Cupertino City Council
May 14, 2024

Housing Element Technical Report B

APPENDIX

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

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 bein g 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 repr esents 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 fo r 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 po licy 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 Cycl e Housing Element that covered the January 31, 2015, through January 31, 2023, planning period.

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 Counc il 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, house hold 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 nongovernmen tal 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 S ection 65302.g.3), upon the next revision of the Housing Element on or after January 1, 2014, th e 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 classifi ed as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, as 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 nece ssary 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 af ter 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 a pplicable laws and any a dditional requirements and General Plan guidelines from the State of Califor nia Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR).

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B‐4

This page intentionally left blank.

Public Participation B.1

APPENDIX

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

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 representative s 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 r obust, inclusive, and meaningful. COVID-19 has complicated community outreach efforts, but the pa ndemic has also catalyzed the development of new digital tools that have brought interactive engage ment to a new level. One such tool is an all-in- one 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 Elemen t basics, site surveys, a Senate Bill 9 survey, and materials from community workshops.
 Places. The update team gathered feedback fr om 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.

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 grou p about the Housing Element update and the community engagement opportunities that woul d 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 Focu s 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.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐3

 September 26, 2022: Comm unity 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 ha d grown to over 2,000 subscribers. E- notifications 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 Fa cebook, Twitter, NextDoor, and eNotification.

This outreach is summarized in Table B1-1, Social Media Outreach.

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 ho useholds 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 wi th 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 ve ry 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 Va lley 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 week ly 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.

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 pe ople 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 Amer ican tribes that are pres ent and active in Santa Clara County. All tribal groups have received mail ed 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 meeting s 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 pr operties could potentially be viable housing sites per HCD criteria. An online owner interes t form was created by the City’s consultant, EMC Planning, and placed on the website. At pr esent, 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 Element- related 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.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B1‐6

 Staff attended the April 23, 2022, Earth and Ar bor 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 c oordinated by City staff, EMC Planning and West Valley Community Services (WVCS) and feat ured 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 Septem ber 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 th e Planning and Housing Commissions provided recommendations to the City Council on whic h 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.

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 sel ection 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 identi fied nearly 400 properties citywide that could potentially be placed on the City’s housing sites in ventory. The sites inventory is the list of City Council-approved properties that identifies where housing will be developed during the 2023-2031 planning period. The majority of these properties fe ll within the property size range, 0.5-10 acres, recommended by 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 disp lacement 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 ho using 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 recommendati on, 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. Ex tensive comments were received at the April 26, 2022, Planning Commission meeting, where in th e Planning Commission reiterated its previously stated principles and goals for housing site selecti on and also directed staff to focus on the potential inclusion of several “key” sites along South DeAnza and Stevens Creek Boulevards.

On June 28 and July 5, 2022, the Planning and Housing Commissions held a special joint meeting (the meeting was continued from June 28 to July 5) to finalize their housing sites inventory recommendation to the City Council. The Planni ng 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 al so included that the development standards APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B1‐8

be established that allow for more intensive deve lopment 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 grou p meetings related to rezoning for the Housing Element update. Over 75 local and national affo rdable 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 densitie s 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 di strict 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 higher- density 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.

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, fr om 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-and- answer 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 thro ugh 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, fo llowed by townhomes and multi-family projects.

Some participants suggested that mixed-use devel opment 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, ve rtical articulation on the façade, and vegetation.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B1‐10

Others pointed out concerns about adequate resi dential 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 mixed- use 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 on ly; 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 de velopments 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 in cluded, 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.

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, expa nding 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 Ci ty’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Several revisions were made to the Fair Housing Assessm ent, 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 availa ble 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 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 abou t the availability of power infrastructure and potential traffic conditions and graffiti that th e community member feels ma y 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 econom ic 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 th e 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 summe r to discuss rezoning, General Plan and objective design standards in relation to the Housing Element.  Partner with school districts and other organiza tions 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.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B1‐13

 Address the job-housing imbalance and discoura ge 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 wo uld 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 provid ed 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 an d densities; collect feedback about 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, Ci ty 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 pr ovides 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 pede strian 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 pu blic 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.

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 not ified of the availability, consistent with State law. The City resubmitted the revised Housing Element to HCD on October 16, 2023.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B1‐16

This page intentionally left blank.

Housing Needs Assessment B.2

APPENDIX

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 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 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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B2‐iv

This page intentionally left blank.

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 un its, although the need for affordable housing is higher than ever. For example, in many cities in creasing housing costs coupled with the lack of affordable housing options has resulted in resident s 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 Califor nia (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 Gr eat 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 Cupe rtino was estimated to be 59,549 in 2020. The population of Cupertino makes up abou t 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.

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 20 10, 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 gro wth 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 increa sed 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.

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 ha s 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.

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.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐5

RACE AND ETHNICITY
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and re gion is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These pa tterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, di scriminatory 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 populati on 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 POPEMP-

02. 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%
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 affordabil ity crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub- regional scale.

One measure of this is the relationship between wo rkers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, wh ile 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-Househo ld 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.

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, br oken 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 ho using in particular pri ce 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 re sidents (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 numb er of jobs in a wage gr oup 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.

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.

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.

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 Janu ary 2021. Santa Clara County and the Bay Area also experienced a similar decrease between Janu ary 2010 and January 2021 (11.6 percent to 5.7 percent) and (11.1 percent to 6.6 percent). Juri sdictions throughout the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts re lated 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, Loca l 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 mo st 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.

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 he althcare 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 bet ween 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 low- income, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-income. This is then adjusted for household size.

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 low- income households have a more similar tenure, wi th just a 1 percent difference between very low- income 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 histor ically 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 reside nts (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 pe rcent. 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
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐13

is a smaller number of Black/African American households in Cupertino. Fi gure 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 Cu pertino 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 Non-
Hispanic)
White, Non-
Hispanic
American Indian
or Alaska Native
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
City of Cupertino Santa Clara County
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐14

Figure B2-14 Housing Tenure

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Ye ar 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 ac ross race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differ ences 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 an d may also be members of any ra cial 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 hom es, 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 Cl ara 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.

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
Owner-
Occupied
Percentage
Renter-
Occupied
Percentage
Owner-
Occupied
Percentage
Renter-
Occupied
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.

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-Ye ar 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 gent rification. 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

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, Americ an 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 increa singly interested in “missing middle housing,” including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottag e 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/san- francisco/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement

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 hom es. 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 un its 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
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 ca tegory. The Census Bureau classifies units as Other Vacant if they are vacant due to foreclosur e, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for be ing rented or sold, or vacant for an extended period for reasons such as a work assi gnment, 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.

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 pe rmits 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 Deve lopment (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2022).

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 rehabilitat ion 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 renter s lack plumbing, compared to 0. 1 percent of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.05 percent who lack plumbing. In Sa nta 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 issue s 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 cracke d 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 re habilitation, 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 de mand 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
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐22

The typical home value in Cupert ino 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 propor tion of single-family homes. Figure B2-22, Home Values of Owner- Occupied 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 percen t 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.

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 tabl e behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-08.

Similar to home values, rents have also increased dr amatically 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.

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, fr om $2,000 to $3,040 per month. In Santa Clara County, the median rent ha s increased 39.6 percent, from $1,540 to $2,150.

The median rent in the region has increased signific antly 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 burd en. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher ri sk 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.

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 Cu pertino, 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 ma jority 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.

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%
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐27

Currently, people of color 14 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 ho mes 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.

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 th an 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 th e majority of their income on housing. Figure B2-30, Cost- Burdened Senior Households by Income Level, shows cost-burdened households by income level.

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 rela ted 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%
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 per cent 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.

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 housi ng 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 ho using ordinance, or dens ity 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 affo rdable 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.

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
Date Lower Moderate
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
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
Date Lower Moderate
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
2038 20415 Via Paviso
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 preser ving 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.

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 comp lex 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 constru cted with the same number of units, with the same number of bedrooms and amenities as the de velopment removed from the affordable housing stock.

The cost of developing new housing depends on a va riety of factors, such as density, size of units, location and related land costs, and type of constr uction. 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, whic h 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 th e 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 woul d be an estimated $1,682 per month for a three- bedroom 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 ve ry 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.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐35

Preservation Resources
Once the City becomes aware of an impending conv ersion, 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 qualif ied 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 a ssisting in the preservation and expansion of affordable housing in the community.

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 inform ation 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 low- and 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.

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 tax- exempt 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 long- term debt financing for affordable multifamily rental housing.

Nonprofit and for-profit developers contact member banks.  New construction,
 rehabilitation,
 acquisition.

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.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐43

B2.4 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS

LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Large households often have different housing n eeds 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 ow ner-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 th e household sizes that can access that community.

Large families are generally served by housing un its with three or more bedrooms. Cupertino has 12,979 units (61.9 percent) with three or more be drooms. Among these large units, 81.8 percent are owner-occupied units and 18.2 percent are renter-occupi ed 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 Cre dit 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 Ho usehold 3 Person Hous ehold 4 Person Househ old 5 Or More Person Household
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
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.

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 female- headed 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 bene fit 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.

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 lower- income households in general, such as the BMR, CDBG, and HSG Programs. Single-parent households can also benefit from supportive and ch ildcare 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. Se niors 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 senior s. 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
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 reso urces in the community that will assist them to continue to remain independent and safe in thei r own homes. Available programs include various social and recreation activities, special events, tr avel programs, transportation discounts, drop-in consultation, case management, medical, and social services.

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 Ave nue 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.

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 Cupe rtino 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.

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 in dividuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely aff ected 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 Serv ices 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 Ca lifornia that provides point-of-entry services for people with developmental disabilities. The cen ter is a private, nonprof it community agency that contracts with local businesses to offer a wide rang e 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 provider s 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 vouc hers, 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, th e 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.

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 de velopmental 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 Cupert ino 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 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. Risi ng 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 recen t years, either temporar ily or longer term.

Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is dispropo rtionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction, an d 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 requi red 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. Fo r 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 collect ed at the individual jurisdiction level through the Point in Time Count. However, the countywide Po int in Time Count results indicated an over- representation of Hispanic/Latinx, Black or Afri can 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 disabilitie s may be over-represented in the city’s homeless population due to the existing challenges Bay Area re sidents with physical or mental disabilities face in accessing affordable housing.

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 ho meless 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

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 shar e 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 dealin g 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 st ably housed, individuals experiencing homelessness require not only affordable housing, but also housi ng 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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B2‐55

In Cupertino, there were no reported students expe riencing 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 th e 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 fo r 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 shel ters and transitional housing that are near the City of Cupertino and available to residents.

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 cons iderably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Accordingly, finding d ecent 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.

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 Educatio n, 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 requir e 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 dat a table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table FARM-02.

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: Populati on 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.

B3-i

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing B.3

APPENDIX

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 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 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
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

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.

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 t o 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 1960s- era 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 Ramayt ush 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.

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 a s 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 a cts 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 low - income 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/ 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 housing
8, putting the City in the 75th percentile when compared to other jurisdictions in the Bay Area based on percent age 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 c ity 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 a ssessment, 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 lower - and 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 R-

8 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/report-single-family-zoning-dominates-bay-area-housing-presenting-barrier-integration 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.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-6

Figure B3-1 Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing

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 le veling 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 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; • 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 A rea (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 20 20, Zillow reported the average market value at $2.25 million, significantly above the county’s and Bay A rea’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 t hree- 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.

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 c ity’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.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-9

Contributing factors:
• While Cupertino has approved more units than required in its 5 th 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 higher - density development in the c ity. 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:

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.

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, gene tic 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 advo cacy 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/
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 HE-

6.1.1 (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.

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 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 help s 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 E nglish, Chinese, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Russian, though usage data indicates that there has been very little usage other than in English.

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 th e 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 moderate- income 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 (M ND) 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.

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 v ery 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 moderate- income 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.

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, assiste d 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.

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 ci ty 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, a bove moderate- income residents in Cupertino are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups.

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 Creston- Pharlap 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 lowe r 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 nee d 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 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 for- profit 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 shar es 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).

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 four- bedroom 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 B oulevard 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 four- plexes, 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.

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 Dr ive, 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.

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 i n 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 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 non- White 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., a n RCAA. RCAAs are the inverse of R/ECAPs in that they illustrate where self -segregated and/or exclusive wealthy White neighborhoods are potentially located.

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 neighb orhood. 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 lower- and 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 ha ve 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 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 low- income 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.

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 wit h approximately 30-minute headways, running from the Santa Clara Convention Center to De Anza College (Route 55) and Lockhe ed 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 -to- door 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 ov erall 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 score s 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. , APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-28

Caltrans/BART/VTA Light R ail) 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 hi ghest 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 c ounty 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 fo r 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 pe rcent 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 gr aduating at 28 percentage points lower rate than the state. It is, however, hard to determine whether these students were 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 c ity. The city’s job proximity index shows the c ity 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 am ong 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 c ity 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 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 ( PM

2.5), diesel particulate matter ( PM), pesticides, toxic release s, 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.

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
• PM

2.5 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.

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 location s 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.

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 c ity are ambulatory (3.9 percent), self - care (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 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%0%
68%
0%
1%
0%
25%
0%
3% 3%
Moderate Resource Area
High/Highest Resource Area
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH Asian / API, NH
Black or African American, NH White, Non-Hispanic (NH)
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH Hispanic or Latinx
97%
84%
3%
16%
No Disability
With A Disability
City of Cupertino
96%
90%
4%
10%
No Disability
With A Disability
Employed Unemployed
Santa Clara County
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-35

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 higher- income 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.

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 c ity show data for Housing Choice Voucher usage. However, HUD and California Housing Finance Authority (CalHFA) have funded a total of 127 units of subsidized housing in Cupertino. Additionally, during the 5th cycle planning period, the City’s Below Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) funded the conversion of three units into BMR rental housing, and as part of the 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 c ity, as lower-income households are much more likely to face cost burden. Cost burden is much higher for the city’s lowest- income households, 75 percent of whom pay more than 50 percent of their gross household incomes in housing costs.

Cost burden does vary by tenure (rentership or ownership) in Cupertino with renters (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 Roa d, 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 -to- moderate income, which likely contributes to the higher rates of overpayment.

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

Figure B3-5 summarizes disproportionate housing needs in Cupertino.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-37

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

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 smalle r 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.

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 w indows, 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 Mont a 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, 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 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 rep orted alcohol and drug counseling as a prevention tool, 26.0 percent reported mental health services, and 23.0 percent reported general assistance accessing benef its. 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 one- time rent and mortgage payment assistance, move -in costs for rental deposits, one -time utility assistance, on-site information and referrals, food pantries, and more.

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.

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 mixed- income, susceptible to changes if housing prices increase. • Ongoing Displacement: These tracts were previously low income, before seeing a significant loss of low-income households between 2000 and 2018.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B3-44

• 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 high- income households but ongoing increases in prices.
• Stable/Advanced Exclusive: These are high-income tracts with housing only affordable to high-income households, and marginal or rapid increases in housing costs. • High Student Population: These are areas excluded from the classification spectrum due to their high concentration of student residents.

All of Cupertino, with the exception of the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood, is considered Stable/Advanced Exclusive. Rancho Rinconada is considered Stable Moderate/Mixed Income.

Dramatic increases in home and rental prices have impacted residents throughout Cupertino and the greater Bay Area, though renters are typically disproportionately burdened by housing market increases in annual rate increases, compared to homeowners who have fixed-rate mortgages. However, the Urban Displacement Project has not identi fied 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, t he median home value in both exceeds that of Cupertino, with a median value of $3,125,678 in Palo Alto and $5,340,078 in Los Altos Hills. However, the median home price in Cupertino is still only affordable to above moderate- income households. Rent prices in Cupertino have increased at a significantly slower rate than home values, but still present a barrier for lower-income households. Between February 2015 and 2023, the average rent for a two -bedroom unit, for example, increased from $ 3,414 to $3,899 according to a survey of online rent tracking platforms, resulting in an annual average increase of 1.8 percent. The median rent in February 2023 was affordable to moderate-income households.

While the rate of increase in wages has kept up with increases in rent in Cupertino, they have not matched increases in home values. The median income in Cupertino has increased approximately 4.8 percent annually, from $120,201 in 2010 to $171,917 in 2019, according to the ACS. The difference APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-45

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 partner ing with developers to purchase surplus properties for development; and
Strategy HE-2.3.7 to incentivize development of affordable housing.

Displacement risk increases when a household is paying more for housing than their income can support, their housing condition is unstable or unsafe, and when the household is overcrowded. Each of these 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.

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 m itigate 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 percent age of units in a given income category that are in this block group. Please note, Figure B3-5 shows tract boundaries prior to the 2020 Census update to match ACS data used in the analysis.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-47

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

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?
CalEnviro-
Screen 4.0
Percentile
Median
Household
Income
Households
with Income
Under the
Poverty Line
(%)
Househol
ds with a
Disability
(%)
Children
in
Female-
Headed
House-
holds (%)
Non-
White
(%)
Households
Experiencing
Overcrowding
(%)
Renters
Overpaying
for Housing
(%)
Homeowners
Overpaying
for Housing
(%)
Community
Vulnerable
to
Dis-
placement?
VLI &
LI
Units
VLI &
LI
Units
(%)
Mod.

Income
Units
Mod.

Income
Units (%)
Above-
Mod
Income
Units
Above
Mod
Income
Units (%)
Census Tract 5077.01,
Block Group 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%
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?
CalEnviro-
Screen 4.0
Percentile
Median
Household
Income
Households
with Income
Under the
Poverty Line
(%)
Househol
ds with a
Disability
(%)
Children
in
Female-
Headed
House-
holds (%)
Non-
White
(%)
Households
Experiencing
Overcrowding
(%)
Renters
Overpaying
for Housing
(%)
Homeowners
Overpaying
for Housing
(%)
Community
Vulnerable
to
Dis-
placement?
VLI &
LI
Units
VLI &
LI
Units
(%)
Mod.

Income
Units
Mod.

Income
Units (%)
Above-
Mod
Income
Units
Above
Mod
Income
Units (%)
Census Tract 5080.01,
Block Group 1
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.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-50

This page intentionally left blank.

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 80 th percentile or better on the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC) Healthy Places Index in 2021.

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

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 c ity may have a higher 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 fact ors 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 lower - income units. The other, currently called the “Bateh Brothers /Alan Row” project, will only include moderate- and above moderate-income units. Combined, these project units represent less than 0.1 percent of the lower -income units, 0.6 percent of moderate -income units, and 0. 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.

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 a re within this census tract, and together represent 4.0 percent of the lower - income 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 moderate- income housing in this area may allow for existing community members who are experiencing housing cost burden to find more affordable options without leaving established community networks.

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 single - female heads of household at 14.6 percent of households. This tract is on the north side of the city and extends beyond the city borders into Sunnyvale, with only a small piece of Block Group 5 included in Cupertino’s boundary. Inventory sites in this area represent only 0.5 percent of lower-income units,

0.5 percent of moderate-income units, and 0.3 percent of above moderate-income units. Therefore, it is not expected that develo pment 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.

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 RH NA sites inventory or project units are located. It also has the second -highest rate of homeowner cost burden (43.1 percent) and the third -highest rate of renter housing burden (40.4 percent) of any tract in the city with RHNA sites inventory or project units. Block Group 1 of this census tract has a median income of $158,971. Though not among the highest median income levels in the city, this is also not among the lowest. This census tract is on the city’s east side and has a low overall number of households, as a large percentage of the land area of the tract is made up of Cupertino High School, DJ Sedgwick Elementary School, Hyde Middle School, and a few large church properties.

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

This tract also has one of the higher rates of household overcrowding (10.2 percent). While the single- family homes that are present in this tract are relatively large, the tract contains a significant number of 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 includi ng units in this area that can accommodate higher -income households may provide mo re 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 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, i t is also the tract with the second -highest rate of households experiencing overcrowding (13.8 percent) and the highest rate of children in female -headed households (14.6). However, the majority of this census tract is not within Cupertino city limits.

One additional tract, Tract 5080.01, was not previously discussed in this analysis but was given a designation of being a community vulnerable to displacement. Of the sites in the RHNA inventory and project list, 4.5 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.

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 WebsiteService Area Address Phone
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-58

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

Source: Organization Websites

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

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 1 46 9 111 225
Santa Clara 2 2 4 4 0 0 0 26 1 12 40
Sunnyvale 7 1 3 0 0 0 0 17 1 16 29
Palo Alto 3 1 3 0 0 1 0 18 1 9 26
Gilroy 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 4 15
Morgan Hill 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 12
Campbell 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 5 11
Mountain View 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 6 11
Los Gatos 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 1 5 8
Cupertino 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 7
Milpitas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 6
Saratoga 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Los Altos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Los Altos Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Monte Sereno 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TotalDisability Race
Familial
Status
National
Origin Religion Sex Color
Failure
to
Respond
None
Cited
Decision
Not To
Persue
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-61

Figure B3-11 Public Housing Buildings, Santa Clara County

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-62

Figure B3-12 Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-63

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. Figure s B3-23 and B3-24 show the diversity index by block group. Figure B3-25 shows the share of population in Cupertino by disability status and Figure B3-26 shows population with a disability by census tract. Figure B3 -27 shows age distribution in Cupertino. Figures B3 -28 through B3-31 show share of households by 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 (majority- minority) AND the poverty rate is two times the average tract poverty rate for the County (13% in 2010).

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-87

ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 3 77 696
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 3 301 400
Unsheltered # 243 7,413
People in
Households
S
olely
Children
People in
Households
w
ith Adults
and Children
People in
Households
W
ithout
Children
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-117

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

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B3-119

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
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

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

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

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

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

Housing Resources and Opportunities B.4

APPENDIX

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐i

Table of Contents
B4 Housing Resources and Opportunities ............................................................. B4-1 B4.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation .............................................................................. B4-1 B4.2 Pending Projects .......................................................................................................... B4-2 B4.3 Sites Inventory .............................................................................................................. B4-5 B4.4 Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................... B4-30

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐1

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

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

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

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

3. Housing Element Updates: Each city and county must then adopt a Housing 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 divi ded into the four income categories of housing affordability. Table B4-1, Cupertino’s Regional Ho using Needs Allocation – 2023–2031, shows Cupertino’s RHNA for the 6th Cycle (2023–2031) pl anning period and the percentage of the city’s total RHNA that is allocated to each affordability category.

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 Deve lopment, 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 fi nal 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 Ci ty’s RHNA. Of these units, 586 units are affordable to lower- income 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 pendin g projects along with the sites that will be used to meet the RHNA. Sites in this map are desi gnated by the RHNA affordability levels that are expected to be accommodated by the site.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐3

Table B4-2 Pending Projects
Site
ID
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Project Name Site Address/
Intersection
Existing
Units
Project Total Portion Counted Toward RHNA
Funding
Source Project Status
Total Lower Moderate Above
Moderate
Percentage/Phase
Assumed Lower Moderate Above
Moderate
P1
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 Low-
Income
Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC)
application.

Building permit application not yet submitted.

Project site soil remediation completed summer
2023. New architect on board and value
engineering in process. Sand Hill Property Co.

The developer has completed demolition and the
process of cleaning up the west side of the site,
which includes Phases 1 and 2 of the project
(2,669 units). The foundation permits have been
issued, so construction can begin. The City fully
anticipates the west side (1902 units total, 581
affordable) being available in the planning period.

The City is not relying on the east side of the
project (Phase 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 C upertino, September 2023
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐4

This page intentionally left blank.

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 z oning provides a means for determining the realistic number of dwelling units that could be constructed on those sites in the current planning period.

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

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

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

B4‐6

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

Realistic Capacity for Residential Sites
Table B4-3 shows project examples in Cupertino from 20 16 to 2023. Overall, projects show a very high realistic capacity, ranging from 80 to more than 100 percent of the site. On example sites where the total exceeded 100 percent of the maximum number of units permitted by the base General Plan and zoning density, a density bonus was used. Pr oposed projects must achieve 100 percent of the maximum density prior to applying for density bon us units. When determining the realistic capacity that should be applied to the sites listed in Table B4-7 , the City looked at both the 80 percent adjustment for land use controls and site improvements, and project examples. To ensure capacity is not over projected, the city assumed a 95 percent rea listic capacity on all residentially zoned sites in Table B4-7.

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐7

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

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

McClellan
subdivision 1.25
Entitled in
October 2022.

Demolition
permit issued.

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally, Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (2) provides special density rules for what it terms “Priority Housing Sites.” According to the code:
“If a [mixed-use] site is listed as a Priority Housing Site in the City’s adopted Housing Element of the General Plan, then residential development that does not exceed the number of units designated for the site in the Housing Element shall be a permitted use.”
Table B4-4 summarizes three approved mixed-use deve lopments, Marina Plaza, Westport, and Vallco. These projects range in realistic capacity from 83 to 344 percent, with most coming in around 113 percent. This suggests that mixed-use projects in Cupertino develop at greater than 100 percent of the permitted density. For example sites where the total number of units exceeded 100 percent of the maximum number of units permitted by the base General Plan and zoning density, a density bonus was used. Proposed projects must achieve 100 percent of the maximum density prior to applying for density bonus units Since the City still needs to ac count for the unlikely possibility of nonresidential uses on mixed-use sites in the current market, while the trends over the past decade indicates development on most large sites at close to or ov er 100 percent of the maximum allowable density, the City conservatively estimates a 75 percent realistic capacity for sites with mixed-use zoning in the sites inventory.

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐9

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

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

Includes density bonus.
206 179 115% Mixed-use
100% commercial, 45-50k sf retail center and a
standalone restaurant building. The structures
were constructed in the 1970s.The plan is to
demolish existing use and redevelop the entire
site. As of 2022, the combined site had an ILV of

0.45, with the two individual parcels having ILVs
of 0.11 and 1.26.

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

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

Vallco 50.82
Entitled 2018. Demolition and
Foundation permits issued in
2019 and 2020
1,779 AM, 267 VLI,
623 Low
Regional Commercial/ Planned Development with
commercial uses (entitled when residential uses were
allowed on site). Includes density bonus, concessions
and waivers
2,669 1,779 150%
Mixed-use (2mn office,
200k +/- sf comm, 2,669
residential)
100% commercial, (1.27k s.f. regional mall). The
plan is to demolish the existing use and redevelop
the entire site. There were few existing tenants.

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

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

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

Store was owner-operated.

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

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

Source: City of Cupertino, 2023

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐10

This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐11

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

PROPOSED REZONE CAPACITY
All of the sites within the City’s inventory have been identified for either rezoning, a change in General Plan land use designation to allow for increased density, or both. As shown in Table B4-5, the City does not currently have sufficient capacity to meet the RHNA. As part of Strategy HE-1.3.2, the City commits to completing changes to the land use designation and rezoning by January 31, 2024. The rezoning and changes in General Plan land use designation will increase the maximum density on many sites to as much as 80 dwelling units per acre. This will allow the City to cover the shortfall identified and allow for a surplus in all income categories Table B4-6. Additionally, per Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(2), and as shown in Table B4-6, 50 percent of the very low- and low- income shortfall (534 units) is being met on sites that allow for exclusively residential development. Also note, not all residential capacity in the city is identified in the priority housing sites list and therefore, the shortfall is most likely even lower.

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

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐12

Table B4-5 RHNA Capacity Prior to Rezone
RHNA Category 2023-2031
RHNA
Pending
Project
Capacity
Current
Residential Site
Capacity
Current Mixed-
Use Sites
Capacity
Projected
Accessory
Dwelling Units
Total
Capacity Shortfall
Very Low 1,193 633 151 49 116 813 1,067 Low 687
Moderate 755 49 297 2 411 57 1,020 59
Above Moderate 1,953 1,770 1733 61 19 1,821 70
Total 4,588 2,168 485 520 192 3,654 939
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023
1 Sites allowing 30 du/acre or more
2 Sites allowing 20-29 du/acre
3 Sites allowing less than 20 du/acre
Table B4-6 RHNA Capacity with Rezone
RHNA Category 2023-2031
RHNA
Pending
Projects
Capacity
Residential
Site Capacity
with Rezone
Mixed Use Site
Capacity with
Rezone
Projected
ADUs
Total
Capacity Surplus
Very Low 1,193 633 833 596 116 2,178 298 Low 687
Moderate 755 49 360 436 57 902 147
Above Moderate 1,953 1,770 662 695 19 3,146 1,193
Total 4,588 2,452 1,855 1,727 192 6,226 1,638
Source: City of Cupertino, July 2023
NOTE: While the City assumes that ADUs will provide capacity to meet the RHNA, the City is not relying on ADU capacity to meet the RHNA targets.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐13

Table B4-7 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones
Site ID APN Acres Existing
General Plan Designation
Existing Zoning
Designation
Current
Maximum
Allowed
Density
Proposed General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Minimum
Density
Proposed
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Maximum Unit
Capacity (100%)
Realistic Unit
Capacity (95%)
Lower
Income Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
1 31623027 0.64 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 42 35 14 6 15 2 36903005 0.47 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 31 29 12 5 12 3 32634047 1.09 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 71 67 27 11 29 4 35907006 0.32 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 21 20 8 3 9 5 37506006 1.71 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 137 130 53 21 56 6 37506007 0.96 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 77 73 30 12 31 7 31621031 1.81 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 118 112 46 18 48 8 31623026 1.78 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 116 110 45 18 47 9 32632050 0.83 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 54 51 21 8 22 10 32627053 0.75 Transportation T 0 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 49 40 40 11 32336018 0.42 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 35 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 27 26 11 4 11 12 31604064 0.44 Res Low 1-5 A1-43 5 MD - Medium Density R3/TH 10.01 20 9 8 4 4 13 32607022 1.64 Commercial P(CG) 15 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 131 125 51 20 54 14 32607030 0.92 Commercial BQ 15 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 74 70 29 11 30 15 32607031 0.24 Commercial P(CG) 15 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 19 18 7 3 8 16 32607036 1.74 Commercial P(CG) 15 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 139 132 54 21 57 17 36937022 0.39 Medium (10-20 DU/Ac) R3 20 VHD - Very High Density R4 50.01 65 25 24 10 4 10 18 36937023 0.22 Medium (10-20 DU/Ac) R3 20 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 8 7 1 6 19 36937024 0.17 Medium (10-20 DU/Ac) R3 20 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 6 6 1 5 20 36934053 0.54 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 15 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 19 18 7 3 8 21 35918044 0.26 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 17 16 7 3 6 22 36610121 1.34 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 47 45 18 7 20 23 36610137 0.92 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 32 31 13 5 13 24 36619047 2.33 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 151 144 59 23 62 25 36619078 0.08 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 5 5 1 4 26 35909017 1.00 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 65 62 25 10 27 27 31620088 5.16 Reg Shopping CG 0 VHD - Very High Density R4 50.01 65 335 319 207 112 0 28 35913019 0.99 Res Low 1-5 R1-10 5 MD - Medium Density R3 10.01 20 20 19 8 3 8 29 35606001 0.73 Res Low 1-5 R1-7.5 5 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 26 24 10 4 10 30 35606002 0.69 Res Low 1-5 R1-7.5 5 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 24 23 9 4 10 31 35606003 0.25 Res Low 1-5 R1-7.5 5 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 9 8 5 3 32 35606004 0.87 Res Low 1-5 R1-7.5 5 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 30 29 12 5 12 33 36231001 0.25 Res Medium 10-20 P(R3) 20 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 9 8 1 7 34 36231030 0.23 Res Medium 10-20 P(R3) 20 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 8 8 1 7 35 32720034 1.34 Res Low 1-5 R1-10 5 LM - Low Medium R3/TH 5.01 10 13 13 2 11 Total 1,963 1,855 833 360 662
Source: City of C upertino, September 2023.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐14

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐15

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

Yes, active
conversation
with property
owner,
conversations
with interested
developer in
Fall 2023.
n/a 1982
Site 8 is a 1.78-acre parcel located in the Heart of the City Special Area – Central Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. Site 8 is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, approximately one mile east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include a dentist’s office and associated parking, adjacent to Site 1. The building was constructed in 1982 and has had minimal upgrades.

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐16

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

Sites 14 and 15 are two adjacent parcels totaling 1.16 acres. This area is predominantly multi-family homes and commercial uses located immediately north of Interstate 280. Existing uses on the site include tennis courts, parking, and a vacant lot. The parcels have the potential to either develop separately or as a consolidated lot, though it is likely that sites 14 and 15 would develop as a consolidated lot due to their sizes and arrangement. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping these four sites together. Neighboring uses include a church sanctuary and parking lot, a new bank building, older office buildings and an electrical power substation. Additionally, a neighborhood center is located across Homestead Road in the City of Sunnyvale. The sites would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for all four parcels is 0 as there is no assessed improvement value.
14 326 07 030 [no address] Church parking lot Yes n/a
15 326 07 031 [no address] Church parking lot Yes n/a
16 326 07 036 [no address] Outdoor sand courts on
Church property. Yes n/a
17 369 37 022 20421 Bollinger Rd Vacant lot Yes n/a Vacant lot Sites 53 (see mixed-use zoning inventory), 17, 18 and 19 are adjacent parcels, owned by the same property owner, located on the north side of Bollinger Road just east of South DeAnza Boulevard. The South Blaney Neighborhood includes a mix of single- and multi-family housing and commercial use. Existing uses on the sites include a commercial structure and residential/duplex uses. Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. Site 17 is currently vacant. The owner of sites 18 and 19 has expressed interest in developing townhomes on all or part of Sites 18 and 19. Site 19 currently has a single-family house constructed in 1940 that appears aged but not yet dilapidated.

The current use of Site 18 is a duplex that is aged but not yet dilapidated; the age of this house is unknown. Site 53, which is adjacent to Sites 17, 18, and 19, is a vacant commercial building (former Taco Bell – with no interest in re-leasing this building from the property owner) that was built in 1991 and is in need of repair, though not yet dilapidated and is a site that is generating regular code enforcement inquiries due to its unmaintained appearance. The property owner has expressed consistent and strong interest in developing the properties and has met with City staff to discuss potential and options. The site has excellent access to amenities and bus service on De Anza Blvd and Bollinger Rd. The sites would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement- land value ratio for Site 17 is 0 as there is no assessed improvement value. Sites 18 and 19 have improvement-land value ratios of 2.00 and

2.44, respectively. While this is higher than the default assumption of redevelopment feasibility, the owner’s proactive interest in redevelopment is considered sufficient to overcome this high improvement value ratio. 18 369 37 023 20411 Bollinger Rd Duplex Yes n/a Mid-1950s/ 60s, Aged
19 369 37 024 20431 Bollinger Rd Single Family Home (legal non-conforming) Yes n/a Mid-1950s/
60s, Aged
20 369 34 053 10891 S Blaney Ave Strip Mall Yes n/a 1961, Aged condition
Site 20 is a 0.54-acre parcel in the South Blaney Neighborhood, which is a mix of single- and multi-family housing and commercial uses located immediately north of Bollinger Road at the intersection of Bollinger Road and S. Blaney Ave. The site is 0.4 miles from De Anza Blvd and 0.6 miles from Miller Ave, both of which have amenities at the intersection. Existing uses on the site include a commercial structure that was built in 1961 and is in fair condition. Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. There have been multiple developer/broker contacts regarding this site since late 2022. This site and Site 52 have the same owner and the two properties will likely be consolidated or redeveloped jointly. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.28 so development is considered feasible. 21 359 18 044 10619 South De Anza
Blvd Strip mall Yes n/a 1966, Aged
Site 21 is a 0.26-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on the Site 21 include commercial uses, including a hair salon, small café, and massage store. There is also an associated parking lot. The building was constructed in 1966 and is in aged but not in dilapidated condition. The owner has expressed interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and De Anza Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.34 so development is considered feasible.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐17

Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
22 366 10 121 1505 S De Anza Blvd Commercial, Kelly-Moore Paints No. Yes For sale 1965
Site 22 is a 1.34-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, and is very underutilized. The site is developed with a dated industrial building, originally a lumber yard, that has had a succession of short-term commercial tenants and is now vacant. The most recent occupant was a paint store. The property has a large surface parking area with worn paving that has few cars present during business hours (Site 23). The site is located along a stretch of De Anza Blvd. where most sites are redevelopment candidates. The east side of DeAnza Blvd.

Is in the City of San Jose, where strip malls and similar under-performing commercial sites are currently being redeveloped with residential uses. The building was constructed in 1965. However, a recent entitlement for property approximately 750 feet south of this property at 1655 S. De Anza was approved in 2023 by the City, in which a strip mall was redeveloped with a mixed-use residential development. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, multi-family uses, and De Anza Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.25 so development is considered feasible. Site 22 is located adjacent to site 23 which is currently surface parking. City staff attended two meeting with a Long Beach based developer, Linc Housing, in March 2024. The developer expressed interest in doing a 100 percent affordable project and informed staff that the owner is aggressively marketing the site for housing development. Staff has an additional meeting with the prospective developer’s team later in March.
23 366 10 137 [no address] Parking lot behind
KinderCare
Yes. The
property owner
has been
interested in
developing
with residential
in the past 2
years.
n/a n/a
Site 23 is a 0.92-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, adjacent to Site 22, which has active interest to develop an affordable housing project. The surrounding area is predominantly low-intensity commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. The existing use on Site 23 is a parking lot located behind a day care center, the site does not have any structures of its own but provides parking for adjacent low-density uses. Neighboring uses include commercial and residential uses and De Anza Blvd. The owner has been contacted regarding their interest in redeveloping this site, but a response has not yet been received. In the past, however, this property owner has been interested in redeveloping this property with residential uses. However, a recent entitlement for adjacent property at 1655 S. De Anza was approved in 2023 by the City, in which a strip mall was redeveloped with a mixed-use residential development. While the site is not eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) due to frontage requirements of the law, the property is adjacent to other property which are eligible for such development and therefore, contiguous development is anticipated. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0 as there is no assessed improvement value.
24 366 19 047 1361 S De Anza Blvd Yamagami's Nursery Yes n/a 1960
Sites 24 and 25 are a 2.33-acre parcel and a 0.08-acre parcel, respectively, located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses, a dated nursery building, located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on Sites 24 and 25 include a nursery and an associated parking lot. The nursery was constructed in 1960 and is a dated building. The owner has expressed a strong interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, single-family units, townhome units, De Anza Blvd, and new residential development in the City of San Jose. The site has fair access to amenities and bus service along De Anza Blvd. While the site is not eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) due to proximity to freeway limitations of the law, the property owner interest for redevelopment is strong. The improvement-land value ratio for Site 24 is 0.11 and 0 for Site 25 (no assessed improvement value), so development is considered feasible.
25 366 19 078 No address Portion of Yamagami's
site Yes n/a
26 359 09 017 10105 S De Anza Blvd Commercial Offices Yes n/a 1977, older building
with no significant
improvements
Site 26 is a one-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on Site 26 include a commercial building and parking lot. The current commercial building was constructed in 1977 and remains in fair condition. The site is located 0.5 miles from De Anza College and Apple’s Infinite Loop Campus. There are several offices located within walking distance of the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, multi-family units, and De Anza Blvd. The owner has expressed an active interest in redeveloping this property. The site has excellent access to amenities and rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd and other bus service along De Anza Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.42 so development is considered feasible.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐18

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

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

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐19
Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
34 362 31 030 [no address] Also on
Cleo Vacant Yes. n/a 1950's, good
condition
Site 34 is a 0.23-acre parcel located in the Monta Vista South Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately west of Highway 85. The irregularly-shaped parcel is currently undeveloped and vacant. Neighboring uses include single-family and duplex homes. This lot is similar in size to another lot on this street where a Habitat for Humanity development was developed on a site and another lot where a developer is proposing 4 townhomes. The zoning is being updated to allow townhome development on the site to make the site more attractive for development, similar to the one being considered approximately 60 feet to the south of this site. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0 due to a lack of improvements, so development is considered feasible. 35 326 20 034 10231 Adriana Ave Single Family Residential Yes n/a Single Family Residential
Site 35 is a 1.34 acre-parcel currently occupied with a Single-Family Residential unit. The property owner recently inherited the property and is very motivated to redevelop the site with higher density residential. The owner most recently reiterated the intention to develop the property in September 2023. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 4.44. However, due to the owner’s recent interest, this is not considered a barrier to development.

Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023
Table B4-9 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones
Site
ID APN Acres Existing General Plan
Designation
Existing Zoning
Designation
Current
Maximum
Allowed
Density
Proposed General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Minimum
Density
(du/acre)
Proposed
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Maximum
Unit
Capacity
Realistic
Unit
Capacity
(75%)
Lower-
Income Units
Moderate-
Income Units
Above
Moderate-
Income Units
36 316 23 093 1.35 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 88 132 30 102 37 316 23 036 0.24 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 38 369 06 002 0.9 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 72 54 31 23 39 369 06 003 0.53 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 42 32 18 14 40 369 06 004 1.29 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 103 77 44 33 41 359 10 015 1.18 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 77 58 24 9 25 42 359 10 060 0.98 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 64 48 20 8 20 43 359 10 044 0.18 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 12 9 5 4 44 359 08 025 0.83 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 54 40 16 6 18 45 359 08 026 0.45 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 29 22 9 4 9 46 359 08 027 0.87 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 57 42 17 7 18 47 359 08 028 0.85 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 55 41 17 7 17 48* 359 08 029 0.92 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 60 49 326 09 052 0.74 Commercial P(CG) 35 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 59 44 18 7 19 50 326 09 060 2.75 Commercial P(Rec/Enter) Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 220 165 68 26 71 51 326 09 061 1.12 Commercial P(CG) 35 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 90 67 27 11 29 52 369 34 052 2.70 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 15 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 176 132 54 21 57 53 369 37 028 0.56 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 36 27 11 4 12 54 366 19 055 0.40 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 Commercial/Residential - MH P (CG/R3/TH) 20.01 35 14 11 7 4 55 366 19 053 0.56 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 Commercial/Residential - MH P (CG/R3/TH) 20.01 35 20 15 6 2 7 56 366 19 054 1.75 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 Commercial/Residential - MH P (CG/R3/TH) 20.01 35 61 46 19 7 20 APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐20

Table B4-9 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones
Site
ID APN Acres Existing General Plan
Designation
Existing Zoning
Designation
Current
Maximum
Allowed
Density
Proposed General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Minimum
Density
(du/acre)
Proposed
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Maximum
Unit
Capacity
Realistic
Unit
Capacity
(75%)
Lower-
Income Units
Moderate-
Income Units
Above
Moderate-
Income Units
57 316 05 050 1.02 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 82 61 25 10 26 58 316 05 051 0.62 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 50 37 15 6 16 59 316 05 052 0.73 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 58 44 18 7 19 60 316 05 053 0.92 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 74 55 23 9 23 61 316 05 056 6.94 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 555 416 171 67 178 62 316 05 072 0.54 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 43 32 8 24 63 359 20 028 0.75 Quasi-Public BQ 0 Commercial/Residential - MH P (CG/R3) 20.01 35 26 20 8 3 9 Total 2,276 1,727 596 436 695
Source: City of C upertino, September 2023
NOTE: *The City is not relying on si te 48 to accommodate the RHNA and capacity is not reflected in Table B4-12.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐21

Table B4-10 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones – Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner Interest Current Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
36 316 23 093 20007 Stevens Creek
Blvd Commercial buildings Yes n/a 1978.

Sites 36 and 37 are two parcels located in the Heart of the City - Central Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. These sites are approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College and located about halfway between Apple’s Infinite Loop and Apple Park campuses. The parcels are 1.35 and 0.24 acres, respectively. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and multi-family residential. Existing uses on the site include a childcare center in one building and two vacant commercial buildings. The building was constructed in 1978. In May 2023 the property owner expressed an interest in redeveloping the site.

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

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

Aged.

Site 41 is a 1.18-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. The site is located approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College and about 1 mile south of the Apple Infinite loop campus.

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

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

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B4‐22

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

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

B4‐23

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

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

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

B4‐24

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

The site has fair access to amenities and bus service on De Anza Blvd. Two of the three sites (Sites 54 and 56) would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. Improvement-land value ratios for these sites are 0.07 (Site 54), 0 (Site 55, with no assessed improvement value), and 0.06 (Site 56), so development is considered feasible.
57 316 05 050 10989 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center
Yes
n/a 1969, Aged not
dilapidated
Site 57 to 62 are located in the North Vallco Park Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located north of Interstate 280 and immediately west of the Apple Park Campus. The six parcels range in size from 0.54 acres to 6.87 acres. All six parcels are owned by the same entity, and the owner has expressed a strong interest in redeveloping a portion of this site to include residential uses while maintaining much of the commercial portions of the development and is planning to pursue entitlements once the site has been rezoned. Existing uses on the site include commercial uses, many of which were constructed in the late 1960s. Neighboring uses include existing apartments, single-family uses, a Church, some commercial buildings in the City of Sunnyvale and the Apple Park Campus. The existing 99 Ranch commercial building and a standalone commercial (bank/Starbucks) building are expected to be demolished and replaced with a new building with the 99 Ranch store on the first floor and apartments above at the northeast corner of the site. In a later phase, the owner intends to demolish an older building adjacent to a parking garage and build an all-residential structure. The owner has indicated an interest in the development of just over 300 units and a minimum of 115,000 s.f. of commercial uses. It is anticipated that a maximum of between 2.75 and 3 acres of the existing property, in two different locations will be rezoned to allow the maximum of 310 residential units that the property owner anticipates constructing on this site. The site has excellent access to amenities but less access to park space and has access to bus service along Homestead Road and Wolfe Road. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. Improvement-land value ratios for these sites are 1.34 (Site 57), 4.57 (Site 58), 3.05 (Site 59), 3.70 (Site 60), 0.57 (Site 61), and 1.61 (Site 62), for a combined ratio of 1.38. However, because only part of the site will be redeveloped and the current owner is managing the planned redevelopment, this is not considered a barrier to development.
58 316 05 051 10961 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 1968, Aged not
dilapidated
59 316 05 052 10871 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 1968, Aged not
dilapidated
60 316 05 053 10883 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 1968, Aged not
dilapidated
61 316 05 056 10805 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 2016, Good condition
62 316 05 072 11111 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 1999, Aged not
dilapidated
63 359 20 028 20920 Mcclellan Rd St. Jude’s Church parking lot and orchard Yes n/a n/a
Site 63 is located in the Jollyman Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located east of the Highway 85 corridor. The site is located immediately south of the De Anza College campus and approximately 0.5 miles east of the Apple Results Way/Bubb Campus. The primary current use of the site is a church and associated buildings.

Neighboring uses include townhomes, single-family housing, and De Anza College. The City last spoke to the Church in September 2022, and they expressed an active interest in developing the portion of their property, limited to approximately 0.75 acres with affordable residential uses, the existing Church buildings would remain. However, some of the parking area and open green space on the northwest corner of the lot may be redeveloped. The zoning on the site would be changed to allow residential uses on 0.75 acres of the site. The site is eligible to develop with affordable housing pursuant to new state laws prior to the completion of the rezone. The site has fair access to amenities and is in close proximity to bus service at De Anza College. The improvement-land value ratio is 5.78; however, because only part of the site will be redeveloping and the church building will not be removed from the site, it is not estimated that these improvements will be considered a barrier to development.

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐25

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

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

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐26

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐27

Table B4-11A Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA Project Name/
Address
Year
Approved/
Year Built
Project Type/
Affordability
Original #
of Parcels
Final # of
Parcels After
Consolidation
Common
Owner
(Y/N)
Redevelopment Project
(Y/N)
Additional
Details
Marina Plaza
10145 N. De Anza,
20118 Bandley Dr
Approved 2022.

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

Developed under
existing zoning and
density bonus.

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

Current uses will be
demolished.

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

Canyon Crossing
10625 S. Foothill
Boulevard
Approved 2022.

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

Uses were demolished.

Built under existing
zoning
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐28

Table B4-11A Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA Project Name/
Address
Year
Approved/
Year Built
Project Type/
Affordability
Original #
of Parcels
Final # of
Parcels After
Consolidation
Common
Owner
(Y/N)
Redevelopment Project
(Y/N)
Additional
Details
Alan Row
Approved 2022.

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

Built under existing
zoning
1655 S. De Anza Approved 2023
Mixed Use Project (34
units) Above Moderate with
moderate- and lower-
income level
2 12 Y
Yes – Currently an existing
strip center with associated
parking. Current uses will be
demolished.

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

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐30

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

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

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

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

B4.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Table B4-12, RHNA Summary , summarizes Cupertino’s sites inventory, includi ng the proposed rezone capacity for the 2023-2031 planning period.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐31

Table B4-12 Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to the 6th Cycle RHNA RHNA
Category
2023-
2031
RHNA
Pending
Projects
Capacity
Residential
Site
Capacity
with
Rezone
Mixed
Use Site
Capacity
with
Rezone
Projected
ADUs
Total
Capacity Surplus
Very Low 1,193
633 833 596 116 2,178 298
Low 687
Moderate 755 49 360 436 57 902 147
Above
Moderate 1,953 1,770 662 695 19 3,146 1,193
Total 4,588 2,452 1,855 1,727 192 6,226 1,638
Source: ABAG 2021, City of Cupertino, 2023

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐32

Figure B4-1 Priority Housing Sites Map

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐33

Figure B4-2 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 1

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐34

Figure B4-3 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 2

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐35

Figure B4-4 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 3

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐36

This page intentionally left blank.

Housing Constraints B.5

APPENDIX

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐i

Table of Contents
B5 Housing Constraints ........................................................................................... B5-1 B5.1 Governmental Constraints ............................................................................................ B5-1 B5.2 Nongovernmental Constraints .................................................................................... B5-31 B5.3 Opportunities for Energy Conservation ....................................................................... B5-34 Tables
Table B5-1. Residential Land Use Density Classifications .............................................................. B5-1 Table B5-2. Residential Development Standards ............................................................................ B5-3 Table B5-3. Parking Requirements ................................................................................................. B5-4 Table B5-4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis, by Zone ........................................................................ B5-7 Table B5-5. Permitted Uses in Residential Zones ........................................................................... B5-9 Table B5-6. Cupertino Development and Planning Fees (July 2022) ............................................ B5-15 Table B5-7. Comparison of Single-Family Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County .... B5-17 Table B5-8. Comparison of Small Multifamily (10 units) Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County ................................................................................................... B5-18 Table B5-9. Comparison of Large Multifamily (100+ Units) Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County ................................................................................................... B5-19 Table B5-10. Comparison of Permit Processing Times (Months) .................................................... B5-21 Table B5-11. Single-Family Development Process ......................................................................... B5-24 Table B5-12. Multifamily and Planned Development Process ......................................................... B5-25 Table B5-13. PG&E Programs and Incentives for Residential Properties ....................................... B5-36

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐1

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

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

B5.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

GENERAL PLAN LAND USES
The General Plan provides the policy and program direction necessary to guide land use decisions.

The existing General Plan is current and legally adequate and is not considered an impediment to housing production. Table B5-1, Residential Land Use Density Classifications, lists the General Plan land use classifications that allow residential development.

Table B5-1. Residential Land Use Density Classifications Residential Hillside 1 Hillside Single-Family Housing See Note Low Density Single-Family Housing 1–5 du/ac
Low/Medium Density Single-Family Housing 5.01–10 du/ac Medium Density Multifamily Housing 10.01–20 du/ac
Medium/High Density Multifamily Housing 20.01–35 du/ac High Density Multifamily Housing Current–35.01+ du/ac
Planned – 35.01–50 du/ac 2
High/Very High Density Multifamily Housing 50.01–65 du/ac 2 Very High Density Multifamily Housing 65.01 – 80 du/ac 2 Commercial/Residential – MH Commercial/Residential 20.01–35 du/ac 2 Commercial/Residential – H Commercial/Residential 35.01–50 du/ac 2 Commercial/Residential – HVH Commercial/Residential 50.01–65 du/ac 2 Commercial/Residential – VH Commercial/Residential 65.01–80 du/ac 2 Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.

Notes:
1 – Residential Hillside Classification is intended to protect environmentally sensitive areas from extensive development and to protect human life from hazards associated with floods, fires, and unstable terrain. It applies one of four slope-density formulae to determine allowable residential density. 2 – The City is planning to create new and modi fy existing General Plan Land Use Designations (see Strategy 1.3.3).

Classification Development Category Maximum Density
(dwelling units per acre)
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐2

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

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

CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE
Title 19, Zoning, of the Cupertino Municipal Code establishes development standards and densities for housing in the city. These regulations includ e minimum lot sizes, maximum number of dwelling units per acre, lot width, setbacks, lot coverage, maximum building height, and minimum parking requirements. These standards are summarized in Table B5-2, Residential Development Standards .

As required by State law, the City’s Zoning Map is consistent with the General Plan. The development standards for the City’s zoning district that permit residential development are summarized in Table B5-2. All zoning and development standards, as well as list of fees, are available on the City’s website, consistent with transparency requirements pu rsuant to Government Code Section 65940.1, subsections (a)(1)(A)) and (a)(1)(B)).

Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (E)(2) provides special density rules for what it terms “Priority Housing Sites.” According to the code:
“If a [mixed-use] site is listed as a Priority Housing Site in the City’s adopted Housing Element of the General Plan, then residential development that does not exceed the number of units designated for the site in the Housing Element shall be a permitted use.”

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐3

Source: City of Cupertino, M unicipal Code Tile 19: Zoning Notes: .

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

Table B5-2. Residential Development Standards
Zoning
Minimum Lot
Area
(square feet)
Setbacks (feet) Maximum
Height (feet)
(stories)
Maximum
Structural Lot
Coverage
Maximum Floor-
Area Ratio Front --- Interior Side Street Side Rear
A 215,000 30 20 -20 25 28 40% -
A-1 43,000 -
215,000 30 20 -20 20 28 40% 45%
R-1 5,000-20,000 20
Varies, no less than 5
feet on 1st floor
(combined 10 – 15
depending on zoning
district) and no less
than 10 feet on 2nd floor
(combined 25 feet)
12 20 28 (two stories)
45% (plus 5% for
overhangs, patios,
porches, and
similar unenclosed
features)
45%
R-2 8,500 20 20% of lot width, no
less than 6 feet 12 -
20 or 20% of the
lot depth,
whichever is
greater.
30 (two stories) 40% -
R-3
9,300
(1st 3 units)
2,000
(each add.)
20 1st Floor – 6
2nd Floor – 9
> 24 feet tall – 18
12 > 24 feet
tall – 18
20 feet or 20% of
the lot depth,
whichever is
greater.
30 (two stories) 40% -
RHS 10,000-
440,000 10-25
1st Floor – 10
2nd Floor – 15
3rd Floor - 20
1st Floor – 15
2nd Floor – 15
3rd Floor - 20
20-25 30 -
Lesser of 6,500 sq.
ft. or (4,500 + ((Net
Lot Area -
10000)/1000)
(59.59)) x (Slope
Adjustment Factor)
R-1C No minimum Units adjacent to development boundary - Same setbacks as required in the adjacent zones. 30 N/A N/A
CG No minimum Per General or
Special Plans 0-12 0-12 20 30 No minimum N/A
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐4

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

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

2.8 / DU (2 garage, 0.8 open)
BQ Permanent emergency shelter Minimum of one parking space for each nonresident employee
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
State law requires the City to consider the impacts of development standards on the cost of housing, and further to consider the cumulative impacts of development standards on the cost and supply of housing. The City has historically tried to be crea tive in allowing multiple forms of residential developments in its Planning Development and Cluster zoning, such as row homes, townhomes, condominiums, and small lot single-family etc. Within single-family neighborhoods, the City has required a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. This standard is not a constraint on the development of housing since other forms of development and zoning allowed much smaller lot sizes. Further, the passage both of Senate Bill (SB) 9, which allows for lot splits and duplexes by-right, and of new accessory dwelling unit (ADU) legislation, which a llows up to two ADUs and one junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) by-right, in addition to th e primary residence on the single-family lot, has lessened the constraints on what are traditionally single-family zoned properties.

Similarly, the primary development standard affecting housing costs for multifamily units is typically the maximum allowable density. The R-3 District pe rmits multifamily residential development. This district requires a minimum lot area of 9,300 square feet for a development with three dwelling units Zoning
Designation Housing Type Parking Requirement
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐5

and an additional 2,000 square feet for every additional dwelling unit. The minimum lot width in the R-3 District is 70 feet, and lot coverage may not ex ceed 40 percent of net lot area. For single-story structures, required setbacks are 20 feet in the front yard, 6 feet in the side yard, and the greater of 20 feet or 20 percent of lot depth in the rear yard; the minimum side yard setback for two-story structures is 9 feet. The maximum height of any building is two stories and may not exceed 30 feet. This height limit is used because many R-3 districts are cont iguous to single-family residential neighborhoods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY ZONE
The City evaluated the cumulative impact of its land use controls on the cost and supply of housing, including development standards that limit sites’ building envelope (setbacks, private open space, and parking) and lot coverage restrictions. Based on this evaluation, none of the land use controls in conventional residential zoning districts would pr event an applicant from reaching the maximum density allowed for single-family development in single family-zones and multifamily developments in all zones, including Planned Development zoning districts, where multifamily is allowed, or otherwise APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐6

constrain housing development. Current development standards for the residential zones that permit multifamily housing were applied to RHNA inventory sites of varying size that are listed in Tables B4-7 or B4-9, or hypothetical sites representing common pa rcel sizes in each respective zone when an inventory site was not available. The results co nfirmed the above conclusion, and each scenario achieved the respective zone’s maximum allowable density (Table B5-4).

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

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

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

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

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

0.4. The City evaluated development feasibility on a 1 .6-acre parcel identified in the sites inventory (site 13), which represents a lot size commonly found in the R-4 zone, and on a 1-acre lot to represent development at the smaller end of the parcel size spectrum. In both scenarios, the maximum density can be achieved with a mix of studio, one-, an d two-bedroom units in a five-floor podium-style product with the first two floors reserved exclusively for parking. As lot size increases, developers may develop wrap-style products to reduce building footprint and increase space for community amenities without sacrificing livable square footage.

The first step in the analysis was to determine the allowable building footprint given the site size and the maximum lot coverage. The next step was to determine the maximum allowed developable envelope given the lot coverage, setback, open sp ace, and parking requirements. Private open space was accommodated within the developable envelope and was not assumed to encroach into setback areas. Covered parking was subtracted from th e maximum building footprint to determine the occupiable area on the first floor. Occupiable area on the second floor, and additional floors, was set equal to the first floor building footprint, includ ing parking area, less additional setback/step-back APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐7

requirements. Average unit size was calculated by dividing the total occupiable building area by the permitted number of units (site acreage multiplie d by density). Density bonus units are not factored into the calculations.

Table B5-4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis, by Zone
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
R-2 Zone
APN: N/A N/A
Square footage: 8,500 22,000
Length (feet): 100 200
Width (feet): 85 110
Lot coverage: 0.4 0.4
Number of stories (30 ft max): 2 2
Maximum building footprint, given lot coverage requirements: 3,400 8,800 Maximum building envelope given setbacks and parking (see below for spaces per unit) 3,060 8,800
Covered parking spaces per unit: 2 2
Area required for covered parking (sqft): 1,760 4,400
Parking type: Garage Garage
Maximum occupiable building square footage: 4,000 12,800 Number of units: 4 10
Average unit square footage: 1,000 1280
Achievable Density (units per acre): 20 20
Permitted Density (units per acre): 20 20
R-3 Zone
Sites 17, 18, 19 Scenario 2
APN: 369-37-022-024 N/A
Square footage: 33,750 9,450
Length (feet): 225 105
Width (feet): 150 90
Lot coverage: 0.4 0.4
Number of stories (30 ft max): 2 2
Maximum building footprint, given lot coverage requirements: 13,500 3,780 Maximum building envelope given setbacks, parking (see below for spaces per unit) and private open spaces (10-20% of unit size): 22,080 4,992 Covered parking spaces per unit: 1 1
Area required for covered parking (sqft): 5,400 1,600
Parking type: Garage / Carport Garage / Carport
Maximum occupiable building square footage: 21,060 5,772 APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐8

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

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐9

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

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs), also called “second units” in the Zoning Code, are attached or detached residential dwellings that provide compl ete, independent living fac ilities for one or more persons. That is, they include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as a single-family dwelling. To comply with Government Code Section 65852.2, ADUs must be permitted ministerially subject to objective design standards.

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

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

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐10

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

The City has included Strategy HE-1.3.8 to review and revise ADU requirements to ensure compliance with State law. Strategy HE-1.3.8 also included several actions the city plans to take to promote the development of ADUs.

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

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

Government Code Section 65583 requires that transitional and supportive housing types be treated as residential uses and subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Additionally, according to Government Code Section 65651(a), supportive housing must be permitted by-right in multifam ily zones and mixed-use and nonresidential zones allowing multifamily. Both transitional and supportive housing types must be explicitly permitted in the Municipal Code. Additionally, Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) requires that jurisdictions change their zoning to provide a “by-right” process and expedited review for supportive housing. The City currently permits Transitional and Supportive housing consistent with State law but has included Strategy HE-2.3.1 to assist with the development of these housing types.

RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES
Pursuant to State law, licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer residents are permitted by right in all residential districts (including A, A-1, R- 1, R-2, R-3, RHS, and R-1C). Licensed small group homes are not subject to special development requirements, policies, or procedures that would impede such uses from locating in a residential district. Furthermore, small group homes (with six or fewer persons) with continuous 24-hour care are permitted by right in all residential districts. Large group homes (with more than six residents) are conditionally permitted uses in the R-1 District, subject to APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐11

Planning Commission approval. Strategy HE-5.1.5 has been included to ensure compliance with State law and allow facilities for seven or more persons only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.

EMERGENCY SHELTERS
The Zoning Ordinance allows for permanent and rotating homeless shelters in the Quasi-Public Building (BQ) zone by-right without discretionary review. Rotating homeless shelters are permitted within existing church structures in the BQ zone fo r up to 25 occupants. The operation of rotating shelters cannot exceed two months in any one-year span at a single location. Permanent emergency shelter facilities are permitted in the BQ zone. To ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65583 (a)(4) (Assembly Bill [AB] 2339), the City will amend the Zoning Code to also permit emergency shelters in the new R4 zoning district by-right without discretionary review and update the definition of emergency shelter. The R4 zone is close to serv ices and grocery stores and has sufficient capacity for an emergency shelter. The R4 zone has 22 parcel s totaling 26.72 acres, rang ing in size from 0.24 to 5.16 acres, with the majority of the parcels ranging from 0.05 to 1.75 acres. These parcels assumed to accommodate a potential emer gency shelter are all non-vacant sites and the suitability and development potential of these sites is discussed in conjunction with the sites inventory, including in Table B4-4 and associated discussion. Based on the identified need in Appendix B2, Housing Needs Assessment, the City is required to identify sites with capacity for 102 persons experiencing homelessness. Based on an estimate of 200 square feet per person of lot space, 0.47 acres would need to develop with an emergency shelter use. Redevelopment of this amount of R4-zoned land from the inventory would not cause the RHNA inventory to enter a capacity shortfall. Strategy HE-5.1.1 has been included to allow emergency shelters in the R4 zoning district and review; amend the definition of emergency shelter to include other interim inte rventions, including but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care; and revise managerial standards to ensure compliance with State law including AB 2339.

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐12

LOW-BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS
AB 101, adopted in 2019, requires approval “by right” of low-barrier navigation centers that meet the requirements of State law. “Low Barrier Navigati on Center” means a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housi ng. To ensure compliance with State law, Strategy HE-

5.1.4 has been included.

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

MANUFACTURED HOUSING
Manufactured housing can be an affordable housing option for low- and moderate-income households. Currently, the City permits mobile homes for purposes of a caretaker unit in the Park and Recreation zone by right. Strategy HE-5.1.6 has been included to amend the Zoning Code to permit manufactured homes, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.3, in the same manner and in the same zoning districts as a conventional or stick-built structures are permitted.

SB 35 STREAMLINING
SB 35 requires jurisdictions that have failed to meet their Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation (RHNA) to provide a streamlined, ministerial entitlement process for housing developments that incorporate affordable housing. The City Council adopted procedures for processing Streamlined Projects on September 3, 2019. The SB 35 Checklist in Resolution No. 19- 113 has been updated to reflect amendments to Sta te law by AB 1485 and is available online. This procedure has an established process that specifies the SB 35 streamlining approval process and standards for eligible projects. The City has also processed the Vallco Town Center (The Rise) Development, which included 2,669 residential units, 226,500 square feet of retail uses, and approximately 1,955,000 square feet of office development under SB 35.

SENATE BILL 330 PROCESSING PROCEDURE
SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, esta blished specific requirements and limitations on development application procedures. Housing devel opments for which a preliminary application is submitted that complies with applicable General Pl an and zoning standards is subject only to the APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐13

development standards and fees that were applicable at the time of submittal. This applies to all projects unless the project square f ootage or unit count changes by more than 20 percent after the preliminary application is submitted. The deve loper must submit a full application for the development project within 180 days of submitting the preliminary application. The City has established an application process related to SB 330 and makes the preliminary application available on the City’s website.

SB 9 CALIFORNIA HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND MORE EFFICIENCY (HOME) ACT
SB 9, also known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, is a State bill that requires cities to allow one additional re sidential unit onto parcels zoned for single-dwelling units. Since the adoption of this section of the Go vernment Code, the City has adopted regulations that allow development beyond that allowed under St ate law to permit duplexes in qualifying single- family zoning districts.

CONSTRAINTS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
California SB 520, passed in October 2001, requires local housing elements to evaluate constraints for persons with disabilities and develop programs th at accommodate the housi ng needs of disabled persons. Additionally, in public comments to City Council, community members expressed a need for the City to explore ways to increase housing opportunities for the developmentally disabled population and reducing barriers to accessing below-market ra te units. The City does this with the adopted Reasonable accommodation procedure and will be removing the CUP pr ocess for larger residential care facilities through implementation of Strategy HE-5.1.5. Reasonable Accommodation Procedure
Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the Califor nia Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities and do not impose significant administrative or financial burdens on local government or undermine the fundamental purpose of the z oning law. Reasonable accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to particular policie s that facilitate equal access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or to height limits to permit elevators.

The City of Cupertino adopted an ordinance in Ap ril 2010 for people with disabilities to make a reasonable accommodations request. Chapter 19.25 provides a procedure to request reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Federal Fair Housing Amendm ents Act of 1988, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. A reasonable accommodation may be approved by the City’s Director of Community Development, only after the director first finds:
 The proposed improvements are necessary to provide housing access for persons with disabilities.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐14

 The reasonable accommodation granted is one that will accomplish the purpose with the least modification to the development or land use regulations from which reasonable accommodation is being requested.
 The granting of the reasonable accommodation will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title.

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

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

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

Zoning and Other Land Use Regulations: The City provides for a variety of housing types intended to care for the special needs of individu als with disabilities. The City’s Zoning Ordinance defines residential care facilities in residential dwellings where non-medical care is provided. Small or large community residential care facilities includ e counseling, recovery planning, medical, or therapeutic assistance facilities for the elderly; fa cilities for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped; alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities; and other similar care facilities.

Licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer individuals are allowed by right in all residential districts, while large care facilities are subject to a CUP in all residential districts. The City has included Strategy HE-5.1.5 to allow residential care facilities for seven or more persons subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.

Definition of Family: The Zoning Ordinance contains a broad and inclusive definition of family. A family means an individual or group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. Families are distinguished from groups occupying a hotel, lodging club, fraternity or sorority house, or institution of any kind. This definition of family does not limit the number of people living together in a household and does not require them to be related.

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

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐15

DEVELOPMENT FEES AND EXACTIONS
Housing development is subject to permit processing and impact fees. These fees help to compensate the public for any impact associated with the new development. Like cities throughout California, Cupertino collects development fees to recover the capital costs of providing community services and the administrative costs associated with proce ssing applications. New housing typically requires payment of school impact fees, sewer, and water c onnection fees, building permit fees, wastewater treatment plant fees, and a variety of handling and service charges. Typical development and planning fees collected are outlined in Table B5-5, Cupertino Development and Planning Fees (July 2022).

Table B5-6. Cupertino Development and Planning Fees (July 2022) Parcel Map $19,190
Tentative Map $31,919
Temporary Use Permit $4,256
Administrative Conditional Use Permit $7,048
Minor1 $19,305
Major2 $32,169
Minor1 $8,868
Major2 $16,196
Minor Duplex / Residential3 $6,782
Minor4 $13,355
Major5 $19,878
Minor Residential Permit $3,482
Two‐Story Permit without Design Review $4,522
Two‐Story Permit with Design Review $5,427
Director Minor Modification6 $4,757
Miscellaneous Ministerial Permit $3,965
Environmental Impact Report
(Plus State & County Filing Fees)
Contract + Admin Fee
Estimated cost: $60,000 - $150,000, depending on the scope of the project
Negative Declaration ‐ Major
(Plus State & County Filing Fees)
Contract + Admin Fee
Estimated cost: $30,000 - $45,000
Negative Declaration ‐ Minor
(Plus State & County Filing Fees)
Contract + Admin Fee
Estimated cost: $20,000 - $35,000
Categorical Exemption
(Plus County Filing Fee) $347 filling fee
Subdivisions
Conditional Use Permit
Amendment to Conditional Use/Development Permit
Architectural and Site Approval Permit
Single Family (R-1) Residential Permits
Ministerial Residential Permits
Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐16

Estimated cost: $5,000 - $25,000, depending on complexity of project/studies required
All Nonresidential and Multifamily (per sq. ft.) $0.45
Residential Single-Family (per sq. ft.) $0.22
Source: City of Cupertino, Schedule C – Planning.

Notes:

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

2. For more than 10,000 square feet of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other nonresidential use, or greater than six residential units (Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12).

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

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

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

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

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

The results indicated that Cupertino’s fees are on the higher end when looking at all Santa Clara County jurisdictions. Cupertino’s fees totaled $136,596 per single-family home (Table B5-6), $77,770 per unit of a hypothetical 10-unit multifamily development ( Table B5-7), and $73,959 per unit of a 100-unit multifamily development ( Table B5-8 ). The median fees for other jurisdictions who completed the survey were $70,626 for a single-f amily home, $31,802 per unit for a 10-unit development, and $29,902 per unit for a 100-unit development. The f ees also represent a relatively low percentage of the overall cost to develop housing in Cupertino. Based on the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative survey results and an anal ysis on housing development costs performed by Century Urban, a San Francisco-based real estate consulting firm, Cupertino’s fees represent 2.9 percent of total development costs for a single-fam ily home, 10.3 percent for a 10-unit multifamily development, and 10.5 percent for a 100-unit multifamily development. While the current fee structure is on the high end and could be a constraint on development, City fees represent a very small percentage of the overall cost of developing housing within the city. The City has included Strategy HE-2.3.9 to review and revise impact fees as needed.

Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code Fees
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐17

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

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

Costs
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐18

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

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

Costs
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐19

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

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

Costs
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐20

REVIEW OF LOCAL ORDINANCES

SHORT-TERM RENTALS
On September 15, 2020, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20-2200 with new rules to regulate short-term rentals (STRs), residential rentals of 30 days or less, such as those conducted through or VRBO. As of January 2021, all STRs must be regi stered with the City, pa y a $211 STR registration fee, and must comply with the rules, such as those listed here:
 STRs must be an incidental use and operated by a primary resident.  Stays are limited to 60 days for un-hosted stays (no host/operator present on-site).  Limit of one STR per parcel and one rental agreement per night.  Guest occupancy is limited to two times the number of bedrooms within the STR, or two for a studio unit.
 Must provide the minimum parking spaces required by the zoning district in which it is located, and designate at least one on-site parking space for the STR.  Must have a local contact that can respond to any complaint within 60 minutes.  May not be used for commercial purposes or even ts that are likely to result in violation in traffic, parking, noise, or other standard regu lating the residential use and character of the neighborhood. Must comply with quiet hours from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m.  Must provide a guest manual to the guest u pon booking and in a prominent place within the STR. The guest manual must include information on noise, quiet hours, trash collection, vehicle parking, and any relevant regulations from the Municipal Code. A sample Guest Manual Template can be found here.
 Must maintain a license plate registry of all guest vehicles. A sample vehicle registration log can be found here.
 Must retain records documenting compliance for three years.  May not occur in any ADU.

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

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐21

BELOW-MARKET RATE MITIGATION PROGRAM
The City’s BMR Residential Mitigation Program requi res all new residential developers to either provide below market rate units or pay a mitigation fee, which is placed in the City’s Below Market- Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). The BMR Mitigation Program is based on a nexus study prepared by the City that demonstrated that all new developments create a need for affordable housing. Under this program, developers of for-sa le housing where units may be sold individually must sell at least 15 percent of units at a price affordable to median- and moderate-income households. Projects of seven or more units must provide on-site BMR units. Developers of projects of six units or fewer can either build a unit or provide pay the Housing Mitigation fee. The City treats its BMR units the same as density bonus affordable unit, meaning the provision of BMR units can count as density bonus affordable units. Density bonus units that are counted toward the BMR unit total also have to meet the other requirements of the BMR program related to affordability. The City also accepts density bonus affordable units of a deeper affordability than the required BMR units would have been as units counting toward the BM R unit requirements. The City’s BMR program is a way to ensure affordable units are built in the city and has not been seen as a constraint to housing development.

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

Table B5-10. Comparison of Permit Processing Times (Months) Jurisdiction ADU
Process
Ministerial
By-Right
Discretionary
By-Right
Discretionary
(Hearing
Officer if
Applicable)
Discretionary
(Planning
Commission)
Discretionary
(City Council)
Cupertino 1-3 1-6 2-4 2-4 3-6 6-12
Gilroy 1-2 1-2 2-4 N/A 4-5 5-6
Los Altos Hills 1-2 0.5-2 2-3 3-4 4-6 5-8
Los Gatos No Data 3-6* 1-2 2-4 4-6 6-12
Milpitas 3-5 4-6 2-3 6-18 N/A 12-24
Monte Sereno 0.75 0.75 1 1-2 N/A 1-2
Morgan Hill 1-2 1-3 2-3 2-3 4-6 4-6
Mountain View 3-5 4-6 2-3 6-18 N/A 12-24
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐22

Table B5-10. Comparison of Permit Processing Times (Months) Jurisdiction ADU
Process
Ministerial
By-Right
Discretionary
By-Right
Discretionary
(Hearing
Officer if
Applicable)
Discretionary
(Planning
Commission)
Discretionary
(City Council)
San Jose 2 1-3 7 7 7-11 5-12
Santa Clara 0-1 0-1 0-3 4-9 6-9 6-12
Saratoga 1 1-2 2-3 N/A 4-6 6-12
Sunnyvale 1-3 1-3 3-6 6-9 9-18 9-18
Unincorporated
County 4-6 6-8 9-12 12-15 15-18 15-18
Source: Santa Clara County Constraints, Fees, & Processing Times Survey Quick Summary, 2022.

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

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

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

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

The typical pre-application process may consist of the following:

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐23

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

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

However, two-story single-family homes require a two-story permit, which is approved by the Director of the Community Development Depa rtment and takes two to three months to process. Two-story homes very seldom require a meeting unless they are requesting an exception or a variance. Residential subdivisions require a tentative parcel map or tentative subdivision map, depending on the number of units in the development, and take two to four m onths to receive approvals. Multifamily residential developments in R3 Districts are typically approved in two to four months.

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

Review of the development proposal requires the following findings:

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

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

Finding 2 does not preclude alterations for reasonable accommodation requests or group homes. The City applies these findings in a manner compliant with the Housing Acco untability Act using the “specific, adverse impact” standard outlined therein. The City also regularly provides information to the Planning Commission about the Housing Accountability Act findings which must be made by the decision making body in order to deny a project to remind the acting body about the high bar for being able to reduce the density or deny the project. Additionally, these findings are not considered a APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐24

barrier to development, as the City has not denied any housing development projects in over fifteen years.

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

Over-the-counter plan checks are available for simple home remodels and small residential additions of 250 square feet or less. Building Department sta ff typically review these projects in less than 30 minutes during normal business hours. Any projects with more than 10 units might take 30 business days to review. Cupertino’s building permit proc edures are reasonable and comparable to those in other California communities. Tables B5-10 and B5-11 provide the typical process for a single-family and multifamily development. These timeframes assume the applicant meets all development regulations.

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

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

Type of Approval or Permit Time to complete (days/months) Approval Body APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐25

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

DESIGN GUIDELINES AND OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
Cupertino has not adopted citywide residential design guidelines. However, all Planned Development Zoning Districts, the R1 District, RHS District, th e Heart of the City Specific Plan Area, and the North De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan Area are subject to design guidelines. These design guidelines pertain to features such as landscaping, building and roof forms, building entrances, colors, outdoor lighting, and building materials.

The Heart of the City Specific Plan design guidel ines are intended to promote high-quality private- sector development, enhance property values, and ensure that both private investment and public activity continues to be attracted to the Stevens Creek Boulevard Special Area. Design guidelines promote retention and development viability of sing le-family residential-si zed lots and enable a transition from these smaller single-family neighbor hoods to the larger, multifamily residential and mixed-use properties fronting Stevens Creek Boulev ard. The City requires design review for certain residential developments to ensure that new development and changes to existing developments comply with City development requirements and policies. These include:
 Variances in the R-1 District.
 Two-story residential developments in the R-1 Di strict where second-floor to first-floor area ratio is greater than 0.66:1:00 and/or where second-s tory side yard setback(s) are less than 15 feet to a property line.
 Two-story addition, new two-story home, and/or second-story deck in the R1-a zone.

Type of Approval or Permit Time to complete (days/months) Approval Body APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐26

 Any new development or modifications in pl anned development residential or mixed-use residential zoning districts.
 Single-family homes in a planned development residential zoning district.  Modifications to buildings in the R1-C or R-2 zoning districts.  Signs, landscaping, parking plans, and modifications to buildings in the R-3 zoning district.

For Single-Family Residential, the design guidelines for all projects include the following:1, 2  There should not be a three-car-wide driveway curb cut.  No more than 50 percent of the front elevation of a house should consist of garage area. o In the R1-a zone, the maximum width of a garage on the front elevation should be 25 feet, which will accommodate a two-car garage. Addi tional garage spaces should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a deta ched accessory structure at the rear of the property.2
 Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more.  All roofs should have at least a one-foot overhang.
 Porches are encouraged.
o In the R1-a zone, the following porch design guidelines apply:2  When viewed from the street, a porch should ap pear proportionately greater in width than in height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a proportionately greater height than its width.
o Structural supports should be designed such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive.
o The use of large columns or pillars is discouraged.
o The eave height for a front porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical single-story elements in the neighborhood.
o Porch elements should have detailing that em phasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements.
 In R1-6e and R1-a zones, entry features should not be higher than 14 feet from natural grade to plate.2
The City has detailed two-story design principles incorporated in the R-1 District. These design principles help integrate new homes and additions to existing homes into existing neighborhoods by providing a framework for the review and approval process. Two-story homes with a second story to

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

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐27

first-floor ratio greater than 0.66:1.00 and homes with second-story side setbacks less than 15 feet must offset building massing with designs that en compass higher-quality architectural features and materials. For Two-Story Design Guidelines, the mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. All new construction should not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, th e neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights. Additionally, the design should use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume in interior spaces.

In the R1-a zone, all second-story wall heights grea ter than six feet, as measured from the second- story finished floor, should have building wall offs ets at least every 24 feet, with a minimum 4-foot depth and 10-foot width. The offsets should compri se the full height of the wall plane. The current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained. When possible, doors, windows, and architectural elements should be aligned with one another vertically and horizontally and symmetrical in number, size, and placement. In the R1-a zone, windows on the side elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of five feet above the second floor and have permanent exterior louvers to a height of five feet a bove the second floor or have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor’s privacy.

Two-story homes that are subject to Design Review required by Section 19.28.040(E) in the Zoning Ordinance (except in R1-a zones) must include:
 An identifiable architectural style.
 Design features, proportions, and details consistent with the architectural style selected.  Visual relief deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Development.  Materials of high quality.
 Appropriate building mass and scale.
 Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure  Reflect symmetry, proportion, and balance in design.

The design guidelines are intended to ensure development is consistent with the existing neighborhood character and are generally not cons idered significant constraints to housing production. These design guidelines currently contain subjective design standards, which are inconsistent with State housing law. While much of the design guidelines are applicable to only single- family development, the City is in the process of developing objective design standards for other forms of residential development. The City has included Strategy HE-1.3.9 to review and revise design and development standards to ensure they are objective in nature, while preserving existing neighborhood character without creating any undue constraints on new housing development. This will also address feedback received from developers during a focus group, during which participants expressed a desire for certainty and consistency in the review process. It should be noted that single family or duplex developments are not expected to generate an y significant housing options during the 6 th Housing Element cycle since the City is largely built out and most housing will be infill development with attached multifamily or townhome developments in R3 and R4 zoning districts.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐28

 No discretionary design review is required to permit multifamily housing in the R-3 zone.

Design review is not required for projects in the R-3 zone, where multifamily housing is permitted by-right. The City is in the process of adopting Objective Design standards for all multifamily and mixed use development.

REQUESTS TO DEVELOP AT DENSITIES BELOW THOSE PERMITTED
During the previous Housing Element cycle, the city did not approve any projects proposed at densities lower than those proposed in the Housing Element. Three out of the five projects requested the maximum allowable under State law at time of entitlement based on the amount of affordability proposed (35 percent for two projects and 15 percent for one); and the 600-unit Hampton Apartment Homes received approval to build to the maximum anticipated in the Housing Element.

It should be noted that Cupertino is built out and most new development is infill development, unlike in communities where greenfields or large single -family tracts are still being developed. Most development in Cupertino is either attached multifamily or townhome/row home style developments on redeveloped property. To the extent that the City is rezoning properties, these are to accommodate developments that are higher in density than single family developments.

To incentivize development that better implements densities planned in the Housing Element sites inventory, the Housing Element sets forth a program ( Strategy HE-1.3.2) to ensure that there are adequate sites available throughout the planning period to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs allocation, or RHNA.

BUILDING CODES AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
The City of Cupertino has adopted the 2022 Edit ion of the California Bu ilding Code, the 2022 California Electrical Code and Uniform Administrative Code Provisions, the International Association of Plumbing Officials Uniform Plumbing Code (2022 Edition), the California Mechanical Code 2022 Edition, the 2022 California Fire Code, and the 2022 Green Building Standard Code. The City also enforces the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Housing Code, the 1998 Uniform Code for Building Conservation, and the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings.

Cupertino has adopted several amendments to the California Building Code. The City requires sprinkler systems for new and expanded one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses; underhanging appendages enclosed with fire-resistant materials; roof coverings on new buildings and replacement roofs complying with the standards established for Class A roofing, the most fire-resistant type of roof covering. The amendments also esta blish minimum standards for building footings, seismic reinforcing on attached multifamily dwe llings, and brace wall panel construction. These amendments apply more stringent requirements than the California Building Code. The California Building Code and the City’s amendments to it have been adopted to prevent unsafe or hazardous building conditions. The City’s building codes are reasonable and do not adversely affect the ability to construct housing in Cupertino.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐29

The City’s code enforcement program is an important tool for maintaining the housing stock and protecting residents from unsafe or unsightl y conditions. The Code Enforcement Division is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code and various other related codes and policies. Code Enforcement Division staff work to achieve compliance through intervention, education, and enforcement, part nering with the community to enforce neighborhood property maintenance standards.

Code Enforcement staff investigate and enforce City codes and State statutes based on complaints received. Violation of a code regulation can result in a warning, citation, fine, or legal action, if not corrected over time. If a code violation involv es a potential emergency, officers will respond immediately; otherwise, Code Enforcement sta ff responds to complaints through scheduled inspections. Since 2007, out of the approximately 21,000 total housing units in the city, Code Enforcement has declared only three housing units unfit for human occupancy, and most residential complaints are readily resolved. Code Enforcement activities are, therefore, not considered a constraint to development of housing in Cupertino.

ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS
Residential developers are responsible for cons tructing road, water, sewer, and storm drainage improvements for new housing sites. Where a proj ect has off-site impacts, such as increased runoff or added congestion at a nearby intersection, addi tional developer expenses may be necessary to mitigate these impacts. Accordingly, developers pass these expenses on to consumers.

Chapter 18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (the Subdivision Ordinance) establishes the requirements for new subdivisions, including the provision of on- and off-site improvements. The ordinance requires that subdivisions comply with lot frontage requirements and stormwater runoff be collected and conveyed by an approved storm drain system. Furthermore, each unit or lot within the subdivision must be served by an approved sanitary sewer system, domestic water system, and gas, electric, telephone, and cablevision facilities. All utilities within the subdivi sion and along peripheral streets must be placed underground.

Typical residential streets are 40 feet wide curb-to-cu rb (60-foot right-of-way width) unless a project is adjacent to arterial and/or major roadways. Street widths within private development are subject to Fire Department requirements related to fire safety, staging, and fire truck turnaround. Typical internal streets with no parking along the street are 20 to 22 feet wide. Th e City works with developers to explore various street design options to meet thei r needs and satisfy public safety requirements.

Developers are typically required to install curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; however, there is a process where the City Council can waive these requirements. The City prefers detached sidewalks with a landscaped buffer in between the street and the pedestrian walk to enhance community aesthetics and improve pedestrian safety. However, the City work s with developers to explore various frontage improvement options depending on the project objective s, taking into consideration factors such as tree preservation, land/design constraints, pedestrian safety, and neighborhood pattern/compatibility.

This is especially true in Planned Development projects, where the City works with developers to achieve creative and flexible street and sidewalk designs to maximize the project as well as community benefits.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐30

The Subdivision Ordinance also includes land dedication and fee standards for parkland. The formula for dedication of park land for residential develo pment is based on a standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. The developer must either dedicate parkland based on this formula or pay an in-lieu fee based on the fair-market value of th e land being developed. In addition to parkland dedication, the City Council may require a subdivider to dedicate lands to the school district(s) as a condition of approval of the final subdivision map. If school site dedication is required and the school district accepts the land within 30 days, the district must repay the subdivider the original cost of the dedicated land plus the cost of any improvements, taxes, and maintenance of the dedicated land. If the school district does not accept the offer, the dedication is terminated.

The developer may also be required to reserve land for a park, recreational facility, fire station, library, or other public use if such a facility is shown on an adopted specific plan or adopted general plan. The public agency benefiting from the reserved land sh all pay the developer the market value of the land at the time of the filing of the tentative map and any other costs incurred by the developer in the maintenance of the area. The ordinance states that the amount of land to be reserved shall not make development of the remaining land held by the developer economically unfeasible.

The City of Cupertino’s site improvement requirements for new subdivisions are consistent with those in surrounding jurisdictions and do not pose a significant constraint to new housing development.

SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The City of Cupertino maintains development regulations that are consistent with State law and that do not pose undo constraints on the development of affordable housing. To continue this into the 6th Cycle Housing Element, new strategies have been incorporated.  Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). As of February 2024, Cupertino in compliance with State law as of submittal of this draft, though an amended ADU ordinance is pending. The City has included Strategy HE-1.3.8 to review and revise ADU requirements to ensure compliance with State law. Strategy HE-1.3.8 also included several actions the City plans to take to promote the development of ADUs and has been added to the Goal and Policy section of this 6th Cycle Housing Element to address this problem.
 Residential Design Guidelines. Cupertino maintains a requirement for design review of multifamily residential projects. These design gu idelines currently contain subjective design standards, which are inconsistent with State housing law. The City has included Strategy HE-

1.3.9 to review and revise design and development standards to ensure they are objective.  Priority Housing Sites. The City will continue to implement Housing Element Policy HE-

1.3, which states: Sites assumed to meet the City Regional Housing Needs Allocation (Tables B4-7 and B4-9) are designated “Priority Housing Sites” in the Cupertino Zoning Code Section

19.80.030 and the maximum number of units listed for each site shall be permitted uses.3

3 Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (E)(2). “If a site is listed as a Priority Housing Site in the City's adopted Housing Element of the General Plan, then residential development that does not exceed the number of units designated for the site in the Housing Element shall be a permitted use.”
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐31

 Low-Barrier Navigation Centers. AB 101, adopted in 2019, requires approval “by right” of low-barrier navigation centers that meet the requi rements of State law. A program has been included to allow low-barrier navigation centers by right in appropriate zoning districts (see Strategy HE-5.1.4).
 California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act. SB 9, also known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, is a State bill that requires cities to allow one additional resident ial unit onto parcels zoned for single-dwelling units.
 Development Fees. Total fees in Cupertino are on the higher end of Santa Clara County jurisdictions for all housing developments. A program has been included to review and revise fees for housing projects (see Strategy HE-2.3.9).
 Parking Standards. The requirement for two parking sp aces for studios and single-room occupancy units (SROs) in the R-3 Zoning Di strict could be a possible constraint on the development of affordable housing. A program has been included to review and revise all residential parking standards and specially redu ce the number of required parking spaces for studio and SRO units (see Strategy HE-1.3.9).

B5.2 NONGOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
In addition to governmental constraints, nongover nmental factors may constrain the production of new housing. These could include economic and market-related conditions, such as land and construction costs, as well as environmental hazards such as wildfires, earthquakes, and flooding.

LAND AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Land costs in Cupertino are very high due to high demand and an extremely limited supply of available land. Cupertino has seen a number of smaller de tached infill housing projects where single-family homes are constructed on remnant lots or lots that have previously been developed with older homes.

Multifamily development often requires lot consolidation and/or removing existing uses. A review of available real estate listings indicated several vaca nt properties for sale as of September 2022. The available properties varied in size from 1,920 squ are feet to 11.19 acres with prices ranging from $825,000 to $7,000,000 depending on the size and location of the property.

Construction costs vary significantly depending on building materials and the quality of finishes.

Parking structures for multifamily developments represent another major variable in the development cost. In general, below-grade parking raises costs significantly. Soft costs (architectural and other professional fees, land carrying costs, transaction costs, construction period interest, etc.) comprise an additional 10 to 40 percent of the construction and land costs. Owner-occupied multifamily units have higher soft costs than renter-occupied units due to the increased need for construction defect liability insurance. Permanent debt financing, site prepar ation, off-site infrastructure, impact fees, and developer profit add to the total development co st of a project. Construction costs run about $100 per square foot for Type 5 construction (wood and stucco over parking) fo r multifamily units and $110 per square foot for single-family units. Residential developers indicate that construction costs in APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐32

the Bay Area far exceed these nationa l averages and can reach $200 pe r square foot for larger (four- to six-story) developments.

Key construction costs have risen nationally in conjunction with economic recovery and associated gains in the residential real estate market.

AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING
As a stable and affluent community, private housi ng mortgage financing is readily available in Cupertino. There are no mortgage-deficient areas in the city and no identifiable underserved groups in need of financing assistance. At the time th is Housing Element was drafted, interest rates for homebuyers were increasing from a low of 2.75 per cent in 2020 to 5.75 percent in 2022 for a fixed- rate, 30-year mortgage. The current economic clim ate is uncertain and still affected by the COVID- 19 pandemic, increasing inflation, and supply chain disruptions.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The majority of Cupertino’s land area has been urbanized and now supports roadways, structures, other impervious surfaces, areas of turf, and ornamental landscaping. In general, urbanized areas tend to have low to poor wildlife habitat value due to replacement of natural communities, fragmentation of remaining open space areas and parks, and intens ive human disturbance. There are no significant wetland or environmental resource issues of con cern that would constrain development in the urbanized areas designated for residential development in Cupertino.

INFRASTRUCTURE
WATER
Three water suppliers provide service to the City of Cupertino: the California Water Company serviced through the Los Altos Suburban District, San Jose Water Company, and Cupertino Water. The San Jose Water Company also has a lease agreement to operate and maintain the City of Cupertino’s water system until 2022. The lease was extended for two more years and included an extension of the current lease for up to three years. Both of these provider s derive the vast majority of their water from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SVWD). Accordin g to the 2022 Urban Wa ter Management Plan (UWMP), SVWD has developed demand projections from 2020 to 2045 based on population growth, land use changes, trends in per-capita water use, and considerations of upcoming mandates in water conservation. Based on projected demand for single -family development for 2035, the demand is 17,657 mg for single-family and 11,505 mg for multif amily in the areas serviced by San Jose Water.

The projected water supply for 2035 is 44,629 mg, which meets the need for future development for the next eight years for both single-family and multifamily water demands. Additionally, the Pacheco Reservoir is undergoing improvements that would act as a surface bank for SVWD’s existing supplies and diversify its reserve storage by increasing the vo lume of locally banked reserves. In addition, by increasing locally available storage, SWVD’S may be better positioned to respond to future water supply emergencies. The supply increase associated with this reservoir is to be determined and depends on imported water assumptions, dema nds, permit requirements, and operational requirements. However, there is current capaci ty to meet the City’s 2023-2031 RHNA on sites identified in Appendix B4.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐33

WASTEWATER
Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) serves as the main provider of wastewater collection and treatment services for Cupertino, while the City of Sunnyva le serves a small portion of the Cupertino Urban Service area on the east side of the city. The City of Sunnyvale Wastewater Treatment Plant has a daily treatment capacity of 29 million gallons per day (mgd ), of which, approximately 12 mgd were being utilized in 2022. According to the Donald M. Somers Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), over the next 30 years, almost every process and buildin g in the WPCP will be rehabilitated or replaced.

This will be accomplished through up to 35 individual projects, each including several major elements and some involving multiple facilities. The improvements identified include rehabilitation of existing facilities, new primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment facilities, support facilities and upgrades to power, automation, and heating. The projects are grouped into five phases, correlating with the timing and types of improvements. It projects that proje cts in Phases 1 through 3 will be needed by 2030.

The cost for these projects is budgeted at $456 million and includes design, permitting, program management, construction management, and construction. The estimates for future years have been escalated to account for price inflation. These improvements are expected to ensure capacity for future buildout for the wastewater collection demand th roughout the 2023-2031 planning period on sites identified in Appendix B4.

Priority Water and Wastewater Procedure
Consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 65589.7, the City will immediately forward its adopted Housing Element to its water and wastewater providers so they can grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower-income households (Strategy 4.1.4).

AVAILABLE DRY UTILITIES
Dry utilities, including cable, electricity, and telephone service, are available to all areas in the city.

There is sufficient capacity to meet the current need and any future need. Service providers are:
 Electricity: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Silicon Valley Clean Energy  Telephone: AT&T and other providers available
 Internet Service: Comcast and other provider available

CONTINUING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS NONGOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS As residential developments are approved by the City and building permits have not been obtained, the City will make diligent efforts to contact applicants to learn why units have not been constructed within two years after approval. If these impedi ments are due to nongovernmental constraints, such as accelerating construction costs, shortages of labor or materials, or rising interest rates, to the extent appropriate and legally possible, the City will seek to identify actions that may help to remove these constraints. In addition, the City will aim to work with stakehol ders to identify nongovernmental constraints or other circumstances that may impe de the construction of ho using in Cupertino and work collaboratively to find strategies and actions th at can eliminate or reduce identified constraints (Strategy HE-3.3.7).

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐34

B5.3 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
Energy conservation is a major priority in Cupertino. The City prepared a climate action plan in 2015, which provided a roadmap to actions the City w ill take to reduce energy consumption and lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The plan is entitled City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) and was prepared by the City of Cupertino.

The City’s CAP defines Cupertino’s path toward creating a healthy, livable, and vibrant place for its current and future residents to live, learn, work, and play. The strategies outlined in this CAP seek to not only reduce GHG emissions, but also provide energy, water, fuel, and cost savings for the City, its community members and businesses, further impr oving Cupertino’s already high quality of life.

The plan also represents another example of a successful partnership between engaged community members and City staff to jointly plan for Cupertino’s sustainable future and continue to lead by example on important environmental issues.

The CAP identifies five objectives:
 To demonstrate environmental leadership – Cupertino as a community can rise to the difficult challenge of reducing the impact of climate change by defining measurable, reportable, verifiable climate actions to reduce its contri bution to local and global GHG emissions that can serve as a model for small cities in the state and nationwide;  To save money and promote green jobs – Residents, businesses, and government can reduce their utility costs through increased energy and water efficiency, and a focus on efficiency can create job opportunities within the community that contribute to protecting our shared environmental resources;
 To comply with the letter and spirit of state environmental initiatives – California is taking the lead in tackling climate change while driving new energy markets and fostering new environmental services. As coordination with ci ties serves as the keystone to achieving statewide greenhouse gas emissions reductions, Cupertino has a responsibility to help the state address emissions sources that arise in our geography and meet its goals to reduce these emissions;
 To promote sustainable development – By developing this Climate Action Plan to reinforce General Plan policies and align with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District guidelines, a new class of sustainable development projec ts, such as mixed use and transit-oriented developments, can be fast-tracked (i.e., “str eamlined”) through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process by not re quiring GHG emissions for proposed projects consistent with the CAP; and
 To support regional climate change efforts – Cupertino developed its CAP through a county-wide effort that established consistency in the local response to climate change, and created a framework to collaborate regionally on implementation of different CAP programs.

This partnership elevates the credibility of local climate action planning by allowing APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐35

transparency, accountability, and comparabili ty of the plan’s actions, performance, and commitments across all participating jurisdictions.

The City of Cupertino updated its CAP in 2022.

SILICON VALLEY CLEAN ENERGY
Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) is the community electricity provider for 13 communities in Santa Clara County, including Cupertino, and is governed by local elected officials serving on the Board of Directors. SVCE was formed with the mission to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by providing carbon-free, affordable, and reliable electricity and innovative programs within the community.

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ENERGY-EFFICIENCY PROGRAMMING PG&E, which provides energy-efficiency services in Cupertino, offers public information and technical assistance to homeowners regarding ener gy conservation. PG&E also provides numerous incentives for energy efficiency in new construction and home remodeling. For example, remodeling rebates exist for projects installing three or more upgrades from a flexible menu of options that earn points towards incentives and rebates. This program’s incentives range between $1,000 and $4,500.

One of the more recent strategies in building ener gy-efficient homes is following the U.S. Green Building Council’s guidelines for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification. The LEED for Homes program in cludes standards for new single-family and multifamily home construction.

Additionally, PG&E provides residents with information regarding energy-saving measures, including various incentives and programs available to developers and residential property owners. Table B5- 12, PG&E Programs and Incentives for Residential Properties, includes a description of the various financial and energy-related assistance that PG&E offers low-income customers.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

B5‐36

Table B5-13. PG&E Programs and Incentives for Residential Properties Energy Savings
Assistance Program
PG&E’s Energy Savings Assistance program offers free weatherization measures and energy-efficient appliances to qualified low-income households. PG&E determines qualified households through the same sliding income scale used for CARE. The program includes measures such as attic insulation, weather stripping, caulking, and minor home repairs. Some customers qualify for replacement of appliances, including refrigerators, air conditioners, and evaporative coolers.

Energy Efficiency for
Multifamily Properties
The Energy Efficiency for Multifamily Properties program is available to owners and managers of existing multifamily residential dwellings containing five or more units. The program encourages energy efficiency by providing rebates for the installation of certain energy-saving products.

California Alternate
Rates for Energy
(Care)
PG&E offers this rate-reduction program for low-income households. PG&E determines qualified households by a sliding income scale based on the number of household members.

The CARE program provides a discount of 20% or more on monthly energy bills.

Reach (Relief for
Energy Assistance
Through Community
Help)
The REACH program is sponsored by PG&E and administered through a non-profit organization. PG&E customers can enroll to give monthly donations to the REACH program.

Qualified low-income customers who have experienced uncontrollable or unforeseen hardships, which prohibit them from paying their utility bills may receive an energy credit.

Eligibility is determined by a sliding income scale based on the number of household members. To qualify for the program, the applicant’s income cannot exceed 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines.

Medical Baseline
Allowance
The Medical Baseline Allowance program is available to households with certain disabilities or medical needs. The program allows customers to get additional quantities of energy at the lowest or baseline price for residential customers.

Source: PG&E, 2022.

As part of this Housing Element update, the City of Cupertino will implement Program Q to continue to promote and encourage energy conservation in residential developmen t. This program will encourage energy conservation practices for new and existing reside ntial dwelling units by enforcing State and local regulations and encouraging incen tives for energy conservation “best practices,” including:
 Continuing to offer streamlining and reduced permitting fees for solar panel installations;  Continuing to implement the CALGreen building code requirements;  Continuing to require “Reach Codes” for all-electric building requirements;  Providing information regarding rebate programs and energy audits available through PG&E; and
 Providing resource materials regarding green building and conservation programs.

Program Description
Review of Previous Housing Element B.6

APPENDIX

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐i

Table of Contents
B6 Review of Previous Housing Element ............................................................... B6-1 B6.1 Effectiveness of the Element ........................................................................................ B6-1 B6.2 Progress Toward Meeting Quantifiable Objectives ....................................................... B6-1 B6.3 Efforts to Address Special Housing Needs ................................................................... B6-2 B6.4 Preservation of “At Risk” Units ...................................................................................... B6-5 B6.5 Rehabilitation of Existing Units ..................................................................................... B6-5 B6.6 Progress in Implementation of Housing Element Programs ......................................... B6-5 B6.7 Appropriateness in Goals, Objectives, and Policies .................................................... B6-23 B6.8 Summary .................................................................................................................... B6-23 Tables
Table B6-1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Compared to Permits Issued 2015 – 2022 (5th Cycle Housing Element) ....................................................................................... B6-2 Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs ................................................... B6-6

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐ii

This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐1

B6 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT
To effectively plan for the future, it is important to reflect back on the goals of the previous Housing Element and to identify those areas where progress was made and those areas where continued effort is needed. State Housing Element guidelines require communities to evaluate their previous Housing Element according to the following criteria:
 Effectiveness of the Element;
 Progress in Implementation; and
 Appropriateness in Goals, Objectives, and Policies.

B6.1 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ELEMENT
The City’s 2015 Housing Element identified the following goals:
 Goal HE-1: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for all Economic Segments;  Goal HE-2: Housing that is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households;  Goal HE-3: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods;
 Goal HE-4: Energy and Water Conservation;
 Goal HE-5: Services for Extremely Low-Income Households and Special Needs Neighborhoods;
 Goal HE-6: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities; and  Goal HE-7: Coordination with Regional Organizations and Local School Districts.

To achieve these goals, the 2015 Housing Element listed a series of policies and actions. The policies covered a range of housing concerns, including a ppropriate zoning for lower- and moderate-income households, assisting in developing affordable housing, removing governmental constraints, conserving the existing affordable housing stock, preventing the conversion of affordable units to market rate, and promoting equal housing opportuniti es for all persons. The policies comply with State Housing Law guidelines.

B6.2 PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING QUANTIFIABLE OBJECTIVES
The 2015–2023 Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation (RHNA) prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined that zoning to accommodate 1,064 additional housing units needed to be in place in Cupertino during the prior planning period to meet regional housing APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐2

needs. ABAG disaggregated this allocation into four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. Table B6-1 compares the 5th Cycle RHNA to the building permits issued during 2015 to 2022.

Table B6-1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Compared to Permits Issued 2015 – 2022 (5th Cycle Housing Element)
Income Group 2015 – 2022
RHNA
Building Permits
Issued
Percentage of RHNA
Accomplished
Very Low Income 356 48 13.48%
Low Income 207 19 9.18%
Moderate Income 231 158 68.40%
Above Moderate Income 270 321 118.89%
Total 1,064 546 51.32%
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023
B6.3 EFFORTS TO ADDRESS SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
California Government Code Section 65588 requires that local governments review the effectiveness of the housing element goals, policies, and rela ted actions to meet the community’s special housing needs. As shown in the Review of Previous 20 15-2023 Housing Elemen t Programs matrix ( Table B6-2), the City worked diligently to continuously promote housing for special-needs groups in a variety of ways.
 To ensure the housing stock has affordable ho using options, the City approved 158 building permits for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and created a pr e-approved ADU program to further incentivize the creation of ADUs as of 2021.
 To help facilitate residential development, the City approved:
o Waivers for development standards and parkin g standards for the 48 senior affordable living units, 123 assisted living units, and 35 memory care rooms as part of the Westport Project.
o Waivers for development standards and parkin g standards for the 206 condominiums as part of the Marina Plaza Project.
o Incentives and concessions for the developmen t as part of the 2,402-unit mixed-use development as part of the Vallco Town Center (The Rise) development.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐3

 The City’s below-market rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) funded and supported affordable housing projects, strategies, and services, including, but not limited to:
o $305,615 to Project Sentinel for information and referral calls to 712 households. o $339,639 to WVCS Affordable Placement Program to assist in rental and ownership vacancies and BMR homeowner monitoring helping assist a total of 47 households. o $36,874 to Fair Housing – ECHO Housing for investigated fair housing cases assisting 21 households.
o $399,986 to WVCS Greenwood Court Renovat ion for rehabilitated units assisting 3 households.
o $175,000 to Hello Housing, which assisted 50 households while also assisting 49 households through Rise Housing.
o $783,049 to Vista Village Repair Project to rehabilitate BMR rental units.  To help incentivize Affordable Housing Development, the City received a total of $561,482 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley (RTSV).
 The City indirectly helped the Veranda Project obtain $999,906 through the Housing Trust Silicon Valley, to assist with land acquisition.
 The City provided a $3,672,000 loan to The Verand a to assist with the land acquisition of 19 extremely low-income units.
 The City also funded The Veranda Project by $500,000 through its share of HOME funds to assist with construction costs.
 The City also funded Faith in Action Rotating Shelter by providing $7,700 for job development programming that assisted 33 unhoused participants that were prepared to be resume and interview ready.
 The City provided $8,000 to fund United Way 211 Santa Clara for residents who called and accessed 211 Santa Clara County.
 In 2021, the City established the City Unhoused Task Force to address the needs of unhoused residents through resource referral and partnered with the West Valley Rotating Safe Car Park (RSCP) program and there is a max of 30 people at a time per safe parking site.  The City provided 5 households with low-inter est loans through MeriWest Credit Union Program to put towards rental assistance in the amount of $86,872.  The City assisted 3 households with emergency rental assistance loans in the amount of $6,000.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐4

 The City also funded the Rotating Safe Car Program providing $50,000 to 20 households in rental assistance grants.
 During the planning period, the City took va rious steps to provide supportive services for lower-income households and persons with special needs, including:
o Establishing the City Unhoused Task Force to address the needs of unhoused residents. o CDBG funds of $22,720.18 to Live Oak Adult Day Services, a senior adult day care. o CDBG funds of $164,807 to assist 274 senior households at Live Oak Adult Day Services, a senior adult day care.
o CDBG funds of $299,156 to West Valley Community Services (WVCS) CARE Program to provide supportive services to prevent homelessness. o CDBG funds of $224,184 to City-wide cu rb installation project for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible curb ramps installed throughout the city. o CDBG funds of $809,802 for Cupertino Housi ng for the Disabled Inc. to rehabilitate rental units.
o CDBG funds of $234,672 for 10 homele ss residents who received supportive and sanitation services.
o CDBG funds of $24,142 that assisted 36 seniors to access meal deliveries. o CDBG funds of $185,000 providing $5,000 in grants to 37 small businesses. o Human Services Grant Program (HSG) $195,7 97 to MAITRI that assist transitional residents who receive case management.
o HSG $104,999 to SALA for seniors who received legal services. o HSG $266,788 to WVCS Haven Home program for people who received supportive services to prevent homelessness.
o The City developed and funded the Homeless Jobs Program to provide up to eight months of employment for two unhoused residents in Cupertino in the amount of $222,063. o The City also implemented the grants for De Anza students to provide $8,080 in housing assistance grants.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐5

B6.4 PRESERVATION OF “AT RISK” UNITS
According to the 2015 Housing Element, there was one affordable project at risk of converting to market rate within 10 years from the beginning of the 2015–2023 planning period—Beardon Drive, which has eight affordable units. In 2019, the owner of Beardon Drive paid off the City’s CDBG loan and indicated that the property would continue to operate as affordable housing.

B6.5 REHABILITATION OF EXISTING UNITS
The City had established a goal of rehabilitating 40 total housing units between 2015 and 2023.

B6.6 PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS Table B6-2, Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs, identifies all of the actions the City committed to in the 2015 Housing Element. The table also includes a description of the progress that was made during the 2015–2023 planning period.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐6

Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-1.3.1 Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions
To accommodate the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA), the City will
continue to:
 Provide adequate capacity through the
Land Use Element and Zoning
Ordinance to accommodate the RHNA
of 1,064 units
 Monitor development standards to
ensure they are adequate and
appropriate to facilitate a range of
housing in the community
 Monitor the sites inventory and make it
available on the City website
 Monitor development activity on the
Housing Opportunity Sites to ensure that
the City maintains sufficient land to
accommodate the RHNA during the
planning period. Identify alternative
site(s) as needed
The City continued to provide adequate capacity through the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance to accommodate the RHNA allocation. As a result of flexible land use controls as of 2021, four of the five Priority Housing Element sites from the 5th cycle used density bonuses, incentives, and/or waivers that were approved by the City between 2016-2022.

Continue, through Strategy HE-1.3.1, HE-1.3.2,
and HE-1.3.3. The City will commit to rezoning
and adding new zoning districts and land use
designations to accommodate RHNA.

HE-1.3.2 Second Dwelling Units
The City will continue to implement the
Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance and
encourage the production of second units
The City annually updated the Ordinance to comply with State law and established a program to streamline the ADU review and production process as part of the City 2020-21 work program. In 2021, the City created a pre-approved ADU
program to further incentivize the creation of ADUs. Since 2015, the City has issued 158 building permits for ADUs.

Continue, through Strategy HE-1.3.8. The City
will continue to address new State legislation
for ADU’s and expand on efforts to encourage
the development of these housing types.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐7

Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-1.3.3 Lot Consolidation
To facilitate residential and mixed-use
developments, the City will continue to:
 Encourage lot consolidation
 Encourage master plans for such sites
with coordinated access and circulation
 Provide technical assistance
 Encourage intra- and inter-agency
cooperation
The City encouraged lot consolidation and provided technical assistance to property owners of adjacent parcels to coordinate redevelopment where appropriate. Sand Hill Property Company filed an application with the City of Cupertino on March 27, 2018, entitled "Vallco Town Center Project Application pursuant to SB 35." On September 21, 2018, an approval letter was issued for the project. Vallco requested less commercial development with only 1 bedroom and studio BMR units and smaller 1 bedroom and studios than market rate and 1-
bedroomm studios as BMR. The coordination included intra- and inter-agency cooperation and encouragement of master plans for sites with coordinated access and circulation.

Continue, through Strategy HE 1.3.7.

HE-1.3.4 Flexible Development Standards
The City recognizes the need to encourage a
range of housing options in the community.

The City will continue to:
 Offer flexible residential development
standards in planned residential zoning
districts
 Consider granting reductions in off-
street parking on a case-by-case basis
for senior housing
In 2021, the 123 assisted living units and 35 memory care rooms Westport Project was approved with waivers, an
incentive for development standards and a reduction in parking standards. The Westport project is within the Heart of the City Specific Plan and on a Housing Element site. The City had 4 of the 5 Housing Element sites use waivers and Density Bonus parking standards as part of their project within the Vallco, Marina, Verandas, and Westport Projects. The City also allowed 2 of the 5 projects to use incentives as part of their project - Westport and Vallco.

Continue for affordable units through Strategy
HE-2.3.7. The City will also commit to other
strategies like density bonus incentives to
address Affordable Housing Development.

HE-1.3.5 Heart of the City Specific Plan
The City will review revisions to the Heart of
the City Specific Plan residential density
calculation requirement to eliminate the
requirement to net the non-residential portion
of the development from the lot area.

Completed in May 2015. Delete, the action was completed.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐8

Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-2.3.1 Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation
Program
The City will continue to require that
developers of office, commercial, and
industrial space pay a mitigation fee for
affordable housing in the City of Cupertino.

To help offset the loss of land, the City continued to implement the Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program. The City requires developers of office, commercial, and industrial space to pay a mitigation fee to support affordable housing. Mitigated fees are collected and deposited into the City's BMR Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) for the following fiscal years (FY) the following mitigation fees were collected and deposited and in the BMR and AFH funds:
 FY19: $159,178
 FY20: $39,000
 FY21: $197,661
 FY22: $36,000
 FY23: $170,824
The Veranda project received BMR and AFH funds. This senior housing project, now complete and occupied, is a 19-unit affordable development on a vacant, 0.56-acre site, at 19160 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino.

Continue, through Stra tegy HE-2.3.2. This
program has proven successful and will
continue with only minor text updates.

HE-2.3.2 Residential Housing Mitigation Program
The City will continue to implement the
Residential Housing Mitigation Program to
mitigate the need for affordable housing
created by new market-rate residential
development. This program applies to new
residential development. Mitigation includes
either the payment of the “Housing
Mitigation” fee or the provision of a Below
Market-Rate (BMR) unit or units.

The City continued to implement the Residential Housing Mitigation Program. The program applies to new residential development and includes the provision of BMR units or the payment of the "Housing Mitigation" fee. The BMR Linkage Fees Update study was completed and adopted by City Council on May 19, 2020, which included an increased requirement of 15%-20% for inclusionary ownership projects. In 2021, the BMR AHF provided funding to the following affordable housing projects, strategies, and services:
 BMR Program Administration: 400 households sought
assistance, 12 new households were assisted.

Continue, through Stra tegy HE-2.3.3. This
program has proven successful and will expand
on efforts to prioritize, provide rental
alternatives, develop for-sale and rental units,
and develop BMR units off-site.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐9

Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete  Fair housing services: $305,615 to Project Sentinel
 City of Cupertino Housing Programs for De Anza College Students
HE-2.3.3 Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable
Housing Fund (AHF)
The City’s BMR AHF will continue to support
affordable housing projects, strategies and
services, including but not limited to:
 BMR Program Administration
 Substantial rehabilitation
 Land acquisition
 Acquisition of buildings for permanent
affordability, with or without
rehabilitation
 New construction
 Preserving “at-risk” BMR units
 Rental operating subsidies
 Down payment assistance
 Land write-downs
 Direct gap financing
 Fair housing
The City provided ongoing technical assistance to
nonprofits/developers, including providing data and information on properties for sale to nonprofit partners and developers for their consideration. In 2017, the fund provided $175,000 to Hello Housing, which assisted five households purchase BMR for-sale units and 15 new rental households. Additionally, a $3,672,000 loan to The Veranda helped assist with the Land Acquisition of 19 extremely low-income units and very low- income senior housing development. Additional financial assistance included:
 A rehabilitation award of $399,986 to the Greenwood Court Renovation Project, assisting four former transitional
housing units that converted to BMR rental units.
 $561,482 in CDBG funds to Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, a low-income housing repair and rehabilitation
program.
 $783,049 in funds to Vista Village Renovation Project, a low-income affordable housing development.$305,615 to
Project Sentinel for fair housing services.
 Emergency Assistance Funds for Cupertino Tenants
Impacted by COVID
 $50,000 to Earnin
 $86,872 to Meriwest Credit Union and $50,000 to West
Valley Community Services (WVCS)
Continue, through Stra tegy HE-2.3.4. This
program has proven successful and will
continue with additional focus on areas with
limited availability of rental housing and high
cost burden.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐10

Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete To ensure the mitigation fees continue to be
adequate to mitigate the impacts of new
development on affordable housing needs,
the City will update its Nexus Study for the
Housing Mitigation Plan by the end of 2015
 $8,080 to De Anza College for the City of Cupertino Housing Program for De Anza Students
HE-2.3.4 Housing Resources
The City will continue to provide information
on housing resources and services offered
by the County and other outside agencies.

These include, but are not limited to:
 Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) –
Santa Clara County Housing and
Community Development Department
 First-Time Homebuyer Assistance and
Developer Loans for Multi-Family
Development – Housing Trust Silicon
Valley (HTSV)
 Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) –
Housing Authority of Santa Clara County
(HASCC)
 Affordable housing development –
Santa Clara County HOME Consortium
The City will also continue to explore and
pursue various affordable housing resources
available at the local, regional, state, and
federal levels that could be used to address
housing needs in the community
The City provided information on housing resources and
services to:
 County Measure A Affordable Housing Bond
 County Mortgage Credit Certificate
 County Developmental Disability Funding
 Housing Trust Silicon Valley First-Time Homebuyer
 Assistance and Developer Loans
 Project Sentinel Rental Support
 Housing Authority Section 8 Vouchers
 Destination: HOME Community Housing Fund
 West Valley Community Services
In addition, the City worked with nonprofit organizations in providing programs and services for low-income households and private industry, in particular financial and development groups, to encourage the development of affordable housing opportunities regionally and in the city (see Program HE-2.3.3).

The City provided technical assistance to the public service agencies it funded. The City coordinated with a number of groups to engage in discussions about grant funding
opportunities, regional housing needs, and efforts to address homelessness. The City participated in the following groups:

Santa Clara County PLHA Consortium, Regional
Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.5. The City,
through the new strategy, will also continue to
identify and pursue various affordable housing
resources available to address needs in the
community.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐11

Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete CDBG/Housing Coordinators Group, SV@Home, Non-Profit
Housing of Northern CA. The participants in these groups, including the City, work togeth er to pool their knowledge and share expertise. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing helps to coordinate these efforts and provides the participants with invaluable technical assistance. Through the SCC PLHA Consortium, the City was awarded an allocation of PLHA
funding and is currently working towards implementing the funding for projects in Cupertino. In 2021, the City created a pilot Homeless Jobs Program with two Cupertino unhoused residents participating in the program. The Homeless Jobs Program assists two people per year, plus their families by extension. The City Council did not prioritize the Plan to End Homelessness for the FY 2023-25 City Work Program. This item was concluded, and no final version of the Plan was created. Unused funds will be returned to the General Fund.

HE-2.3.5 Surplus Properties for Housing
The City will explore opportunities on surplus
properties as follows:
 Work with local public agencies, school
districts and churches, to identify surplus
properties or underutilized properties
that have the potential for residential
development.
 Encourage long-term land leases of
properties from churches, school
districts, and corporations for
construction of affordable units
 Evaluate the feasibility of developing
special housin g for teachers or other
The City worked with local public agencies, school districts, and churches to identify surplus properties that have the potential for residential development. There were no surplus properties available from any school districts or churches for the City to pursue. The City continued to support the Rotating Car-park program on church property.

Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.6. The City
will partner with local developers or
organizations to purchase surplus properties,
infill lots, and other green fields within the city
to use for the development of affordable
housing.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐12

Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete employee groups on the surplus
properties
 Research other jurisdictions’ housing
programs for teachers for their potential
applicability in Cupertino
HE-2.3.6 Incentive for Affordable Housing
Development
The City will continue to offer a range of
incentives to facilitate the development of
affordable housing. These include:
 Financial assistance through the City’s
Below Market-Rate Affordable Housing
Fund (BMR AHF) and CDBG funds
 Partner with CDBG and/or support the
funding application of qualified
affordable housing developers for
regional, state, and federal affordable
housing funds, including HOME funds,
Low Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTC), and mortgage revenue bonds.
 Density bonus incentives (see Strategy
HE-2.3.7)
 Flexible development standards
 Technical assistance
 Waiver of park dedication fees and
construction tax
 Parking ordinance waivers
The City offered a range of financial assistance through the City’s BMR AHF, by partnering with CDBG and receiving a total of $64,000 in CDBG funds to Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, a low-income housing repair and rehabilitation program.

To incentivize affordable housing development, the City supported the funding application of qualified affordable housing developers for regional, state, and federal affordable housing funds, density bonus incentives, flexible development standards, technical assistance, waiver of park dedication fees and construction tax, parking ordinance waivers, and expedited permit processing. As previously mentioned, the City approved waivers of development and parking standards for the Westport and Marina Plaza projects. The City also approved density bonus incentives for the Westport and Vallco Town Center (The Rise) projects. In addition, the City allowed flexible development standards and a reduced parking standard was approved for the Hamptons Development under the Planned Development zoning distric t. Technical assistance was
provided for the Verandas project on an ongoing basis and the project was also provided expedited permit processing with entitlements on the project being completed in 6-7 months. In addition, the City provided approximately $3.7 million in funding for this 100% affordable housing project and supported funding applications for the project. With all residential developments, parkland dedication in lieu of fees and construction taxes were waived for all affordable units. The City has provided
Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.7.

Development of housing for lower-income
households will be facilitated citywide, but extra
focus will be given to areas with currently low
percentages of renter-occupied households to
facilitate housing mobility and integration of
ownership and rental units.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐13

Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete  Expedited permit processing $8,172,000 in BMR AHF and CDBG funds to facilitate the development of affordable housing (see Program HE-2.3.4).

The City coordinated with a number of groups to engage in discussions about grant funding opportunities, regional housing needs, and efforts to address homelessness. The City
participated in the following groups: Santa Clara County PLHA Consortium, Regional CDBG/Housing Coordinators Group,
SV@Home, Non-Profit Housing of Northern CA. The
participants in these groups, including the City, work together to pool their knowledge and share expertise. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing helps to coordinate these efforts and provides the participants with invaluable technical assistance.

Through the SCC PLHA Consortium, the City was awarded an allocation of PLHA funding and is currently working towards implementing the funding for projects in Cupertino.

HE-2.3.7 Density Bonus Ordinance
The City will encourage use of density
bonuses and incentives, as applicable, for
housing developments
All the sites listed in the 5th cycl e table with the exception of (APNs: 316-06-059, 316-06-060, and 316-06 -058) have been awarded density bonuses, incentives, waivers, and/or reduction in parking standards. They were approved by the City between 2016 and 2022.

Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.8.

Development will be citywide but extra focus
will be given to areas with currently low
percentages of renter-occupied households to
facilitate housing mobility.

HE-2.3.8 Extremely Low-Income Housing and
Housing for Persons with Special Needs
The City will continue to encourage the
development of adequate housing to meet
the needs of extremely low-income
households and persons with special needs,
including the following incentives:
 Provide financing assistance using the
Below Market-Rate Affordable Housing
Fund (BMR AHF) and Community
The City continued to provide financing assistance using the BMR AHF and CDBG funds. A $3,672,000 loan to The Veranda to assist with the Land Acquisition of 19 extremely low-income units. Additional financial assistance included grant reductions in off-street parking. The City coordinated with a number of groups to engage in discussions about grant funding
opportunities, regional housing needs, and efforts to address homelessness. The City participated in the following groups:

Santa Clara County PLHA Consortium, Regional
CDBG/Housing Coordinators Group, SV@Home, Non-Profit
Housing of Northern CA. The participants in these groups, includin
g the Cit y, work to gether to pool their knowled ge and Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.10.

Additionally, Strategies HE-2.3.1 and HE-5.1.2
have been developed and supplement aspects
of this program.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐14

Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete Development Block Grant funds
(CDBG).
 Allow residential developments to
exceed planned density maximums if
they provide special needs housing
 Grant reductions in off-street parking on
a case-by-case basis
 Partner with and/or support the funding
application of qualified affordable
housing developers for regional, state,
and federal affordable housing funds
share expertise. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing helps to coordinate these efforts and provides the participants with invaluable technical assistance. Through the SCC PLHA Consortium, the City was awarded an allocation of PLHA
funding and is currently working towards implementing the funding for projects in Cupertino. In addition, the City provides technical assistance to the public service agencies it funds. The City also participates in the Santa Clara County HOME
Consortium. The City worked with nonprofits and developers to review the feasibility of residential uses on two potential affordable housing sites (Mary Avenue). The City issued an RFP (request for proposals) for the site and received interest from one developer. Currently, the City is in the process of drafting an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) to move the project forward.

HE-2.3.9 Employee Housing
The City permits employee housing in
multiple zoning distri cts. Pursuant to the
State Employee Housing Act, any employee
housing consisting of no more than 36 beds
in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces
designed for use by a single family or
household shall be deemed an agricultural
land use. No conditional use permit, zoning
variance, or other zoning clearance shall be
required of this employee housing that is not
required of any other agricultural activity in
the same zone. The permitted occupancy in
employee housing in a zone allowing
agricultural uses shall include agricultural
employees who do not work on the property
where the employee housing is located. The
Employee Housin g Act also specifies that
The City amended the zoning code in 2014 to allow employee housing in multiple zoning districts.

Deleted.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐15

Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete housing for six or fewer employees be
treated as a residential use. The City
amended the Zoning Ordinance to be
consistent with the State law in 2014 and will
continue to comply with the Employee
Housing Act where it would apply.

HE-3.3.1 Residential Rehabilitation
The City will continue to:
 Utilize its Below Market-Rate Affordable
Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds to support residential
rehabilitation efforts in the community.

These include:
 Acquisition/rehabilitation of rental
housing
 Rehabilitation of owner-occupied
housing
 Provide assistance for home safety
repairs and mobility/accessibility
improvements to income-qualified
owner-occupants using CDBG funds
 Partner with and/or support the funding
application of qualified affordable
housing developers for regional, state,
and federal affordable housing funds
The City utilized BMR AHF and CDBG funds to
acquire/rehabilitate rental housing and rehabilitate owner- occupied housing. In 2021, the following CDBG funds were provided to the following rehabilitation efforts:
 A rehabilitation award of $399,986 to the Greenwood Court Renovation Project, assisting four former transitional
housing units that converted to BMR rental units.
 $561,482 in CDBG funds to Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, a low-income housing repair and rehabilitation
program.
 $783,049 to the Vista Village Renovation Project for
substantial rehabilitation.

Continue, through Strategy HE-3.3.1.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐16

Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-3.3.2 Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units
One housing project – Beardon Drive (eight
units. The City will proactively contact the
property owner regarding its intent to remain
or opt out of the affordable program. In the
event the project becomes at risk of
converting to market-rate housing, the City
will work with the property owner or other
interested nonprofit housing providers to
preserve the units. The City will also conduct
outreach to the tenants to provide
information on any potential conversion and
available affordable housing assistance
programs.

The City will continue to monitor its entire
portfolio of affordable housing for-sale and
rental inventory annually. The City will
monitor its affordable for-sale inventory by
requiring Below Market-Rate (BMR)
homeowners to submit proof of occupancy
such as utility bills, mortgage loan
documentation, homeowner’s insurance,
and property tax bills. The City will further
monitor its affordable for-sale inventory by
ordering title company lot books, reviewing
property profile reports and 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.

In the event the project becomes at risk of converting to market- rate housing, the City will work with the property owner or other interested nonprofit housing providers to preserve the eight units. In 2017, the BMR AFH fund provided $175,000 to Hello Housing, which assisted five households purchase BMR for- sale units. In 2019, as part of the BMR AHF program, the owner of Beardon Drive paid off the City's CDBG loan and indicated that the 8 units making up the property would continue to operate as affordable housing.

Continue, through Strategy HE-3.3.2. The City
will continue to monitor and conduct outreach
to at-risk below-market rate housing units
throughout the City and will also implement
policy that provides tenants or mission-driven
nonprofits the right of first refusal to purchase a
property at market price.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐17

Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-3.3.3 Condominium Conversion
Condominium conversions are not allowed if
the rental vacancy rate in Cupertino and
certain adjacent areas is less than five
percent at the time of the application for
conversion and has averaged five percent
over the past six months. The City will
continue to monitor the effectiveness of this
ordinance in providing opportunities for
homeownership while preserving a balanced
housing stock with rental housing.

The City continued to monitor the effectiveness of this ordinance by providing opportunities for homeownership while preserving a balanced housing stock with rental housing.

Continue, through Stra tegy HE-3.3.3. The
ordinance has proven successful and will be
carried forward with no modification or
additional language.

HE-3.3.4 Housing Preservation Program
When a proposed development or
redevelopment of a site would cause a loss
of multi-family housing, the City will grant
approval only if:
 The project will comply with the City’s
Below Market-Rate Program
 The number of units provided on the site
is at least equal to the number of existing
units, and
 Adverse impacts on displaced tenants,
in developments with more than four
units, are mitigated
The City will participate, as appropriate, in
studies of regional housing need and
displacement, and consider policies or
programs to address the indirect
displacement of lower income residents
The City continued to participate in studies of regional housing need and displacement. In collaboration with the Santa Clara County Consortium, the City’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) documents was completed in spring 2022.

Continue, through Stra tegy HE-3.3.4. The
updated strategy also commits the City to
approving the redevelopment of existing
multifamily units if they are redeveloped at the
same or deeper affordability, with the
equivalent size and provides displaced tenants
with right of first refusal to rent new units at the
same rent.

APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐18