4 through General Plan update/amendment or rezone or approve development or building permits for sites identified in the inventory with fewer units or affordable to a different income category than identified in the inventory, unless findings are made that the remaining capacity is sufficient 56 CC 05-14-2024
56 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐23
to accommodate remaining unmet RHNA for each income level. The City will track and report on:
 Pipeline projects (Table B4-2) and progress towards completion;  Unit count and income/affordability assumed on parcels in the sites inventory (Tables B4-7 and B4-9);
 Actual number of units permitted and constructed by
income/affordability;
 Net change in capacity and summary of remaining capacity by income level in meeting remaining RHNA;
In accordance with No Net Loss law, if project approval results in the remaining sites capacity becoming inadequate to accommodate RHNA by income category, the City will identify or rezone sufficient sites to accommodate the shortfall within 180 days of approval. Further, the City will track progress of pending projects towards completion and if projects are not assumed to be completed in the planning period, the City will evaluate whether there are sufficient sites available to accommodate the RHNA. If sufficient sites are not available, the City will take necessary actions (e.g., rezoning or identify additional sites) to maintain adequate sites within one year. The results of the tracking will be reported in the Housing Element Annual Progress Report reported annually to the City Council and posted online for public review.

Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing. If projects are approved on inventory sites with fewer units or at a different income level than shown in the Housing Element, make no net loss findings as required by Section 65863. If insufficient sites remain by income category, designate additional sites within 180 days. Complete a mid-term
evaluation of the City’s pipeline projects to review progress towards competition and if additional actions are necessary, complete additional actions within one year.

Funding Source: None required.

Quantified Objective: Ensure sufficient capacity is maintained to accommodate the RHNA.
57 CC 05-14-2024
57 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐24
Strategy HE-1.3.13 Housing Element Monitoring and General Plan Consistency. As required by State law, the City will review the status of Housing Element programs annually. Annual review will cover consistency between the Housing Element and the other General Plan Elements. As portions of the General Plan are amended, the Housing Element will be reviewed and revised to ensure that internal consistency is maintained.

Responsible Agency: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Review and revise as elements are updated.

Funding Source: None required.

GOAL HE-2 HOUSING IS AFFORDABLE FOR A DIVERSITY OF

CUPERTINO HOUSEHOLDS
Policies
Policy HE-2.1 Housing Mitigation. Ensure that all new developments, including marketrate residential developments, help mitigate project-related impacts on affordable housing needs.
(Formerly Policy HE-2.1)
Policy HE-2.2 Range of Housing Types. Encourage the development of diverse housing stock that provides a range of housing types (including smaller, moderate-cost housing) and affordability levels. Emphasize the provision of housing for lower- and moderate-income households, including wage earners who provide essential public services (e.g., school district employees, municipal and public safety employees, etc.). (Formerly Policy HE-2.1)
Policy HE-2.3 Development of Affordable Housing and Housing for Persons with Special Needs. Make every reasonable effort to disperse affordable units throughout the community but not at the expense of undermining the fundamental goal of providing affordable units. Ensure that the City’s development standards accommodate housing needed by persons with special needs.
(Formerly Policy HE-2.1)
58 CC 05-14-2024
58 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐25
Strategies
Strategy HE-2.3.1 Support Affordable Housing Development. Work with housing developers to expand opportunities for affordable lower-income housing for specialneeds groups, including persons with physical and developmental disabilities, female-headed households, large families, extremely low-income households, and persons experiencing homelessness by creating partnerships, providing incentives, and pursuing funding opportunities.
 Prioritize projects that are in areas with currently low percentages of renter-occupied households to facilitate housing mobility and integration of ownership and rental units, including the Monta Vista North neighborhood. Additionally, prioritize projects in areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in proximity of the Homestead Special Area).
 Support affordable housing development and give priority to permit processing for projects providing 100 percent affordable housing for special-needs groups throughout the city, including in areas that are predominantly single-family residential. The target populations include seniors; persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities; female-headed households; and persons experiencing homelessness to reduce the displacement risk for these residents from their existing homes and communities.
 Promote the use of the density bonus ordinance, application process streamlining, fee deferrals, and consider development fee exemption for projects that are 100 percent affordable to encourage affordable housing, with an emphasis on encouraging affordable housing in high-resource areas and areas with limited rental opportunities currently.  Facilitate the approval process for land divisions, lot line adjustments, and/or specific plans or master plans resulting in parcel sizes that enable 50 percent (of the total number of units) affordable housing development and process fee deferrals related to the subdivision for 50 percent (of the total number of units) affordable projects.
 Work with public or private sponsors to identify candidate sites for new construction of housing for special needs, including transitional and supportive households, and take all actions necessary to expedite processing of such projects.
 Encourage residential development near transit routes, civic uses, social services, grocery stores, parks, open space, and other health resources. 59 CC 05-14-2024
59 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐26
 Partner with nonprofit and for-profit affordable housing developers to support their financing applications for State and federal grant programs, tax-exempt bonds, and other programs that become available.  Pursue federal, State, and private funding for low- and moderate-income housing by applying for State and federal monies for direct support of lower-income housing construction and rehabilitation, specifically for development of housing affordable to extremely low-income households.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning and Housing Divisions
Time Frame: Ongoing, as projects are processed by the City. Annually apply for funding and engage with housing developers.

Funding: Where feasible, leverage State and federal financing, including Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, CHFA multifamily
housing assistance programs, HCD Multifamily Housing
Loans, CDBG funds, HOME funds, and other available
financing.

Quantified Objective: Create opportunity for 450 units for lower-income households that will be within close proximity to services and other resources in high-opportunity areas. Include development of 250 units affordable to special-needs, lower-income households to reduce displacement risk for these populations. Target 100 units in close proximity to services and transit, and 100 in higher-income, predominantly single-family neighborhoods to promote mobility opportunities. Opportunity areas for targeting include the Monta Vista North neighborhood. Additionally, target areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in proximity of the Homestead Special Area)
Strategy HE-2.3.2 Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program. The City will continue to implement the Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program.

This program requires that developers of office, commercial, and industrial space pay a mitigation fee, which will then be used to support affordable housing in Cupertino. These mitigation fees are collected and deposited in the City’s Below Market-Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF).

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
60 CC 05-14-2024
60 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐27
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: BMR AHF
Objectives: With limited office and industrial development, facilitate development of 20 units for very low- and low-income households. (Formerly HE-2.3.1)
Strategy HE-2.3.3 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 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 of five or more for-sale units must provide on-site BMR units. Projects of four units or fewer for-sale units can either build one BMR unit or pay the Housing Mitigation fee. Developers of market-rate rental units, where the units cannot be sold individually, must pay the Housing Mitigation fee to the BMR AHF. The BMR program specifies the following:
 Priority. To the extent permitted by law, priority for occupancy is given to Cupertino residents, Cupertino full-time employees, and Cupertino public service employees, as defined in Cupertino’s Residential Housing Mitigation Manual.
 For-Sale Residential Developments. Require 20 percent for-sale BMR units in all residential developments where the units can be sold individually (including single-family homes, common interest developments, and condominium conversions) or allow rental BMR units.  Rental Residential Developments. Require 15 percent l very low- and low-income BMR units in all rental residential developments.  Rental Alternative. Allow rental BMR units in for-sale residential developments and allow developers of market-rate rental developments to provide on-site rental BMR units, if the developer: (1) enters into an agreement limiting rents in exchange for a financial contribution or a type of assistance specified in density bonus law (which includes a variety of regulatory relief); and (2) provides very low-income and low-income BMR rental units.
61 CC 05-14-2024
61 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐28
 Affordable Prices and Rents. Continue to implement guidelines for affordable sales prices and affordable rents for new affordable housing and update the guidelines each year as new income guidelines are received.  Development of BMR Units Off Site. Allow developers to meet all or a portion of their BMR or Housing Mitigation fee requirement by making land available for the City or a nonprofit housing developer to construct affordable housing or allow developers to construct the required BMR units off site, in partnership with a nonprofit. The criteria for land donation or off-site BMR units (or combination of the two options) will be identified in the Residential Housing Mitigation Manual.  BMR Term. Require BMR units to remain affordable for a minimum of 99 years; enforce the City’s first right of refusal for BMR units and other means to ensure that BMR units remain affordable.
 Monitor the affordable for-sale inventory by requiring BMR homeowners to submit proof of occupancy, such as utility bills, mortgage loan documentation, homeowner’s insurance, and property tax bills.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Annually monitor program to ensure that it is not acting as a constraint on development. Conduct economic feasibility study if it appears to be a constraint and make any required changes within one years.

Funding Sources: BHR AHF
Objectives: 200 BMR units over eight years in areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in proximity of the Homestead Special Area), and areas with high risk for displacement, such as the South Blaney neighborhood and Garden Gate neighborhood if sites become available. (Formerly HE-2.3.2)
Strategy HE-2.3.4 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
62 CC 05-14-2024
62 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐29
 Acquisition and/or rehabilitation of buildings for permanent affordability  New construction
 Preserving “at-risk” BMR units
 Rental operating subsidies
 Down payment assistance
 Direct gap financing
 Fair housing
The City will target a portion of the BMR AHF to benefit extremely lowincome households and persons with special needs (such as the elderly, victims of domestic violence, and the disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities), to the extent that these target populations are found to be consistent with the needs identified in the nexus study the City prepares to identify the connection, or “nexus” between new developments and the need for affordable housing. Additionally, development of housing for lowerincome households will be facilitated citywide, but priority will be given to areas with currently low percentages of renter-occupied households to facilitate housing mobility and integration of ownership and rental units, including the Monta Vista North neighborhood. Additionally, priority will also be given to areas with high rates of cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in proximity of the Homestead Special Area).

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing/annually publish requests for proposals (RFPs) to solicit projects.

Funding Sources: BMR AHF
Objectives: Facilitate the development of 50 units affordable to very low- and low-income households.
(Formerly HE-2.3.3)
Strategy HE-2.3.5 Housing Resources. Cupertino residents and developers interested in providing affordable housing in the city have access to a variety of resources administered by other agencies. 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:
63 CC 05-14-2024
63 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐30
 Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) – Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Department.
 First-Time Homebuyer Assistance and Developer Loans for Multifamily 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 identify 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. Outreach on these programs will be conducted citywide, but extra focus will be given to areas with historically higher areas of income segregation, such as the areas along the Interstate (I-) 280 corridor, in the areas abutting the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard (western edge of the Creston-Pharlap neighborhood), and along Miller Avenue, north of Creekside Park.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: Annually identify and pursue various housing resources and inform residents and developers on available programs, update website as funding is available.

Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: Provide information about available programs to 50 households each year, with targeted outreach to areas with historically higher areas of income segregation, such as the areas along the I-280 corridor, in the areas abutting 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.
(Formerly HE-2.3.4)
64 CC 05-14-2024
64 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐31
Strategy HE-2.3.6 Surplus Properties for Housing and Faith-Based Housing. 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. Encourage mixed-use development (i.e., retail on ground floor with residential on the upper levels) as a pull factor for individuals to live in the new development 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.
 Compile and maintain an inventory of vacant properties owned by the City or other public entities. The inventory will include land donated and accepted by the City for donation, and land otherwise acquired by the city.

The City will then undertake steps leading to release of RFP to solicit developer interest, which may include declaration of land as ‘surplus’. The City will publicize the inventory, post it on the website, make it available to non-profit developers, and prioritize affordable housing on these sites in accordance wit the Surplus Lands Act (Government Code sections 54220-54234).To create housing mobility opportunities for lower-income households, conduct outreach to religious institutions to inform them of their development rights under SB 4 and encourage housing proposals within one year of Housing Element adoption. If no application for housing on a religious institution/faith-based site is received within twelve months after outreach is completed, the City will expand outreach efforts to be conducted annually. This will include direct mailings to faith-based sites highlighting successful affordable housing units on other faith-based sites, as well as available City resources and programs to support such projects if available. Additional outreach focus will be given to religious institutions located in lower-density neighborhoods to promote housing mobility in these areas.
 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.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning and Housing Divisions
65 CC 05-14-2024
65 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐32
Timeframe: Ongoing, Reach out to affordable housing developers biennially to discuss opportunities. Review and update City-owned properties list annually. Conduct initial outreach within one year of Housing Element adoption and additional outreach as new legislation is passed. If no applications for housing projects on religious sites are received by December 2025, conduct outreach annually.

Funding Sources: BMR AHF
Objectives: Facilitate the development of 5 new affordable housing projects on sites owned by religious institutions.
(Formerly HE-2.3.5)
Strategy HE-2.3.7 Incentives for Affordable Housing Development. The City will continue to offer a range of incentives to facilitate the development of affordable housing. These include:
 Financial assistance through the City’s Below-Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and Community Development Block Grant (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-2.3.8).
 Flexible development standards
 Technical assistance.
 Waiver of park dedication fees and construction tax.
 Parking ordinance waivers.
 Expedited permit processing.

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, including the Monta Vista North neighborhood Additionally, focus will be given to areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side (in and in proximity of the Homestead Special Area).
66 CC 05-14-2024
66 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐33
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Annually review incentives and include additional incentives as needed to facilitate affordable housing development, annually publish RFPs to solicit projects. If additional incentives are found to be needed and feasible, implement within one year of determination.

Funding Sources: BMR AHF, CDBG, HOME, General Fund
Objectives: Facilitate development of 400 units available to very low-income households and 250 units affordable to low-income households. (Formerly HE-2.3.6)
Strategy HE-2.3.8 Density Bonus Ordinance. The City will continue to review and revise the Zoning Code to be consistent with State density bonus law. Although most housing developers are familiar with density bonus law and frequently request bonuses, concessions, waivers, and parking reductions, the city will provide available guidelines and other information to developers regarding the statute.

The City currently allows a 100% bonus for all affordable housing developments.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Update ordinance to comply with state law by June 2025.

Annually review and revise ordinance as needed to comply with State law. Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: Facilitate the development of 200 units of housing affordable to very low- income households and 300 units affordable to lowincome households. Ensure density bonus ordinance complies with state law and target citywide. (Formerly HE-2.3.7)
Strategy HE-2.3.9 Review Impact Fees. To ensure that impact fees are not a constraint on the development of housing, the City will:
 Review and revise impact fees by researching surrounding jurisdictions to determine other possible fee structures, grant funding opportunities and similar funding sources, review of average persons per unit at higher densities of development and will consider:
67 CC 05-14-2024
67 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐34
o Alternatives, such as privately owned, publicly accessible (POPA) areas, or allowing parkland credit for pedestrian connections and trails. o Incorporating priority processing, granting fee waivers or deferrals for 100 percent affordable projects, and modifying development standards,
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Finance; City Manager’s Office, Department of Community Development – Housing and
Planning Divisions
Timeframe: Review current fees by December 2025, revise based on research outcome by June 2026.

Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: Through revised fees or fee alternatives, facilitate the development of 500 units affordable to lower-income households, 300 units affordable to moderate-income households, and 500 units affordable to above moderate-income households.

Strategy HE-2.3.10 Extremely Low-Income Housing
The City will continue to encourage the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-income households particularly for seniors, victims of domestic violence, and persons with disabilities (including persons with developmental disabilities), through a variety of actions. The development of housing for extremely low-income households will be facilitated citywide, but priority will be given to areas with currently low percentages of renteroccupied households to facilitate housing mobility and integration of ownership and rental units, including the Monta Vista North neighborhood.

Additionally, priority will be given to areas with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the city’s north side.
 Provide financing assistance using the Below-Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
 Review available State and Federal NOFAs on an annual basis and support funding applications for affordable housing projects as funding becomes available.
 Adopt a priority processing procedure for projects with extremely lowincome units within one year of Housing Element adoption. 68 CC 05-14-2024
68 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐35
 Grant reductions in off-street parking as required by density bonus law and other state statutes.
 Expand regulatory incentives for the development of units affordable to extremely low-income households and housing for special-needs groups, including persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), and individuals and families in need of emergency/transitional housing.

The City will work with developers and evaluate additional proposed development standards reductions for projects that include housing for extremely low-income households, and will present findings and proposed code amendments to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption within nine months of identified findings.
 Partner with 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 bond.
 Amend the Zoning Code to define single-room occupancy (SRO) units and allow them in the R4 zoning districts with a use permit, in compliance with Government Code Section 65583(c)(1).

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Adopt zoning code amendments within 18 months after Housing Element adoption. Ongoing, as projects are processed by the Planning Division. By June 2025 outreach to organizations that support extremely low-income residents to understand funding needs, and review and prioritize local funding at least twice in the planning period, and support expediting applications as they are submitted. Annually coordinate to address and identify the needs and inform developers of available funding and incentives. Present findings and proposed code amendments for adoption within nine months of identified findings.

Funding Sources: BMR AHF, CDBG, HOME, LIHTC.

Objectives: Assist 250 extremely low-income households to reduce overpayment and displacement risk for special-needs groups, as identified in the program.
(Formerly HE-2.3.8)
69 CC 05-14-2024
69 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐36
Strategy HE-2.3.11 Assistance for Persons with Developmental Disabilities. To increase housing mobility opportunities and support persons with developmental disabilities, the City will:
 Provide referrals to the San Andreas Regional Center to inform families with persons with developmental disabilities of the resources available to them.
 Continue to support the development of small group homes that serve developmentally disabled adults; adopt a policy to establish priority processing and offer fee waivers or deferrals within one year of Housing Element adoption.
 Work with the nonprofit community to encourage the inclusion of units for persons with developmental disabilities in future affordable housing developments.
 Encourage housing providers to pursue funding sources designated for persons with special needs and disabilities and notify housing providers of available funding opportunities as they become available. Offer technical assistance to project developers on funding applications.  Encourage housing providers to designate a portion of new affordable housing developments for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities, to increase housing mobility opportunities and pursue funding sources designated for persons with special needs and disabilities.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing; Meet with disability providers by December 2025 and annually coordinate with regional offices and developers to pursue housing opportunities and help facilitate the development of housing for persons with disabilities. Adopt priority processing and fee deferral/waiver policy within one year of Housing Element adoption.

Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: 10 housing units for persons with disabilities to reduce displacement risk. Prioritize areas with high risk for
displacement, such as the South Blaney neighborhood, and areas with higher concentrations of residents with disabilities, such as 70 CC 05-14-2024
70 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐37
the Rancho Rinconada and Fairgrove neighborhoods, as sites become available.

Strategy HE-2.3.12 Live/Work Units. Encourage the development or conversion of affordable live/workspace units to reduce displacement of residents and employees, specifically when replacing older strip mall type developments along busier streets (e.g., S. De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard) to preserve the more urban and mixed-use character of the street. This would allow the street frontage to remain commercial use while the residential portion of the units would be located towards the rear of the site or in upper floors.

The City will also help to market the Homeownership Assistance Programs offered by Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) in an effort to expand affordable homeownership options.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Conduct outreach to commercial property owners by June 2025. .

Adopt any required zoning amendments by December 2025.

Annually monitor applications and modify program if required.

Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: 10 live-work units to reduce displacement risk. Prioritize development in areas with high risk for displacement, such as the South Blaney neighborhood.
71 CC 05-14-2024
71 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐38
GOAL HE-3 STABLE AND PHYSICALLY SOUND RESIDENTIAL

NEIGHBORHOODS
Policies
Policy HE-3.1 Housing Rehabilitation. Pursue and/or provide funding for the acquisition/rehabilitation of housing that is affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Actively support and assist nonprofit and forprofit developers in producing affordable units. (Formerly Policy HE-3.1)
Policy HE-3.2 Maintenance and Repair. Assist lower-income homeowners and rental property owners in maintaining and repairing their housing units. (Formerly Policy HE-3.2)
Policy HE-3.3 Conservation of Housing Stock. The City’s existing multifamily units provide opportunities for households of varied income levels. Preserve existing multifamily housing stock, including existing duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, by preventing the net loss of multifamily housing units upon remodeling, with new development and the existing inventory of affordable housing units that are at risk of converting to market-rate housing. (Formerly Policy HE-3.3)
Strategies
Strategy HE-3.3.1 Residential Rehabilitation. The City will continue to:
 Use 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:
o Acquisition/rehabilitation of rental housing.
o Rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing.
 Provide assistance for home safety repairs and mobility/accessibility improvements to income-qualified owner-occupants using CDBG funds.

The focus of this strategy is on the correction of safety hazards.  Partner with 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.
72 CC 05-14-2024
72 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐39
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing/annually publish RFPs to solicit projects. Provide information on the City’s website as funding is available.

Funding Sources: BMR AHF, CDBG, HOME, LIHTC
Objectives: 100 households assisted with home safety repairs and mobility/accessibility improvements. Target outreach in areas with higher rates of older housing stock, including the South Blaney neighborhood, as well as higher rates of households with disabilities, such as the Fair Grove neighborhood.
(Formerly HE-3.3.1)
Strategy HE-3.3.2 Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units. Beardon Drive (8 units), WVCS Transitional Housing (4 units), and Sunny View West (100 units), as well as several below-market rate (BMR) units are considered at risk of converting to market-rate housing in the next 10 years. For units at risk of converting to market rate, the City shall:
 Contact property owners of units at risk of converting to market-rate housing three years before affordability expiration to discuss the City’s commitment to preserve these units as affordable housing.  Coordinate with owners of expiring subsidies to ensure the required notices to tenants and to affordable housing developers are sent out at 3 years, 12 months, and 6 months or otherwise as required by state law.  Reach out to agencies and to nonprofit housing developers interested in purchasing or otherwise preserving at-risk units.
 Work with tenants and other organizations to reduce displacement and refer residents to an agency that can assist in providing alternative housing, if preservation is not possible. Ensure that tenants have received all required notices and other information regarding conversion procedures.  The City will further monitor its affordable for-sale inventory by ordering title company lot books, reviewing property profile reports, and updating its 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. To help further preserve the City’s affordable housing stock, 73 CC 05-14-2024
73 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐40
the City may consider providing assistance to rehabilitate and upgrade the affordable units as well.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: Annually monitor status of affordable projects to ensure noticing is provided as required per California law. In addition, contact property owners and tenants of at-risk project, at least three years in advance of potential conversion date to provide time for conservation. and to avoid displacement of current tenants.

Funding Sources: BMR AHF, CDBG, HOME
Objectives: Preserve existing affordable housing units in the City’s BMR inventory and attempt to preserve rental units at risk of loss. (Formerly HE-3.3.2)
Strategy HE-3.3.3 Condominium Conversion. The existing Condominium Conversion Ordinance regulates the conversion of rental units in multifamily housing development to preserve the rental housing stock. Condominium conversions are not allowed if the rental vacancy rate in Cupertino and certain adjacent areas is less than 5 percent at the time of the application for conversion and has averaged 5 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.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Monitor annually and as projects come forward.

Funding Sources: None required
Objectives: N/A
(Formerly HE-3.3.3)
Strategy HE-3.3.4 Multifamily Housing Preservation Program. When a proposed development or redevelopment of a site would cause a loss of multifamily housing, the City will grant approval only if:
74 CC 05-14-2024
74 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐41
 The project will comply with the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual;
 The number of units provided on the site is at least equal to the number of existing units;
 Adverse impacts on displaced tenants, in developments with four or more units, are mitigated; and
 The project replaces existing units at the same or deeper affordability, with the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and comparable square footage to the units demolished and provides displaced tenants with right of first refusal to rent new comparable units at the same rent as demolished units.

The City will review the program biannually and revise as needed; if revisions are needed, they will be adopted within one year of determination of need. In addition, indirect displacement may be caused by factors such as increased market rents as areas become more desirable. 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 lowerincome residents as appropriate.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, as projects come forward. Review program biannually; if revisions are needed, adopt revisions within one year of determination of need.

Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: Prevent displacement of 50 households during the Housing Element period.
(Formerly HE-3.3.4)
Strategy HE-3.3.5 Park Land Ordinance The City will review and revise its Park Land Ordinance to reduce any potential constraints on residential development while maintaining access to quality open space. The City will review requirements for higher-density projects and evaluate the possibility of open space credits.
75 CC 05-14-2024
75 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐42
Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development and Cupertino Department of Public Works, Development Services Division
Timeframe: Review by December 2025, revise by June 2026.

Funding Sources: General Fund
Objectives: Facilitate the development of 350 units of housing affordable to lower-income households and 100 units affordable to moderateincome households by removing constraints, as needed.

Strategy HE-3.3.6 Tenant Protections. 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.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: Complete a study by December 2025; present implementing ordinance to Council by June 2026.

Funding Sources: General Fund
Objectives: Present an implementation plan for a rent stabilization or tenant protection ordinances to City Council. Prevent displacement of 100 households during the Housing Element period and work with relevant stakeholders to establish tenant protection and/or a rent stabilization to ensure protection for renters, as appropriate based on findings.

Strategy HE-3.3.7 Monitor Nongovernmental Constraints Impeding Residential Development.

The City will monitor residential developments that have been approved by the City and where building permits or final maps have not been obtained, the City will make diligent efforts to contact applicants to discover why units have not been constructed within two years after approval. If due to nongovernmental constraints, such as rapid increases in 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 reduce or remove these constraints. Additionally, the City will proactively work 76 CC 05-14-2024
76 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐43
with stakeholders to identify nongovernmental constraints or other considerations that may impede the construction of housing in Cupertino and work collaboratively to find strategies and actions that can eliminate or reduce identified constraints.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Timeframe: Monitor two years after project approval, implement as needed.

Funding Sources: General Fund
77 CC 05-14-2024
77 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐44
GOAL HE-4 ENERGY AND WATER CONSERVATION
Policies
Policy HE-4.1 Energy and Water Conservation. Encourage energy and water conservation in all existing and new residential development.
(Formerly Policy HE-4.1)
Strategies
Strategy HE-4.1.1 Enforcement of Title 24. The City will continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation and will evaluate using some of the other suggestions as identified in the Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Building Division
Timeframe: Ongoing, as projects come forward.

Funding Sources: None required.
(Formerly HE-4.1.1)
Strategy HE-4.1.2 Sustainable Practices. The City will continue to implement the Landscape Ordinance for water conservation and the Green Building Ordinance (adopted in 2013) that applies primarily to new residential and nonresidential development, additions, renovations, and tenant improvements of 10 or more units. 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 10 units to exceed the minimum requirements of the California Green Building Code. The 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.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Building Division
Timeframe: Ongoing; consider further incentives in Fiscal Year 2024-25 to encourage green building practices in smaller developments Funding Sources: None required.
(Formerly HE-4.1.2)
78 CC 05-14-2024
78 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐45
Strategy HE-4.1.3 Sustainable, Energy-Efficient Housing. The City will work with and support housing developers to develop sustainable, energy-efficient housing.

Such development should include solar panels, green roofs, energy-efficient lighting, and other features that aim toward carbon-neutral impacts while lowering energy costs.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Building Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: None required, as projects come forward.

Objectives: Facilitate the development of energy-efficient measures in all projects, approximately 2,000 units over the Housing Element period.

Strategy HE-4.1.4 Water and Wastewater Priority. Consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 65589.7 (Senate Bill 1087), 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.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Building Division
Timeframe: Forward the Housing Element following adoption.

Funding Sources: None required.
79 CC 05-14-2024
79 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐46
GOAL HE-5 SPECIAL SERVICES FOR LOWER-INCOME AND SPECIALNEEDS HOUSEHOLDS Policies
Policy HE-5.1 Lower-Income and Special-Needs Households. Support organizations that provide services to lower-income and special-need households in the city, such as persons experiencing homelessness, extremely low-income households, seniors, large households, persons with disabilities, and singleparent households. (Formerly Policy HE-4.1)
Strategies
Strategy HE-5.1.1 Emergency Shelters. The City commits to complying with the requirements of AB 2339 regarding emergency shelters. As part of this compliance, the City will:
 Continue to facilitate housing opportunities for special-needs persons by allowing emergency shelters as a permitted use, without discretionary review in the R4 zoning district and continuing to permit emergency shelters in the Quasi Public (BQ) zoning district.
 Amend the definition of emergency shelters to include other interim interventions, including but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care.
 Amend the Zoning Code to allow emergency shelters as a permitted use, without discretionary review, in the new R4 zoning district.  Review and revise managerial standards, consistent with State law.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Ongoing; amend the Zoning Code by December 2024. Review and revise standards by June 2025 and amend the Zoning Code as needed.

Funding Sources: None required
(Formerly HE-5.1.1)
80 CC 05-14-2024
80 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐47
Strategy HE-5.1.2 Supportive Services for Lower-Income Households and Persons with Special Needs. The City will continue to use its Below-Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF), 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.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: Through the annual Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process, allocate CDBG, BMR AHF, and HSG funding to
organizations that cater to the needs of lower-income and specialneeds households.

Funding Sources: BMR AHF, CDBG, HSG.

Objectives: Facilitate the provision of supportive services to 1,500 residents over the Housing Element period. Funding will be used to facilitate services citywide, but extra focus will be given to areas with historically higher areas of income segregation, such as the areas along the Interstate 280 corridor, in the areas abutting 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.
(Formerly HE-5.1.2)
Strategy HE-5.1.3 Rotating Safe Car Park. The City will continue to support the operation of a Rotating Safe Car Park program in collaboration with local nonprofit service providers, such as West Valley Community Services.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: None required.

Objectives: Support the operation of a rotating safe car park program to serve at least 100 unhoused community members who are living in their vehicles.
(Formerly HE-5.1.3)
81 CC 05-14-2024
81 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐48
Strategy HE-5.1.4 Low-Barrier Navigation Center and Supportive Housing. The City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow supportive housing and low-barrier navigation centers for the homeless by right in mixed-use and nonresidential zoning districts where multifamily uses are permitted, per Government Code Sections 65650 et seq. and 65660 et seq.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Amend the Zoning Code by June 2025.

Funding Sources: None required.

Strategy HE-5.1.5 Residential Care Facilities. The Zoning Ordinance now allows residential care facilities for six clients or fewer to be treated as a single-family use consistent with California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Sections . The City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow larger residential care facilities that operate as a single housekeeping unit in all zones that permit residential uses, with objective standards similar to those applied to other residential uses permitted in that zoning district.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Amend the Zoning Code by June 2025.

Funding Sources: None required.

Strategy HE-5.1.6 Manufactured Homes. The City will 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 conventional or stick-built structures are permitted.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division
Timeframe: Amend the Zoning Code by June 2025.

Funding Sources: None required.
82 CC 05-14-2024
82 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐49
GOAL HE-6 EQUAL ACCESS TO HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
Policies
Policy HE-6.1 Housing Discrimination. The City will work to eliminate on a citywide basis all unlawful discrimination in housing with respect to age, race, sex, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic background, medical condition, or other arbitrary factors, so that all persons can obtain decent housing. (Formerly Policy HE-6.1)
Policy HE-6.2 Housing Equity Education. The City will work to create opportunities for public education around the issue of housing equity and education about the history of racial segregation to build community and raise awareness. This should include more opportunities for community dialogue and shared experiences. Outreach about these programs will be conducted citywide, but extra focus will be given to areas where long-term patterns income segregation may be more prevalent, such as the areas along the Interstate 280 corridor, areas abutting the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard (the western edge of Creston-Pharlap neighborhood), and along Miller Avenue north of Creekside Park.

Strategies
Strategy HE-6.1.1 Fair Housing Services. The City will continue to:
 Partner with a local fair housing service provider, such as Project Sentinel, to provide fair housing services, which include outreach, education, counseling, and investigation of fair housing complaints.  Partner with a local fair housing service provider, such as Project Sentinel, to provide direct services for residents, landlords, and other housing professionals. Among other things, this should address issues related to the use of HUD-VASH vouchers, so that veterans may use such vouchers without discrimination.
 Partner with a local fair housing service provider, such as Project Sentinel, to assist individuals with housing problems such as discrimination and rental issues including repairs, and provide information and counseling regarding rights and responsibilities under California tenant landlord law.

Additionally, provide annual training to landlords on fair housing rights and responsibilities with the intent of reducing, or eliminating, discrimination.
83 CC 05-14-2024
83 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐50
 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.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: Continue to partner with a local fair housing service provider, such as Project Sentinel, to provide fair housing services on an ongoing basis, and conduct citywide outreach at least twice during the Housing Element cycle. Provide annual fair housing trainings for landlords.

Funding Sources: BMR AHF; CDBG
Objectives: Distribute fair housing materials at two community events per year. Assist five households per year in obtaining fair housing counseling services. Fair housing outreach will be conducted citywide, but extra focus will be given to areas with higher potential for income segregation due to zoning patterns, such as the areas along the Interstate 280 corridor, in the areas abutting the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard (in the western edge of the CrestonPharlap neighborhood), and along Miller Avenue north of Creekside Park.
(Formerly HE-6.1.1)
Strategy HE-6.1.2 Affirmative Marketing. The City will work with affordable housing developers to ensure that affordable housing is affirmatively marketed to households with disproportionate housing needs, including Hispanic and Black households who work in and live outside of Cupertino (e.g., materials in Spanish and English, distributed through employers).

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: None required
84 CC 05-14-2024
84 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐51
Objectives: Housing staff will identify at least 50 local employers, in collaboration with Economic Development staff, to develop a distribution list for marketing materials. Outreach will be conducted citywide, but extra marketing efforts will be requested of developers working in or around areas with historically higher areas of potential income segregation, such as the areas along the Interstate 280 corridor, in the areas abutting the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard (in the western edge of the Creston-Pharlap
neighborhood), and along Miller Avenue north of Creekside Park.

Strategy HE-6.1.3 Housing Mobility. Work with a local fair housing service provider, such as Project Sentinel, to contact rental property owners and managers of multifamily apartment complexes to provide fair housing information and assistance. This outreach will include promoting the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program to landlords that have not previously participated in the program and will target use of multi-lingual materials. Target additional outreach to higher-income neighborhoods, including, but not limited to, the Monta Vista and Height of the City neighborhoods.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
Timeframe: At least twice during the planning period.

Funding Sources: BMR AHF; CDBG
Objectives: Promote housing mobility and expanded opportunity for 100 lower income households.

Strategy HE-6.1.4 Housing Project Coordinator. To support the implementation of the multiple new and expanded housing programs and policies identified in the Housing Element, assign a member of City staff as the housing project coordinator. This position would assist with developing outreach programs, writing and pursing grant applications, ongoing monitoring of affordable housing production, preservation and rehabilitation, coordination between affordable housing developers, the City, and partner agencies and tracking progress on the many initiatives identified in this Housing Element.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Housing Division
85 CC 05-14-2024
85 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐52
Timeframe: By 2025
Funding Sources: General Fund
86 CC 05-14-2024
86 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐53
GOAL HE-7 COORDINATION WITH REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, LOCAL

SCHOOL DISTRICTS, AND COLLEGES
Policies
Policy HE-7.1 Coordination with Local School Districts. The Cupertino community places a high value on the excellent quality of education provided by the three public school districts that serve residents. To ensure the long-term sustainability of the schools, teachers, and faculty, in tandem with the preservation and development of vibrant residential areas, the City will continue to coordinate with the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD), Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD), and Santa Clara Unified School District (SCUSD).
(Formerly Policy HE-7.1)
Policy HE-7.2 Coordination Regional Efforts to Address Housing-Related Issues.

Coordinate efforts with regional organizations, including Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), as well as neighboring jurisdictions, to address housing and related quality of life issues (such as air quality and transportation). (Formerly Policy HE-7.2)
Policy HE-7.3 Public-Private Partnerships. Promote public-private partnerships to address housing needs in the community, especially housing for the workforce. (Formerly Policy HE-7.3)
Strategies
Strategy HE-7.3.1 Coordinate with Outside Agencies and Organizations. The City recognizes the importance of partnering with outside agencies and organizations in addressing local and regional housing issues. These may include, but are not limited to, the following:
 School districts
 De Anza College
 Housing providers
 Neighboring jurisdictions
 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
 Air Quality Management District
87 CC 05-14-2024
87 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐54
 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)
Specifically, the City will meet with these agencies/organizations periodically to discuss the changing needs, development trends, alternative approaches, and partnering opportunities.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding Sources: None required.
(Formerly HE-7.3.)
Strategy HE-7.3.2 Coordination with Local School Districts. To ensure the long-term sustainability of public schools, teachers, and faculty, in tandem with the preservation and development of vibrant residential areas, the City will coordinate biennially with the local school districts and colleges to identify housing needs and concerns. The City will discuss potential partnerships for affordable housing developments for school district employees and college students, including on school district properties, on a biannual basis.

Depending on the outcome of these discussions with school districts and college leadership, the City will notify districts and partner developers about relevant funding opportunities as they become available, coordinate technical assistance on grant applications and offer other incentives listed in Strategy HE-1.3.11.

Responsibility: Cupertino Department of Community Development Planning Division and Housing Division
Timeframe: Biennially meet with school districts. Provide information about funding opportunities as they become available, coordinate technical assistance and incentives as needed.

Funding Sources: None required.
88 CC 05-14-2024
88 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐55
Objectives: Assist with the development of 25 teacher/school district employee housing units to improve housing mobility opportunities for district staff and promote place-based revitalization. Focus will be given to areas with lower rates of renter households, such as the Monta Vista North neighborhood.

QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Quantified objectives estimate the number of units likely to be constructed, rehabilitated, or conserved/preserved by income level during the planning period based on optimal implementation of each program. The quantified objectives do not set a ceiling on development; rather, they set a target goal for the jurisdiction to achieve based on needs, resources, and constraints. Each quantified objective is detailed by income level, as shown in Table H-2, Quantified Objectives Summary.

Table H-2 Quantified Objectives Summary
Strategy
Income Category Total
Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
New Construction
HE-1.3.1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions 596 597 687 755 1,953 4,588 HE-1.3.2: Rezoning to Achieve RHNA 596 597 687 755 1,953 4,588 HE-1.3.3: New Residential Zoning Districts and Land Use Designations 75 75 150 200 100 600 HE-1.3.4: Development on Non-Vacant Sites 100 100 100 100 100 500 Strategy HE-1.3.5: Encourage Mixed-Use Projects and Residential in Commercial Zones 150 150 300 600
Strategy HE-1.3.6: Encourage Missing-Middle Housing Developments to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing 50 75 125 250 500 Strategy HE-1.3.7: Lot Consolidation 10 17 48 75
Strategy HE-1.3.8: Accessory Dwelling Units 5 10 25 10 10 60 Strategy HE-1.3.9: Review Development Standards 25 25 125 150 500 825 Strategy HE-1.3.10: Innovative and Family-Friendly Housing Options 50 50 100 200 Strategy HE-1.3.12: Support Affordable Housing Development 100 100 250 450 Strategy HE-2.3.1: Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program 20 20 40 Strategy HE-2.3.2: Residential Housing Mitigation Program 50 50 150 250 Strategy HE-2.3.3: Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) 25 25 50
Strategy HE-2.3.4: Housing Resources 10 10 30 50
Strategy HE-2.3.6: Incentives for Affordable Housing Development 400 250 650 Strategy HE-2.3.7: Density Bonus Ordinance 200 300 500
89 CC 05-14-2024
89 of 1197
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING ELEMENT | General Plan (community vision 2015 ‐ 2040) H‐56
Table H-2 Quantified Objectives Summary
Strategy
Income Category Total
Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
Strategy HE-2.3.8: Review Impact Fees 75 100 325 300 500 1,300 Strategy HE-2.3.9: Review Parking Standards 250 250
Rehabilitation
Strategy HE-3.3.1: Residential Rehabilitation 150 50 200 Strategy HE-3.3.5: Park Land Ordinance 50 50 250 100 450 Preservation
Strategy HE-2.3.10: Assistance for Persons with Developmental Disabilities 5 5 10
Strategy HE-2.3.11: Live/Work Units 10 10
Strategy HE-3.3.2: Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units 209 209 Strategy HE-3.3.6: Rent Control Ordinance 25 25 25 25 100 Strategy HE-4.1.3: Sustainable, Energy-Efficient Housing 100 100 300 500 1000 2000 Strategy HE-5.1.2: Supportive Services for Lower-Income Households and Persons with Special Needs 200 300 600 400 1500
Strategy HE-5.1.3: Rotating Safe Car Park 100
Strategy HE-6.1.1: Fair Housing Services 3 2
Strategy HE-6.1.2: Affirmative Marketing 25 25
Strategy HE-6.1.3: Housing Mobility 20 30 50
Strategy HE-7.3.2: Coordination with Local School Districts 25 Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023
90 CC 05-14-2024
90 of 1197
mobility 5
91 CC 05-14-2024
91 of 1197
1 Introduction
Cupertino’stransportation system is multi-faceted. It integrates walkways, sidewalks, bicycle routes, bus transit facilities, local streets, major roadways and freeways into a single, integrated system that supports the city’s high quality of life. At the local level,thisincludesfacilities that connect neighborhoods with pedestrian, bicycle and automobile routes. Longer distance connectionsinclude linksto major boulevards, expressways, commuter rail and the regional freeway system.

This Element includes goals, policies and strategiesthat the City will use in making decisions regarding transportation network improvements needed to accommodate Cupertino’s anticipated growth. The purpose for this Element isto implementstrategies that make alternative modes of transportation attractive choices. This will help reduce strain on the automobile network and improve health and quality of life for Cupertino residents and businesses.

CONTENTS:

M-2 Introduction
M-3 Context
Regional Transportation
Planning
Link between Land Use and
Transportation
Complete Streets
Greenhouse Gases and
Transportation
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Performance Measurement
Transportation Network
M-12 Looking Forward
M-13 Goals and Policies
Regional Coordination
Complete Streets
Walkability and Bikeability
Transit
Safe Routes to Schools
Vehicle Parking
Transportation Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Air Quality
Roadway System Efficiency
Transportation Infrastructure
92 CC 05-14-2024
92 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-3

CONTEXT
Cupertino’s circulation system was developed mostly in a suburban and autooriented pattern during the 1950s and 1960s. Over the years, the City has enhanced its roadway infrastructure with a system of bike lanes, trails, bridges, better sidewalks and publicly accessible connections in new development.

Cupertino is also served by many important regional transportation facilities such as Highway 85, Interstate 280, Lawrence Expressway, and bus transit service provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).

The community anticipatesreductions in auto traffic impacts, enhancementsto the walking and biking environment, improvements to existing transit service, and connections to key transit nodes including Caltrain. As such, the goals in this Element respond to current conditions and present policies to adequately address future change.

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Cupertino’s local transportation infrastructure is supplemented by regional facilities and services through agencies such as the VTA, the local congestionmanagement agency, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Bay Area’sregional transportation authority, and Caltrans, the State Department of Transportation. Each agency has a long-term plan consisting of policies and projects which are connected to the operational success of Cupertino’s local transportation network. Key projects for these agencies include:
• Interchange Improvements at Interstate 280/Highway 85 (MTC–Plan Bay Area)
• Stevens Creek Bus Rapid Transit (MTC–Plan Bay Area)
Regional transit service primarily includes bus lines operated by VTA that run along the city’s major corridors, including Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard and Wolfe Road, and portions of Homestead Road, Stelling Road and Tantau Avenue. Regional facilities include a bus transit station at De Anza College and within the Vallco Shopping District. As new development projects are proposed, the City will continue to identify opportunities for improvements to bus stop facilities, such as the new Apple Campus 2 area at Wolfe Road, Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue and the Main Street project at Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard.
93 CC 05-14-2024
93 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-4
A relatively new trend in regional commute transportation is the implementation of private bus and shuttle services to connect workers and major employers throughout the Bay Area. While currently this activity is not regulated or organized among these employers, it is beneficial in the regional effort to reduce the reliance on Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOVs).

The One Bay Area Grant Program is a new funding approach that better integrates the region’s federal transportation program with California’s landmark climate change law (Assembly Bill 32, 2006) and Sustainable Communities Strategy program (Senate Bill 375, 2008). Funding distribution to the counties considers progress toward achieving local land use and housing policies by:
• Supporting the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area by promoting transportation investments in Priority Development Areas(PDAs); and
• Providing a higher proportion of funding to local agencies and additional investment flexibility to invest in bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local streets and roadway preservation and planning activities, while also providing specific funding opportunities for Safe Routes to School (SR2S) and Priority Conservation Areas.

The goals and policies included in this Element and the Land Use and Community Design Element seek to take advantage of regional planning and funding efforts. They implement strategies that encourage the location of future growth in Cupertino’s Priority Development Areas along Stevens Creek Boulevard and portions of De Anza Boulevard, and by advocating forimproved service and improvements to regional infrastructure.

LINK BETWEEN LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
In order to maintain and enhance the quality of life for Cupertino residents and businesses, it is important to ensure that future growth does not overwhelm the transportation network, identify ways to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and improve the health of our community. Land use and mobility policies included in the General Plan seek to do so by working together to focus future growth along major mixed-use corridors and within PDAs. Mobility policies also seek to improve the walking/biking environment and enhance transit to ensure that the transportation network is accessible to people of all ages and abilities, including 94 CC 05-14-2024
94 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-5
school children, the disabled and the elderly. These policies also promote connectivity between neighborhoods and services, and between key nodes in order to reduce reliance on the automobile as the sole mode of transportation.

COMPLETE STREETS
The California Complete Streets Act (2008) places the planning, designing and building of “Complete Streets” into the larger planning framework of the General Plan by requiring jurisdictions to plan for multi-modal transportation networks. Complete Streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, the disabled, motorists, seniors, users of public transportation and movers of commercial goods. These networks allow people to effectively travel to key destinations within their community and the larger region. In addition, all transportation projects should be evaluated as to their ability to improve safety, access and mobility for all travelers and recognize pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes as integral elements of their transportation system.

Cupertino has already begun the work of reviewing the existing street network and looking for new opportunities to improve alternative modes of transportation through the construction of sidewalks, walking paths, bike lanes, trails and bridges across pedestrian barriers, such as the Don Burnett Bridge at Mary Avenue. The goals and policies in this Element seek to continue the work of making enhancements to the transportation network to encourage all modes of transportation.

GREENHOUSE GASES AND TRANSPORTATION
A major challenge of today is meeting the energy needs of a growing population while also protecting air quality and natural resources. The majority of greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector. A 2010 inventory of Cupertino’s communitywide emissions shows that transportation accounts for almost 41 percent of community-wide emissions. Therefore, reducing the number of automobile trips, particularly from single-occupancy vehicles, can provide the greatest benefit in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Cupertino.

The goals and policies in this Element work in tandem with other General Plan policies to address issues of sustainability, health and air quality by taking 95 CC 05-14-2024
95 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-6
advantage of opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Low-carbon fuels, new and improved vehicle technologies, and land use strategies and infrastructure improvementsto reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled can reduce transportation-related emissions significantly.

PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS
Cupertino has made considerable strides improving walkability and bikeability with new or improved bike lanes, sidewalks and pedestrian connections.

However, many older commercial areas and neighborhoods continue to lack a pedestrian and bike-friendly environment where students can safely walk and bike to school, and families can walk or bike to parks and nearby community facilities and shopping. This was a consistent theme expressed by participants during public workshops conducted as part of the General Plan Amendment.

Areas are generally considered walkable if people can safely walk to schools, parks and services within a half mile (less than10-14 minutes) distance. A bikefriendly city provides a network of streets and paths where people can bike safely and conveniently to community facilities, employment and shopping. The goals and policies of this Element, along with the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan and Pedestrian Plan, seek to further improve and enhance the walking and biking environment through capital improvement projects, development review, and retrofitting existing facilities within older commercial areas and neighborhoods. Figure M-1 identifies existing and planned improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the city.

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
Senate Bill 743 (2013) created a process to change the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The process helps achieve the State’s goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic-related air pollution, promotes the development of a multi-modal transportation system, and provides clean, efficient accessto major destinations.

Specifically, the law requires an alternative to automobile level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts. Particularly within areas served by transit, alternative criteria are required to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multi-modal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.
96 CC 05-14-2024
96 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-7
Like many cities, Cupertino has used LOS as a performance measure to evaluate traffic impacts. Historically, this has led cities to focus entirely on improvements to auto infrastructure, often to the detriment of other modes of transportation.

Consistent with State law, this Element seeks to look at performance measures that balance the needs of all modes of transportation, including automobile, walking, biking and transit. Such new measures can range from looking at vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a measure of balancing land uses to reviewing seconds of delay for all travel modes as a measure of impacts to traffic. This will allow the City to develop and maintain a Transportation Improvement Plan that includes pedestrian, bicycle, transit and automobile network enhancements, and Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures to improve efficiency of the network.

TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Cupertino’s transportation network consists of a variety of street types and pathways. The network determines not only how various land uses are connected but also the modes of transportation used by people to access them. Table M-1 definesthe variousstreet types and paths in terms of their character, adjoining current and future land uses, modes of travel that they currently support, and improvements needed to enhance access for all modes of transportation.

Close alignment of the City’s Capital Improvement Program with Community Vision 2040 priorities will allow the City to strategically plan and direct resources to develop this multi-modal transportation infrastructure. Figure M-2 showsthe geographical locations of the major roadways.
97 CC 05-14-2024
97 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-8
FIGURE M-1
CURRENT (2014) AND PROPOSED

BICYCLE NETWORK
RAINBOW Legend
City Boundary
Heart of the City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Bike Lanes on Street
* Note: see Complete Streets policy for implementation Bike Paths Off Street Bike Route
Right of Way Public Access
N

HOMESTEAD ROAD

BUBB ROAD

STELLING RD
De ANZA BLVD

BLANEY AVE

WOLFE RD
98 CC 05-14-2024
98 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

MANAGEMENT (TSM)
TSM is an approach to congestion mitigation that identifies improvements to enhance the capacity of existing roadways through better operations. These techniques help improve traffic flow, air quality and movement of vehicles and goods, as well as enhance system accessibility and safety. TSM strategies are low-cost and effective, and typically include: intersection and signal improvements; data collection to monitor system performance; and/or special events management strategies.

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND

MANAGEMENT (TDM)
TDM seeks to reduce travel demand (specifically that of single-occupancy car) by encouraging other modes of travel through requirements and/or incentives. TDM strategies typically include:
commute trip reduction programs; parking policies; and/or incentives to take transit or other modes of transportation.
99 CC 05-14-2024
99 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-10
Table M-1: Street Typology
Type Mode(s) of
Transportation Guidelines
Freeway Limited access, part of a regional and/or State network subject to State design standards.

Expressway Limited access,regional and part of a county network subject to County design standards.

Boulevard (Arterial)
Access and safe crossing for all modes of travel along a regional transportation corridor. May include medians to separate directional travel.

City or multi-jurisdictional design standards apply.

Main Street Balances all modes of transportation, includes on-street parking and connectsto highly pedestrian-oriented uses. Vehicular performance measures may be lowered to prioritize walking and biking.

Avenue
(Major and Minor Collector)
Connectorthat distributestripsto commercial and residential areas from boulevards, and provides balanced levels of service for auto, bikes and pedestrians.

Neighborhood Connector Primarily serves and connects neighborhoods and neighborhood services, and facilitates safe walking and biking. May contain elements of Avenues including landscaped median or bus service.

Residential Street Provides access to low-intensity residential uses, prioritizes walking and biking, and are typically good candidates for traffic calming.

Regional Pedestrian/
Bike Pathway
Part of regional network providing high quality pedestrian and bike paths to connect to other regional destinations.

Local Pedestrian/Bike Pathway Connects to regional network but part of local infrastructure, provides quality pedestrian and bike paths connecting local destinations. 100
CC 05-14-2024
100 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-11
Los Altos Sunnyvale
280
85 LAZANZEO DR
Santa Clara

ALVES DR

STEVENS CREEK BLVD

VOSS AVE
McCLELLAN
ROAD

PACIFICA DR

KIRWIN LN
San Jose
Stevens Creek
Reservoir

RAINBOW
Saratoga
DRIVE
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Freeway and Expressways
Boulevards (Arterials)
Avenues (Major Collectors)
Avenues (Minor Collectors)
Neighborhood Connectors
Main Street
N 0 0.5 1 Mile
0 1000 2000 3000 Feet
0 500 1000 Meters
FIGURE M-2

CIRCULATION NETWORK

MIRA VISTA RD

LINDA VISTA DR

MANN DR ORANGE AVE

BUBB ROAD

MARY AVE

STELLING RD
De ANZA BLVD

VISTA DR

BLANEY AVE

WOLFE RD

HOMESTEAD ROAD
101
CC 05-14-2024
101 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-12

LOOKING FORWARD
Maintaining Cupertino’s great quality of life – including convenient access, clean air, and reduced traffic – requires careful management of growth. The City will identify waysto locate appropriate land uses along major mixed-use corridors, improving overall access and connectivity, enhancing the attractiveness of nonvehicular transportation modes, and reducing demand on the roadway network.

The following are ways the City will address key challenges and opportunities facing Cupertino:
1 BETTER LINKAGES BETWEEN LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION.

How we use our land directly impacts our transportation facilities, modes of travel and vice versa. A primary cornerstone of Community Vision 2040 is to focus growth on major mixed-use corridors; support alternate modes of transportation including walking, biking and transit; and encourage a mix of compatible and complementary uses on key sites. These strategies will allow the City to manage growth with reduced traffic, air quality and greenhouse gas impacts.
2 IMPROVED REGIONAL COORDINATION.

The City should continue to participate in regional projects and infrastructure planning to ensure consistency with local planning, and pursue funding for City transportation projects.
3 ENHANCED CONNECTIVITY.

A key objective of the City is to improve connectionsthrough streetscape and pathway improvements to ensure that the community enjoys easy walking and biking access to services including parks, schools and shopping. Otherstrategies seek to supplement existing modes of transportation such as community shuttles through partnerships and agreements and providing links between key transportation nodes. 4 REDUCED DEMAND.

The strategies in this Element seek to reduce demand on the City’s roadway infrastructure through careful land use planning, encourage alternative modes of transportation and utilize best practices in Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation Systems Management (TSM).
102
CC 05-14-2024
102 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-13
GOAL M-1
Actively participate in regional planning
processesto coordinate local planning and
to advocate for decisions that meet and
complement the needs of Cupertino

REGIONAL COORDINATION
Regional transportation and land use decisions affect the operation of the transportation network in Cupertino. A key consideration of the General Plan isfor the City to participate in regional planning initiatives in orderto coordinate local improvements with regional initiatives, advocate for Cupertino’s needs, and take advantage of programsthat can support Cupertino’stransportation infrastructure.

POLICY M-1.1: REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Participate in regional transportation
planning processes to develop
programs consistent with the goals and
policies of Cupertino’s General Plan
and to minimize adverse impacts on
the City’s circulation system. Work with
neighboring cities to address regional
transportation and land use issues of
mutual interest.

POLICY M-1.2: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT

ANALYSIS
Evaluate new development and
redevelopment projects pursuant to the
City’s adopted Transportation Study
Guidelines evaluation criteria.

STRATEGIES:

M-1.2.1: VMT Thresholds
New development and redevelopment projects shall meet the VMT thresholds and reduction strategies described in the Cupertino Municipal Code.

M-1.2.2: Citywide VMT Reduction
Establish a framework for reducing VMT at
the citywide scale. These measures may
include, but are not limited to:
• Working with Valley Transit Authority
to increase bus frequency and speed
throughout Cupertino.
• Unbundling parking costs from
property costs.
• Developing a fair-share cost program
for Silicon Valley Hopper or car share
initiatives for development projects.
• Implementing market pricing for
parking spaces throughout the city.
• Limiting parking supply.
• Discouraging single occupancy vehicle
travel.
• Implementing a citywide bikeshare
program.
103
CC 05-14-2024
103 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-12
M-1.2.3: Project-Level VMT Reduction
Develop a framework of project-level VMT reduction
measures for new development and redevelopment
projects in the city that exceed the City's adopted VMT threshold. These VMT reduction measures may include,
but are not limited to:
• Requiring the preparation and implementation of a
TDM program appropriate to the project's scale.
• Requiring contributions to a fair-share cost program
for transit, shuttle, or car share programs.
• Requiring a Behavioral Intervention Program to
provide individualized transportation information
for project occupants.
• Requiring an on-site car share program.

M-1.2.4: VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program
Establish a VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program. This
program shall fund the construction of facilities
throughout Cupertino that support the reduction of
VMT per service population impacts from new
development and redevelopment projects.

Participate in the development of
new multi-modal analysis methods and impact
thresholds as required by Senate Bill 743. However,
until such impact thresholds are developed, continue
to optimize mobility for all modes of transportation
while striving
to maintain the following intersection Levels of
Service (LOS) at a.m. and p.m. peak traffic hours:
• Majorintersections: LOS D
• Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard: LOS
E+
• Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road: LOS E+
• De Anza Boulevard and Bollinger Road: LOS E+
POLICY M-1.3: REGIONAL TRAIL DEVELOPMENT
Continue to plan and provide for a
comprehensive system of trails and pathways
consistent with regional systems, including the Bay
Trail, Stevens Creek Corridor and Ridge Trail.
104
CC 05-14-2024
104 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-15
GOAL M-2
Promote improvementsto city streetsthat

COMPLETE STREETS
Complete Streets policies encourage the design ofstreetsthat respond to the needs of all members of the community, balance different modes of transportation, promote the health and well-being of the community, and support environmental sustainability.

POLICY M-2.1: STREET DESIGN
Adopt and maintain street design
standards to optimize mobility for
all transportation modes including
automobiles, walking, bicycling and
transit.

POLICY M-2.2: ADJACENT LAND USE
Design roadway alignments, lane
widths, medians, parking and bicycle
lanes, crosswalks and sidewalks
to complement adjacent land uses
in keeping with the vision of the
Planning Area. Strive to minimize
adverse impacts and expand
alternative transportation options
for all Planning Areas (Special Areas
and Neighborhoods). Improvement
standards shall also consider
the urban, suburban and rural
environments found within the city.

STRATEGIES:

M-2.2.1: Rural Road Improvement
Standards.

Consider candidate rural roads and
develop specific street improvement
standards that preserve the rural
character of these streets. Rural
roads would typically feature natural
landscaping, no sidewalks and narrow
unpaved shoulders.

M-2.2.2: Semi-Rural Road Improvement
Standards.

Consider candidate semi-rural roads
where curb and gutterimprovements,
and no sidewalks, are appropriate.
105
CC 05-14-2024
105 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-14
M-2.2.3: Urban Road Improvement
Standards.

Develop urban improvement
standards for arterials such
as Stevens Creek and De Anza
Boulevards. In these areas,standards
may include wide sidewalks, tree
wells, seating, bike racks and
appropriate street furniture.

M-2.2.4: Suburban Road Improvement
Standards.

Develop suburban road improvement
standards for all streets not
designated as rural, semi-rural or in
the Crossroads Area.

POLICY M-2.3: CONNECTIVITY
Promote pedestrian and bicycle
improvements that improve
connectivity between planning areas,
neighborhoods and services, and
foster a sense of community.

STRATEGIES:

M-2.3.1: Inter Block Connectivity.

Require new development and
redevelopment to provide interblock connectivity to allow improved access to all sites on the block from
secondary streets, access to the
street network via controlled
intersections, minimize conflicts with
pedestrian and bicycle traffic on
primary streets, and convenient
access for service vehicles.

POLICY M-2.4: COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Reduce traffic impacts and support
alternative modes of transportation
rather than constructing barriers
to mobility. Do not close streets
unless there is a demonstrated
safety or over-whelming through
traffic problem and there are no
acceptable alternatives since street
closures move the problem from
one street to another.

POLICY M-2.5: PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY
Ensure all new public and private
streets are publicly accessible to
improve walkability and reduce
impacts on existing streets.

POLICY M-2.6: TRAFFIC CALMING
Consider the implementation of best
practices on streets to reduce speeds
and make them user-friendly for
alternative modes of transportation,
including pedestrians and bicyclists.
106
CC 05-14-2024
106 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-17
GOAL M-3

WALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITY
Walkability and bikeability policies encourage a livable, healthy,sustainable and connected city with a safe and comfortable pedestrian network among its various neighborhoods, parks,trails, employment centers, community facilities, neighborhood centers and commercial centers.

POLICY M-3.1: BICYCLE AND

PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and
Pedestrian master plan, which outlines
policies and improvements to streets,
extension of trails, and pathways to
create a safe way for people of all ages
to bike and walk on a daily basis, and
as shown in Figure M-1.

POLICY M-3.2: DEVELOPMENT
Require new development and
redevelopment to increase
connectivity through direct and safe
pedestrian connections to public
amenities, neighborhoods, shopping
and employment destinations
throughout the city.

POLICY M-3.3: PEDESTRIAN AND

BICYCLE CROSSINGS
Enhance pedestrian and bicycle
crossings and pathways at key
locations across physical barriers such
as creeks, highways and road barriers.

POLICY M-3.4: STREET WIDTHS
Preserve and enhance citywide
pedestrian and bike connectivity by
limiting street widening purely for
automobiles as a means of improving
traffic flow.

POLICY M-3.5: CURB CUTS
Minimize the number and the width of
driveway openings.
107
CC 05-14-2024
107 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-16
STRATEGIES:

M-3.5.1: Shared Driveway Access.

Encourage Require property
owners to use shared driveway
access and interconnected roads
within blocks, where feasible.

Require driveway access
closures, consolidations or both
when a site is remodeled or
redeveloped.

M-3.5.2: Direct Access from Secondary
Streets.

Encourage Require propertiesy with
frontages on major and secondary
streets to provide direct pedestrian
and vehicular accessto driveways from
the secondary street.

POLICY M-3.6: SAFE SPACES FOR

PEDESTRIANS
Require parking lots to include
clearly defined paths for pedestrians
to provide a safe path to building
entrances.

POLICY M-3.7: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM
Plan for improvements to pedestrian
and bicycle facilities and eliminate
gaps along the pedestrian and bicycle
network as part of the City’s Capital
Improvement Program.

POLICY M-3.8: BICYCLE PARKING
Require new development and
redevelopment to provide public and
private bicycle parking.

POLICY M-3.9: OUTREACH
Actively engage the community in
promoting walking and bicycling
through education, encouragement
and outreach on improvement projects
and programs.

POLICY M-3.10: PROACTIVE

ENFORCEMENT
Prioritize enforcement of traffic
speeds and regulations on all streets
with bike lanes, bike routes, and
around schools.
108
CC 05-14-2024
108 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-19
GOAL M-4
Promote local and regional transit that
is efficient, frequent and convenient and
reduces traffic impacts

TRANSIT
Transit policies encourage planning and coordination of regional and local transit services, both public and private, to accommodate diverse community needs and to make transit a safe, comfortable and efficient option POLICY M-4.1: TRANSIT AGENCIES
Coordinate with VTA to improve
transportation service, infrastructure
and access in the city, and to connect
to transportation facilities such as
Caltrain and VTA light rail stations.

POLICY M-4.2: LOCAL TRANSPORTATION

SERVICES
Create or partner with transit
providers, employers, educational
institutions, and major commercial
entitiesto minimize gaps within local
transportation services.

POLICY M-4.3: CONNECTING SPECIAL
AREAS
Identify and implement new or
enhanced transitservicesto connect
all Special Areas as identified in
Figure PA-1 (Chapter 2: Planning
Areas).

POLICY M-4.4: TRANSIT FACILITIES

WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT
Work with VTA and/or major
developments to ensure all new
development projects include
amenities to support public transit
including bus stop shelters, space for
transit vehicles as appropriate and
attractive amenities such as trash
receptacles, signage, seating and
lighting.
109
CC 05-14-2024
109 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-18
POLICY M-4.5: ACCESS TO TRANSIT

SERVICES
Support right-of-way design and
amenities consistent with local transit
goals to improve transit as a viable
alternative to driving.

POLICY M-4.6: BUS AND SHUTTLE

PROGRAMS
Work with large regional employers
and private commuter bus/shuttle
programs to provide safe pick-up,
drop-off, and park and rides in order to
reduce single occupancy vehicle trips.

POLICY M-4.7: VALLCO SHOPPING

DISTRICT TRANSFER STATION
Work with VTA and/or other
transportation service organizations
to study and develop a transit transfer
station that incorporates a hub for
alternative transportation services
such as, car sharing, bike sharing and/
or other services.

POLICY M-4.8: MICRO-TRANSIT
Continue to support a local micro-transit
option, such as the Silicon Valley Hopper
or similar service.
110
CC 05-14-2024
110 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-21
GOAL M-5

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
Safe routesto schools policies protect the safety ofschool children and promote health, environmental sustainability and social interaction. They leverage local, regional and national Safe Routes to Schools Program resources to support increased walking and bicycling to schools.

POLICY M-5.1: SAFE ROUTES TO

SCHOOLS
Promote Safe Routes to Schools
programs for all schools serving the
city.

STRATEGIES:

M-5.1.1. Coordination with School
Districts.

Coordinate with the School Districts
to develop plans and programsthat
encourage car/van-pooling, stagger
hours of adjacent schools, establish
drop-off locations, and encourage
walking and bicycling to school.

M-5.1.2. Teen Commission.

Encourage the Teen Commission to
work with schools to encourage yearround programsto incentivize walking and biking to school.

POLICY M-5.2: PRIORITIZING PROJECTS
Ensure that bicycle and pedestrian
safety improvementsinclude projects
to enhance safe accessibility to
schools.

POLICY M-5.3: CONNECTIONS TO TRAILS
Connect schools to the citywide trail
system.

POLICY M-5.4: EDUCATION
Support education programs that
promote safe walking and bicycling to
schools.
111
CC 05-14-2024
111 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-20
GOAL M-6
Promote innovative strategiesto provide
efficient and adequate vehicle parking

VEHICLE PARKING
Vehicle parking policies encourage efficient and adequate parking, avoid negative effects on the pedestrian environment or surrounding neighborhoods, and support the City’s goals for Complete Streets, walkability, bikeability and effective transit.

POLICY M-6.1: PARKING CODES
Maintain efficient and updated parking
standards to ensure that development
provides adequate parking, both onstreet and off-street depending on the characteristics of the development,
while also reducing reliance on the
automobile.

POLICY M-6.2: OFF-STREET PARKING
Ensure new off-street parking is
properly designed and efficiently used.

POLICY M-6.3: UNBUNDLED PARKING
Where required by State law, require
residential, commercial, and office uses
to unbundle parking. Encourage
commercial and office uses to unbundle
parking.
112
CC 05-14-2024
112 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-23
GOAL M-7
transportation including automobiles,

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Transportation Impact Analysis policies enable effective, informed transportation planning by using a more balanced system of indicators, data and monitoring to evaluate the city’s multi-modal transportation system and optimize travel by all transportation modes.

POLICY M-7.1: MULTI-MODAL

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Follow guidelines set by the VTA
related to transportation impact
analyses, while conforming to State
goals for multi-modal performance
targets.

POLICY M-7.2: PROTECTED

INTERSECTIONS
Consider adopting a Protected
Intersection policy, which would
identify intersections where
improvements would not be
considered, which would degrade
levels of service for non-vehicular
modes of transportation. Potential
locations include intersections in
Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
and other areas where non-vehicular
transportation is a key consideration,
such as, near shopping districts,
schools, parks and senior citizen
developments.
113
CC 05-14-2024
113 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-22
GOAL M-8

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITY
Greenhouse gas emissions and air quality policies in this Element work in tandem with other General Plan policies to reduce municipal and community-wide greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality throughout Cupertino.

POLICY M-8.1: GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONSTRANSPORTATION
Promote transportation policies
that help to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.

STRATEGIES:

M-8.1.1. TSM Strategies.

Employ TSM strategies to improve
efficiency of the transportation
infrastructure including strategic rightof-way improvements, intelligent transportation systems and optimization
of signal timing to coordinate traffic
flow.

M-8.1.2. Major and Large Employers.

Require major and large employers,
including colleges and schools, to
develop and maintain TDM programs to
reduce vehicle trips generated by their
employees and students and develop a
tracking method to monitor results.

M-8.1.3. TDM Ordinance.

Develop and adopt a TDM ordinance
to reduce vehicle trips with specific
implementation actions for all
development projects and a
monitoring and reporting program to
ensure implementation.

POLICY M-8.2: LAND USE
Support development and
transportation improvementsthat help
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
reducing per service population
capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT),
reducing impacts on the City’s
transportation network
and maintaining the desired levels of
service for all modes of transportation.

STRATEGIES:

M-8.2.1. Design of New Development.

Require new development to include
114
CC 05-14-2024
114 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-23
shared amenities that encourage the use of transit, bicycling, or walking as alternative modes of transportation.

M-8.2.2. Pedestrian Activity.

Require new development to provide
pedestrian pathways to entrances, and
orient buildings and entrances to the
street, to encourage pedestrian activity.

M-8.2.3. Commercial Development.

Require new commercial developments
to provide shared office facilities,
cafeterias, daycare facilities,
lunchrooms, showers, bicycle parking,
home offices, shuttle buses to transit
facilities and other amenities that
encourage the use of transit, bicycling
or walking as commute modes to work.

M-8.2.4. Residential and Mixed-Use
Development.

Require new residential or mixed-use
developments to provide shared bicycle
parking and bike repair stations at
locations close to entrances.

POLICY M-8.36: ALTERNATIVE FUEL

CHARGING STATIONS
Develop a city-wide strategy to
encourage the construction of a
network of public and private
alternative fuel vehicle charging/
fueling stations.

POLICY M-8.3: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (TSM)

PROGRAMS
Employ TSM strategies to improve
efficiency of the transportation infrastructure including strategic right-of-way improvements, intelligent transportation systems and optimization ofsignal timing to coordinate traffic flow.

POLICY M-8.4: TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)

PROGRAMS
Require large employers, including
colleges and schools, to develop and maintain TDM programs to reduce vehicle trips generated by their employees and students and develop a tracking method to monitor results.
115
CC 05-14-2024
115 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-24
POLICY M-8.5: DESIGN OF NEW

DEVELOPMENTS
Encourage new commercial
developmentsto provide shared office
facilities, cafeterias, daycare facilities,
lunchrooms,showers, bicycle parking,
home offices, shuttle buses to transit
facilities and other amenities that
encourage the use of transit, bicycling
or walking as commute modes to
work. Provide pedestrian pathways
and orient buildings to the street to
encourage pedestrian activity.
116
CC 05-14-2024
116 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-25
D USE AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER ELEMENT | cupertino community vision 2040 GOAL M-9
Promote effective and efficient use of the
city's transportation network and services

ROADWAY SYSTEM EFFICIENCY
Roadway system efficiency policies make effective use of roadway capacity by encouraging strategic roadway improvements and complementary policies promoting transit, walking, bicycling and complete streets.

POLICY M-9.1: EFFICIENT AUTOMOBILE

INFRASTRUCTURE
Strive to maximize the efficiency of
existing infrastructure by locating
appropriate land uses along
roadways and retrofitting streets
to be accessible for all modes of
transportation.

POLICY M-9.2: REDUCED TRAVEL
DEMAND
Promote effective TDM programs for
existing and new development.

POLICY M-9.3: STREET WIDTH
Except as required by environmental
review for new developments, limit
widening of streets as a means of
improving traffic efficiency and focus
instead on operational improvements
to preserve community character.

STRATEGIES:

M-9.3.1. Wolfe Road Overcrossing.

Consider alternate designs for the
Wolfe Road/I-280 Interchange (e.g.,
from partial cloverleaf design to
diamond design) when evaluating
the need to widen the freeway
overcrossing.

M-9.3.2. Streetscape Design.

When reviewing the widening of an
existing street, consider aesthetically
pleasing enhancements and amenities
to improve the safe movement of
pedestrians and bicyclists in keeping
with the vision of the Planning Area.

CHAPTER 3: LAN
117
CC 05-14-2024
117 of 1197
CHAPTER 5: MOBILITY ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) M-26
GOAL M-10
modes of transportation and that projects

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Transportation infrastructure policies promote safe, attractive and wellmaintained facilities for walking, bicycling, transit and automobiles.

POLICY M-10.1: TRANSPORTATION

IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Develop and implement an updated
citywide transportation improvement
plan necessary to accommodate
vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
transportation improvements to meet
the City’s needs.

POLICY M-10.2: TRANSPORTATION

IMPACT FEE
Ensure sustainable funding levels for
the Transportation Improvement Plan
by enacting a transportation impact
fee for new development.

POLICY M-10.3: MULTI-MODAL

IMPROVEMENTS
Integrate the financing, design and
construction of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities with street projects. Build
pedestrian and bicycle improvements
at the same time as improvements
for vehicular circulation to enable
travelersto transition from one mode
of transportation to another (e.g.,
bicycle to bus).

POLICY M-10.4: ROADWAY

MAINTENANCE FUNDING
Identify and secure new funding
sourcesto fund the on-going routine
maintenance of roadways.
118
CC 05-14-2024
118 of 1197
Appendix A: Land Use Definitions

LANDUSECATEGORIES
Patterns and symbols, defined on the map legend, are used on the Land Use Map to identify land use categories, the road system, major land features and significant public and private facilities. The following is a description of each land use category:

RESIDENTIAL
This designation identifies Aareas suitable for residential dwellings, and is divided into five  nine sub‐categories based on dwelling unit density, which is and expressed as the number of dwellings permitted on each acre. Maximum residential yield is calculated by multiplying the maximum dwelling unit density by the size of the lot in acres, excluding any public rights‐of‐way, in fee or as an easement, other access easements, and easements for creeks and other waterways, or lot area as further defined in the Municipal Code. Accessory dwelling units continue to be permitted as required by State and local laws.

Community Vision 2040 does not define whether the dwellings are to be owned or rented by their inhabitants or whether they are to be attached or detached.

Very Low Density: Intensity is based on applying one of four slope‐density formulas— Foothill Modified, Foothill Modified l/2 Acre, Semi‐Rural 5 acre, or Foothill 5‐20 acre ‐ for each site. This classification is intended to protect environmentally sensitive areas from extensive development and to protect human life from hazards related to flood, fire and unstable terrain.

Low Density: Sites have an established maximum density between 1‐5 and or 1‐6 units (Rancho Rinconada) on each acre and may have a required minimum density. This category is intended to promote a suburban lifestyle of detached single‐family homes.

Planned residential communities can be incorporated into this category if the development form is compatible with adjoining residential development. Duplexes with accessory dwelling units (up to a maximum of four total units) may be permitted per the City’s Housing Element and Municipal Code regulations to support “missing middle” housing types.

Low/Medium Density: Sites have an established density between 5.01‐10 units per acre and may have a required minimum density. This category accommodates more intensive forms of residential development while still being compatible with the predominant single‐family detached residential neighborhood. This development can be successfully incorporated into a single‐family environment.
119
CC 05-14-2024
119 of 1197
Medium Density: Sites have an established maximum density between 10.01‐20 units per acre and may have a required minimum density. This category is intended for smaller‐ scale provides greater opportunity for multiple‐family residential developments, including duplexes, and townhome/rowhouse development in a planned environment.

In addition to high‐demand housing types, such as townhomes, tThis density range provides opportunities for the development of “missing middle” housing types and allows for a gradual transition from existing usually results in traffic volumes and buildings that are not compatible with single‐family residential neighborhoodsuses to higher‐density development. These developments should be located on the edges of single‐family residential communities where utility services and street networks are adequate to serve the increased densities of this category.

Medium/High Density: Sites have an established maximum density between 20.01‐35 units per acre and may have a required minimum density. This category promotes a wide range of housing choices including triplexes/fourplexes, or other multiple‐family dwellingsresidential and townhome development, or a mix thereof. The zoning for the site specifies whether townhomes are permitted to develop with townhomes, with the TH combining district established in the Municipal Code. The intensity requires that the category beis used in corridors with access to services and transit. The development may result in structures with three or four levels and underground parking. This category offers opportunity for housing choice, especially for people who want a more urban environment.

High Density: Greater than Sites have an established maximum density between 35.01‐ 50 units per acre and may have a required minimum density. This category is intended for primarily, promotes a wide range of housing choices in multiple‐family dwellingsresidential development, with some sites, zoning permitting, having the ability to also develop with a small townhome component to allow varied housing choices. The zoning for the site specifies whether townhomes are permitted, with the TH combining district established in the Municipal Code. The intensity requires that the category beis used only at locations with adequate utility services or transit or both. The development may result in structures with three orfourlevels and underground parking. This category offers maximum wide opportunity for housing choice, especially for people who want a more urban environment.

High/Very High Density: Sites have an established maximum density between 50.01‐65 units per acre and may have a required minimum density. This category promotes a wide range of housing choices in primarily multiple‐family or mixed‐use residential developments in urban environments. In some cases, zoning may permit a small component of townhome development to provide varied housing choices with the TH 120
CC 05-14-2024
120 of 1197
combining district established in the Municipal Code. The category is used only at locations with adequate utility services, transit, or both.

Very High Density: Sites have an established maximum density between 65.01‐80 units per acre and may have a required minimum density. This category offers extensive opportunity for housing choice, especially for people who want a more urban environment. The category is used only at locations with adequate utility services, transit, or both.

Highest Density: Sites have an established maximum density between 80.01‐95 units per acre and may have a required minimum density. This category offers maximum opportunity for housing choice, including workforce housing. The category is used only at locations with adequate utility services located adjacent to an office campus environment.

COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL
This designation allows primarily commercial uses and secondarily residential uses or a compatible combination of the two. Commercial use means retail sales or service establishments with direct contact with customers and a sales floor/serving area, businesses, and limited professional offices, andservice establishments with direct contact with customers. This applies to commercial activities ranging from neighborhood convenience stores to regionally oriented specialty stores. Retail stores that would be a nuisance for adjoining neighborhoods or harmful to the community identity would be regulated by the commercial zoning ordinance and use permit procedure. Retail stores do not include businesses that function as a warehouse, provide only pick‐up and drop‐ off services, and/or do not offer direct services or sale of goods.

Smaller commercial parcels in existing residential areas may be needed to provide local neighborhood serving retail; otherwise, they may be redeveloped at residential densities compatible with the surroundingsidentified in the land use map.

The residential density for each sub‐category is identified below. 100% residential development is allowed on sites with a General Plan land use designation of Commercial/Residential, if at least 40% of the total units are affordable, with at least 20% of the total units affordable to lower income households. Residential development is subject to the numerical caps and other policies described in the development priorities tablesFigure LU‐2 and the land use map. In the event of a conflict between Figure LU‐2 and the land use map, the residential density would be the greater of the two.

Commercial/Residential Low/Medium Density: This category allows mixed‐use development with commercial uses and an established maximum residential density 121
CC 05-14-2024
121 of 1197
between 5.01‐10 units per acre by site, in addition to possibly having a required minimum residential density. Development in this category promotes low to medium intensity residential development within walking distance to local/neighborhood serving commercial uses.

Commercial/Residential Medium Density: This category allows mixed‐use development with commercial uses, and an established maximum residential density between 10.01‐20 units per acre by site, in addition to possibly having a required minimum residential density. Development in this category should promote housing choices for “missing‐middle” housing and smaller‐scale multiple‐family residential, combined with commercial development. The intensity allows for a gradual transition from existing single‐family residential uses to higher‐density development.

Commercial/Residential Medium/High Density: This category allows mixed‐use development with commercial uses and an established maximum residential density between 20.01‐35 units per acre by site, in addition to possibly having a required minimum residential density. Development in this category promotes commercial development combined with a range of housing choices for people who want a more urban environment, with either multiple‐family residential or townhome development, or a mix thereof. In some cases, zoning may permit a small component of townhome development to provide varied housing choices with the TH combining district established in the Municipal Code. The intensity requires that the category generally be used in corridors with access to services and transit.

Commercial/Residential High Density: This category allows mixed‐use development with commercial uses, and an established maximum residential density between 35.01‐ 50 units per acre by site, in addition to possibly having a required minimum residential density. Development in this category is intended primarily for multiple‐family residential. In some cases, zoning may permit a  component of townhome development to provide varied housing choices with the TH combining district established in the Municipal Code. The intensity requires that the category be used only at locations with adequate utility services or transit or both. This category offers a wide opportunity for housing choice, especially for people who want to live in an urban environment.

Commercial/Residential High/Very High Density: This category allows mixed‐use development with commercial uses, and an established maximum residential density between 50.01‐65 units per acre by site, in addition to possibly having a required minimum residential density. Development in this category promotes commercial development with a wide range of housing choices in primarily multiple‐family residential development. In some cases, zoning may permit a small component of townhome development to provide varied housing choices with the TH combining 122
CC 05-14-2024
122 of 1197
district established in the Municipal Code. The intensity requires that the category be used only at locations with adequate utility services, transit, or both.

Commercial/Residential Very High Density: This category allows mixed‐use development with commercial uses, and an established maximum residential density between 65.01‐80 units per acre by site, in addition to possibly having a required minimum residential density. Development in this category offers maximum opportunity for housing choice, especially for people who want a distinctly urban environment. The intensity requires that the category be used only at locations with adequate utility services, high‐quality, transit, or both.

NEIGHBORHOODCOMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL
Neighborhood Commercial is a subset of the Commercial land use designation. This category includes retail activities, personal services, and limited commercial offices that serve primarily the residents of adjacent neighborhoods. Residential living units may shall only be allowed as upper floor uses or behind the permitted non‐residential component of live/work units.

MONTAVISTANEIGHBORHOODLANDUSEDESIGNATION
Residential: The Monta Vista neighborhood has three four density ranges, which allow flexibility in allowing single family, duplex and/or multi‐family housing types. The four density ranges establish the maximum residential density for sites located in each of the designations and are identified on the General Plan Land Use map. 123
CC 05-14-2024
123 of 1197
Housing Element Technical Report

APPENDIX
B
124
CC 05-14-2024
124 of 1197
125
CC 05-14-2024
125 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B‐i
Table of Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... B-1

1.1 Role and Content of the Housing Element .................................................................... B-1

1.2 Housing Element Technical Report Organization .......................................................... B-2

1.3 Consistency with The General Plan .............................................................................. B-2 Appendix B1 – Public Participation
Appendix B2 –Housing Needs Assessment
Appendix B3 –Fair Housing Assessment
Appendix B4 – Housing Resources and Opportunities
Appendix B5 – Housing Constraints and Energy Conservation Appendix B6 – Review of Previous Housing Element
126
CC 05-14-2024
126 of 1197
127
CC 05-14-2024
127 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B‐1

1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Cupertino is a community with a high quality of life, a renowned school system, and a robust high-technology economy. The long-term vitality of Cupertino and the local economy depend on the availability of all types of housing to meet the community’s diverse housing needs. As Cupertino looks towards the future, increasing the range and diversity of housing options will be integral to the city’s success. Consistent with the goal of being a balanced community, this Housing Element continues the City’s commitment to ensuring new opportunities for residential development, as well as for preserving and enhancing our existing neighborhoods.

This 2023-2031 Housing Element represents the City of Cupertino’s intent to plan for the housing needs of the Cupertino community while meeting the State’s housing goals, as set forth in Article 10.6 of the California Government Code. The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every Californian as the State’s major housing goal. The Cupertino Housing Element represents a sincere and creative effort to meet local and regional housing needs within the constraints of a fully established built-out community, limited land availability, and extraordinarily high costs of land and housing.

1.1 ROLE AND CONTENT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
This Housing Element is a comprehensive eight-year plan to address the housing needs in Cupertino.

The Housing Element is the City’s primary policy document regarding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population.

Per State Housing Element law, the document must be periodically updated to:
 Outline the community’s housing production objectives consistent with State and regional growth projections;
 Describe goals, policies, and implementation strategies to achieve local housing objectives;  Examine the local need for housing with a focus on special-needs populations;  Identify adequate sites for the production of housing serving various income levels;  Analyze potential constraints to new housing production;  Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other General Plan elements; and  Evaluate Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

This 6th Cycle Housing Element covers an eight-year planning period, from January 31, 2023, through January 31, 2031, and replaces the City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element that covered the January 31, 2015, through January 31, 2023, planning period.
128
CC 05-14-2024
128 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B‐2

1.2 HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT ORGANIZATION
The Housing Element Technical Report, Appendix B, includes the following sections:

Appendix B1 – Public Participation: This section summarizes public outreach and engagement efforts, including stakeholder interviews; Housing Element advisory committee meetings; housing commission, planning commission, and City Council workshops and study sessions; community workshops; public hearings; community input received; and noticing of the draft Housing Element.

Appendix B2 – Housing Needs Assessment: This section focuses on demographic information, including population trends, ethnicity, age, household composition, income, employment, housing characteristics, housing needs by income, and housing needs for special segments of the population.

Appendix B3 – Fair Housing Assessment: Includes a Fair Housing Assessment that aims to combat discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.

Appendix B4 – Housing Resources and Opportunities: This section describes Cupertino’s housing resources as well as the city’s existing housing stock and the potential areas for future housing development.

Appendix B5 – Housing Constraints: This section analyzes potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints to housing development. This includes the City’s planning, zoning, and building standards that directly affect residential development patterns as well as influence housing availability and affordability. Potential nongovernmental constraints include the availability and cost of financing housing development, the price of land, and the materials for building homes. This section also discusses opportunities for energy conservation, which can reduce costs to homeowners and infrastructure costs to the City.

Appendix B6 – Review of Previous Housing Element: This section contains an evaluation of the prior Housing Element and its accomplishments and analyzes differences between what was projected and what was achieved.

1.3 CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The City’s 2040 General Plan was adopted in 2014, and the Housing Element has been reviewed for consistency with other General Plan elements. The policies and programs in this Housing Element are consistent with the policy direction contained in other parts of the General Plan. The City will continue to review and revise the Housing Element throughout the planning period, as necessary for consistency, when amendments are made to the General Plan (Strategy HE-1.3.13).

Per Assembly Bill (AB) 162 (Government Code Section 65302.g.3), upon the next revision of the Housing Element on or after January 1, 2014, the Safety Element shall be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire for land classified as state responsibility areas, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code, and land classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, as 129
CC 05-14-2024
129 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B‐3
defined in Section 51177. Senate Bill (SB) 379 (Government Code Section 65302.g.4) requires that the Safety Element be reviewed and updated as necessary to address climate change adaptation and applicable resiliency strategies. SB 1035 (Government Code Section 65302.g.6) requires that the Safety Element be reviewed and updated as needed upon each revision of the Housing Element or local hazard mitigation plan, but not less than once every eight years. SB 99 (Government Code Section 65302.g.5) requires that on or after January 1, 2020, the Safety Element includes information to identify residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two evacuation routes.

As of January 2023, the City is currently working to review and update the existing Safety Element, incorporating all State law changes, including applicable laws and any additional requirements and General Plan guidelines from the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR).
130
CC 05-14-2024
130 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B‐4
This page intentionally left blank.
131
CC 05-14-2024
131 of 1197
Public Participation B.1

APPENDIX
132
CC 05-14-2024
132 of 1197
133
CC 05-14-2024
133 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐i
Table of Contents
B1 Public Participation ............................................................................................ B1-1 B1.1 Bang the Table ............................................................................................................. B1-1 B1.2 Community Workshops ................................................................................................. B1-2 B1.3 City Publications, Listservs, Newsletters, and Other Social Media Outreach ................ B1-3 B1.4 Mailed Outreach ........................................................................................................... B1-4 B1.5 Dedicated AFFH Outreach ............................................................................................ B1-4 B1.6 Tribal Consultation ........................................................................................................ B1-5 B1.7 Additional Outreach ...................................................................................................... B1-5 B1.8 Study Sessions: Sites Inventory ................................................................................... B1-7 B1.9 Focus Group Meetings: Rezoning ................................................................................ B1-8 B1.10 Community Open House: Rezoning .............................................................................. B1-9 B1.11 Public Review and Comments for Draft and Final Housing Element .......................... B1-10 B1.12 Noticing of the Draft Housing Element ........................................................................ B1-14 Tables
Table B1-1 Social Media Outreach................................................................................................. B1-4 134
CC 05-14-2024
134 of 1197
135
CC 05-14-2024
135 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐1
B1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
This section describes the effort made by the City of Cupertino to engage all economic segments of the community (including residents and/or their representatives) in the development and update of the Housing Element. This public participation effort also includes formal consultation, pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3, with representatives from nine Native American tribes that are present and active in Santa Clara County. It is also responsive to Assembly Bill (AB) 686 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing), which requires local jurisdictions, as they update their housing elements, to conduct public outreach to equitably include all stakeholders in the Housing Element public participation program.

The 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation (RHNA) numbers are a sea change for all California communities, and the success of the update process hinged in part on a community outreach and engagement program that was robust, inclusive, and meaningful. COVID-19 has complicated community outreach efforts, but the pandemic has also catalyzed the development of new digital tools that have brought interactive engagement to a new level. One such tool is an all-inone digital community engagement platform called Engagement HQ or Bang the Table (https://www.bangthetable.com/).

B1.1 BANG THE TABLE
The City of Cupertino partnered with Bang the Table as a cornerstone of its community outreach and engagement program. Using this platform, the update team developed an interactive engagement plan that allowed community members to engage on their own time. Components of the interactive engagement plan included:
 Website. Engage Cupertino at https://engagecupertino.org/hub-page/housing-element is a dedicated website that provides a portal to all of the Housing Element-related public engagement activities that are available to members of the public. The page provides translation from English into four languages, including Chinese, Spanish, Russian, and Vietnamese. This website includes information on Housing Element basics, site surveys, a Senate Bill 9 survey, and materials from community workshops.
 Places. The update team gathered feedback from an interactive mapping program called Balancing Act, through the Sites Inventory process.
 Stories. The engagement process helped Cupertino better understand, empathize with, and relate to all who contributed to the many Housing Element discussions through video interaction and reflection opportunities.
 Surveys. The process encouraged Cupertino community members to voice their opinions in a convenient way that also helped City staff understand what areas need more encouragement to participate. Aggregate data also helped the City understand generally who is participating with the outreach tools.
136
CC 05-14-2024
136 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐2
B1.2 COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
The following community workshops were held to connect with stakeholders and Cupertino residents and gather valuable insights that would contribute to the Housing Element update process.  October 13, 2021: West Valley Community Services (WVCS’s) Envisioning an Inclusive Cupertino: Housing Element Town Hall. This event was an opportunity for the Cupertino community to learn about the Housing Element through an informative presentation, and a panel featuring Assemblymember Evan Low, Bianca Neumann from EAH Housing, Nadia Aziz from the Silicon Valley Law Foundation, Matthew Reed from SV@Home, and Mair Dundon, affordable housing resident, and community advocate.  December 9, 2021: Housing Element Update Community Workshop. The workshop was advertised to the public through a variety of efforts. The workshop, held at the height of COVID-19 restrictions, allowed attendees via Zoom. The workshop was live streamed to both the City of Cupertino’s YouTube channel and the Granicus TV channel.  January 24, 2022: Senior Advisory Committee. Staff attended this Committee meeting via Zoom to inform this senior-focused group about the Housing Element update and the community engagement opportunities that would be coming throughout the 2022 calendar year, and to encourage community participation in the update to the maximum extent possible.  April 23, 2022: Earth Day and Arbor Day Festival. City staff attended this day-long event to update and inform the public about the importance of the Housing Element update and the ways the public can participate in the process.
 May 23, 2022: Community Meeting for Inclusive Housing. This workshop was hosted by WVCS. It focused on community dialogue and included a panel of individuals with a variety of backgrounds and life experiences, including former military veterans adjusting to civilian life, individuals on the edge of homelessness, and residents with physical and intellectual disabilities.

Breakout rooms enabled participants to discuss their experiences and how to be engaged with the policy-making process. The workshop was advertised to the public through various efforts, including the City’s e-notification list of over 2,000 individuals and organizations. There were Zoom attendees and in-person attendees, with over 100 attendees in total. The meeting was also livestreamed to the City of Cupertino’s YouTube channel and the Granicus TV channel.  July 20, 2022: Community Meeting to Focus on Needs for Students and Older Adults.

This workshop was also hosted by WVCS and featured a panel of younger and older adults, all of whom deal directly with high housing costs throughout the region, and more breakout room time than in previous meetings. It took place remotely on Zoom. The workshop was advertised to the public through various efforts, again including the City’s e-notification list. The meeting was also live streamed to the City of Cupertino’s YouTube channel and the Granicus TV channel.
137
CC 05-14-2024
137 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐3
 September 26, 2022: Community Meeting to Better Understand Low-Income Homeowners. This workshop was hosted by WVCS and focused on those who own a home in Cupertino but are otherwise low income, and those who work in Cupertino but cannot afford to live in the city and thus face long daily commutes to and from work. The workshop was advertised to the public through various efforts, again including the City’s e-notification list. The meeting was also live streamed to the City of Cupertino’s YouTube channel and the Granicus TV channel.

Cupertino’s community engagement program included an initial presentation to City Council, five community meetings, and online/virtual participation opportunities made possible through Bang the Table (described previously).

B1.3 CITY PUBLICATIONS, LISTSERVS, NEWSLETTERS, AND OTHER SOCIAL

MEDIA OUTREACH
The City released several newsletters to ensure the public was well informed of the Housing Element efforts. This included:
 City newsletters went out initially to 685 email subscribers for the October and December 2021 community workshops. By late 2022, the list had grown to over 2,000 subscribers. Enotifications have been sent to list subscribers for every public meeting.  Newsletters were sent to 1,856 subscribers on February 2, 2022 (Cupertino General News, Housing, or Housing Commission Meetings lists), with a 58 percent open rate and a 5 percent click rate.
 Since early 2022, the City has provided regular, generally monthly, updates on the Housing Element on its two electronic newsletters, Items of Interest and The Scene (also in print).  Social media outreach included Cupertino Facebook, Twitter, NextDoor, and eNotification.

This outreach is summarized in Table B1-1, Social Media Outreach. 138
CC 05-14-2024
138 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐4
Table B1-1 Social Media Outreach
Facebook NextDoor Twitter eNotification
Post 1 – Housing Element
Community Workshop
(11/30/21)
Reach: 453
Engagement: 10
Reach: 1,013
Engagement: 1
Reach: 783
Engagement: 1
Reach: 15,010
Engagement: 594
Post 2 – Workshop Reminder
(12/6/21)
Reach: 303
Engagement: 1
Reach: 656
Engagement: 1
Reach: 1,096
Engagement: 16
Reach: 1,444
Engagement: 118
Source: EMC Planning Group 2022
B1.4 MAILED OUTREACH
January Postcard: Mailed to every residence in the city the week of January 10, 2022, to 23,351 addresses.

This was a city-wide effort to notify all residents of the Housing Element update.

The Cupertino Scene Newsletter: The Cupertino Scene, the City’s official newsletter, is one method the City uses to communicate with residents to ensure the public has access to useful and important information. The Scene is printed every month, except in January and August. A printed version of the newsletter is mailed to more than 20,000 households with extra copies available at City Hall, Cupertino Library, Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, among other spots across Cupertino.

The Scene went out to 23,351 addresses on December 1, 2021, and February 2, 2022. Additional updates were also provided throughout 2022.

The City also sent direct mail to all property owners with sites larger than one half acre and up to 10 acres, consistent with California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidelines regarding potentially eligible housing sites.

B1.5 DEDICATED AFFH OUTREACH
The Cupertino public participation program was very responsive to affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH), which requires local jurisdictions to conduct public outreach to equitably include all stakeholders in the Housing Element public participation program.  Flyer and Survey Distribution at West Valley Community Services (WVCS) Events.

Flyers promoting the Engage Cupertino Housing Element website and a survey were distributed to WVCS clients at several WVCS-sponsored events, including the December 11th Gift of Hope event and a handful of the weekly mobile market events between January and March of 2022. The flyers and surveys were available in English, Spanish, Russian, Vietnamese, and Simplified Chinese. A total of 38 surveys were received.  October 13, 2021: WVCS’s Envisioning an Inclusive Cupertino: Housing Element Town Hall. 139
CC 05-14-2024
139 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐5
 May 23, 2022: Community Meeting for Inclusive Housing.  July 20, 2022: Community Meeting to Focus on Needs for Students and Older Adults.  September 26, 2022: Community Meeting to Better Understand Low-Income Homeowners.  Additional Focus Group Meetings focused on housing for people with disabilities and opportunities for faith-based organizations to contribute to affordable housing.

B1.6 TRIBAL CONSULTATION
This public participation effort includes formal consultation, pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3, with representatives from nine Native American tribes that are present and active in Santa Clara County. All tribal groups have received mailed notices regarding the Housing Element update and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process associated with it.

B1.7 ADDITIONAL OUTREACH
Through the month of August 2023, the following outreach has been done for the Housing Element update. The following list includes public meetings for which notice was provided before the City’s Commissions and Councils, as well as community meetings:
 Mid-January 2022, postcards were mailed to all Cupertino households (to over 23,000 addresses) to inform residents about the Housing Element update and to introduce them to the engagecupertino.org website and the range of information located there.  January 19, 2022: To gauge property owner interest, letters of interest were sent by City staff to over 400 Cupertino property owners whose properties could potentially be viable housing sites per HCD criteria. An online owner interest form was created by the City’s consultant, EMC Planning, and placed on the website. At present, there have been 59 property owners who have requested inclusion of their properties on the sites inventory. Staff did a focused, second mailing in early June to property owners who did not originally respond.  Since December 2021, regular monthly updates on the Housing Element update’s status and next steps have been provided on the City’s Items of Interest and The Scene newsletters.  Social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and NextDoor have been regularly used to inform residents about upcoming Housing Element update meetings.  At present, over 3,700 individuals receive e-notifications from the City for Housing Elementrelated public meetings.  Staff attended the January 24, 2022, Senior Advisory Committee and the March 9, 2022, Block Leaders meetings to provide an overview of the Housing Element update process and to inform meeting attendees about sources of information regarding the update. 140
CC 05-14-2024
140 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐6
 Staff attended the April 23, 2022, Earth and Arbor Day event at Library Park to inform residents and attendees about the Housing Element update and to let residents know that their input is valuable and necessary.
 May 23, 2022: A hybrid community meeting allowing for both virtual and in-person attendance was held at Community Hall. The meeting was coordinated by City staff, EMC Planning and West Valley Community Services (WVCS) and featured four panelists with lived-experience and/or special needs, including development disabilities, prior homelessness, housing insecurity, and adjustments to civilian life following military service. Over 100 people registered to attend the meeting, with approximately 70 participating; three-quarters attended virtually.

This meeting was the first of three focus group community meetings, the second meeting was held on July 25, described below.
 July 25, 2022: Community Meeting focusing on housing-related issues germane to seniors and students. Similar to the May community meeting, approximately 100 people registered for the meeting, which was virtual-only. An upcoming community meeting is scheduled for September 26, focusing on the experiences of Cupertino workers who are priced out of the local housing market and Cupertino homeowners who are lower income despite homeownership.  Community Engagement Plan-Strategic Advisory Committee meetings: an ad hoc committee approved by the City Council on March 8 to focus on community engagement and AFFH issues, met on March 30, April 7 and 25, May 16, June 6, July 25, September 16, and October 28, 2022. E-Notifications were sent out for all eight meetings of the committee.  City Council Study Sessions: Initial study sessions providing a big picture overview of the Housing Element update were held September 28 and November 16, 2021. Council subsequently held meetings on the formation of a Stakeholders Group on March 1 and March 8, 2022, leading to the establishment of the Strategic Advisory Committee. City Council meetings were held on the Sites inventory: August 16, 29, and 30, 2022.  December 9, 2021: a morning Housing Commission study session and evening Community Meeting were held.
 Planning Commission: Study sessions providing an overview of the Housing Element update and, more specifically, on the Sites Inventory, were held on January 25, February 22, April 26, and May 24, 2022. Joint meetings with the Housing Commission were held on June 28 and July 5, 2022, at the conclusion of which both the Planning and Housing Commissions provided recommendations to the City Council on which sites to include on the Housing Sites Inventory.
 June 8, 2022: A meeting with Project Sentinel Executive Director, Carole Conn, and Fair Housing director, Molly Current, was held to discuss fair housing and rental housing issues in Cupertino and countywide.
141
CC 05-14-2024
141 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐7
 July 25, 2023: Study session with City Council on the progress on the Housing Element to date.

In addition, the Council was updated on site selection and policy areas. The Council affirmed the site selection strategy outlined by staff and identified policy areas of interest by a motion that passed on a 4-0-1 vote.

B1.8 STUDY SESSIONS: SITES INVENTORY
City staff held numerous meetings related to the Housing Element update. 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 to select sites at specified densities for a potential housing sites inventory.

At the January 2022 and February 2022 Planning Commission study sessions, staff provided overviews of the housing sites selection process and identified nearly 400 properties citywide that could potentially be placed on the City’s housing sites inventory. The 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 fell within the property size range, 0.5-10 acres, recommended by HCD. The City’s Planning Commission had the 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 should avoid or minimize displacement of existing uses, particularly existing residential uses that would necessitate the relocation of residents; 3) The Housing Element should avoid significantly “up-zoning” 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 countywide.

Based on the Planning Commission’s recommendation, City staff revised the site inventory and presented a reduced, more focused list of potential housing sites at the April 26 Planning Commission meeting. In the revised inventory, potential sites were grouped by neighborhood and special area to better illustrate the locations of the properties. Extensive comments were received at the April 26, 2022, 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 Planning Commission’s 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. Other recommendations also included that the development standards 142
CC 05-14-2024
142 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐8
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.

B1.9 FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS: REZONING
On August 16, 2023, the City held two focus group meetings related to rezoning for the Housing Element update. Over 75 local and national affordable and market-rate housing developers were invited to join the focus group meeting. Nearly 35 service providers, housing organizations, and local agencies were invited to join the focus group meeting for housing advocates and partner agencies.

Focus Group 1: Five housing developers attended, which included representatives from Charities Housing and Bay Area Housing Corporation/local affordable housing developers, Sand Hill Property Company, and Toll Brothers/local and national for-profit developers. The discussion with housing developers focused on housing densities and common obstacles, and potential solutions to building medium- to very high-density residential developments in Cupertino. Participants shared that there are two primary forms of development and densities that are feasible in today’s market – townhome development with a density of approximately 18 to 25 dwelling units per acre and podium development with a density of at least 80 dwelling units per acre. Market-rate developer participants noted that unless a jurisdiction has a large enough site of at least three to four acres that would allow for a mix of densities, it can be difficult to finance and build at the densities found between townhome and podium development. Additional participant suggestions to reduce barriers to development included expediting the permitting process, creating certainty and consistency for review, and allowing more flexibility in project design.

Focus Group 2: Four participants attended, which included representatives from Cupertino Union School District and Fremont Union High School District/local school districts, Silicon Valley Leadership Group/a local housing advocate, and West Valley Community Services/a local social services provider. Participants were asked to provide input on what type of housing or amenities they believe are currently lacking in Cupertino. School district representatives noted that they have been struggling to attract and retain employees and highlighted the need for workforce housing in the area.

They also discussed student generation as it affects current enrollment, pointing out that higherdensity development typically generates fewer students per household than single-family residential or townhome development. The service provider and housing advocate representatives emphasized the need for more affordable units and higher-density development, particularly along transit corridors.

Participants were also asked to identify which amenities, services, or infrastructure they would like to see in new development projects. Participants encouraged the provision of community gathering areas, open space, and on-site social, childcare, youth, and senior services, as well as more mixed-use development and a mix of housing types in each project. 143
CC 05-14-2024
143 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐9
B1.10 COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE: REZONING
In September 2023 the City hosted two community open house events on rezoning. An in-person open house was held on Saturday September 9, from 1:00pm to 3:00pm at the Quinlan Community Center. The second open house was held virtually through Zoom on Thursday, September 14 from 6:00pm to 8:00pm. Both open houses consisted of the same agenda, material, and approach.

Approximately 40 in-person participants and 25 virtual participants attended the open house meetings.

The objectives of the open houses were to educate community members about Housing Element sites and densities; collect feedback about amenities, placemaking features, and development form; and address community questions. Each open house consisted of a presentation on the Housing Element Update, Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and rezoning, followed by a question-andanswer session. Participants had the remainder of the meeting time to share their input and ideas at each of the three open house stations on: (1) Context and amenities, (2) Development types and forms for 25 dwelling units per acre, 50 dwelling units per acre, and 75 dwelling units per acre, and (3) Development standards for proposed density ranges of 25-50 dwelling units per acre and 50-75 dwelling units per acre. Participant feedback from the open house stations is summarized below.

Participants were asked to provide input through a visual preference survey regarding building amenities and placemaking features for new development.

Building Amenities
In-Person and virtual open house participants expressed support for community open spaces and courtyards in new developments. The in-person participants also showed support for retail uses and bicycle storage, and virtual participants supported community space, daycare, and bicycle storage.

Additional ideas from both groups included: aging in place amenities such as community gathering space and medical services; social services; barbecue and picnic areas; recreational space for sports, such as basketball, skateboarding, yoga, martial arts, and roller hockey; space for gardening, dog parks; laundry and storage facilities for residents; and air conditioning.

Placemaking
Participants from the in-person workshop showed strong support for landscape and green infrastructure, followed by active street frontages. In the virtual open house, participants showed the most support for active street frontages and public plazas, followed by equal support of public art, landscaping and green infrastructure, and lighting. Additional ideas from both groups included:
amenities like entertainment, grocery stores, and other social gathering places nearby; bike paths; and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through less parking and sidewalk enhancements, including outdoor dining.
25 Dwelling Units per Acre
Participants favored mixed-use development, followed by townhomes and multi-family projects.

Some participants suggested that mixed-use development should incorporate inviting ground floor design with shops and bistros. Regarding townhome development, participants pointed out that developers are building very similar projects, which can lead to bland designs. They would prefer to see variation in roof lines, building step-backs, vertical articulation on the façade, and vegetation. 144
CC 05-14-2024
144 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐10
Others pointed out concerns about adequate residential parking and townhome design not being senior-friendly or incorporating aging-in-place design techniques. 50 Dwelling Units per Acre
Participants noted preferences for mixed-use and multi-family development for developments, citing mixed-use as tending to be both cost-effective and pleasant. However, one participant noted a preference for a combination of mixed-use and 100% residential projects when in close proximity to one another. Participants also preferred multi-family development design that incorporated variation in colors, materials, and roof lines, plus private and community open space such as balconies and landscaped areas. General comments about development at this density included: concerns that higher density development look “cookie cutter” and should incorporate “personality,”; and that density at this level is too high for Cupertino.
75 Dwelling Units per Acre
The in-person group showed a strong preference for mixed-use development over multi-family. The virtual group had a slight preference for multifamily. Comments from both groups related to mixeduse development included: direct lighting downward and toward building walls to minimize light pollution; require variation in height, rooflines, and color; and provide larger square footage for ground floor tenant spaces; and vegetation. Comments related to multi-family development included:
trees along street frontages; balconies; and variation in height, rooflines, and color. General comments received for development at this density included: concerns that mixed-use can be noisy, so some developments should be designed as residential only; concerns that all higher density developments would look “cookie cutter” and should incorporate “personality”; preference for the highest density possible, even if it means taller buildings, for developments to have lower impact on greenhouse gas emissions and lower vehicle miles traveled through bike and walking amenities as well as less parking; and a note that density at this level is too high for Cupertino.

B1.11 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENTS FOR DRAFT AND FINAL HOUSING

ELEMENT
The City received comments from the public, Cupertino residents, Silicon Valley Young Democrats, Cupertino for All, and Silicon Valley at Home, South Bay YIMBY, and comments received at Cupertino City Council Meetings. Public comments included, but were not limited to, the following topics:
 Include housing strategies to develop more missing-middle housing for the area’s workforce.  Develop incentives including transitional housing on properties owned by public entities.  Consider development of work/live units when replacing strip malls along major transportation corridors.
 Hire a housing program manager to assist with implementing housing programs.  Address fair housing needs to affirmatively further fair housing. 145
CC 05-14-2024
145 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐11
 Ensure sufficient capacity to meet the RHNA that is distributed throughout the city.  Explore increasing housing for the developmentally disabled population and reducing barriers to accessing below-market rate units.
 Reduce constraints to housing development, including parking reductions, reduced building setbacks, reducing park dedication fees, expanding single-family home floor-area ratio (FAR) requirements, and restructuring impact fees.
 Initiate policies and programs focusing on the development of extremely low-income, emergency interim, permanent supportive and transitional housing, housing for De Anza students, and focus on teacher housing for teachers of all academic levels.  Add Tier 2 sites and Assembly Bill (AB) 2011 sites.
 Remove AB 2011 Retail Centers or any additional retail centers.  Partner with local school districts and use underutilized land on school sites.  Include reasonable renter protections, community land trusts, and rental tenant relocation and assistance.
 Approve housing projects that are transit oriented.
 Ensure multifamily housing is encouraged in high opportunity areas.

All comments received were considered and used to inform the revised sites analysis and the assessment of fair housing. Goals, policies, and strategies were included and/or revised to incorporate the feedback received.

Revisions included new and revised strategies to strengthen the city’s commitment to meeting the RHNA, through assistance with the development of non-vacant sites, mixed-use sites, lot consolidation, modifying development standards to ensure maximum densities can be achieved, and creating a new R-4 zoning district and new General Plan Land Use Designation to allow for higher densities than what currently exist in both the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Several revisions were made to the Fair Housing Assessment, including looking at RHNA distribution throughout the city, as well as modifying programs to assist residents with mobility constraints, displacement risk, offering a range of housing types, focusing efforts in high opportunity areas and areas of higher incomes, and to complete a study to determine if a rent control ordinance should be adopted by the City. Specific strategies were also modified to ensure compliance with State law. The City revised the sites inventory to remove sites that were not viable based on their existing uses, and included additional information regarding their redevelopment potential, based on City knowledge and conversations with property owners.

The Draft Element, as revised, remained available on the City’s website during the second submittal to HCD (for 60 days). At this point, comments were received from two members of the public in December 2023 related to revisions made to the initial public draft. One expressed disagreement with the ACS data that was used in the housing needs assessment and felt that it did not match their lived experience as a resident, particularly around the availability of employment opportunities in the city and the number of households earning at or above 100 percent of the AMI, and expressed a desire 146
CC 05-14-2024
146 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐12
for more housing resources to be made available, particularly to combat housing discrimination. The other community member expressed concerns about the availability of power infrastructure and potential traffic conditions and graffiti that the community member feels may result from increased housing development. These comments were considered during subsequent revisions.

In February 2024, prior to submitting the draft to HCD for a third round of review, the City received comments from Cupertino residents, and a member of the City Council. All comments received were considered and responses to the themes are summarized below. The City continues to make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments through direct emails, and posting of the draft on the City’s website.
 Release of the draft Housing Element was not consistent with State Law. o Similar to all other draft releases, consistent with AB 215, the City posted the draft revision on the website and emailed a link to all individuals and organizations that previously requested notices relating to the Housing Element or requested general City news.  Request for additional public outreach.
o There will be at least one meeting with the Housing and Planning Commissions in April 2024 followed by meetings with the City Council in May/June 2024. There will be several community meetings in the spring and summer to discuss rezoning, General Plan and objective design standards in relation to the Housing Element.  Partner with school districts and other organizations to provide downpayment assistance or equity share program to help public agency employees, including the employees of the City of Cupertino, to become homeowners in our community.
o Strategy HE-7.3.2 states that the City will coordinate with local school districts and colleges to identify housing needs and concerns. The City will discuss potential partnerships for affordable housing developments for school district employees and college students, including on school district properties. This ongoing implementation of this program will help to strategize on how to expand housing opportunities for teachers and public employees.
 Remove housing opportunities on school sites.
o Allowing for housing on school sites provides additional housing options for employees.

The City would determine the need based on the implementation of Strategy HE-7.3.2. 147
CC 05-14-2024
147 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐13
 Address the job-housing imbalance and discourage worsening the imbalance by not allowing incentives or waiver of standards or waiver of fees for projects that worsen the job-housing balance.
o The Housing Element identifies over 60 priority housing sites, many at minimum densities of 50 units/acre, to provide much needed housing, particularly affordable units, to address the jobs-housing imbalance that exists in Cupertino and the job-rich northwestern portion of Santa Clara County.
 Prioritize smaller starter for-sale homes to incentivize housing for the Missing Middle. o The missing middle strategies would provide a higher proportion of rental units and townhome densities would allow for starter homes both allowing a product that is more affordable relative to the singe family detached housing that makes up the majority of the City’s current housing stock.
 Strategy HE-1.3.6 should be changed from R3 to R2 (duplexes) to create a better transition for neighborhoods. Allowing R3 zoning allows for the use of density bonus law to eliminate the height, setbacks and parking requirements.
o The R3 zoning standards discussed in the missing middle housing strategy (HE-1.3.6) would not allow more that 4 units on any R1 zoned lot, thus State density bonus law would not be applicable. At present, R1 and R2 lots throughout the City are able to have up to four units, the missing middle strategy would provide an opportunity for housing types, such as triplexes or fourplexes to be developed at neighborhood scale.  Remove the option to waive park dedication fees and construction taxes. o This is a long standing policy and offers a way to remove constraints to the development of affordable housing.

In March 2024 the City revised the third draft of the Housing Element and released it for a 7-day review period prior to submitting revisions to HCD. During the 7-day review period, comments were received from Cupertino Voice and a Cupertino resident. Comments are summarized on the following page.
1- Survey results from 140 residents was provided where most respondents identified the following:
a. The City should hold more public meetings to obtain public input regarding rezoning, specifically considering height, setbacks, parking, and other standards. i. As mentioned previously in B1.10, Community Open House: Rezoning, in September 2023 the City hosted two community open house events on rezoning. The objectives of the open houses were to educate community members about Housing Element sites and densities; collect feedback about 148
CC 05-14-2024
148 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐14
amenities, placemaking features, and development form; and address community questions.
b. The City should not allow corner lots to become multifamily housing. i. In an effort to address the needs of all segments of the community, and to affirmatively further fair housing, City staff created Strategy HE-1.3.6 to address the needs of the missing middle. Additionally, at present, R1 and R2 lots throughout the City are able to have up to four units, the missing middle strategy would provide an opportunity for housing types, such as triplexes or fourplexes to be developed at neighborhood scale.
c. The City should not allow developers to pay a fee or reduce traditional types of parkland requirements.
i. It has been long standing policy in the City to offer a fee waiver for affordable units and developments in a bid to remove constraints to such development.

This updated strategy would allow the City to study the parkland needs for new, denser development types and create requirements and appropriate fees for this kind of development.
d. The City should not allow high density housing on school sites. i. Allowing for housing on school sites provides additional housing options for employees. The City would determine the need based on the implementation of Strategy HE-7.3.2.
2- It was also expressed that outreach should be done prior to adopting the housing element, the City should not allow parkland credit for pedestrian connections and trails, and that Strategy HE-1.3.6, Encourage Missing Middle, is excessive and should be revised. a. See responses under item number 1.

As additional revisions are made to respond to HCD comments, this information will be posted on the City’s website to ensure all members of the public and any interested parties have current information. This process will continue through adoption of the Housing Element.

B1.12 NOTICING OF THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
Per California Government Code Section 65585, the draft Housing Element was made available for public comment for 30 days, from November 18, 2022, to December 23, 2022. Public comment was received, and an additional 10 business days was allowed to consider and incorporate public comments into the draft revision before submitting to HCD on February 3, 2023. The draft was made available on the City’s website.
149
CC 05-14-2024
149 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐15
The City received a findings letter from HCD on May 4, 2023, and revised the draft Housing Element to address the identified findings. The revised draft Housing Element was posted on the City’s website on October 6, 2023 and interested participants were notified of the availability, consistent with State law. The City resubmitted the revised Housing Element to HCD on October 16, 2023. 150
CC 05-14-2024
150 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐16
This page intentionally left blank.
151
CC 05-14-2024
151 of 1197
Housing Needs Assessment B.2

APPENDIX
152
CC 05-14-2024
152 of 1197
153
CC 05-14-2024
153 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐i
Table of Contents
B2 Housing Needs Assessment ........................................................................... B2-1 B2.1 Overview of Bay Area Housing ................................................................................... B2-1 B2.2 Population, Employment, and Household Characteristics ........................................... B2-1 Population Growth .................................................................................................... B2-1 Age ........................................................................................................................... B2-3 Race and Ethnicity .................................................................................................... B2-5 Employment Trends ................................................................................................. B2-6 Extremely Low-Income Households ....................................................................... B2-10 Tenure .................................................................................................................... B2-13 Displacement .......................................................................................................... B2-16 B2.3 Housing Stock Characteristics Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits .... B2-17 Housing in need of Rehabilitation ........................................................................... B2-21 Home and Rent Values .......................................................................................... B2-21 Overpayment and Overcrowding ............................................................................ B2-24 Assisted Housing Developments “At Risk” of Conversion ...................................... B2-31 B2.4 Special Housing Needs ............................................................................................. B2-43 Large Households .................................................................................................. B2-43 Female-Headed Households .................................................................................. B2-45 Seniors ................................................................................................................... B2-46 People with Disabilities ........................................................................................... B2-49 Homelessness ........................................................................................................ B2-52 Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing ....................................................... B2-55 Farmworkers ........................................................................................................... B2-56 Non-English Speakers ............................................................................................ B2-58 154
CC 05-14-2024
154 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐ii
Tables
Table B2-1 Population Growth Trends ........................................................................................ B2-2 Table B2-2 Housing Tenure by Race of Householder for the City and County ......................... B2-15 Table B2-3 Housing Permits by Income Group, 2015 to 2022 .................................................. B2-20 Table B2-4 Inventory of Affordable Housing Units .................................................................... B2-32 Table B2-5 Financial Resources ............................................................................................... B2-37 Table B2-6 Housing Resources for Seniors .................................................................................. B2-48 Table B2-7 Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age ................................................ B2-51 Table B2-8 Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence ...................................... B2-51 Table B2-9 Community Care Facilities in Cupertino, 2023 ........................................................ B2-51 Table B2-10 Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness .............................. B2-55 Table B2-11 Homeless Facilities Near Cupertino ....................................................................... B2-56 Table B2-12 Migrant Worker Student Population ........................................................................ B2-57 Figures
Figure B2-1 Population Growth Trends Chart .............................................................................. B2-3 Figure B2-2 Population by Age, 2000-2019 ................................................................................. B2-4 Figure B2-3 Population Age by Race ........................................................................................... B2-4 Figure B2-4 Population by Race, 2000-2019 ............................................................................... B2-5 Figure B2-5 Jobs in a Jurisdiction ................................................................................................ B2-6 Figure B2-6 Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence .... B2-7 Figure B2-7 Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group ....................................................................... B2-8 Figure B2-8 Jobs-Household Ratio .............................................................................................. B2-9 Figure B2-9 Resident Employment by Industry ............................................................................ B2-9 Figure B2-10 Unemployment Rate ............................................................................................... B2-10 Figure B2-11 Households by Household Income Level................................................................ B2-11 Figure B2-12 Household Income Level by Tenure ....................................................................... B2-12 Figure B2-13 Poverty Status by Race .......................................................................................... B2-13 Figure B2-14 Housing Tenure ...................................................................................................... B2-14 Figure B2-15 Housing Tenure by Race of Householder ............................................................... B2-15 Figure B2-16 Housing Tenure by Age .......................................................................................... B2-16 Figure B2-17 Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure ...................................................... B2-17 155
CC 05-14-2024
155 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐iii
Figure B2-18 Housing Type Trends ............................................................................................. B2-18 Figure B2-19 Housing Units by Year Structure Built .................................................................... B2-19 Figure B2-20 Vacant Units by Type ............................................................................................. B2-20 Figure B2-21 Substandard Housing Issues .................................................................................. B2-21 Figure B2-22 Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units ................................................................. B2-22 Figure B2-23 Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) ............................................................................ B2-23 Figure B2-24 Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units ............................................................. B2-24 Figure B2-25 Median Contract Rent ............................................................................................. B2-25 Figure B2-26 Cost Burden by Tenure .......................................................................................... B2-26 Figure B2-27 Cost Burden by Income Level ................................................................................. B2-26 Figure B2-28 Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................ B2-27 Figure B2-29 Cost Burden by Household Size ............................................................................. B2-28 Figure B2-30 Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level ............................................. B2-29 Figure B2-31 Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ................................................................... B2-30 Figure B2-32 Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity .......................................................... B2-30 Figure B2-33 Overcrowding by Race ........................................................................................... B2-31 Figure B2-34 Household Size by Tenure ..................................................................................... B2-43 Figure B2-35 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms.................................................................. B2-44 Figure B2-36 Household Type ..................................................................................................... B2-45 Figure B2-37 Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status ..................................................... B2-46 Figure B2-38 Senior Households by Income and Tenure ............................................................. B2-47 Figure B2-39 Disability by Type ................................................................................................... B2-49 Figure B2-40 City of Cupertino Homeless Population .................................................................. B2-53 Figure B2-41 Homeless Populations by Race, Santa Clara County ............................................. B2-53 Figure B2-42 Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa Clara County, 2022 ................................................................................................. B2-54 Figure B2-43 Farm Operations and Farm Labor, Santa Clara County ......................................... B2-57 Figure B2-44 Population with Limited English Proficiency ............................................................ B2-58

156
CC 05-14-2024
156 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐iv
This page intentionally left blank.

157
CC 05-14-2024
157 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐1
B2 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This section of the Housing Element Technical Report describes existing housing needs and conditions in the City of Cupertino. The analysis in this section primarily uses data compiled by Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in the “Housing Needs Data Report: Cupertino” (ABAG/MTC, Baird + Driskell Community Planning, April 2, 2021). This data packet was approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

B2.1 OVERVIEW OF BAY AREA HOUSING
The Bay Area is beginning to see a decrease in population and jobs. In the past, population was increasing and housing production was stalled. With the decrease in population drawn to the Bay Area, there may be a decrease in the need for housing units, although the need for affordable housing is higher than ever. For example, in many cities increasing housing costs coupled with the lack of affordable housing options has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer commutes, and fewer people across incomes being able to purchase homes or meet surging rents.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update provides a roadmap for how to meet our growth and housing challenges. Required by the State of California (State), the Housing Element identifies what the existing housing conditions and community needs are, reiterates goals, and creates a plan to ensure there are housing options for all segments of the community. The Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan, which guides the policies of Cupertino.

B2.2 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

POPULATION GROWTH
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth.

According to the data, the population of Cupertino was estimated to be 59,549 in 2020. The population of Cupertino makes up about 3.0 percent of Santa Clara County.1 Cupertino has seen a decrease in population of 1 percent over the past five years, from 2015 to 2020, and an additional 1 percent over the past three years, from 2020 to 2023. While Santa Clara County and the Bay Area saw an increase from 2015 to 2020, there was a significant decrease from 2020 to 2023, at 4 percent and 3 1 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure B2-1 shows population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the population growth (i.e., percentage change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990. 158
CC 05-14-2024
158 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐2
percent, respectively. Table B2-1, Population Growth Trends, shows population growth trends for Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area as a whole.

Table B2-1 Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2023
Cupertino 39,967 43,142 50,602 53,012 58,3021 60,260 59,549 59,154 Percentage
Change -- 8% 17% 5% 10% 3% -1% -1%
Santa Clara
County 1,497,577 1,594,818 1,682,585 1,752,696 1,781,642 1,912,180 1,961,969 1,886,079 Percentage
Change
-- 6% 6% 4% 2% 7% 3% -4%
Bay Area 6,020,147 6,381,961 6,784,348 7,073,912 7,150,739 7,595,694 7,790,537 7,548,792 Percentage
Change -- 6% 6% 4% 1% 6% 3% -3%
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
NOTE: For more years of data, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01. 1Removing the population increase from the Cupertino annexation, total population is 56,702.

The city’s population increased by 15 percent between 2000 and 2010, exceeding the growth rate of Santa Clara County and the San Francisco Bay Area. During this period, Cupertino grew from 50,602 to 58,302 residents. A portion of this population growth can be attributed to the annexation of 168 acres of land between 2000 and 2008. The annexation of Garden Gate, Monta Vista, and scattered county “islands” added 1,600 new residents. After removing the population increases from these annexations, Cupertino experienced a 12 percent increase in its population during the previous decade.

In the most recent decade, the population increased by 2 percent; however, predictions show a decrease in population growth throughout the state. Figure B2-1, Population Growth Trends Chart, shows population growth trends in percentages.
159
CC 05-14-2024
159 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐3
Figure B2-1 Population Growth Trends Chart
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
AGE
The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options and related services. There has also been a move by many to age-in-place or downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multifamily and accessible units are also needed.

In Cupertino, the median age in 2000 was approximately 38 years. By 2019, the median age increased to approximately 40 years. The population of those under 14 has decreased since 2010, while the 65- and-over population has increased. Figure B2-2, Population by Age, 2000-2019, shows population by age for the years 2000, 2010, and 2019.

Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing.

People of color2
make up 43.5 percent of seniors and 84.1 percent of youth under age 18. Figure B2- 3, Population Age by Race, shows population age by race. 2 Here, all non-white racial groups are counted.
160
CC 05-14-2024
160 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐4
Figure B2-2 Population by Age, 2000-2019
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-04.

Figure B2-3 Population Age by Race
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G). For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-02. 161
CC 05-14-2024
161 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐5

RACE AND ETHNICITY
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices, and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today.3 Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Cupertino identifying as White, Non-Hispanic, has decreased by 24.0 percentage points, with this 2019 population standing at 15,168. By the same token, the percentage of residents of all Other Race of Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic, has increased. In absolute terms, the Asian/API, Non-Hispanic population increased the most while the White, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most. Figure B2-4, Population by Race, 2000-2019, shows population by race for 2000, 2010, and 2019.

Figure B2-4 Population by Race, 2000-2019
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B03002. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP02. 3 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.

3.3% 3.0%

0.8%
162
CC 05-14-2024
162 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐6

EMPLOYMENT TRENDS

BALANCE OF JOBS AND WORKERS
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. To some extent, the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a subregional scale.

One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” them. Between 2010 and 2018, the number of jobs in Cupertino increased by 59.1 percent.

Figure B2-5, Jobs in a Jurisdiction, shows jobs in Cupertino between 2002 and 2018.

Figure B2-5 Jobs in a Jurisdiction
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 200B2- 2018. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-11. 163
CC 05-14-2024
163 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐7
Figure B2-6, Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence, shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively low-income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers. Conversely, it may house residents who are low-wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers mean the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may appear.

Figure B2-6 Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-10.

Cupertino has more low-wage jobs than low-wage residents (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the medium to high end of the wage spectrum on Figure B2-6, Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence (i.e., wages over $75,000 per year), the City has more high-wage jobs than high-wage residents.

Figure B2-7, Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group, shows the ratio of jobs to workers by wage group.

A value of 1.00 means that a city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers, in principle, a balance. Values above 1.00 indicate a jurisdiction will need to import workers for jobs in a given wage group. Cupertino’s ratio of low-wage jobs to workers is 1.44, while the ratio of high-wage jobs to workers is 1.94.
164
CC 05-14-2024
164 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐8
Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community.

New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where job growth has been in relatively lower-wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate, it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users.

Figure B2-7 Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-14.

If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also with a high jobs-to-household ratio. Thus, bringing housing into the measure, the jobs-household ratio in Cupertino has increased from 1.53 in 2002 to 2.60 jobs per household in 2018, with the steepest growth in jobs occurring in the period between 2015 and 2018. In short, Cupertino is a net importer of workers. Figure B2-8, Jobs-Household Ratio, shows Cupertino’s jobs-household ratio. 165
CC 05-14-2024
165 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐9
Figure B2-8 Jobs-Household Ratio
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 200B2-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households). For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-13.

SECTOR COMPOSITION
In terms of sectoral composition, the largest industry in which Cupertino residents work is Financial & Professional Services, and the largest sector in which Santa Clara residents work is Health & Educational Services. For the Bay Area as a whole, the Health & Educational Services industry employs the most workers. Figure B2-9, Resident Employment by Industry, shows resident employment by industry.

Figure B2-9 Resident Employment by Industry
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-06. 166
CC 05-14-2024
166 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐10

UNEMPLOYMENT
In Cupertino, there was a 5.0 percentage point decrease (9.4 percent to 4.4 percent) in the unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021. Santa Clara County and the Bay Area also experienced a similar decrease between January 2010 and January 2021 (11.6 percent to 5.7 percent) and (11.1 percent to 6.6 percent). Jurisdictions throughout the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020. Figure B2-10, Unemployment Rate, shows the unemployment rates over the last decade for Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area as a whole.

Figure B2-10 Unemployment Rate
Sources: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-15.

EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state.4
4 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California. 167
CC 05-14-2024
167 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐11
In Cupertino, 69.2 percent of households make more than 100 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI),5 compared to 9.0 percent making less than 30 percent of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income. Countywide, more than half (55 percent) of all households make more than 100 percent AMI, while 14.2 percent make less than 30 percent AMI and when looking at the Bay Area as a whole, 52 percent of households made more than 100 of the AMI, which 14.8 percent making less than 30 percent of the AMI. In Santa Clara County, 30 percent AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of $39,900 for a family of four. Many households with multiple wage earners, including food service workers, students, teachers, farmworkers, and healthcare professionals, can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries. Seniors relying on social security also tend to fall into the extremely low-income category. Figure B2-11, Households by Household Income Level, shows households by income level.

Figure B2-11 Households by Household Income Level
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-01.

Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters.

Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is affordable for these households.
5 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine-county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Households making between 80 and 120 percent of the AMI are moderate-income, those making 50 to 80 percent are low-income, those making 30 to 50 percent are very lowincome, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-income. This is then adjusted for household size. 168
CC 05-14-2024
168 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐12
In Cupertino, the largest proportion of both renters and homeowners fall in the Greater than 100 percent of AMI group (72 percent homeowners and 65 percent renters). Comparatively, 14 percent of extremely low-income households are renter-occupied, while 6 percent are owner-occupied. Very lowincome households have a more similar tenure, with just a 1 percent difference between very lowincome renters and owners (7 percent versus 6 percent). Similarly, there are slightly more low-income renters (9 percent) in Cupertino compared to owners (8 percent). Figure B2-12, Household Income Level by Tenure, shows household income by tenure.

Figure B2-12 Household Income Level by Tenure
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-21.

Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to White residents.6
These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement, or homelessness.

In Cupertino, Black or African American residents (16.9 percent) experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by Other Race or Multiple Races residents (6.8 percent). The Hispanic population also experienced a high rate of poverty, at 16.7 percent. In Santa Clara County, residents of Other Race or Multiple Races experienced the highest rate of poverty (21.1 percent), followed by Asian/API (15.1 percent), and Black or African American (11.7 percent). However, it is worth noting that there 6 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.
6% 6% 8% 8%
72%
14%
7% 9% 6%
65%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Percent of Housholds
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
169
CC 05-14-2024
169 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐13
is a smaller number of Black/African American households in Cupertino. Figure B2-13, Poverty Status by Race, shows poverty status by race.

Figure B2-13 Poverty Status by Race
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I). For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-03.

TENURE
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity (i.e., ability for individuals to stay in their homes) in a city and region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase.

According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS), there were a total of 20,981 housing units in Cupertino. Looking at tenure, fewer Cupertino residents rent than own their homes: 39.8 percent versus 60.2 percent. By comparison, 43.6 percent of households in Santa Clara County and

43.9 percent of households throughout the Bay Area are renters, which is slightly higher than Cupertino’s rate. Figure B2-14, Housing Tenure, shows housing tenure for Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area as a whole.

16.9% 16.7%

6.8% 6.3% 4.7% 4.5%

0.0%

11.7% 11.0%

21.1%

15.1%

5.3% 6.5%

11.3%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%
Black or African
American
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Hispanic or
Latinx
Other Race or
Multiple Races
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Asian / API
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
White (Hispanic
and NonHispanic)
White, NonHispanicAmerican Indian
or Alaska Native
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
City of Cupertino Santa Clara County
170
CC 05-14-2024
170 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐14
Figure B2-14 Housing Tenure
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-16.

Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, State, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.7

The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from other racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

In Cupertino, Asian households, followed by White households, had the highest rate of homeownership and Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native households had the lowest rate of homeownership. When looking at specific race categories, 43.6 percent of Black or African American households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were 60.2 percent for Asian households, 33.4 percent for Hispanic or Latinx households, and 62.1 percent for White households. Similarly, when looking at Santa Clara County, White households followed by Asian households had the highest rate of homeownership and American Indian and Alaska Native and Black households had the lowest rate of homeownership. (see Table B2-2, Housing Tenure by Race of Householder). Notably, recent changes to State law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements. 7 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.
171
CC 05-14-2024
171 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐15
Figure B2-15, Housing Tenure by Race of Householder, shows housing tenure by the race of the householder. Table B2-2, Housing Tenure by Race of Householder for the City and County, shows the same data in tabular format and shows the city and county for comparison purposes.

Figure B2-15 Housing Tenure by Race of Householder
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I). For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-20.

Table B2-2 Housing Tenure by Race of Householder for the City and County Racial / Ethic Group
City of Cupertino Santa Clara County
OwnerOccupied
Percentage
RenterOccupied
Percentage
OwnerOccupied
Percentage
RenterOccupied
Percentage
White alone (Non-Hispanic) 30.9% 30.4% 42.8% 37.3%
Black or African American
(Non-Hispanic)

0.7% 0.9% 2.1% 3.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native
(Non-Hispanic)

0.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5%
Asian/API (Non-Hispanic) 62.1% 59.2% 30.0% 26.3%
Other Race or Multiple Races
(Non-Hispanic)

3.1% 4.0% 8.9% 12.0%
Hispanic or Latinx 2.9% 4.8% 15.8% 20.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I) and Table S2502 . For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-20. 172
CC 05-14-2024
172 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐16
The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market.

In Cupertino, 95.3 percent of householders between the ages of 15 and 24 are renters, 82.0 percent of householders ages 25 through 34 are renters, and 42.7 percent of householders over age 85 are renters.

Homeownership increases between the ages of 34 and 85 and then reduces beyond that, presumably since homeownership may be a burden for senior households. Figure B2-16, Housing Tenure by Age, shows housing tenure by age categories.

Figure B2-16 Housing Tenure by Age
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-18.

DISPLACEMENT
Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major concern in the Bay Area. Displacement has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate-income residents. When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they also lose their support network.

The University of California (UC), Berkeley, has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay Area, identifying their risk for gentrification. They find that in Cupertino, there are no households that live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and none live in neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing gentrification. Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 91.8 percent of households in Cupertino live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to 173
CC 05-14-2024
173 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐17
be excluded due to prohibitive housing costs.8 Figure B2-17, Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure, shows household displacement risk and tenure.

Figure B2-17 Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure Sources: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-25.

B2.3 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS HOUSING TYPES, YEAR BUILT,

VACANCY, AND PERMITS
In recent years, most housing produced across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, households are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing,” including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters, and accessory dwelling units. These housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place. 8 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project’s webpage: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/. Specifically, one can learn more about the different gentrification/displacement typologies shown in Figure 18 at this link:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/typology_sheet_2018_0.png. Additionally, one can view maps that show which typologies correspond to which parts of a jurisdiction here: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sanfrancisco/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement 174
CC 05-14-2024
174 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐18
According to estimates from the California Department of Finance, the City of Cupertino had 21,701 housing units in April 2020, up 3.2 percent (674 units) from the 21,027 units that existed in 20109. The 2020 housing stock was made up of 69.6 percent single-family homes. Of those, 57.1 percent were detached single-family homes and 12.6 percent were single-family attached homes. Multifamily housing made up 30.4 percent of the housing stock, with 21.0 percent having 5 or more units. Overall, the housing stock in Cupertino has shifted from 2010 to 2020 to include a slightly greater percentage of attached single-family homes as a percentage of the while also increasing the number of housing units in each type. Figure B2-18, Housing Type Trends, shows housing type trends in Cupertino for 2010 and 2020.

Figure B2-18 Housing Type Trends

Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series, April 2010 and April 2020.

Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. In Cupertino, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built 1960 to 1979, with an increase of 10,462 units during this period. The majority of this growth can be attributed to annexations, where already developed neighborhoods were added to the Cupertino housing stock. Figure B2-19, Housing Units by Year Structure Built, shows housing units by the year built.

Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6 percent of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for Recreational or Occasional Use, and units not otherwise classified (Other Vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one 9 Some past housing estimates by the Department of Finance have included a reporting error that has caused the city’s total housing stock to be underreported. The City’s records indicate that 534 units of housing were built between 2010 and the end of 2019, and that an additional 20 were built in 2020.

12.2%

57.4%

9.5%

21.0%

0.0%

12.6%

57.1%

9.3%

21.0%

0.0%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
Single-Family Home: Attached
Single-Family Home: Detached
Multifamily Housing: Two to Four Units
Multifamily Housing: Five-plus Units
Mobile Homes
2010 2020
175
CC 05-14-2024
175 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐19
is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as For Recreational or Occasional Use are those that are held for short-term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals, like AirBnB, are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as Other Vacant if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended period for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.10 In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the Other Vacant category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of Other Vacant units in some jurisdictions.11
Figure B2-19 Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-04.

Vacant units make up 5.8 percent of the overall housing stock in Cupertino. The rental vacancy stands at 6.7 percent, while the ownership vacancy rate is 2.0 percent. Of the vacant units in Cupertino, the most common type of vacancy is For Rent, which represents a little more than a third of all vacant rental units.12 Figure B2-20, Vacant Units by Type, shows vacant units by type. 10 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf. 11 See Dow, P. 2018. Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco’s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley. 12 The vacancy-rates-by-tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle includes the full stock (7.5 percent). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and vacant) and ownership stock (occupied and vacant) but exclude a significant number of vacancy categories, including the numerically significant other vacant.
176
CC 05-14-2024
176 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐20
Figure B2-20 Vacant Units by Type
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-03.

NOTE: Universe: Vacant housing units
Between 2015 and 2022, 546 housing units were issued permits in Cupertino. Of those, 58.8 percent were for above moderate-income housing, 28.9 percent were for moderate-income housing, and 12.3 percent were for low- or very low-income housing. Table B2-3, Housing Permits by Income Group, 2015 to 2022, shows housing permits issued by the City of Cupertino by income group.

Table B2-3 Housing Permits by Income Group, 2015 to 2022 Income Group Number Percentage
Very Low-Income Permits 48 8.8%
Low-Income Permits 19 3.5%
Moderate-Income Permits 158 28.9%
Above Moderate-Income Permits 321 58.8%
Total 546 100.0%
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2022).
177
CC 05-14-2024
177 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐21

HOUSING IN NEED OF REHABILITATION
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, having to live in substandard conditions to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of housing rehabilitation needs in the community. However, the Census Bureau data included in the graph in Figure B2-21 gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present in Cupertino. For example, 2.8 percent of renters in Cupertino reported lacking a kitchen and 0.7 percent of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.1 percent of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.05 percent who lack plumbing. In Santa Clara County, 0.7 percent of renter-occupied households reported lacking a kitchen and 0.2 percent of owners lacked a kitchen Approximately 0.2 percent of renters and 0.1 percent of owners reported lacking plumbing in Santa Clara County. Figure B2-21, Substandard Housing Issues, shows substandard housing issues in Cupertino. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 77.0 percent of the homes in Cupertino were built in 1989 or earlier, which suggests that they are at the age where they may need minor repairs up to major rehabilitation such as new roofs, siding repair, paint, replacing cracked or inoperable windows, or plumbing systems.

However, based on a visual assessment of Cupertino housing, 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.

Figure B2-21 Substandard Housing Issues
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-06.

HOME AND RENT VALUES
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages, and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation.

0.1%

2.8%

0.2%

0.7%

0.05%

0.7%

0.1%

0.2%

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0%
Owner
Renter
Owner
Renter
City of Cupertino Santa Clara County
Plumbing Kitchen
178
CC 05-14-2024
178 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐22
The typical home value in Cupertino was estimated at $2,275,730 by December 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were valued at $2M+. By comparison, the typical home value is $1,290,970 in Santa Clara County and $1,077,230 in the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued at $1M to $1.5M (county) and $500K to $750K (region). The high home values are most likely exacerbated by the high proportion of single-family homes. Figure B2-22, Home Values of OwnerOccupied Units, shows home values of owner-occupied housing units in Cupertino.

Figure B2-22 Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-07.

The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession. In Cupertino, the rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2010, with the typical home value increasing 116.8 percent from $1,049,544 to $2,275,739. This change is considerably greater than the change in Santa Clara County and for the region as a whole. Figure B2-23, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), shows the Zillow home value index for Cupertino. 179
CC 05-14-2024
179 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐23
Figure B2-23 Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI). For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-08.

Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years.

Many renters have been priced out, evicted, or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.

In Cupertino, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the Rent $3,000 or more category, totaling

52.0 percent, followed by 21.7 percent of units renting in the Rent $2,500-$3,000 category. Looking beyond the city, the largest share of units is in the $2,000-$2,500 category (county) compared to the $1,500-$2,000 category for the region as a whole. Figure B2-24, Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units, shows contract rents for renter-occupied units in Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area as a whole.
180
CC 05-14-2024
180 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐24
Figure B2-24 Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-09.

Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 52.0 percent in Cupertino, from $2,000 to $3,040 per month. In Santa Clara County, the median rent has increased 39.6 percent, from $1,540 to $2,150.

The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a

54.2 percent increase.13 Figure B2-25, Median Contract Rent, shows median contract rent in Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area as a whole.

OVERPAYMENT AND OVERCROWDING
A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.

While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. 13 While the data on home values shown in Figure B2-24 comes from Zillow, Zillow does not have data on rent prices available for most Bay Area jurisdictions. To have a more comprehensive dataset on rental data for the region, the rent data in this document comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which may not fully reflect current rents. Local jurisdiction staff may want to supplement the data on rents with local realtor data or other sources for rent data that are more current than Census Bureau data. 181
CC 05-14-2024
181 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐25
Figure B2-25 Median Contract Rent
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-10.

When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Cupertino, 17.9 percent of renters spend 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing compared to 15.0 percent of those that own. Additionally, 16.2 percent of renters spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 8.6 percent of owners are severely cost-burdened. Figure B2-26, Cost Burden by Tenure, shows cost burden by tenure.

When one looks at both renters and owners together in Cupertino, 13.1 percent of households spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 15.3 percent spend 30 to 50 percent. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories. For example, 75.1 percent of Cupertino households making less than 30 percent of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For Cupertino residents making more than 100 percent of AMI, just 1.4 percent are severely cost-burdened, and 86.5 percent of those making more than 100 percent of AMI spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing. Figure B2-27, Cost Burden by Income Level, shows cost burden by income level. 182
CC 05-14-2024
182 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐26
Figure B2-26 Cost Burden by Tenure
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-06. .

Figure B2-27 Cost Burden by Income Level
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-05.

1.4%
183
CC 05-14-2024
183 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐27
Currently, people of color14 are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to White residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.

Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most severely cost burdened, with 14.6 percent spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing. Black or African American (Non-Hispanic) residents are least cost burdened in Cupertino. Figure B2-28, Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity, shows cost burden by race and ethnicity.

Figure B2-28 Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-08.

Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.

In Cupertino, 20 percent of large family households experience a cost burden of 30 to 50 percent, while 17.3 percent of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 15.0 percent of all other households have a cost burden of 30 to 50 percent, with 12.8 percent of households spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing. Figure B2-29, Cost Burden by Household Size, shows cost burden by household size.
14 This category as it is used here includes all non-White persons. 184
CC 05-14-2024
184 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐28
Figure B2-29 Cost Burden by Household Size
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-09.

When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors.

In Cupertino, 61.1 percent of seniors making less than 30 percent of AMI are spending the majority of their income (more than 50 percent) on housing. For seniors making more than 100 percent of AMI, only 0.8 percent are spending the majority of their income on housing. Figure B2-30, CostBurdened Senior Households by Income Level, shows cost-burdened households by income level. 185
CC 05-14-2024
185 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐29
Figure B2-30 Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-03.

Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold.15 The Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded. Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities.

In Cupertino, 3.8 percent of households that rent are severely overcrowded (i.e., more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0.5 percent of households that own. Figure B2-31, Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity, shows overcrowding by tenure and severity. 15 There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens).

0.8%
186
CC 05-14-2024
186 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐30
Figure B2-31 Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-01.

Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. In Cupertino, 3.2 percent of extremely low-income households (below 30 percent AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while only 0.7 percent of households above 100 percent AMI experience this level of overcrowding. Figure B2-32, Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity, shows overcrowding by income level and severity.

Figure B2-32 Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-04.
187
CC 05-14-2024
187 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐31
Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding just as they are more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In Cupertino, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic). Figure B2-33, Overcrowding by Race, graphically represents overcrowding data by race in Cupertino.

Figure B2-33 Overcrowding by Race
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-03.

ASSISTED HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS “AT RISK” OF CONVERSION
As required by California Government Code Section 65583, the Housing Element must analyze the extent to which below-market rate units are at risk of converting to market-rate housing. If there are at-risk units, the element should include programs to encourage preservation of these units or to replace any that are converted to market rate. The units to be considered are any units that were constructed using federal assistance programs, State or local mortgage revenue bonds, redevelopment tax increments, in-lieu fees or an inclusionary housing ordinance, or density bonuses. Housing is considered to be “at risk” if it is eligible to be converted to non-low-income housing due to: (1) the termination of a rental subsidy contract, (2) mortgage prepayment, or (3) the expiration of affordability restrictions. The time period applicable in making this determination is the 10-year period following the last mandated update of the Housing Element, which, in the case of all Santa Clara County jurisdictions, is January 31, 2033.

While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market rate than it is to build new affordable housing.
188
CC 05-14-2024
188 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐32
The data in the following table comes from the California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC) and from the City’s inventory of affordable units. As of July 2023, according to CHPC, there were 184 assisted units affordable to lower-income households in Cupertino, of which, 112 units are at risk of converting to market rate in the next 10 years (by 2033), denoted in bold. When considering the inventory of BMR units, there was an additional 259 units affordable to moderate- and lower-income households; however, 97 units are at risk of converting to market rate within the next 10 years. Table B2-4, Inventory of Affordable Units, summarizes assisted units at risk in Cupertino.

Table B2-4 Inventory of Affordable Housing Units
Development
Number of
Affordable
Units
Household Income Funding
Source
Earliest
Termination
Lower Moderate Date
Affordable Developments
Sunny View 100 100 0 HUD 202/811 3/31/2031
West 22449 Cupertino Rd.

Stevens Creek Village 40 8 0 CHFA, HUD &
HOME
5/1/2037
19140 Stevens Creek Blvd.

Le Beaulieu Apartments 27 27 0 CalFHA/CDBG 9/30/2038
10092 Bianchi Way
WVCS Transitional Housing 4 4 0 CDBG 7/14/2026
10311-10321 Greenwood Ct.

Beardon Drive
8 8 0 CDBG 12/21/2024
1019B2-10194 Beardon Dr.

Senior Housing Solutions 1 1 0 CDBG 6/24/2066
19935 Price Avenue
Maitri Transitional Housing 4 4 0 CDBG 3/16/2064
Undisclosed Location
The Veranda
19 18 0 LIHTC 2071
19160 Stevens Creek Blvd.

Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
48 47 0 LIHTC 2075
Total Units 184 184 0
Total Units At-Risk 112 112 0
189
CC 05-14-2024
189 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐33
Table B2-4 Inventory of Affordable Housing Units
Development
Number of
Affordable
Units
Household Income Funding
Source
Earliest
Termination
Lower Moderate Date
BMR Rental Units
Biltmore Apartments 2 2 0 BMR 6/30/2029
10159 South Blaney Ave.

Park Center Apartments 4 4 0 BMR 7/8/2026
20380 Stevens Creek Blvd.

The Hamptons 34 34 0 BMR 10/20/2027
19500 Pruneridge Ave.

Arioso Apartments 20 20 0 BMR 1/29/2028
19608 Pruneridge Ave.

Forge-Homestead Apartments 15 15 0 BMR 1/16/2027
20691 Forge Way
Aviare Apartments 20
2 20
2 0
0 BMR
BMR
7/8/2026
20415 Via Paviso 2038
The Markham Apartments 17 17 0 BMR 2039
20800 Homestead Road
Lake Biltmore
2 2 0 BMR 2029
19500 Pruneridge Ave.

Vista Village 24 24 0 BMR 11/29/2056
101144 Vista Drive
Greenwood Court
4 4 0 BMR 2116
10311-10321 Greenwood Court
Total BMR Rental Units 144 144
BMR For-Sale Units
Total BMR For-Sale Units* 119 0 119 BMR Varies
Total BMR Units At-Risk 97 97 0
Sources: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2023); City of Cupertino, 2023.

Note:
* Property addresses of for-sale BMR units are not listed to protect the privacy of homeowners. ** Projects denoted in bold are at-risk of converting in 10 years.

PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT OPTIONS
The following analysis examines the cost of preserving the at-risk units and the cost of producing replacement rental housing comparable in size and rent levels to the units that might convert to market-rate prices. In addition, this analysis will compare the costs of preservation and replacement. 190
CC 05-14-2024
190 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐34
Acquisition and Rehabilitation
The factors used to determine the cost of preserving low-income housing include property acquisition, rehabilitation, and financing. Actual acquisition costs depend on several variables, such as condition, size, location, existing financing, and availability of financing (governmental and market). Looking at multifamily buildings throughout Santa Clara County in July 2023, acquisition prices ranged from $187,500 to $324,545 per unit for an 11-unit complex in San Jose and 12-unit complex in Mountain View. To acquire the 100-unit Sunny View West at a comparable per-unit cost, the total cost would likely be between $21,000,000 and $36,349,091. Additionally, if the property needs significant rehabilitation or if financing is difficult to obtain, the overall cost to preserve the affordable units may increase.

Replacement
Another alternative to preserve the overall number of affordable housing units in the county is to construct new units to replace other affordable housing stock that has been converted to market-rate housing. Multifamily replacements would be constructed with the same number of units, with the same number of bedrooms and amenities as the development removed from the affordable housing stock.

The cost of developing new housing depends on a variety of factors, such as density, size of units, location and related land costs, and type of construction. Land costs in the Bay Area are among the highest in the nation. The cost to replace 112 at-risk units in Sunny View West has been estimated using 21 Elements and Baird+ Driskell’s San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Development Counties Development Costs. The per-unit replacement cost is estimated to be $732,500 based on a 10-unit project and $786,500 per unit for a 100-unit project. Consequently, the replacement cost for the 112- unit Sunny View West Apartments would range from $82 million to $88 million.

Rent Subsidy
Housing affordability can also be preserved by seeking alternative means of subsidizing rents, such as Tenant Protection Vouchers, which are a subset of the Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) program.

Under HCVs, HUD pays the difference between what tenants can pay (defined as 30 percent of household income) and what HUD estimates as the fair-market rent on the unit. Based on HUD’s 2023 fair-market rents and income limits, the subsidy needed to preserve a unit at an affordable rent for a four-person, very low-income household would be an estimated $1,682 per month for a threebedroom unit, or $20,184 per year. For 30 years, the subsidy would be approximately $605,520 and subsidizing all 112 units at risk of converting to market rate at very low-income rents would cost approximately $67,818,240 for 30 years, assuming no changes in the rent.

The subsidy needed to preserve a unit at an affordable rent for a low-income household would be an estimated $485 per month, or $5,814 per year. For 30 years, the subsidy would be about $174,420 for a four-person household. Subsidizing 112 units at a low-income rent for 30 years would cost an estimated $19.5 million, assuming no changes in rent.
191
CC 05-14-2024
191 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐35
Preservation Resources
Once the City becomes aware of an impending conversion, staff will begin exploring the availability of funding from various sources. In many cases, the City will find it advantageous to collaborate with private affordable housing developers or managers to develop and implement a viable plan to preserve affordable housing units. Private developers can often bring additional expertise and access to funding, such as tax credits. HCD maintains a list of qualified entities to assist with the preservation of affordable units.

These organizations include:
 Cambrian Center, Inc.
 Charities Housing Development Corp.
 Palo Alto Senior Housing Project, Inc.
 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition
 Affordable Housing Foundation
 Palo Alto Housing Corp.
 South County Housing, Inc.
 Satellite Housing, Inc.
 ROEM Development Corporation
 Silicon Valley at Home
 L + M Fund Management LLC
Programs for Preservation and Construction of Affordable Housing The following is a summary of the current programs that the City is aware of and, if applicable, will seek to use to meet the City’s goal of preserving and expanding affordable housing stock. Further, a list of funding sources the City will attempt to use to meet its affordable housing goals is provided in Table B2-5, Financial Resources.
 Project Development: The City’s Community Development Department will continue to provide technical assistance and administrative support for housing developments that expand affordable housing options for city residents.
 Nonprofit Support: The City will continue its cooperative relationships with qualified nonprofit groups, which may play a role in assisting in the preservation and expansion of affordable housing in the community.
192
CC 05-14-2024
192 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐36
 Policy and Ordinance Review: Current policies and ordinances will be continually reviewed to ascertain the realistic impact on retaining or expanding affordable housing in the city. When necessary, changes or additions to the City’s guiding policies and ordinances should be adopted.
 Housing Referral Service: The City will continue to refine a listing of programs and a methodology for disseminating pertinent information about the types of subsidized housing and the various providers of housing-related services.
 Housing Rehabilitation: The City of Cupertino will continue to use 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 and rehabilitation of rental housing and rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing.  City Programs: The City understands the importance of preserving affordable housing units and has included Strategies HE 2.3.2, 2.3.3, and 3.3.2 to assist with preserving units that are at risk of converting to market rate.
193
CC 05-14-2024
193 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐37
Financial Resources The programs in Table B2-5 are available to assist the City in meetings its affordable housing goals.

Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities Federal Programs Community Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Funding for this program has increased over the last couple of years. This program provides annual grants on a formula basis to entitled cities and counties to develop viable urban communities. .  Single-family housing rehabilitation,  homebuyer assistance,  infrastructure in support of housing,  multifamily housing rehabilitation.

Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
Funding for this program has increased over the last couple of years. HCD administers an annual NOFA to competitively award these federal funds across the state in alignment with its HUD Consolidated Plan.  New rental affordable housing,  rehabilitation of existing rental affordable housing,  programs to promote home ownership,  owner-occupied housing rehabilitation,  tenant-based rental assistance to prevent homelessness.

Home Investment Partnership Program–American Rescue Plan (HOME-ARP) This one-time funding with HOME-ARP funds is available for expenditure until September 2030.  vulnerable populations, including homeless,  at risk of homelessness, and  fleeing or attempting to flee domestic and related forms of violence (including human trafficking).
 production of affordable housing,  tenant-based rental assistance,  homeless prevention services, and  purchase or development of non-congregate shelter for individuals and families experiencing homelessness.
194
CC 05-14-2024
194 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐38
Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities Housing Choice Voucher Program
Local and County housing authorities receive funding for HCV (Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937) from the federal government. Funding for the program has increased over the last couple of years.

Rental assistance for low-income households.

Project-Based Section 8 Vouchers
Local and County Housing authorities may dedicate a portion of their Housing Choice Vouchers as project-based vouchers. Funding for the program has increased over the last couple of years.

Rental assistance for low-income households tied to units that can be underwritten by loans that finance housing projects.

HUD Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Vouchers This federally funded program is managed through a partnership between housing authorities and the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA). Homeless veterans receive a rental subsidy from the housing authority and case management from the VA. Funding for this program has been increasing in recent years with strong bipartisan support in Washington D.C.

Rental assistance and supportive services for homeless veterans.

Continuum of Care (CoC) Programs
The NorCal CoC is currently accessing State resources (Emergency Solutions Grant, Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention, Homeless Emergency Aid Program, etc.) and federal CoC funding through HUD. Funds are passed through to service providers at the county level.  Rental subsidies,  rapid rehousing,  emergency shelter,  homeless prevention. 195
CC 05-14-2024
195 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐39
Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities State Programs Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA Formula Funds) Ongoing funding provided through Senate Bill 2 Building Homes and Jobs Act. Funding will fluctuate based on revenues taken in by the State and are administered through regional planning agencies and local housing authorities.

A wide range, which includes but is not limited to:
 affordable rental housing for households below 80%
AMI; affordable rental and ownership housing, including accessory dwelling units (ADUs), for households earning up to 120% of AMI; or  capital costs for navigation centers and emergency
shelters,
 permanent and transitional housing for people
experiencing homelessness.

Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC) State program funded by greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program. Recent revisions to regulations encourage greater participation from rural communities.

Grants for infill low-income affordable housing and infrastructure that encourages reductions in vehicle trips and greenhouse gas emissions.

Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG)
This is funding from Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act. Therefore, this funding will sunset when all bond proceeds are disbursed. The State generally issues one NOFA each year Gap funding for infrastructure improvements necessary for specific residential or mixed-use infill projects. 196
CC 05-14-2024
196 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐40
Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities California Housing Finance Agency (Cal HFA) Residential Development Loan Program Low-interest, short-term loans to local governments for affordable infill, owner-occupied housing developments. Links with CalHFA’s Down Payment Assistance Program to provide subordinate loans to first-time buyers. Two funding rounds per year.  New construction,  rehabilitation,  acquisition.

California Housing Finance Agency (Cal HFA) Homebuyer’s Down Payment Assistance Program CalHFA makes below-market loans to first-time homebuyers of up to 3% of sales price. Program operates through participating lenders who originate loans for CalHFA. Funds available on request to qualified borrowers.

Homebuyer assistance.

California Housing Finance Agency (Cal HFA) Forgivable Equity Builder Loan The Forgivable Equity Builder Loan gives first-time homebuyers a head start with immediate equity in their homes via a loan of up to 10% of the purchase price of the home. The loan is forgivable if the borrower continuously occupies the home as their primary residence for five years.

Homeowner assistance
HOME Investment Partnership Program
The State provides grants to local governments and nonprofit agencies for many homeowner and renter needs.  Homebuyer assistance rehabilitation;  new construction rental assistance Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods (BEGIN)
A State-funded program administered by HCD that provides lowand moderate-income households up to $30,000 for a down payment.

Homebuyer assistance.

CalHome
Grants awarded to jurisdictions for owner-occupied housing rehabilitation and first-time homebuyer assistance by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).  Homebuyer assistance;  rehabilitation.
197
CC 05-14-2024
197 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐41
Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
A 4% annual tax credit that helps owners of rental units develop affordable housing.

New construction.

The LIHTC can be used to construct new or renovate existing rental buildings. The LIHTC is designed to subsidize either 30 or 70 percent of the low-income unit costs in a project. The 70% subsidy, or 9 percent tax credit, supports new construction without any additional federal subsidies.

HUD Emergency Shelter Grants (administered through the State) Competitive grants to help local governments and nonprofits finance emergency shelters, transitional housing, and other supportive services.  New construction,  rehabilitation,  homeless assistance,  public services.

Tax-Exempt Housing Revenue Bond
Supports low-income housing development by issuing housing taxexempt bonds requiring the developer to lease a fixed percentage of the units to low-income families at specified rental rates.  New construction,  rehabilitation,  acquisition.

Private Resources/Financing Programs California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC) Nonprofit mortgage banking consortium designed to provide longterm debt financing for affordable multifamily rental housing. Nonprofit and for-profit developers contact member banks.  New construction,  rehabilitation,  acquisition.
198
CC 05-14-2024
198 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐42
Table B2-5 Financial Resources
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)
Fixed-rate mortgages issued by private mortgage insurers. Homebuyer assistance. Mortgages that fund the purchase or rehabilitation of a home.  Homebuyer assistance;  rehabilitation.

Low down payment mortgages for single-family homes in underserved low-income and minority cities. Homebuyer assistance.

Freddie Mac Home Works
Provides first and second mortgages that include rehabilitation loans. Jurisdiction provides gap financing for rehabilitation components. Households earning up to 80% AMI qualify.

Homebuyer assistance.

Affordable Housing Program (Federal Home Loan Bank [FHLB]) Loans (and some grants) to public agencies and private entities for a wide variety of housing projects and programs. Participation is by FHLB-participating lenders.  New construction,  homebuyer assistance,  rehabilitation,  housing supportive services.

Northern California Community Loan Fund (NCCLF)
Offers low-interest loans for the revitalization of low-income communities and affordable housing development.  Acquisition,  rehabilitation,  new construction.

Low-Income Investment Fund (LIHF)
Provides below-market loan financing for all phases of affordable housing development and/or rehabilitation.  Acquisition,  rehabilitation,  new construction.

Source: Local Housing Solutions, July 2023.
199
CC 05-14-2024
199 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐43
B2.4 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS

LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions.

In Cupertino, 6.7 percent of all households are considered large households with five or more people.

Larger households typically need larger housing units with three or more bedrooms. When looking at tenure, 63.3 percent of large households were owner-occupied households and 36.7 percent were renter-occupied households. Figure B2-34, Household Size by Tenure, shows household size by tenure.

Figure B2-34 Household Size by Tenure
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-01.

The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community.

Large families are generally served by housing units with three or more bedrooms. Cupertino has 12,979 units (61.9 percent) with three or more bedrooms. Among these large units, 81.8 percent are owner-occupied units and 18.2 percent are renter-occupied units; therefore, there is a lack of large rental units. The City does have resources available to large households such as general housing programs and services offered like the BMR Program and housing rehabilitation programs. Other programs include Mortgage Credit Certificates and HCVs administered by the County, and homebuyer assistance offered by the Housing Trust Silicon Valley.

Figure B2-35 summarizes housing units by the number of bedrooms.

51.5%

75.9%

52.6%

56.4%

63.3%

48.5%

24.1%

47.4%

43.6%

36.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%
1 Person Household 2 Person Household 3 Person Household 4 Person Household 5 Or More Person Household
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
200
CC 05-14-2024
200 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐44
Figure B2-35 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-05. 201
CC 05-14-2024
201 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐45

FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly femaleheaded households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income.

In Cupertino, the largest proportion of households is Married-Couple Family Households at 68.6 percent of the total, while Female-Headed Family Households make up 6.1 percent of all households.

Figure B2-36, Household Type, provides information on household type in Cupertino.

Figure B2-36 Household Type
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-23.

Female-headed households with or without children may face particular housing challenges. This could be due to pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women or could be due to a single income.

In Cupertino, 121 female-headed households with children (18.8 percent) were in the Below Poverty Level category, while 55 female-headed households without children (8.8 percent) were in the Below Poverty Level category. Figure B2-37 shows female-headed households by poverty status.

Persons living with incomes below the poverty level can benefit from City programs and services that assist lower-income households in general, such as BMR, CDBG, and HSG programs. Households with incomes below the poverty level can also benefit from supportive services available to county residents through various organizations, including Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County, Choices for Children, InnVision Shelter Network, Second Harvest Food Bank, and West Valley Community Services, among others.
202
CC 05-14-2024
202 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐46
Figure B2-37 Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-05.

Single-parent households in Cupertino can benefit from City programs and services that assist lowerincome households in general, such as the BMR, CDBG, and HSG Programs. Single-parent households can also benefit from supportive and childcare services available to county residents through various organizations, including Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County, Choices for Children, Grail Family Services, InnVision Shelter Network, Second Harvest Food Bank, and West Valley Community Services.

SENIORS
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. For example, seniors have unique housing needs due to fixed incomes, a high chance of having some type of disability, chronic health conditions, and/or reduced mobility.

Therefore, seniors can require greater levels of affordability along with the need for supportive or assisted living services and/or accessible housing. Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups.

In Cupertino, seniors made up 14.7 percent of the population (8,847 individuals). The largest proportion of senior households who rent, make 0 to 30 percent of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners falls into the income group Greater than 100 percent of AMI. This shows a potential need for affordable housing options for seniors. Figure B2-38 shows senior households by income and tenure.
524
573
121
55 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
with Children with No Children
Households
Above Poverty Level
Below Poverty Level
203
CC 05-14-2024
203 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐47
Figure B2-38 Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 201B2-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-01.

Cupertino offers a number of resources for seniors. As shown in Table B2-6, there are five residential care facilities for the elderly and three skilled nursing facilities in the city. Residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFEs), also known as “assisted living” or “board and care” facilities, provide assistance with some activities of daily living while still allowing residents to be more independent than in most nursing homes. Skilled nursing facilities—also known as nursing homes—offer a higher level of care, with registered nurses on staff 24 hours a day.

In addition to assisted living facilities, there are two subsidized independent senior housing developments in the city providing 100 units. Demand for these subsidized units is high. Staff at Sunny View estimate that over 700 people are on the waiting list, and the turnover rate for available units is about 10 to 15 per year.

The Cupertino Senior Center also serves as an excellent resource for seniors. The many different services at the center help seniors to obtain resources in the community that will assist them to continue to remain independent and safe in their own homes. Available programs include various social and recreation activities, special events, travel programs, transportation discounts, drop-in consultation, case management, medical, and social services. 204
CC 05-14-2024
204 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐48
Table B2-6 Housing Resources for Seniors
Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Location Capacity The Forum at Rancho San Antonio 23500 Cristo Rey Drive 741 Paradise Manor 4 19161 Muriel Lane 6
Pleasant Manor of Cupertino 10718 Nathanson Avenue 6
Purglen of Cupertino 10366 Miller Avenue 12
Sunny View Manor (a) 22445 Cupertino Road 190
Total 955
Skilled Nursing Facilities
Health Care Center at Forum at Rancho San Antonio 23600 Via Esplendor 48 Cupertino Healthcare & Wellness Center 22590 Voss Avenue 170 Sunny View Manor 22445 Cupertino Road 48
Total 266
Subsidized Independent Senior Rental Housing
Sunny View West 22449 Cupertino Road 99
Senior Housing Solutions 19935 Price Avenue 1
Total 100
Adult Day Care
Live Oak Adult Day Services 20920 McClellan Road 30
Cupertino Senior Center 21251 Stevens Creek N/A
Sources: California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division Facility Search Form, 2023; California Department of Public Health, Health Facilities Search, 2023.

Note: (a) Sunny View Manor has 115 units for independent and assisted (RCFE) living. All 115 units are licensed as RCFE units, but residents may choose between independent and assisted living options. The distribution of independent and assisted living units varies over time. 205
CC 05-14-2024
205 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐49

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and need specialized care. Due to the high cost of such specialized care, individuals with disabilities often must rely on family members for assistance. When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence. Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness, and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers.

Overall, 5.7 percent of people in Cupertino have a disability of some kind.16 Figure B2-39, Disability by Type, shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Cupertino.

Figure B2-39 Disability by Type
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table DISAB-01.
16 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.
206
CC 05-14-2024
206 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐50

PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, “developmental disability” means a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. It includes intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term also includes disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with intellectual disabilities but does not include other conditions that are solely physical in nature.

Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

The California Department of Developmental Services provides community-based services to approximately 360,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of regional centers, developmental centers, and community-based facilities. The San Andreas Regional Center is one of 21 regional centers in California that provides point-of-entry services for people with developmental disabilities. The center is a private, nonprofit community agency that contracts with local businesses to offer a wide range of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families.

The San Andreas Regional Center, located in north San Jose, provides services to developmentally disabled persons throughout Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties and acts as a coordinating agency for multiple service providers in the region. They provide a resource to those needing counseling, day care, equipment and supplies, behavior intervention, independent living services, mobility training, nursing, residential care facilities, supportive living services, transportation, vocational training, and other services.

Several housing types are appropriate for people living with a developmental disability: rent-subsidized homes, residential care facilities, Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and Senate Bill (SB) 962 homes (these are adult residential homes for persons with specialized health care needs). Supportive housing and group living opportunities for persons with developmental disabilities can be an important resource for those individuals who can transition from the home of a parent or guardian to independent living.

The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this need group. Incorporating barrier-free design in all new multifamily housing (as required by California and federal fair housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents. Special consideration should also be given to the affordability of housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income. 207
CC 05-14-2024
207 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐51
In Cupertino, there are 154 children under the age of 18 with a developmental disability (51.2 percent), while there are 147 adults with a developmental disability (48.8 percent). Table B2-7 shows the number of persons in Cupertino with developmental disabilities by age.

Table B2-7 Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group Number
Age Under 18 154
Age 18+ 147
Total 301
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020). This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-04.

The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Cupertino is the home of a parent, family, or guardian. Table B2-8 shows the Cupertino population with developmental disabilities by residence.

Table B2-8 Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type Number
Home of Parent/Family/Guardian 257
Foster/Family Home 11
Independent/Supported Living 5
Other 5
Community Care Facility 23
Intermediate Care Facility 0
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020).

This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-05.

Table B2-9 lists the community care facilities in Cupertino available to those with developmental disabilities.

Table B2-9 Community Care Facilities in Cupertino, 2023 Adult Residential Facilities Location Capacity
Paradise Manor 2 19133 Muriel Lane 6
Paradise Manor 4 19161 Muriel Lane 6
Total 12
Source: California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division Facility Search Form, 2023 208
CC 05-14-2024
208 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐52

HOMELESSNESS
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing-insecure have ended up homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term.

Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction, and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances.

The very nature of homelessness makes it difficult to count persons with no permanent shelter. The Santa Clara County Continuum of Care oversees the County’s assessment of homeless persons and conducts point-in-time homeless counts as required by HUD. The 2022 point-in-time count, conducted in February 2022, identified 102 homeless persons in Cupertino. All of the persons experiencing homelessness were unsheltered. For Santa Clara County, there were 9,684 homeless persons identified, of which, 77 percent were unsheltered and 23 percent were sheltered. When comparing the 2022 point-in-time numbers to 2019 data, Cupertino had a decrease in persons experiencing homelessness, going from 159 individuals in 2019 to 102 in 2022. Santa Clara County on the other hand had a slight increase, from 9,706 to 9,864 individuals. Figure B2-40 provides sheltered and unsheltered percentages for the homeless population in Cupertino and Santa Clara County as of 2022. Data by race or disability status is not collected at the individual jurisdiction level through the Point in Time Count. However, the countywide Point in Time Count results indicated an overrepresentation of Hispanic/Latinx, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Multi-Racial, and American Indian or Alaska Native community members within the county’s homeless community as compared to these populations in the county as a whole. Additionally, it is estimated that community members with disabilities may be over-represented in the city’s homeless population due to the existing challenges Bay Area residents with physical or mental disabilities face in accessing affordable housing.
209
CC 05-14-2024
209 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐53
Figure B2-40 City of Cupertino Homeless Population
Source: 2022 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey When looking at race and homelessness, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to White residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area.

In Santa Clara County, White residents represented the largest proportion of residents experiencing homelessness and account for 44 percent of the homeless population, while making up 44.5 percent of the overall population. Figure B2-41 shows the racial group share of the county’s homeless population.

Figure B2-41 Homeless Populations by Race, Santa Clara County Source: 2022 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.

1.1%

77.0%

0.0 23.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
Cupertino Santa Clara County
Unsheltered Sheltered
210
CC 05-14-2024
210 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐54
In 2022 in Santa Clara County, Hispanic and Latinx residents represented 47 percent of the population experiencing homelessness, while Hispanic and Latinx residents comprise 25.8 percent of the general population. Figure B2-42 shows the Hispanic and Latinx share of the homeless population in Santa Clara County. Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara County, 2022 Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues, including mental illness, substance abuse, and domestic violence, which are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. As a result, to ensure that they are stably housed, individuals experiencing homelessness require not only affordable housing, but also housing accompanied by an array of transitional and supportive services, including counseling, mental health services, job training, and employment assistance. Therefore, emergency shelters with a full range of supportive services and transitional housing and supportive housing are best equipped to meet the needs of this special-needs population.

In Santa Clara County, similar to other jurisdictions, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, along with other health concerns. Figure B2-43 shows selected characteristics of the homeless population in Santa Clara County in 2022.

Figure B2-42 Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa Clara County, 2022

Source: 2022 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey 211
CC 05-14-2024
211 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐55
In Cupertino, there were no reported students experiencing homelessness in the 2019-2020 school year. In fact, the reported number of students experiencing homelessness dropped after the 2016- 2017 school year to zero in the City of Cupertino. By comparison, Santa Clara County has seen a 3.5 percent increase in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-2017 school year, while the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8.5 percent.

Despite the recent regional decrease, during the 2019-2020 school year, there were still 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the Bay Area, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer-term negative effects. Table B2-10 summarizes students in public schools experiencing homelessness.

Table B2-10 Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness Academic Year Cupertino Santa Clara County Bay Area
2016-17 17 2,219 14,990
2017-18 0 2,189 15,142
2018-19 0 2,405 15,427
2019-20 0 2,297 13,718
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020). This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HOMELS-05.

EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
Santa Clara County has approximately 23 emergency shelters, providing close to 800 beds year-round, with an additional 300 beds available during the winter months (November through March). There are also over 1,100 transitional housing beds throughout the county that offer a combination of stable housing and intensive, targeted support services for the mentally ill, those with chronic substance abuse, developmental disabilities, and other factors that prevent the homeless from returning to permanent housing situations. Transitional housing includes both single-site and “scattered-site” programs. Table B2-11 provides a summary of emergency shelters and transitional housing that are near the City of Cupertino and available to residents.
212
CC 05-14-2024
212 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐56
Table B2-11 Homeless Facilities Near Cupertino
Facility Beds Target Population Location
Emergency Shelters
Asian Americans for Community
Involvement
12 Women with Children San Jose
City Team Rescue Mission 52 Single men San Jose
Hospitality House, Salvation Army 24 Single men San Jose Our House Youth Services HomeFirst 10 Homeless and run-away youth San Jose San Jose Family Shelter 143 Families San Jose
Support Network for Battered Women 18 Domestic violence shelter for women and children San Jose Maitri 8 Transitional housing to victims of domestic
violence Cupertino
Emergency Shelter/Transitional Housing
InnVision 178 Working men, women & children, mentally ill men & women
San Jose
James Boccardo Reception Center 370 Families and single adults San Jose Transitional Housing
Next Door- Women with Children 19
Domestic Violence Shelter for women and
children
San Jose
St. Josephs Cathedral 45 Worker housing for men, women, and children San Jose YWCA- Villa Nueva 126 Women and children San Jose
Source: Santa Clara County Consolidated Plan, 2010-2015

FARMWORKERS
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern.

Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Accordingly, finding decent affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market.

In Cupertino, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019-20 school year and the city and surrounding area lack viable agricultural land to employ migrant workers. The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4 percent in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. at the county level, there has been a 49.7 percent decrease in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. Table B2-12 summarizes the migrant worker student population in Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and Bay Area as a whole. 213
CC 05-14-2024
213 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐57
Table B2-12 Migrant Worker Student Population
Academic Year Cupertino Santa Clara County Bay Area
2016-17 0 978 4,630
2017-18 0 732 4,607
2018-19 0 645 4,075
2019-20 0 492 3,976
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020). This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table FARM-01.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farmworkers in Santa Clara County has increased since 2002, totaling 2,418 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farmworkers has decreased, totaling 1,757 in 2017. This can be attributed to the types of crops grown in south Santa Clara County that require regular maintenance, or simply the nature of the farms/ranches. Figure B2-44 shows farm operations and labor in Santa Clara County.

Figure B2-43 Farm Operations and Farm Labor, Santa Clara County Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table FARM-02. 214
CC 05-14-2024
214 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐58

NON-ENGLISH SPEAKERS
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limitation can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their civil and housing rights, or they might be wary to engage or ask questions due to their immigration status concerns. The unique housing needs for non-English speakers include having access to Fair Housing resources in in multiple languages as needed.

In Cupertino, 5.3 percent of residents five years and older identified as speaking English not well or not at all, which was below the proportion for Santa Clara County (8.8 percent). Throughout the Bay Area, the proportion of residents five years and older with limited English proficiency was 7.8 percent.

Figure B2-45 shows the population with limited English proficiency in Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area as a whole.

Figure B2-44 Population with Limited English Proficiency Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table AFFH-03.

NOTE: Universe: Population 5 years and over.

To the extent that farmworkers may want to live in Cupertino, their need for affordable housing would be similar to that of other lower- income persons, and their housing needs can be addressed through general affordable housing programs for lower-income households, such as BMR, CDBG, and HSG programs.
215
CC 05-14-2024
215 of 1197
B3-i
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing B

APPENDIX
.3
216
CC 05-14-2024
216 of 1197
217
CC 05-14-2024
217 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-i
Table of Contents
B3 Cupertino Fair Housing Assessment ................................................................ B3-1 B3.1 History of Segregation In The Region .........................................................................B3-2 B3.2 Report Content and Organization................................................................................B3-5 B3.3 Primary Findings, Contributing Factors, and Fair Housing Actions .............................B3-7 B3.4 Fair Housing Enforcement Capacity..........................................................................B3-10 B3.5 Ongoing Outreach on Fair Housing ISsues...............................................................B3-13 B3.6 Compliance with State Law.......................................................................................B3-15 B3.7 Integration and Segregation......................................................................................B3-16 B3.8 Access to Opportunity ...............................................................................................B3-26 B3.9 Disproportionate Housing Needs ..............................................................................B3-33 B3.10 Sites Analysis............................................................................................................B3-46 B3.11 Fair Housing Resources and Maps ...........................................................................B3-56 Tables
Table B3-1 Housing Element Strategies to Address Fair Housing Issues .................................. B3-10 Table B3-2 Demographic Composition of the Homeless Population, 2022 ................................ B3-40 Table B3-3 Fair Housing Factors and Percentage of RHNA Units.............................................. B3-48 Figures
Figure B3-1 Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing...................... B3-6 Figure B3-2 Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries..................................................................... B3-13 Figure B3-3 Segregation and Integration..................................................................................... B3-22 Figure B3-4 Access to Opportunity .............................................................................................. B3-34 Figure B3-5 Disproportionate Housing Needs ............................................................................. B3-37 Figure B3-6 RHNA Sites by Affordability with Census Tract and Block Group Boundaries ......... B3-47 Figure B3-7 Fair Housing Assistance Organizations, Santa Clara County .................................. B3-57 Figure B3-8 HCD Fair Housing Inquiries, 2013-2021................................................................... B3-58 Figure B3-9 FHEO Inquiries by City to HCD, Santa Clara County, 2013-2022............................ B3-59 Figure B3-10 HCD Fair Housing Inquiries by Bias, January 2013-March 2021 ............................. B3-60 Figure B3-11 Public Housing Buildings, Santa Clara County......................................................... B3-61 Figure B3-12 Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract............................................................. B3-62 Figure B3-13 Population by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019 ................................................. B3-63 218
CC 05-14-2024
218 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-ii
Figure B3-14 Population by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2000-2019 ........................................ B3-64 Figure B3-15 Senior and Youth Population by Race, Cupertino, 2000-2019 ................................. B3-64 Figure B3-16 Area Median Income by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019 ................................. B3-65 Figure B3-17 Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino 2019............................................... B3-65 Figure B3-18 Percentage Non-White Population by Census Block Groups, 2018......................... B3-66 Figure B3-19 White Majority Census Tracts .................................................................................. B3-67 Figure B3-20 Asian Majority Census Tracts................................................................................... B3-68 Figure B3-21 Hispanic Majority Census Tracts.............................................................................. B3-69 Figure B3-22 Neighborhood Segregation by Census Tract, 2019 ................................................. B3-70 Figure B3-23 Diversity Index by Block Group, 2010 ...................................................................... B3-71 Figure B3-24 Diversity Index by Block Group, 2018 ...................................................................... B3-72 Figure B3-25 Share of Population by Disability Status, 2019......................................................... B3-73 Figure B3-26 Percentage of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019........................... B3-74 Figure B3-27 Age Distribution, Cupertino, 2000-2019 ................................................................... B3-75 Figure B3-28 Share of Households by Size, 2019 ......................................................................... B3-75 Figure B3-29 Share of Households by Type, 2019 ........................................................................ B3-76 Figure B3-30 Share of Households by Presence of Children (Less than 18 years old), 2019 ....... B3-76 Figure B3-31 Housing Type by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019............................................................... B3-77 Figure B3-32 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure, Cupertino, 2019..................... B3-77 Figure B3-33 Percentage of Children in Married-Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019....... B3-78 Figure B3-34 Percent Households with Single Female with Children by Census Tract, 2019 ....... B3-79 Figure B3-35 Percentage of Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019......................... B3-80 Figure B3-36 Percentage of Adults Living Alone by Census Tract, 2019....................................... B3-81 Figure B3-37 Share of Households by Area Median Income (AMI), 2019 ..................................... B3-82 Figure B3-38 Median Household Income by Block Group, 2019 ................................................... B3-83 Figure B3-39 Low to Moderate Income Population by Block Group............................................... B3-84 Figure B3-40 Poverty Status by Census Tract, 2019..................................................................... B3-85 Figure B3-41 R/ECAPs, 2013 ........................................................................................................ B3-86 Figure B3-42 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score by Census Tract, 2021.......................... B3-88 Figure B3-43 Jobs by Industry, Cupertino, 2002-2018................................................................... B3-89 Figure B3-44 Job Holders by Industry, Cupertino, 2002-2018 ....................................................... B3-90 Figure B3-45 Jobs to Household Ratio, Cupertino, 2002-2018...................................................... B3-90 Figure B3-46 Jobs to Worker Ratio by Wage, Cupertino, 2002-2018 ............................................ B3-91 Figure B3-47 Unemployment Rate, 2010-2021 ............................................................................. B3-91 Figure B3-48 TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Score by Census Tract, 2021.......................... B3-92 Figure B3-49 Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group, 2017............................................................. B3-93 Figure B3-50 TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Score by Census Tract, 2021................... B3-95 Figure B3-51 CalEnviroScreen by Census Tract, 2021 ................................................................. B3-96 219
CC 05-14-2024
219 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-iii
Figure B3-52 Healthy Places Index by Census Tract, 2021........................................................... B3-97 Figure B3-53 Population Living in Moderate and High Resource Ares by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019........................................................................................................ B3-98 Figure B3-54 Population with Limited English Proficiency, Cupertino, 2019.................................. B3-98 Figure B3-55 TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score by Census Tract, 2021 ........................ B3-99 Figure B3-56 Social Vulnerability Index by Census Tract, 2018 .................................................. B3-100 Figure B3-57 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities..................................................................... B3-101 Figure B3-58 Population by Disability Status, Cupertino, 2019.................................................... B3-102 Figure B3-59 Disability by Type for the Non-Institutionalized Population 18 Years and Over, Cupertino, 2019...................................................................................................... B3-102 Figure B3-60 Disability by Type for Seniors (65 years and over), Cupertino, 2019...................... B3-103 Figure B3-61 Employment by Disability Status, Cupertino, 2019................................................. B3-103 Figure B3-62 Share of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 ................................. B3-104 Figure B3-63 Population Indexed from 1990 ............................................................................... B3-105 Figure B3-64 Housing Permits Issued by Income Group, Cupertino, 2015-2019......................... B3-105 Figure B3-65 Housing Units by Year Built, Cupertino .................................................................. B3-106 Figure B3-66 Distribution of Home Value for Owner Occupied Units, 2019................................. B3-106 Figure B3-67 Zillow Home Value Index, 2001-2020..................................................................... B3-107 Figure B3-68 Distribution of Contract Rents for Renter Occupied Units, 2019 ............................ B3-107 Figure B3-69 Median Contract Rent, 2009-2019 ......................................................................... B3-108 Figure B3-70 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Jurisdiction, 2019................................................. B3-108 Figure B3-71 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019...................................... B3-109 Figure B3-72 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Area Median Income (AMI), Cupertino, 2019....... B3-109 Figure B3-73 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019.................... B3-110 Figure B3-74 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Family Size, Cupertino, 2019............................... B3-110 Figure B3-75 Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019......... B3-111 Figure B3-76 Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Owner Households by Census Tract, 2019 ........ B3-112 Figure B3-77 Occupants per Room by Jurisdiction, 2019............................................................ B3-113 Figure B3-78 Occupants per Room by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019................................................. B3-113 Figure B3-79 Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019 .......................................... B3-114 Figure B3-80 Occupants per Room by AMI, Cupertino, 2019...................................................... B3-114 Figure B3-81 Overcrowded Households by Census Tract, 2019 ................................................. B3-115 Figure B3-82 Percentage of Units Lacking Complete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities, Cupertino, 2019...................................................................................................... B3-116 Figure B3-83 Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Santa Clara County, 2019 B3- ......................................................................................................................116 Figure B3-84 Share of General and Homeless Populations by Race, Santa Clara County, 2019 B3-117
220
CC 05-14-2024
220 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-iv
Figure B3-85 Share of General and Homeless Populations by Ethnicity, Santa Clara County, 2019.......................................................................................................... B3-117 Figure B3-86 Characteristics of the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa Clara County, 2019 ................................................................................................ B3-118 Figure B3-87 Location of Population One Year Ago, Cupertino, 2019......................................... B3-118 Figure B3-88 Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence, Cupertino, 2019............................. B3-119 Figure B3-89 Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion, Cupertino, 2019 .......................................... B3-119 Figure B3-90 Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement ........................................................... B3-120 Figure B3-91 Location Affordability Index by Census Tract ......................................................... B3-121 Figure B3-92 Share of Renter Occupied Households by Census Tract, 2019 ............................. B3-122 Figure B3-93 Special Flood Hazard Areas, 2020......................................................................... B3-123 Figure B3-94 Mortgage Applications by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2018-2019.................... B3-124 Figure B3-95 Mortgage Application Denial Rate by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2018-2019.............................................................................................................. B3-124 221
CC 05-14-2024
221 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-1
B3 CUPERTINO FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
In 2018, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requiring all public agencies in the state to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) beginning January 1, 2019.1 The new requirements went into effect on January 1, 2019, and required all public agencies to “administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, and take no action inconsistent with this obligation.”2 AB 686 also made changes to Housing Element law to incorporate requirements to AFFH as part of the housing element and general plan to include an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices.

The following report was prepared by Root Policy Research (Denver, Colorado) and is based on and expands previous work commissioned by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The ABAG/MTC report was prepared in collaboration with the University of California (UC) Merced Urban Policy Lab and was entitled, AFFH Segregation Report: Cupertino.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development. (Government Code, Section 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 14. 1 Public agencies receiving funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are also required to demonstrate their commitment to AFFH. The federal obligation stems from the fair housing component of the federal Civil Rights Act mandating federal fund recipients to take “meaningful actions” to address segregation and related barriers to fair housing choice. 2 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 9. 222
CC 05-14-2024
222 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-2
B3.1 HISTORY OF SEGREGATION IN THE REGION
The United States’ oldest cities have a history of mandating segregated living patterns—and Northern California cities are no exception. ABAG, in its recent Fair Housing Equity Assessment, attributes segregation in the Bay Area to
historically discriminatory practices—highlighting redlining and discriminatory mortgage approvals—as well as
“structural inequities” in society, and “self-segregation” (i.e., preferences to live near similar people).

Researcher Richard Rothstein’s 2017 book, The Color of
Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, chronicles how the public sector contributed to the segregation that exists today. Rothstein highlights several significant developments in the Bay Area that played a large role in where the region’s non-White residents settled.

In 1955, builders began developing workforce housing for the Ford Corporation’s plant in the Santa Clara County
region. Initially, the units were segregated as no one would sell to the local black workers. The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) worked to find builders who would build integrated subdivisions. Unfortunately, after four purchased plots were subsequently rezoned to prevent integrated housing, the original builder quit. After multiple additional iterations, African American workers had “become so discouraged about finding housing opportunities” that they began carpooling from outside cities such as Richmond.3
A 2018 Berkeley publication titled, Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, attempted to illustrate segregation in the Bay Area communities. In their study, they found that Santa Clara County contains “no truly integrated city.”4 The study also delved into the history of segregation, highlighting 1960sera laws and practices connected to urban renewal projects that were displacing communities of color.

The building of transportation infrastructure created a reduction of affordable housing due to a lack of one-for-one replacement in the area.

In addition to historical discriminatory practices that embedded segregation into living patterns throughout the Bay Area, it is also necessary to recognize the historical impacts of colonization and genocide on Indigenous populations and how the effects of those atrocities are still being felt today.

The original inhabitants of present-day San Mateo County are the Ramaytush Ohlone, who have 3 Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, p 121. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing Corporation.
4 Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay area, Part 1 | Othering & Belonging Institute (berkeley.edu) This history of segregation in
the region is important not only
to understand how residential
settlement patterns came
about—but, more importantly,
to explain differences in
housing opportunity among
residents today. In sum, not all
residents had the ability to
build housing wealth or achieve
economic opportunity. This
historically unequal playing
field in part determines why
residents have different
housing needs today.
223
CC 05-14-2024
223 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-3
“…lived on the San Francisco Peninsula for thousands of years and continue to live here as respectful stewards of the land.”5 However, “[d]ue to the devastating policies and practices of a succession of explorers, missionaries, settlers, and various levels of government over the centuries since European expansion, the Ramaytush Ohlone lost the vast majority of their population as well as their land.”6 The lasting influence of these policies and practices have contributed directly to the disparate housing and economic outcomes collectively experienced by Native American populations today.7 The timeline of major federal acts and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning and land use appears in Figure B3-1.

As shown in the timeline in Figure B3-1, exclusive zoning practices were common in the early 1900s.

Courts struck down only the most discriminatory and allowed those that would be considered today to have a “disparate impact” on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act. For example, the 1926 case Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. (272 U.S. 365) supported the segregation of residential, business, and industrial uses, justifying separation by characterizing apartment buildings as “mere parasite(s)” with the potential to “utterly destroy” the character and desirability of neighborhoods. At that time, multifamily apartments were the only housing options for immigrants and people of color.

The Federal Fair Housing Act was not enacted until nearly 60 years after the first racial zoning ordinances appeared in U.S. cities. This coincided with a shift away from federal control over lowincome housing toward locally tailored approaches (block grants) and market-oriented choice (Section 8 subsidies)—the latter of which is only effective when adequate affordable rental units are available.

Figure B3-1, Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing, shows a timeline for major public and legal actions related to fair housing access.

INFLUENCE OF LAND USE AND ZONING PRACTICES
While exclusive and discriminatory zoning is no longer legal, current land use and zoning patterns continue to influence neighborhood demographics, access to housing opportunities, and other housing outcomes.

The Othering & Belonging Institute, a UC Berkeley research center, published a report in 2020 analyzing the characteristics of communities in the Bay Area in relation to the degree of single-family zoning. The research findings identified that in Santa Clara County, and across the Bay Area regionally, cities with high levels of single-family zoning see greater access to resources resulting in positive life outcomes. Predominance of single-family zoning aligned with higher median incomes, home values, proficient schools, and other factors that are similarly associated with the highest-resource designation in the TCAC/HCD opportunity maps. The increased home values and scarcity of housing in these 5 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html 6 https://www.smcoe.org/for-communities/indigenous-people-of-san-mateo-county.html 7 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/ 224
CC 05-14-2024
224 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-4
areas due to their lower density can make housing and other resources in the area unaffordable to lower-income households. Single-family zoning predominates residential areas in the Bay Area; the average proportion of residential land zoned exclusively for single-family housing in Bay Area jurisdictions was found to be 85 percent. Only in two jurisdictions of the 101 surveyed (Benicia and Suisun City) did single-family zoning make up less than 40.0 percent of the jurisdiction’s land area.

However, access to higher-quality resources was greatest in jurisdictions with at least 90.0 percent of the land area designated to single-family zoning.

During the study, it was determined that 91 percent of residentially zoned land in Cupertino was zoned exclusively for single-family housing8
, putting the City in the 75th percentile when compared to other jurisdictions in the Bay Area based on percentage of exclusively single-family land. All jurisdictions that had 90 to 100 percent of their land designated for single-family housing were considered to be “highly” exclusive. However, the City’s estimate of land designated for single-family uses indicates a lower percentage of land with this designation (approximately 42 percent). In 2020, approximately

69.6 percent of Cupertino’s housing stock was made up of single-family homes, with the remaining

30.4 percent being multifamily units. While single-family zoning can create highly desirable places to live, higher entry costs associated with this housing type can pose a barrier to access for low- and moderate-income households, restricting access to economic, educational, and other opportunities that are available in higher-resource communities.

In Cupertino, the R-2, R-3, and Planned Development zoning districts with residential uses allowed, permit multifamily housing, are primarily along the Interstate 280 corridor, at the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard, sprinkled along Miller Avenue, along sections of Bollinger Road, along major corridors in the city such as Stevens Creek Boulevard in the City’s Heart of the City Special Area, De Anza Boulevard, Homestead Road, and N.

Wolfe Road. As discussed in this assessment, neighborhoods that have multifamily land are also typically those with lower median incomes, higher rates of overcrowding and overpayment, and other indicators of fair housing issues. While multifamily offers valuable housing opportunities for lowerand moderate-income households, the limited, and concentrated, supply of suitably zoned land may result in patterns of income segregation. To combat this potential fair housing issue, the City has identified Strategies HE-1.3.2, HE-2.3.2, HE-2.3.5, and HE-3.3.3 to promote accessory dwelling units (ADUs), require affordable units in all rental residential developments, facilitate infill development with affordable housing, and prevent condominium conversion when there is a shortage of rental units.

Feedback provided by community members in response to the Public Review draft of the Housing Element included input from local organizations such as Cupertino for All. Representatives from Cupertino for All expressed support for policies that permitted increased density, such as the introduction of R-4 zoning and the “corner lot” policy which permits multifamily development at R8 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/report-single-family-zoning-dominates-bay-area-housing-presenting-barrier-integration 225
CC 05-14-2024
225 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-5
3-style densities on corners within R-1 zones. The group also encouraged increased height limits and future removal of parking requirements. Cupertino for All also indicated that they believe that recent historical trends have been to develop large single-family homes, which tend not to be affordable for lower-income households.

B3.2 REPORT CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION
This Fair Housing Assessment follows the April 2021 State of California Guidance for AFFH and is organized into the following sections.
• Fair Housing Enforcement Capacity reviews lawsuits/enforcement actions/complaints against the jurisdiction, and compliance with State fair housing laws and regulations. • Ongoing Outreach Capacity describes jurisdictional capacity to conduct fair housing outreach and education.
• Compliance with State Law summarizes key State laws and regulations related to mitigating housing discrimination and expanding housing choice.
• Integration and Segregation identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of segregation, and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation. • Access to Opportunity examines differences in access to education, transportation, economic development, and healthy environments.
• Disproportionate Housing Needs identifies which groups have disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.
• Sites 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. • Fair Housing Resources and Maps, including fair housing organizations in Santa Clara County, states the mission, services, and contact information for these organizations. 226
CC 05-14-2024
226 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-6
Figure B3-1 Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing 227
CC 05-14-2024
227 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-7
B3.3 PRIMARY FINDINGS, CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, AND FAIR HOUSING

ACTIONS
This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for Cupertino, including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing factors and the City’s fair housing action plan.
• Cupertino’s population has a moderate level of diversity for the region and a higher Asian population compared to the county (68 percent of residents identify as Asian), with the Asian population increasing by 22 percentage points since 2000; • Population growth in Cupertino began leveling off in 2014, with the county and regional growth index rates increasing, albeit slowly, while Cupertino’s growth has stagnated; • Most households in Cupertino earn more than 100 percent of the regional Area Median Income (AMI), and this is true across most racial and ethnic groups. Hispanic and nonHispanic White households have the most income diversity; • Poverty rates highlight the disparity in income and opportunities by race, with the Hispanic (16.7 percent) and Black/African American (16.9 percent) populations experiencing disproportionately higher poverty rates. No other group is above 7 percent; • There were 546 residential permits issued between 2015 and 2022; • Cupertino’s jobs to household ratio is 2.60—higher than Santa Clara County overall (1.71) or the Bay Area (1.47), based on data from the California Department of Finance and the US Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics survey, but lower than those of Palo Alto, Mountain View, or the City of Santa Clara; • Access to Cupertino is limited by housing pricing and supply. Eighty-three percent of houses in the area are valued over $1 million. In 2020, Zillow reported the average market value at $2.25 million, significantly above the county’s and Bay Area’s market values. Fifty-seven percent of Cupertino’s housing units are detached single-family units. The next-closest share is multifamily at 21 percent of units, followed by 12 percent apartment units and 10 percent du-/tri-/fourplexes. While owners mostly occupy three- and four-bedroom homes (72 percent), 68 percent of renters occupy one- or two-bedroom units; o Renters, who make up 40 percent of all households, are facing the same cost pressures as owners with 87 percent of units renting for more than $2,000, and 52 percent renting for $3,000 and more. Of the city’s rental units, 14 percent rent for $2,000 and less. The county has almost three times the proportion of rentals priced under $2,000 than the city.
228
CC 05-14-2024
228 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-8
• There are disparities in housing cost burden in Cupertino by race and ethnicity—and minimally by tenure (renters/owners). Hispanic households experience by far the highest rates of cost burden in the city (45 percent). Asian (28 percent), non-Hispanic White (27 percent), and Black/African American (11 percent) households experience the lowest rates of cost burden; however, it is worth noting that there are a small number of Black/African American households in the city.
• Barriers to housing choice are largely related to the city’s very high costs of housing and lack of affordable production. Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate-income households (321 units or 59 percent of all units), followed by moderate-income households (158 or 29 percent). There were 19 permits issued for low-income units and 48 permits were issued for very low-income units.
• Cupertino has a lower proportion of residents with disabilities than the county.

Unemployment among residents with disabilities is relatively high, with 16 percent of Cupertino residents with a disability unemployed, compared to 3 percent without a disability. • Mortgage denial rates in the Census Tracts that include Cupertino are modest (14 to 17 percent of loans denied) and vary little across races and ethnicities except for Black/African American applicants.
• According to educational opportunity indices, every census tract in Cupertino scores higher than 0.75—indicating the highest positive educational outcomes. The City is home to very high performing schools.

FAIR HOUSING ISSUES AND CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Cupertino’s low production of affordable housing limits housing choices of all low-income households and has a disproportionate impact on Asian and Hispanic households who face disproportionate levels of cost burden.

Contributing factors:
• Of the 546 residential permits issued in Cupertino since 2015, approximately 12 percent were for very low- and low-income households.
• Nearly 44 percent of Hispanic households and 28 percent of Asian households in Cupertino are cost burdened compared to 26 percent of non-Hispanic White households, and almost 25 percent of households of other or multiple races.

Cupertino’s low production of housing limits the choices of lower- and moderate-income households. 229
CC 05-14-2024
229 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-9
Contributing factors:
• While Cupertino has approved more units than required in its 5th cycle RHNA, it has not received building permits to begin construction. In the long term, Cupertino has failed to permit enough housing to accommodate job growth and respond to supply shortages.

The housing that has been built in the city recently has largely been priced for above moderate-income households and moderate-income households. The community is sharply divided on issues surrounding development of new housing, with a vocal minority that consistently opposes higherdensity development in the city. Lower-income households in the county and region are disproportionately likely to be Black or African American and Hispanic residents. As a result, it is possible that Black or African American and Hispanic residents with lower incomes are priced out from living in Cupertino.

Contributing factors:
• Historical employment discrimination and lack of access to quality educational environments for Black/African and Hispanic residents have resulted in their working lower-wage jobs, which do not support the city’s housing costs.

Concentration of lower- and moderate-income households in the northern Homestead Special Area neighborhood result in a potential concentration of poverty.

Contributing factors:
• Concentration of rental units that are typically more affordable; • Shortage of workforce housing units
• Lack of affordable housing
• Older housing stock; and
• High rates of overcrowding;
In response to these high priority factors, the City has included the strategies identified in Table B3- 1 to promote housing mobility and place-based revitalization, and to prevent displacement:
230
CC 05-14-2024
230 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-10
Table B3-1 Housing Element Strategies to Address Fair Housing Issues Housing Element Strategy Housing
Mobility
Place-Based
Revitalization
Displacement
Prevention
HE-1.3.1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions X
HE-1.3.3: New Residential Zoning Districts and Land Use Designations
X
HE-1.3.4: Development on Nonvacant Sites X
HE-1.3.5: Encourage Mixed-Use Projects and Residential in Commercial Zones
X
HE-1.3.7: Lot Consolidation X
HE-1.3.8: Accessory Dwelling Units X X
HE-1.3.10: Innovative and Family-Friendly Housing Options X HE-2.3.1: Support Affordable Housing Development X
HE-2.3.4: Below- Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund X
HE-2.3.7: Incentives for Affordable Housing Development X HE-2.3.8: Density Bonus Ordinance X
HE-2.3.10: Extremely Low-Income Housing X X X
HE-2.3.11: Assistance for Persons with Developmental Disabilities X X HE-2.3.12: Live/Work Units X
HE-3.3.2: Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units X
HE-3.3.4: Housing Preservation Program X
HE-3.3.6: Rent-Control Ordinance X
HE-6.1.3: Housing Mobility X
HE-7.3.2: Coordination with Local School Districts X X
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023
The City has also included a range of programs to address other, lower-priority, contributing factors and patterns noted throughout this analysis.

B3.4 FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT CAPACITY
This section discusses fair housing legal cases and inquiries, fair housing protections and enforcement, and outreach capacity.
231
CC 05-14-2024
231 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-11

FAIR HOUSING LEGAL CASES AND INQUIRIES
California fair housing law extends beyond the protections in the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). In addition to the FHA protected classes—race, color, ancestry/national origin, religion, disability, sex, and familial status—California law offers protections for age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, and source of income (including federal housing assistance vouchers).

The California Civil Rights Department (CRD, formerly the Department of Fair Employment in Housing or DFEH) was established in 1980 and is now the largest civil rights agency in the United States. According to their website, the CRD’s mission is, “to protect the people of California from unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations (businesses) and from hate violence and human trafficking in accordance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and Ralph Civil Rights Act.”9 CRD receives, evaluates, and investigates fair housing complaints. CRD plays a particularly significant role in investigating fair housing complaints against protected classes that are not included in federal legislation and therefore not investigated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). CRD’s website provides detailed instructions for filing a complaint, the complaint process, appealing a decision, and other frequently asked questions.10 Fair housing complaints can also be submitted to HUD for investigation.

Additionally, Santa Clara County has a number of local resource and enforcement organizations:
• Project Sentinel: Assists with housing discrimination, mortgage foreclosures, rental issues, and more;
• Housing and Economic Rights Advocates (HERA): Legal and advocacy organization for vulnerable Californians facing discrimination and economic abuses related to households; • Bay Area Legal Aid: Broad advocacy focused on helping low-income Bay Area residents lead stable lives, including housing stability; and
• Law Foundation of Silicon Valley: Legal advocacy for social change with a focus on finding stable homes for low-income residents.

From 2013 to 2021, 391 fair housing complaints in Santa Clara County were filed with the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC). Most of the county’s valid complaints cited disability status as the bias. Of these complaints, 69 percent were considered valid and proceeded to actionable responses. HUD also reported that five cases were filed by residents of the City of Cupertino between January 2013 and 9 https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/ 10 https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/complaintprocess/ 232
CC 05-14-2024
232 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-12
April 2021. However, one of these cases was closed when it was withdrawn by the complainant, and the other four were closed for no-cause determinations. Three of the cases alleged discriminatory retaliation, two alleged discrimination on the basis of religion, two on the basis of disability, and one on the basis of national origin; some cases were made on more than one basis. There was no determined validity of the four cases where a determination was made. In addition to formal complaints, seven inquiries were made during the same time. Four were determined to have no valid issues or basis, two claimants failed to respond to follow-up by HUD staff, and one claimant decided not to pursue a case. There have been no fair housing lawsuits or inquiries against the City.

While the cases filed during this period did not have cause, that does not necessarily mean there is no discrimination occurring. Therefore, the City has identified Strategy HE-6.1.1 (Fair Housing Services) to continue to ensure residents and housing providers are aware of fair housing laws, rights, and requirements, as well as resources available to residents should they experience discrimination.

Further, the City will work with local and regional fair housing providers to facilitate a training for housing providers to prevent discriminatory actions and behaviors on an annual basis. Strategy HE6.1.1 (Fair Housing Services) also commits the City to partner with a fair housing service provider, such as Project Sentinel, to provide direct services, including investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and conducting fair housing testing when funding is available, and the need is present.

Figure B3-2, Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries, illustrates fair housing complaints and inquiries. 233
CC 05-14-2024
233 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-13
Figure B3-2 Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries
B3.5 ONGOING OUTREACH ON FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
The City of Cupertino’s website contains many resources for learning more about or acquiring affordable purchase and rental units. For example:
• Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley helps locals update their homes; • Housing Trust Silicon Valley programs;
o Homebuyer Empowerment Loan Program (HELP) assists middle-income first-time homebuyers with down payment assistance.

Fair Housing Complaints and Inquiries
HUD Fair Housing Complaints, by Basis, Santa Clara County, 2017-2021 Number Percent
Disability 243 77%
Race 25 8%
Familial Status 14 4%
National Origin 42 13%
Religion 28 9%
Sex 21 7%
Total cases 315
HCD Fair Housing Inquiries (2013- 2021) and HUD Fair Housing Complaints (2017- 2021) 29 26
15 12
11 11
8 7
6 1
0 0
0 San Jose
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
Palo Alto
Gilroy
Morgan Hill
Campbell
Mountain View
Los Gatos
Cupertino
Milpitas
Saratoga
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
Monte Sereno
HCD Fair Housing Inquiries
224
40 234
CC 05-14-2024
234 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-14
o Empower Homebuyers Santa Clary County assists low- to moderate-income people with down payment assistance.
o Small Homes, Big Impact Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program helps residents add ADUs to their property.
o The HOME Program provides grants for families moving to permanent sustainable housing.
• Santa Clara Mortgage Credit Certificate Program provides tax credits for federal income taxes to first-time homebuyers;
• Habitat for Humanity Silicon Valley works with those earning between 30 and 80 percent of AMI to attain homeownership;
• City of Cupertino Housing Program for De Anza Students supports college housing assistance; and
• The City’s website also lists resources available for renters through Project Sentinel and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara; however, there is no specific mention of fair housing.

In the event that a resident needs fair housing services, the following resources are available locally and regionally:
• Project Sentinel: Provides assistance and counseling regarding housing discrimination, tenant-landlord dispute resolution, and other housing counseling programs. Project Sentinel has received Public Service Grants from the City of Cupertino to continue to serve the community in the 2020/2021, 2021/2022, and 2022/2023 Fiscal Years. • ECHO Housing: Provides education and assistance in obtaining and maintaining housing, as well as fair housing counseling, investigation, mediation, and enforcement.

Should a resident come to the City seeking counsel, staff connects them with these organizations, as well as state and federal resources.

The City provides translation for public meetings and materials by request, as there typically is little to no demand for translation services. However, to engage residents in the Housing Element update process, the City’s Housing Element website offers information in English, Chinese, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Russian, though usage data indicates that there has been very little usage other than in English.
235
CC 05-14-2024
235 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-15
B3.6 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW
The following State laws were reviewed for Cupertino’s compliance:
• Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). The City has included Strategy HE-2.3.7 to amend the density bonus ordinance as necessary to respond to any changes in State law.
• No-Net-Loss (Government Code Section 65863). The City has identified a surplus of sites available to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation (RHNA). In total, the City’s surplus unit capacity is1,683, which is made up of 316 lower-income units, 154 moderate-income units, and 1,213 above moderate-income units. While the City has included ADU capacity in Appendix B4, the City does not need to rely on ADUs to accommodate the RHNA.
• Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code Section 65589.5). The City does not condition the approval of housing development projects for very low-, low-, or moderateincome households or emergency shelters unless specific written findings are made. Further, the City currently allows emergency shelters by-right, without limitations, in the BQ zoning district. Strategy HE-5.1.1 has been included to allow emergency shelters in the R4 zoning district and review and revise managerial standards to ensure compliance with State law. • Senate Bill 35 (Government Code Section 65913.4). The City of Cupertino enacted this authority in the Vallco Fashion Mall redevelopment to approve the development via ministerial approval and has adopted an established written policy/procedure to streamline the approval process and standards for other eligible projects. • Senate Bill 330 (Government Code Section 65589.5). The City complies with SB 330, relying on regulations set forth in the law for processing preliminary applications for housing development projects, conducting no more than five hearings for housing projects that comply with objective general plan and development standards, and making a decision on a residential project within 90 days after certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) or 60 days after adoption of a mitigated negative declaration (MND) or an environmental report for an affordable housing project. The City has an established written procedure that is available on the City’s website and at public counters.
• California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). The City provides protections to residents through referrals to legal assistance organizations, such as Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC) and has included Strategy HE-6.1.1 to meet with local fair housing and legal aid organizations to develop materials or annual training for landlords on fair housing rights and responsibilities with the intent of reducing or eliminating discrimination. 236
CC 05-14-2024
236 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-16
• Review Processes (Government Code Section 65008). The City reviews affordable development projects in the same manner as market-rate developments, except in cases where affordable housing projects are eligible for preferential treatment, including, but not limited to, on residential sites subject to AB 1397.
• Assembly Bill 686 (Government Code Section 8899.50). The City has completed this AFH and identified programs to address identified fair housing issues in Section B3.3 of this assessment.
• Equal Access (Government Code Section 11135 et seq.). The City offers translation services for all public meetings and offers accessibility accommodations to ensure equal access to all programs and activities operated, administered, or funded with financial assistance from the State, regardless of membership or perceived membership in a protected class. • Below-Market Rate (BMR) program. Cupertino’s current Residential Housing Mitigation Program sets BMR requirements, which currently require a 15 percent affordable set aside for rental housing and a 20 percent affordable set aside for for-sale housing in projects that propose seven or more units. A proposed change to this program would lower the threshold for for-sale projects to five units. The program requires units restricted by income – 9 percent of the units to very low-income levels (up to 50 percent of AMI), 6 percent of the units to low-income levels (50 to 80 percent of AMI) for rental developments, 10 percent of the units for median-income levels (80 to 100 percent of AMI), and 10 percent of the units at moderateincome levels (100 to 120 percent of AMI) for for-sale developments. Fee-in-lieu mitigation payments are required for developments with six or fewer units. The fees are modest and range from $19.28 per square foot for detached single-family homes to $21.21 per square foot for small lot homes, $25.71 per square foot for attached homes, and $32.14 per square foot for higher-density multifamily developments.
• Housing Conversions. Cupertino regulates conversion of apartments and other forms of rental units to condominiums by requiring that comparable replacement housing exists within the housing market area to accommodate displaced residents.

B3.7 INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION
This section discusses integration and segregation of the population by protected classes, including race and ethnicity, disability status, familial status, and income status. The section concludes with an analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence. 237
CC 05-14-2024
237 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-17
Integration and Segregation
“Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.

Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area.” Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 31.

RACE AND ETHNICITY
Cupertino differs from the county and Bay Area overall for its majority proportion of residents identifying as Asian (68 percent in Cupertino compared to 37 percent in Santa Clara County). On the other hand, the city has a disproportionately low Hispanic population (3 percent in Cupertino and 25 percent in the county). Cupertino’s proportion of Black/African American and Other and mixed-race residents is similar to the county, in that it reports less than 4 percent for both groups.

The City’s Asian population has grown by 22 percentage points since 2000, resulting in a smaller share of non-Hispanic White residents (49 percent in 2000 compared to 25 percent in 2020). The proportion of residents that identify as American Indian, Alaska Native, and Black or African American has remained relatively stable across this time period, with these residents accounting for 0.8 percent of the population in 2000 compared to 0.9 percent in 2020. The Hispanic population decreased slightly from 4.1 to 3.3 percent of the population. Almost all areas in Cupertino are now predominantly Asian, the only exception being the Oak Valley neighborhood, much of which is also occupied by the Fremont Older Open Space and the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. While this neighborhood is in a tract that is predominantly White, the portion within Cupertino is relatively sparsely populated with some single family homes and a large continuum of care facility (The Forum – with a skilled nursing facility, a memory care unit, assisted living units and a few independent living units), with the bulk of the population in the City of Los Altos’ city limits.

Younger residents are less racially diverse than other age groups, with 75 percent of the population under 18 years identifying as Asian compared to 41 percent of those aged 65 or older. There is a slight increase in the number of residents identifying as Other or Multiple Races in the younger age group, but the main shift is the declining share of White (both Hispanic and non-Hispanic) residents. There are 57 percent of residents 65 and over that identify as White but only 16 percent of residents under 18 were White.
238
CC 05-14-2024
238 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-18
The racial and ethnic composition of Cupertino is similar to that found in communities to the north, such as Sunnyvale, San Jose, Milpitas, and Fremont, where the population is predominantly Asian.

Cupertino differs from most of the communities close to it (i.e., Los Gatos, Los Altos, etc.), where White residents are in the majority. However, the diversity index in Cupertino is reflective of neighboring cities. It may also be the case that immigrant populations in the city may choose to live in higher-cost areas to be close to other community members with similar cultural backgrounds or higher-performing schools, despite the cost burden that may come with this choice.

Poverty rates are below the county rate, except for residents identifying as Hispanic or Black. The highest poverty rate by race and ethnicity in Cupertino is for Black/African American residents at 16.9 percent and Hispanic residents at 16.7 percent. This compares to a poverty rate of 6.3 percent for Asian residents and 4.5 percent for non-Hispanic, White residents. However, there is a large margin of error on this data which could over or underrepresent the percentages.

DISSIMILARITY AND ISOLATION INDICES
ABAG created a 2021 report on segregation in Cupertino measuring racial and income segregation within the community. This report analyzes two common indices that measure segregation: the isolation index and the dissimilarity index.

The Dissimilarity Index, or DI, is a common tool that measures segregation in a community. The DI is an index that measures the degree to which two distinct groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area. The DI represents the percentage of a group’s population that would have to move for each area in the county to have the same percentage of that group as the county overall.

DI values range from 0 to 100—where 0 is perfect integration and 100 is complete segregation. DI values between 0 and 39 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation.

The Isolation Index is interpreted as the probability that a randomly drawn minority resident shares an area with a member of the same minority, it ranges from 0 to 100 and higher values of isolation tend to indicate higher levels of segregation.

Overall, Cupertino has moderate diversity, and is more diverse than the nearby cities of Saratoga, Monte Sereno, and Los Gatos. The most segregated population is Asian residents, and this segregation has increased since 2000. Asian residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups. Segregation can also be seen when looking at the population through the lens of income. Due to the homogeneity of incomes within neighborhoods, above moderateincome residents in Cupertino are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups. 239
CC 05-14-2024
239 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-19
As measured by the DI, segregation in Cupertino is similar to the Bay Area overall. Geospatially, in Cupertino, all but one census tract has a predominant Asian population; however, as noted, this tract includes the unpopulated Fremont Older Open Space area and much of that tract is also located within the adjacent City of Los Altos. Each tract also has a high segregation of the Asian population.

ABAG’s assessed measures of segregation above highlighted Asian residents as the most segregated compared to other groups, and Asian residents in the city are becoming more isolated over time.

Overall, since 2010, Cupertino’s racial segregation scores have remained steady or declined, as has income segregation between moderate-income residents and other groups.

DISABILITY STATUS
Persons with disabilities typically have special housing needs due to physical or developmental capabilities, fixed or limited incomes, and higher health costs. Seniors typically experience disabilities at higher rates. The share of the population living with at least one disability is 6 percent in Cupertino, compared to 8 percent in Santa Clara County. According to the 2015-2019 American Communities Survey (ACS), Cupertino has two census tracts where the population of persons with disabilities is between 10 and 15 percent with the remainder less than 10 percent. In the Oak Valley neighborhood in northwest Cupertino, approximately 11.6 percent of the population has a disability, and in the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood, approximately 12.1 percent of the population has a disability. In these neighborhoods, the percentage of seniors is 34.8 percent and 12.9 percent, respectively. It should be noted that within the portion of the tract in Cupertino, a Continuum of Care facility, The Forum operates with a skilled nursing facility, assisted living units, memory care units and some independent living units. The area with the highest disability rate (12.1 percent) has among the lowest proportions of seniors in the city, suggesting that the rate of disability is not necessarily linked to age in that Tract/neighborhood. Further, senior retirement and assisted living facilities are located in the CrestonPharlap neighborhood, where the disability rate is 8.2 percent. While the incidence of disability has increased from 7.7 percent in 2014 in the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood and from 7.5 percent in the Oak Valley neighborhood, this could be due to the Verandas senior housing project opening in 2019. This could have influenced the slightly higher rates of disability. Therefore, these patterns have not been identified as fair housing concerns.

Compared to neighboring cities, Cupertino residents experience disabilities at a similar rate, with less than 10 percent of residents experiencing a disability in most tracts. On the other hand, Cupertino residents experience disabilities at a lower rate than residents in higher-density areas, such as South San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco. 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 rate units. As part of Strategy HE-5.1.2, the City will continue to use its Below-Market-Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF), 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 240
CC 05-14-2024
240 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-20
households and persons with special needs. Through Strategy HE-2.3.1, the City will also work with housing developers to expand opportunities for affordable lower-income housing for special-needs groups, including persons with physical and developmental disabilities by directly pursuing federal, state, and private funding for low- and moderate-income housing, partnering with nonprofit and forprofit developers to support their financing applications for affordable housing funding programs, and promoting the use of the density bonus ordinance. To meet the needs of residents with disabilities throughout the city, group homes are permitted per State law, there is one licensed adult residential care facility (Paradise Manor 3) with capacity for six residents, and four elderly assisted living facilities (Blended Family Care Home, Lotus of Cupertino Care Home, Paradise Manor 4, and Paradise Manor II), with a combined capacity for 36 residents. An additional assisted living facility is currently under construction in San Jose, but because of its close proximity to Cupertino, the facility will likely serve the needs of seniors from Cupertino. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) ACCESS Paratransit service is also available to residents and visitors in Cupertino and throughout its South Bay Area service area. VTA ACCESS is available to riders who cannot use conventional accessible bus and light rail transit services due to physical, visual, or cognitive disabilities. However, all VTA buses and light rail services are also accessible for persons using wheelchairs and include announcements of key destinations for persons with visual disabilities. Via-Cupertino, a local app-based ride-share program with fares subsidized by grant funds, also offers wheelchair-accessible vans for riders throughout the city.

FAMILIAL STATUS
Familial status can indicate specific housing needs and preferences. A larger number of nonfamily or single person households indicates a higher share of seniors living alone, young adults living alone or with roommates, and unmarried partners. Higher shares of nonfamily households indicate an increased need for one- and two-bedroom units.

Cupertino’s households are mostly made up of three- and four-person households (49 percent) and two-person households (26 percent). Married-couple households make up a majority of Cupertino households (69 percent), while less than half of all households have at least one child under the age of 18 (47 percent).

Compared to the county, Cupertino has slightly fewer one-person households (18 percent compared to 20 percent in the county) and five-person households (7 percent compared to 12 percent in the county). The city has about as many adults living alone (18 percent) as in the county (20 percent). The city also has a lower percentage of single male-headed households compared to the county (2.4 percent in the city compared to 5.0 percent in the county) and single-person households (2.0 percent in the city compared to 2.3 percent in the county).
241
CC 05-14-2024
241 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-21
Geographically, there are no concentrations of single-parent, female-headed households or adults living alone. This may indicate an even distribution of housing opportunities for these household types, though more likely is reflective of the dominance of married-couple families in Cupertino. The City has included Strategy HE-2.2 to encourage development of housing in a range of sizes and affordability to facilitate housing mobility for all household types.

Cupertino’s married couples overwhelmingly own housing: married couples make up 75 percent of the homeowners in Cupertino (Figure B3-35). Homeowners, unsurprisingly, reside in three- and fourbedroom homes more than any other housing type (Figure B3-32).

Almost as many renters and owners live alone in Cupertino (1,881 and 2,000 respectively). This represents 22.5 percent of renter households and 15.8 percent of owner households.

Cupertino’s age distribution has shifted older, all categories of age above 45 have increased since 2000.

HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Cupertino’s households are higher-income than the county and Bay Area overall: 69 percent of the city’s households earn more than 100 percent of the AMI, compared to 55 percent for the county and 52 percent for the Bay Area (refer to Figure B3-3, Segregation and Integration). As shown in Figure B3-36, almost all census tracts in the city have a median income exceeding $125,000. The census block groups abutting the east side of N. Foothill Boulevard north of Stevens Creek and surrounding the Homestead Square Shopping Center have slightly lower median incomes, at $107,059 and $107,538, respectively. The Markham Apartments, Aviare Aparments, the NorthPoint town home community, and other small lot, medium- to high-density residential units are around Homestead Square Shopping Center. While rents and home prices in Cupertino are high throughout the city, these slightly dated, in some cases deed-restricted, higher-density products may be marginally more affordable and attractive to households earning slightly lower incomes, thus resulting in a slightly lower median income. Similarly, as noted, the Foothill Heights Apartments, Sunny View Retirement Community, which includes 100 deed-restricted affordable units, and an assortment of smaller tri-plex and fourplexes, may contribute to the slightly lower income near Alpine Drive east of N. Foothill Boulevard.

In both cases, the slightly lower income does not appear to reflect disparities in access by income, as apartment complexes are in other neighborhoods throughout the city. This may also be reflective of the investment apartment owners are making in their property to command higher rents. 242
CC 05-14-2024
242 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-22
Figure B3-3 Segregation and Integration
In 2014, the lowest median income in the city ($98,422) was in the census tract covering the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood in eastern Cupertino. In 2019, the median income in the two block groups in this neighborhood has increased to $128,576 and $200,227. The area near Homestead Square Shopping Center’s median income decreased slightly from $122,905 and the area near Alpine Drive, east of N. Foothill’s median income decreased from $135,581. However, it is important to note that the available data in 2014 was at the tract level, while data in 2019 was at the block group level. The block group level provides a more granular level of detail and reflects a smaller area, while tract-level data includes areas that extend beyond the neighborhood boundaries identified for these areas.

Considering these changes in data, the relatively small changes in median income in each of these notable neighborhoods do not appear to reflect exclusionary income patterns over time. 243
CC 05-14-2024
243 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-23
The poverty rate in the city is approximately 7.7 percent, compared to 6.1 percent in Santa Clara County. As shown in Figure B3-38, the highest rate of poverty (13.7 percent) is in the tract encompassing the interchange of Interstate 280 and Highway 85 north of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Mary Avenue and the railroad, along with the area near Homestead Square Shopping Center.

In 2014, this area had a poverty rate of 6.6 percent. In contrast to the rising rates of poverty in the area, the median income in this area increased from $122,905 in 2014 to approximately $136,759 in 2019. This may suggest growing income discrepancies in this area of the city as the median income increases. It is also important to note that ACS data in this census tract in the city has a high (50%) margin of error.

RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY AND

AFFLUENCE
Racially Concentrated Area of Poverty or an Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) represent opposing ends of the segregation spectrum from racially or ethnically segregated areas with high poverty rates to affluent predominantly White neighborhoods. Historically, HUD has paid particular attention to R/ECAPs as a focus of policy and obligations to AFFH. Recent research out of the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs argues for the inclusion of RCAAs to acknowledge current and past policies that created and perpetuate these areas of high opportunity and exclusion.11 It is important to note that R/ECAPs and RCAAs are not areas of focus because of racial and ethnic concentrations alone. This study recognizes that racial and ethnic clusters can be a part of fair housing choice, if they occur in a non-discriminatory market. Rather, R/ECAPs are meant to identify areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity, and conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion.

R/ECAPs
HCD and HUD’s definition of a Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty is:

A census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) or, for non-urban areas, 20 percent, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR a census tract that has 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, whichever is lower.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021. 11 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. 2019. “Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation.” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 21(1), 99–124 244
CC 05-14-2024
244 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-24
For this study, the poverty threshold used to qualify a tract as a R/ECAP was three times the average census tract poverty rate countywide—or 21.6 percent.

According to HCD, there were 11 census tracts in the county that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.4 percent poverty rate). All were located in San Jose. None of the R/ECAPs were in Cupertino.

However, there is a concentration of poverty (13.7 percent) in the northern Homestead neighborhood and along Highway 85. While this area does not also have a comparatively high proportion of nonWhite residents, it does have a lower median income and higher rates of overcrowding, renter overpayment, and homeowner overpayment when compared to most other neighborhoods in the city.

Therefore, while this area does not meet the definition of a R/ECAP, or potential R/ECAP, it is a notable area of disproportionate need.

RCAAs
HCD’s definition of a Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Area of Affluence is:

A census tract that has a percentage of total White population that is 1.25 times higher than the average percentage of total White population in the given Council of Government (COG) region, and a median income that was two times higher than the COG AMI.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community, 2022.

RCAAs are generally understood to be neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of non-Hispanic White households and high household income rates. Similar to the importance of identifying R/ECAP areas, which helps to identify areas that are segregated by race/ethnicity and poverty, it is also necessary to identify racially concentrated areas of wealth to further compare these patterns.

Using ACS 2015-2019 data, HCD developed a mapping tool that demonstrates the “location quotient” (LQ) for each California census tract; this quotient represents the percentage of total White population for each census tract compared to that of the average percentage of the Council of Government (COG) region. To determine the RCAAs, HCD takes the census tracts with an LQ of more than 1.25 and a median income that is 1.5 times higher than the COG region (or 1.5 times the State AMI, whichever is lower). Those tracts that meet these criteria are then assigned a numeric score of 1, which indicates that those tracts have an accumulation of high incomes and a White population, i.e., an RCAA. RCAAs are the inverse of R/ECAPs in that they illustrate where self-segregated and/or exclusive wealthy White neighborhoods are potentially located. 245
CC 05-14-2024
245 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-25
The tract northwest and west of Cupertino, which spans portions of Cupertino and Los Altos, is considered an RCAA (LQ of 1.63). The portion of the city within this tract includes part of the Oak Valley neighborhood. This area identified as an RCAA in the HCD mapping tool encompasses a lot of open spaces, such as Fremont Older, Rancho San Antonio, all the way to Foothills Park (in Palo Alto). The area also includes large areas of property in Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Palo Alto, which are majority White, unlike Cupertino. In this area, 66.9 percent of the population identifies as White, the median income is $169,896, and 27.3 percent of renters and 37.7 percent of owners are overpaying for housing. These overpayment rates are notably lower than those found in tracts to the east.

However, as described in the analysis of household income, the median income throughout Cupertino is relatively high, ranging from $107,059 in the western part of the Creston-Pharlap neighborhood to $236,719 in the Garden Gate neighborhood. While there is only one potential RCAA by definition, the very high median income in the city indicates a concentration of affluence that likely reflects the availability of higher-income tech jobs and high home costs.

These conditions in Cupertino are reflective of most jurisdictions in the southern portion of the Bay Area, particularly in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Neighboring RCAAs are present in Los Altos, Woodside, Stanford, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, Hillsborough, Burlingame, Millbrae, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, Saratoga, Campbell, and Los Gatos, among others in the region. Typically, in the Bay Area, the median income is highest in lowerand medium-density, primarily single-family areas that are removed from the bay but are within a short commute distance of concentrations of jobs along the bay. While Cupertino has characteristics that suggest a concentration of affluence, the concentration is not isolated to the city, and instead exists in most similarly situated communities in the Bay Area.

The concentration of affluence in Cupertino appears to be primarily driven by housing demand and proximity to high-paying jobs, as is found in most neighboring communities. While sites that are zoned R-3, P(Res) and P(Res/CG), which allow high-density residential development, are dispersed throughout the city and located in most neighborhoods, the largest concentration of R-3 land is in the northern portion of the city, where the median income is comparatively low, when compared to the rest of the city, though still exceeding $100,000 annually. This slightly lower-income area is likely a result of a higher concentration of older stock, multifamily units, which are typically more affordable than single-family units. However, all deed-restricted affordable units are in other areas of the city, thus providing housing mobility opportunities for lower-income households throughout more neighborhoods and areas (see Table B2-3, Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion, in Appendix B2).

By ensuring that land for multifamily development at higher densities is available in most neighborhoods, and deed-restricted units are dispersed throughout the city, the City ensures that lower- and moderate-income households have housing options citywide, combating patterns of affluence. In comments received during City Council meetings, community members expressed a desire to see multifamily housing developed in areas of high opportunity. It is estimated that many of the Housing Element’s programs, including HE-1.3.4, HE-1.3.5, and HE-2.3.1, will encourage that 246
CC 05-14-2024
246 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-26
development, and that on a regional scale multifamily housing developed in Cupertino will put this development in a higher-opportunity area. Therefore, the concentration of affluence in Cupertino is driven by regional economic conditions rather than local practices. However, to provide additional opportunities and combat displacement risk that increases as local and regional housing prices rise, the City has included Strategies HE-1.3.1, HE-1.3.4, HE-1.3.7, HE-1.3.8, HE-1.3.10, HE-1.3.11, HE-2.3.1, HE-2.3.3, HE-2.3.9, HE-2.3.11, HE-2.3.12, HE-3.3.2, HE-3.3.4, and HE-3.3.6.

B3.8 ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
This section discusses disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes, including access to quality education, employment, transportation, and environment. The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), in collaboration with HCD, developed a series of opportunity maps that help to identify areas of the community with good or poor access to opportunity for residents.

These maps were developed to align funding allocations with the goal of improving outcomes for lowincome residents, particularly children.

Access to Opportunity
“Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. Access to opportunity oftentimes means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods. This encompasses education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food, and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).” Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 34.

The opportunity maps highlight areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource, and high segregation and poverty. TCAC provides opportunity maps for access to opportunity in quality education, employment, transportation, and environment. Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.

TRANSIT
Transit mobility refers to an individual’s ability to navigate the city and region on a daily basis to access services, employment, schools, and other resources. Indicators of transit mobility include the extent of transit routes, proximity of transit stops to affordable housing, and frequency of transit. 247
CC 05-14-2024
247 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-27
Residents of Cupertino are served by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) buses and Via-Cupertino (Silicon Valley Hopper), an app-based ride-share transportation services, both of which provide connections to a variety of local resources and services, as well as to regional connections.

Fares for VTA range from $2.50 for a single ride to $990 for an annual pass, with options for day and monthly passes as well. Discounted rates are available for seniors, disabled riders, Medicare riders, and youth up to age 18. Children under age five ride free. Frequent VTA buses run along Stevens Creek Boulevard while local bus routes operate along major thoroughfares (Wolfe, Miller, Bollinger, De Anza and Homestead). Together, these routes offer intra- and inter-city connections to Downtown San Jose, the Mineta San Jose International Airport, job centers and services throughout the South Bay area, and regional transit centers to connect to additional transportation options. The frequent bus (Route 23) runs from De Anza College to Alum Rock Station 7 days per week with 15- to 30- minute headways. Local bus Route 51 operates on weekdays with 50- to 60-minute headways, running from West Valley College to the Ames Research Center, with stops in Cupertino. Local buses Routes 55 and 56 operate 7 days per week with approximately 30-minute headways, running from the Santa Clara Convention Center to De Anza College (Route 55) and Lockheed Martin Transit Center to Tamien Station in San Jose (Route 56) with stops in Cupertino.

Via-Cupertino, recently rebranded as Silicon Valley Hopper, is an on-demand ride-share program in the city. The program is supported in large part through a grant from the State and is currently anticipated to run for four years before funding for the program must be considered again. Riders can request transportation via the app, or by calling a number on the city’s website. Vans offer bike racks, and two vans are also wheelchair accessible. Fares are $3.50 per ride or $25 for a weekly pass, and $1 for each additional rider. Discounted fares (50 percent and no additional rider fees) are available for seniors, students, low-income residents, and persons with disabilities. The service provides door-todoor transportation within city limits, to the Sunnyvale and Mountain View Caltrain Stations, and to El Camino Hospital in Mountain View. Service is anticipated to expand into the City of Santa Clara sometime during 2023.

AllTransit is a transit and connectivity analytic tool developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology for the advancement of equitable communities and urban sustainability. The tool analyzes the transit frequency, routes, and access to determine an overall transit score at the city, county, and regional levels. AllTransit scores geographic regions (e.g., cities, counties, Metropolitan Statistical Areas) on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being complete transit connectivity. Transit in the City of Cupertino has a score of 5.4, reflecting moderate accessibility to jobs and services via transit.

However, this score is slightly lower than surrounding cities. For example, Santa Clara scores 7.0, Sunnyvale scores 7.2, Campbell scores 7.3, and Mountain View scores 7.7. Jurisdictions with lower scores than Cupertino include Los Altos (4.8) and Saratoga (3.6). Not surprisingly, transit scores typically go up in higher-intensity urban areas, in areas with proximity to fixed-rail transit (e.g., 248
CC 05-14-2024
248 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-28
Caltrans/BART/VTA Light Rail) and closer to San Jose. Overall, Santa Clara County scores 6.5, demonstrating that Cupertino has more limited access than the county on average.

EDUCATION
TCAC’s education score is based on math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. According to TCAC’s educational opportunity map, every census tract in Cupertino scores higher than 0.75—indicating the highest positive educational outcomes.

Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.

Cupertino is served by Cupertino Union School District for K-8 (25 different schools), which is the largest elementary school district in Northern California. Children living in a northeast section of the city are served by the Santa Clara Unified School District.

The Cupertino Union School District had a 2019 enrollment of 17,363 students, with a declining enrollment, as evidenced in data for much of the county and state. Student demographics included

73.1 percent Asian, 5.1 percent Hispanic, and 14.5 percent White. As of this point in time, the district had in its student body 4 homeless students, 1,050 socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and 1,192 students with disabilities. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students are defined as students who are eligible for free or reduced-priced meals; or have parents/guardians who did not receive a high school diploma. The highest proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged students at schools within the Cupertino Union School District attend Manuel De Vargas Elementary (18.7 percent) and Warren E. Hyde Middle (12.5 percent). Hyde Middle serves the S. Blaney, Fairgrove, and Rancho Rinconada neighborhoods, both of which have lower median incomes, higher rates of overpayment and overcrowding, and other indicators of potential fair housing issues, likely stemming from a concentration of relatively affordable housing options. However, students at Manuel De Vargas Elementary generally do not live within Cupertino, as the district serves several surrounding jurisdictions, and the school itself is not within Cupertino. To ensure all students have access to equal educational opportunities, the City has included Strategy HE-1.3.2 to promote construction of ADUs and other infill strategies to increase the supply of affordable housing options in areas with higher access to resources, including areas with higher incomes and jobs proximity index scores.

Graduation rates were not available through the California Department of Education dashboard for 2019, 2020, or 2021. Fremont Union (the high school district that students in the City attend) had 11,022 students enrolled in 2019, with 60 percent Asian, 14 percent Hispanic, and 17 percent White populations. The district serves all residents of the City of Cupertino, a large part of the City of Sunnyvale, some portions of the cities of Los Altos, Santa Clara, San Jose, and Saratoga. At this time, the district had in its student body 15 homeless students, 1,634 socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and 1,053 students with disabilities. Unfortunately, students with a disability and homeless students each graduated at much lower rates, with homeless students graduating at 28 percentage points lower rate than the state. It is, however, hard to determine whether these students were 249
CC 05-14-2024
249 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-29
residents of Cupertino or not. The overall graduation rate (95.5 percent) was almost 10 percentage points higher than the state average.

All schools in Cupertino are highly rated according to the California School Dashboard, with little variance in proficiency among schools. Monta Vista High has a slightly better record in English Language Learner progress than Cupertino High and ranks higher in above-standard mathematics and English Language Arts proficiency, although Homestead High (in Fremont Union) also performs well on these measures. Regionally, students in Cupertino are expected to have similar or better educational opportunities when compared to other communities in the county and greater Bay Area.

In a focus group of school district leaders and other community services organizations, district staff indicated that a lack of affordable housing has caused challenges in teacher hiring and retention, and that higher-density development tends to generate fewer students per household than lower-density or single-family development. As part of Strategy HE-2.3.6, the City will evaluate the feasibility of developing special housing for teachers or other employee groups on City-owned surplus properties and will research other jurisdictions’ housing programs for teachers for their potential applicability in Cupertino. Additionally, rezoning efforts in Strategy HE-1.3.2 will encourage higher-density housing development, which will not only encourage more affordable housing but will do so in a way that has the potential to put less pressure on school enrollment.

EMPLOYMENT
Cupertino’s job market is heavily influenced by Apple, whose headquarters are in the city. The city’s job proximity index shows the city to have better employment opportunities than any immediately surrounding area. Six block groups score above an 80, indicating very close proximity to jobs, due in large part to their proximity to Apple campuses. However, it is unclear how many of the residents of the block groups work at Apple. Regionally, communities in the southern portion of the Bay Area typically have the highest scores for proximity to jobs, likely due to the concentration of large campus employment opportunities. However, many of these communities are more densely developed than Cupertino. Cupertino has among the highest jobs proximity index scores among similarly situated, predominantly single-family communities in the South Bay.

In 2014, the jobs-to-household ratio for Cupertino began to diverge significantly from the county and Bay Area. As of 2018, Cupertino’s jobs-to-household ratio exceeded 2.5, indicating the City has strong job opportunities for residents within Cupertino and from surrounding communities. The high ratio is also an indicator of the lack of workforce housing opportunities within the city and the need for Apple and other employers to draw heavily on workers living in other cities.

The job opportunities, especially with the proximity of Apple, likely contribute to the fact that most block groups in Cupertino have a median household income of $125,000 or more. The City has only four small sections with higher than the minimum poverty concentration of low-income households 250
CC 05-14-2024
250 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-30
and minor areas of concentrated poverty in a Census Tract which straddles both Cupertino and Sunnyvale.

Between 2015 and 2018, Manufacturing & Wholesale jobs have grown in the city. In this time period, jobs in this industry have increased by 43 percent, or 9,331 jobs. However, because the specific businesses included in the Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) are not available, it is difficult to determine which businesses or positions may have been included in this category. However, it should be noted that there are no mid-size or large manufacturing or wholesale operations located in Cupertino. The population of Cupertino, comparatively, decreased by 551 during the same period, while546 residential units were developed between 2015 and 2022. Given the City’s slow pace of development relative to job growth, it is safe to assume that many of these employees reside outside city limits.

Unemployment in Cupertino spiked in 2020 but is less than the county and region overall. This is an expected, COVID-19 pandemic-related trend; however, the unemployment rate has not yet reached pre-pandemic levels. Overall, the unemployment rate in Cupertino (4.4 percent) is lower than the county as a whole (5.7 percent) and the larger Bay Area (6.6 percent), indicating a return to regular employment opportunities more quickly than other areas of the region.

TCAC’s economic opportunity score consists of poverty, adult educational attainment, employment, job proximity, and median home value. All but two census tracts in Cupertino have high economic opportunity (> 0.75). The remaining two, in the Rancho Rinconada and Fairgrove neighborhoods, are still moderate opportunity areas, with scores between 0.50 and 0.75.

ENVIRONMENT
TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators, which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to pollution sources, such as ozone, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), diesel particulate matter (PM), pesticides, toxic releases, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites.

Most census tracts in Cupertino have scores associated with positive environmental outcomes based on CalEnviroScreen indicators, with no census tracts in the city scoring over 0.5 out of 1 (Figures B3- 51). Cupertino scores even better on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC) (Figure B3-52). It is not clear which is more reflective of the area’s environmental health. The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight categories, including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare.
251
CC 05-14-2024
251 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-31
A disadvantaged community or environmental justice community (EJ Community) is identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) as “areas [sic] that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation,” and may or may not have a concentration of low-income households, high unemployment rates, low homeownership rates, overpayment for housing, or other indicators of disproportionate housing need.12 In February 2021, the California Office for Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (COEHHA) released the fourth version of CalEnviroScreen, a tool that uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators to map and compare a community’s environmental scores. In the CalEnviroScreen tool, communities that have a cumulative score in the 75th percentile or above (25 percent highest score census tracts) are those that have been designated as disadvantaged communities under Senate Bill (SB) 535.13 The cumulative score for each census tract includes an exposure score, with a low score being a positive outcome, for each of the following:
• Ozone concentrations
• PM2.5 concentrations
• Diesel particulate matter emissions
• Drinking water contaminants
• Children’s lead risk from housing for children
• Use of certain high-hazard, high-volatility pesticides • Toxic releases from facilities
• Traffic impacts14
Communities that are identified as disadvantaged communities based on their cumulative pollution exposure score are targeted for investment through the State cap-and-trade program. However, the condition of these communities poses fair housing concerns due to disproportionate exposure to unhealthy living conditions. In the City of Cupertino, the cumulative scores of all census tracts are below the 30th percentile, with most below the 20th percentile, indicating that there are no areas that meet the criteria of a disadvantaged community and are not disproportionately exposed to high levels of pollutants compared to other census tracts in the state. These scores reflect extremely positive environmental conditions for residents of Cupertino.
12 California Health and Safety Code, Section 39711 13 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. June 2017. SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
14 California Environmental Protection Agency, California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessments. February 202. Update to the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Public Review Draft. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/document/calenviroscreen40reportd12021.pdf. 252
CC 05-14-2024
252 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-32
However, Interstate 280 runs east to west along the northern portion of the city and Highway 85 runs north to south through the western portion of the city. The confluence of these freeways is adjacent to the Monta Vista Village and Garden Gate neighborhoods, where poverty rates are highest (13.7 percent of the population), though the median income is still $142,969. The locations of these freeways, however, may pose a potential environmental concern for adjacent residential areas, who may face increased exposure to traffic emissions and particulate matter. CalEnviroScreen reports that the pollution burden for diesel particulate matter and traffic in this area are in the 88th and 83rd percentiles, respectively. However, Highway 85 has limited truck traffic because semi-trucks are prohibited south of Stevens Creek Boulevard.

In Santa Clara County, cumulative pollution exposure scores are relatively consistent among similarly situated, suburban and urban communities. Scores increase in higher-intensity areas, such as in San Jose.

In a community workshop, participants expressed a desire for developments to have lower impact on greenhouse gas emissions and lower vehicle miles traveled, and for buildings to have private and community open space such as balconies and landscaped areas, while avoiding privacy impacts to adjacent lower density residential developments. Through Strategy HE-7.3.1, the City will coordinate with the Valley Transportation Authority to ensure adequate transit access for new developments, which can encourage residents to reduce their vehicle miles traveled and may reduce traffic emissions.

The City will also continue to implement its General Plan policies in the Mobility Element by developing programs to help improve the transportation network and impacts to the environment.

The City implements environmental requirements including those related to Air Quality, Biological and Cultural Resources through its Municipal Code. Additionally, through Strategies HE-4.1.2 and

4.1.3, the City will continue to implement the Landscape Ordinance, which will require water-efficient landscaping in new residential projects throughout the city, and provide incentives for energy conservation improvements at small affordable housing projects to exceed the requirements of the California Green Building Code.

DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Because Cupertino offers high opportunity neighborhoods throughout, all residents live in highly resourced areas, regardless of race or ethnicity.

The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Center for Disease Control (CDC)—ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster—includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. Cupertino scores well on the SVI; no neighborhoods are ill equipped to respond to disasters. 253
CC 05-14-2024
253 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-33
Cupertino does not have any disadvantaged communities as defined under SB 535 as “the top 25 percent scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.”15

DISPARITIES SPECIFIC TO THE POPULATION LIVING WITH A DISABILITY Of the population in Cupertino, 7 percent is living with at least one disability, compared to 8 percent in the county. The most common disabilities in the city are ambulatory (3.9 percent), selfcare (3.6 percent), and independent living difficulty (3.0 percent). For the population 65 and over, the share of the population with ambulatory difficulties increases to 11.4 percent while hearing difficulty becomes a top-three issue at 9.4 percent. As is shown in Figure B3-4, Access to Opportunity, 16 percent of Cupertino residents with a disability are not employed, compared to 3 percent of residents without a disability. Unemployment rates for Cupertino residents with disabilities are higher than the rate countywide (10 percent).

Disability
“Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.” Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 36.

B3.9 DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
This section discusses disparate housing needs for protected classes, including cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, homelessness, displacement, and other considerations.

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 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. 15 CalEPA. 2022. SB 525 Disadvantaged Communities (2022 Update). https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535 254
CC 05-14-2024
254 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-34
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%
68% 1% 25% 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
255
CC 05-14-2024
255 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-35

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 higherincome builds, with 321 units for above moderate-income households, 19 for 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-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, owners in Cupertino mostly occupied four or more-bedroom homes (50.7 percent), while 60.8 percent of renters occupy 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.

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 have been consistently higher than those of the county and Bay Area overall, and are now roughly double the 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

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 Area 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. 256
CC 05-14-2024
256 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-36
According to HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer (HCD data viewer), Cupertino does not have any public housing buildings. Additionally, none of the census tracts in the city 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 City’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 city, as lower-income households are much more likely to face cost burden. Cost burden is much higher for the city’s lowestincome 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 (37 percent burdened) more likely to experience burden than owners (24 percent). As seen in Figure B3-74, 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. Vallco Park 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 greatest concentrations of owner overpayment, in contrast, range from 43.1 percent in the Rancho Rinconada area to 43.5 percent in the area including parts of the Garden Gate Neighborhood and areas west of the Homestead Square Shopping Center. In parts of each of the neighborhoods with rates of homeowner overpayment exceeding 40 percent, nearly 30 percent of households are lower-tomoderate 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 city (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. 257
CC 05-14-2024
257 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-37
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
258
CC 05-14-2024
258 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-38

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 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 Creston-Pharlap, Garden Gate, Homestead Villa and Homestead Road areas (12.3 percent), and the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood (14.0 percent).

In the Rancho Rinconada 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 soccer 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 larger 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 has 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. 259
CC 05-14-2024
259 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-39

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. About 2.8 percent of renter households lack complete kitchens and 0.7 percent lack complete plumbing. In the City of Cupertino, the median 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. Until recently, Rancho 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 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.

The PIT provides the demographic composition of the homeless population at the county level, but not at the local level. Therefore, Table B3-2, 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, 260
CC 05-14-2024
260 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-40
without data available at the local level, it is assumed that the percentages of each protected class apply to the local homeless population.

Table 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 Nonconforming <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 or 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 Pacific 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 261
CC 05-14-2024
261 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-41
through Policy HE-5.1 and Strategies HE-2.3.1, HE-5.1.1, and HE-5.1.4. Approximately 34.0 percent 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:
o Sacred Heart Community Service provides several homelessness prevention programs, including emergency rent and deposit financial assistance. o Here4You Hotline is a centralized referral system to connect residents with temporary housing programs, rental assistance, and referrals to other community services. o Emergency Assistance Network provides emergency financial assistance and other services to prevent homelessness, utility disconnections, and hunger. Services include onetime rent and mortgage payment assistance, move-in costs for rental deposits, one-time utility assistance, on-site information and referrals, food pantries, and more. 262
CC 05-14-2024
262 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-42
o 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.
o Law Foundation of Silicon Valley has a legal aid program providing housing discrimination and eviction prevention representation.
• Local Resources and Services:
o 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.
o 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. o 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 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. Owners move very infrequently: 22.1 percent of homeowners moved into their current residence in or before 1989, and 73.9 percent moved into their current residence in 2009 or earlier. In contrast, 45.9 percent of renters have moved to their current residence since 2015.

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. 263
CC 05-14-2024
263 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-43
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.UrbanDisplacement.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 mixedincome, 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.
264
CC 05-14-2024
264 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-44
• 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 highincome 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 moderateincome 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 265
CC 05-14-2024
265 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-45
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 partnering 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 present 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 to 20 percent, with the exception of Black/African American applicants (33 percent). It should be noted that only six 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 general pattern in the region.

Figure B3-5, Disproportionate Housing Needs, summarizes information on disproportionate housing needs in the city.
266
CC 05-14-2024
266 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-46
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 B3-6 illustrates the distribution of the sites inventory by affordability along with the boundaries of the city’s census tracts and block groups. Table B3-3 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.
267
CC 05-14-2024
267 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-47
Figure B3-6 RHNA Sites by Affordability with Census Tract and Block Group Boundaries 268
CC 05-14-2024
268 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-48
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?
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Percentile
Median
Household
Income
Households
with Income
Under the
Poverty Line
(%)
Househol
ds with a
Disability
(%)
Children
in
FemaleHeaded
Households (%)
NonWhite
(%)
Households
Experiencing
Overcrowding
(%)
Renters
Overpaying
for Housing
(%)
Homeowners
Overpaying
for Housing
(%)
Community
Vulnerable
to
Displacement?
VLI &
LI
Units
VLI &
LI
Units
(%)
Mod.

Income
Units
Mod.

Income
Units (%)
AboveMod
Income
Units
Above
Mod
Income
Units (%)
Census Tract 5077.01,
Block Group 1
0 0.0% 2 0.2% 11 0.3%
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 7.8% 70 8.2% 181 5.7% 82 $183,750 77.5%
Census Tract 5077.02,
Block Group 3
31 1.5% 18 2.1% 35 1.1% 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 0.7% 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 12.2% 99 11.6% 268 8.5%
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 4.2% 0 0.0% 211 6.7% 68 $142,969 77.7%
Census Tract 5078.06,
Block Group 3
48 2.3% 55 6.5% 221 7.0% 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 5.7% 53 6.6% 160 5.1% 43 $211,111 82.2%
269
CC 05-14-2024
269 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-49
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?
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Percentile
Median
Household
Income
Households
with Income
Under the
Poverty Line
(%)
Househol
ds with a
Disability
(%)
Children
in
FemaleHeaded
Households (%)
NonWhite
(%)
Households
Experiencing
Overcrowding
(%)
Renters
Overpaying
for Housing
(%)
Homeowners
Overpaying
for Housing
(%)
Community
Vulnerable
to
Displacement?
VLI &
LI
Units
VLI &
LI
Units
(%)
Mod.

Income
Units
Mod.

Income
Units (%)
AboveMod
Income
Units
Above
Mod
Income
Units (%)
Census Tract 5080.01,
Block Group 1
0 0.0% 93 10.9% 70 2.2%
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 0.6% 5 0.6% 12 0.4% 81 $128,250 78.4%
Census Tract 5080.01,
Block Group 4
82 3.9% 34 4.0% 98 3.1% 78 $221,563 69.6%
Census Tract 5080.03,
Block Group 1
83 4.0% 33 3.9% 87 2.8% 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
253 12.2% 130 15.3% 48 1.5%
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 4.3% 126 14.8% 62 2.0% 80 $201,563 78.2%
Census Tract 5081.01,
Block Group 3
252 12.1% 111 13.0% 290 9.2% 79 $174,929 79.3%
Census Tract 5081.02,
Block Group 1
581 28.6% 0 0.0% 1,321 39.9% 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 0.3% 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. 270
CC 05-14-2024
270 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-50
This page intentionally left blank.
271
CC 05-14-2024
271 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-51
Analysis of Fair Housing Factors Relating to RHNA Site and Project Placement Similarities As 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 cities 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 80th 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.

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.

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 city may have a higher 272
CC 05-14-2024
272 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-52
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 1.5 percent of the lower-income units, 2.1 percent of moderate units and 1.1 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 lowerincome 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 0.7 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 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 5.7 percent of lower-income units, 6.4 percent of moderate-income units, and 5.7 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. 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.
273
CC 05-14-2024
273 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-53
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 4.0 percent of the lowerincome units, 3.9 percent of moderate-income units, and 2.8 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.

RaceAs 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 1 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 block group, including no lower-income units, 0.2 percent of moderate-income units, and 0.3 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 units in the sites inventory and project list, it is estimated that 2.3 percent of lower-income units, 6.5 percent of moderate-income units, and 7.0 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 moderateincome 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. 274
CC 05-14-2024
274 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-54
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, multifamily 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 singlefemale 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 0.3 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, 12.2 percent of lower-income units, 11.6 percent of moderate-income units, and 8.5 percent of above moderate-income units are in this block group.

An additional 4.2 percent of lower-income units and 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. 275
CC 05-14-2024
275 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-55
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 singlefamily homes that are present in this tract are relatively large, the tract contains a significant number of multifamily 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 percent of lower-income units, 6.5 percent of moderate-income units, and 7.0 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.

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 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 276
CC 05-14-2024
276 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-56
(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, it 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, 4.5 percent of lower-income units, 115.5 percent of moderate-income units, and 5.7 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.

B3.11 FAIR HOUSING RESOURCES AND MAPS
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. 277
CC 05-14-2024
277 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-57
Figure 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 Service Area Address Phone Website
278
CC 05-14-2024
278 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-58
Figure B3-8 HCD Fair Housing Inquiries, 2013-2021
Source: Organization Websites
279
CC 05-14-2024
279 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-59
Figure B3-9 FHEO Inquiries by City to HCD, Santa Clara County, 2013-2022

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 280
CC 05-14-2024
280 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-60
Figure 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 0 146 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
Disability Race Total
Familial
Status
National
Origin Religion Sex Color
Failure
to
Respond
None
Cited
Decision
Not To
Persue
281
CC 05-14-2024
281 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-61
Figure B3-11 Public Housing Buildings, Santa Clara County Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 282
CC 05-14-2024
282 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-62
Figure B3-12 Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 283
CC 05-14-2024
283 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-63

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. Figures 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. Figures 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 size, 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 B3-13 Population by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
284
CC 05-14-2024
284 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-64
Figure B3-14 Population by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-15 Senior and Youth Population by Race, Cupertino, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
285
CC 05-14-2024
285 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-65
Figure B3-16
Area Median Income by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
NOTE: Black or African American Area Median Income comes from ABAG, but it does not align with Figure B3-17s poverty rate.

Figure B3-17 Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

286
CC 05-14-2024
286 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-66
Figure B3-18 Percentage Non-White Population by Census Block Groups, 2018 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 287
CC 05-14-2024
287 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-67
Figure B3-19 White Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 288
CC 05-14-2024
288 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-68
Figure B3-20 Asian Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 289
CC 05-14-2024
289 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-69
Figure B3-21 Hispanic Majority Census Tracts
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 290
CC 05-14-2024
290 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-70
Figure B3-22 Neighborhood Segregation by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 291
CC 05-14-2024
291 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-71
Figure B3-23 Diversity Index by Block Group, 2010
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 292
CC 05-14-2024
292 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-72
Figure B3-24 Diversity Index by Block Group, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 293
CC 05-14-2024
293 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-73
DISABILITY STATUS.

Figure B3-25 Share of Population by Disability Status, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

294
CC 05-14-2024
294 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-74
Figure B3-26 Percentage of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 295
CC 05-14-2024
295 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-75
FAMILIAL STATUS.

Figure B3-27 Age Distribution, Cupertino, 2000-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-28 Share of Households by Size, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

296
CC 05-14-2024
296 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-76
Figure B3-29 Share of Households by Type, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-30 Share of Households by Presence of Children (Less than 18 years old), 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

297
CC 05-14-2024
297 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-77
Figure B3-31 Housing Type by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-32 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
298
CC 05-14-2024
298 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-78
Figure B3-33 Percentage of Children in Married-Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 299
CC 05-14-2024
299 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-79
Figure B3-34 Percent Households with Single Female with Children by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 300
CC 05-14-2024
300 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-80
Figure B3-35 Percentage of Married Couple Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 301
CC 05-14-2024
301 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-81
Figure B3-36 Percentage of Adults Living Alone by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 302
CC 05-14-2024
302 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-82

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

Figure B3-37 Share of Households by Area Median Income (AMI), 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

303
CC 05-14-2024
303 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-83
Figure B3-38 Median Household Income by Block Group, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 304
CC 05-14-2024
304 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-84
Figure B3-39 Low to Moderate Income Population by Block Group Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 305
CC 05-14-2024
305 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-85
Figure B3-40 Poverty Status by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 306
CC 05-14-2024
306 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-86
Figure B3-41 R/ECAPs, 2013
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Note: R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50% 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 (majorityminority) AND the poverty rate is two times the average tract poverty rate for the County (13% in 2010). 307
CC 05-14-2024
307 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-87

ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY

EDUCATION
Figure B3-42 shows TCAC opportunity areas educational score by census tract. 308
CC 05-14-2024
308 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-88
Figure B3-42 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 309
CC 05-14-2024
309 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-89

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 economic score by census tract. Figure B3-49 shows jobs proximity index by block group.

Figure B3-43 Jobs by Industry, Cupertino, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

310
CC 05-14-2024
310 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-90
Figure B3-44 Job Holders by Industry, Cupertino, 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-45 Jobs to Household Ratio, Cupertino, 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

311
CC 05-14-2024
311 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-91
Figure B3-46 Jobs to Worker Ratio by Wage, Cupertino, 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-47 Unemployment Rate, 2010-2021
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

312
CC 05-14-2024
312 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-92
Figure B3-48 TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 313
CC 05-14-2024
313 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-93
Figure B3-49 Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group, 2017
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 314
CC 05-14-2024
314 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-94

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.
315
CC 05-14-2024
315 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-95
Figure B3-50 TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Score by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 316
CC 05-14-2024
316 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-96
Figure B3-51 CalEnviroScreen by Census Tract, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 317
CC 05-14-2024
317 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-97
Figure B3-52 Healthy Places Index by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 318
CC 05-14-2024
318 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-98

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 B3-53 Population Living in Moderate and High Resource Ares by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
NOTE: There are no moderate or low resource areas in the city.

Figure B3-54 Population with Limited English Proficiency, Cupertino, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
319
CC 05-14-2024
319 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-99
Figure B3-55 TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 320
CC 05-14-2024
320 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-100
Figure B3-56 Social Vulnerability Index by Census Tract, 2018 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 321
CC 05-14-2024
321 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-101
Figure B3-57 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 322
CC 05-14-2024
322 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-102

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

323
CC 05-14-2024
323 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-103
Figure B3-60 Disability by Type for Seniors (65 years and over), Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-61 Employment by Disability Status, Cupertino, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
324
CC 05-14-2024
324 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-104
Figure B3-62 Share of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 325
CC 05-14-2024
325 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-105

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 B3-63 Population Indexed from 1990
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-64
Housing Permits Issued by Income Group, Cupertino, 2015-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
326
CC 05-14-2024
326 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-106
Figure B3-65 Housing Units by Year Built, Cupertino
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-66 Distribution of Home Value for Owner Occupied Units, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

327
CC 05-14-2024
327 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-107
Figure B3-67 Zillow Home Value Index, 2001-2020
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-68 Distribution of Contract Rents for Renter Occupied Units, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

328
CC 05-14-2024
328 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-108
Figure 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 B3-70 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Jurisdiction, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

329
CC 05-14-2024
329 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-109
Figure B3-71 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-72 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Area Median Income (AMI), Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

330
CC 05-14-2024
330 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-110
Figure B3-73 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-74 Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Family Size, Cupertino, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

331
CC 05-14-2024
331 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-111
Figure B3-75 Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 332
CC 05-14-2024
332 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-112
Figure B3-76 Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Owner Households by Census Tract, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 333
CC 05-14-2024
333 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-113

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 B3-77 Occupants per Room by Jurisdiction, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-78 Occupants per Room by Tenure, Cupertino, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

334
CC 05-14-2024
334 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-114
Figure B3-79 Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
NOTE: Overcrowding is indicated by more than 1 person per room.

Figure B3-80 Occupants per Room by AMI, Cupertino, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
335
CC 05-14-2024
335 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-115
Figure B3-81 Overcrowded Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 336
CC 05-14-2024
336 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-116

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

Figure 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 B3-83 Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Santa Clara County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 7 377 696
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 3 301 400
Unsheltered # 243 7,413
People in
Households
Solely
Children
People in
Households
with Adults
and Children
People in
Households
Without
Children
337
CC 05-14-2024
337 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-117
Figure B3-84 Share of General and Homeless Populations by Race, Santa Clara County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure B3-85 Share of General and Homeless Populations by Ethnicity, Santa Clara County, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

338
CC 05-14-2024
338 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-118
Figure 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 B3-87 Location of Population One Year Ago, Cupertino, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook

Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 128 5 201 79 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
339
CC 05-14-2024
339 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-119
Figure B3-88 Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence, Cupertino, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure 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
340
CC 05-14-2024
340 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-120
Figure B3-90 Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 341
CC 05-14-2024
341 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-121
Figure B3-91 Location Affordability Index by Census Tract Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 342
CC 05-14-2024
342 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-122
Figure B3-92 Share of Renter Occupied Households by Census Tract, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer

343
CC 05-14-2024
343 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-123
Figure B3-93 Special Flood Hazard Areas, 2020
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 344
CC 05-14-2024
344 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-124

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 B3-94 Mortgage Applications by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2018- 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
NOTE: Applications were very low for American Indian/Alaskan Native (6 total), Black/African American (also 6 total), and Hispanic/Latino applicants (33 total).

Figure B3-95 Mortgage Application Denial Rate by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2018-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
345
CC 05-14-2024
345 of 1197
Housing Resources and Opportunities B.4

APPENDIX
346
CC 05-14-2024
346 of 1197
347
CC 05-14-2024
347 of 1197
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 ......................................................................................... B4-30 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 ............................................................... B4-13 Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details ......................... B4-14 Table B4-9 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones ................................................................ B4-19 Table B4-10 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones – Additional Site Details ......................... B4-21 Table B4-11 Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA ................................................ B4-26 Table B4-11A Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA ................................................ B4-27 Table B4-12 Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to the 6th Cycle RHNA ........................ B4-31 Figures
Figure B4-1 Priority Housing Sites Map ............................................................................... B4-32 Figure B4-2 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 1 ................................................................. B4-33 Figure B4-3 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 2 ................................................................. B4-34 Figure B4-4 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 3 ................................................................. B4-35 348
CC 05-14-2024
348 of 1197
349
CC 05-14-2024
349 of 1197
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 nonvacant (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 developing 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; 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.

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

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

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 during the 5th Cycle (2015 to 2023) RHNA planning period. The housing need is divided into the 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 and the percentage of the city’s total RHNA that is allocated to each affordability category. 350
CC 05-14-2024
350 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐2
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 occupancy or final permit. As of July 2023, of the more than 3,319 units that the City has approved, there were an estimated 1,618 housing units in the pipeline assumed to meet a portion of the City’s RHNA. Of these units, 586 units are affordable to lowerincome households, 49 units are affordable to moderate-income households, and 893units are market rate. Affordability for lower- 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.
351
CC 05-14-2024
351 of 1197
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
31620122
The Rise (Vallco)
10101 N Wolfe Road
0 2,669 890 0 1,779
Phase 1 581 0 1,321 Abu Dhabi
Investment
Authority.

Potential LowIncome
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 2: 767 units total, 309 affordable) to
meet the RHNA.
31620121 10330 N Wolfe Road Phase 2
(Not Counted
Toward RHNA)
309 0 458
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 McClellan 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 3,219 942 49 2,228 --- 633 49 1,770 --- ---
Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023
352
CC 05-14-2024
352 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐4
This page intentionally left blank.

353
CC 05-14-2024
353 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐5
B4.3 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 zoning provides a means for determining the realistic number of dwelling units that could be constructed on those sites in the current planning period.