CC 7-02-2024
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From: j w
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fw: !!!Re: Time is of the essence--cease the retaliatory action after twice the legal property belonging loss Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 5:03:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
publish thx
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: j w <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 at 04:10:31 PM PDT
Subject: Re: !!!Re: Time is of the essence--cease the retaliatory action after twice the legal property belonging loss
Dear Mayor Sheila,
Hope this email finds you well. Unfortunately, we have yet to receive a response from the City/legal team, who have positioned themselves as above all under the color of the law, which is regrettable. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
On Tuesday, June 18, 2024 at 02:06:47 PM PDT, j w <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mayor Sheila,
Hope this email finds you well. Still no response from City. Thank you! On Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at 06:54:16 PM PDT, j w <[email protected]> wrote:
On Monday, April 15, 2024 at 02:15:30 AM PDT, j w <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2024 at 06:50:41 PM PDT, j w <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mayor Sheila,
Thank you for your attendance at Ro's meeting; your presence was greatly appreciated, and your understanding of the situation is invaluable. The circumstances surrounding this hard-working, community-volunteering family are indeed tragic, compounded by the loss of their voice in this matter.
We have formally requested a meeting with the city authorities to address this situation and urge them to cease any further retaliatory actions. Our position has been clearly stated, and we implore you to facilitate this meeting at your earliest convenience. Time is of the essence in this matter. Your prompt attention to our request for a meeting with the city authorities is crucial. We urge you to expedite the process and facilitate this meeting as soon as possible, as further delays could exacerbate the situation. Your cooperation in this regard is deeply appreciated. Thank you.
Jenny from H resident
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Cc: Tina Kapoor
Subject: Oral Communications, City Council July 2 2024 Farmers" Market Date: Friday, June 28, 2024 4:44:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I was saddened to read the City letter pertaining to our Cupertino Sunday Farmers’ Market. I’d just like you to know a few things and realize it won’t change anyone’s mind, but residents should know that the market they’ve known and loved since 2011 will be no more if a home for them is not found in Cupertino. Not all of Torre would need to be used, but I don’t think it would make a difference anyway.
There is an assumption that all Farmers’ Markets are alike. They’re not!
What makes West Coast special is that they work with extremely small family farms that supply our community with specialty crops that appeal to our community. It is unlikely that they will be given space at De Anza by the new operator in the long run. The new operator was unsuccessful at Vallco – I don’t know why they were turned away from there because the parking lot remains vacant. And has been even less successful at Creekside – and more recently they have been denied use of the adjacent parking lot. A large company is taking over. They have made a number of hostile takeovers in the Bay Area and our community has fallen victim.
It seems that some people have an issue with West Coast being a for-profit company. Keep in mind that people who work at non-profits make money too. According to public records, the top person at the non-profit Pacific Coast makes $144K per year. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/770196199 Conversely, the City
works with many for-profits – for instance those companies that run classes for Parks & Rec.
Nevertheless, West Coast is working on having a non-profit status for appearances sake so that they don’t run into these perception issues in the future. It saddens me that they’ve been given a black mark because of their tax status.
Cupertino was West Coast’s first foray into Farmers’ Markets. And this market represents over half of the company’s income. Their loss is Cupertino’s loss as well. The company moving to De Anza is huge ($5M gross revenue) and has many markets and the cost and variety of food will just not be the same.
Feeling Bad for Our Residents,
Rhoda Fry
Below is the City Memo for those who haven’t had a chance to read it.
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Date: June 27, 2024
To: Cupertino City Council
From: Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager
Re: West Coast Farmers Market
Background
At the June 18, 2024 City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to explore options for an interim location for the West Coast Farmers Market Association (WCFMA).
WCFMA is a private, for-profit organization that operates 12 farmers markets across the Bay Area. WCFMA began operating in Cupertino in 2011. At the time, WCFMA operated at the Oaks Shopping Center. In 2022, WCFMA moved to De Anza College and has operated every Sunday.
Recently, WCFMA was notified to vacate their existing location by June 30, 2024 as De Anza College is conducting an RFP to seek proposals for a permanent Farmer’s Market Facility Usage Subsequently, WCFMA operator appeared before City Council and asked for assistance in identifying an interim location. Council then instructed staff to explore options for an interim location.
At a Special Board Meeting on June 26 at De Anza College, the following key developments occurred:
1. WCFMA has been provided an extension to operate at their existing location at De Anza College through the end of July.
2. The Farmer’s Market Facility Usage contract was awarded to Pacific Coast Farmer’s Market. The operation will commence at the beginning of August, following the extension granted to WCFMA.
With the June 26 decision, there will be no gap in the community having access to a farmer’s market in Cupertino at the same location.
Should the city council desire to support a second farmer’s market by the WCFMA, staff reviewed city-owned locations, including right-of-way locations, to determine their viability as a potential interim solution. Staff also assessed City-owned properties and facilities to determine if any can accommodate the market’s requirements. This includes adequate space, accessibility, public and neighboring community impacts, and compliance with safety regulations.
Based on staff’s assessment and input from the City Departments, City-owned parks were removed from the list of viable locations due to ongoing field use and to ensure adequate opportunities for the public to utilize open spaces, further limiting available options.
However, a potential location is the public right-of-way along Torre Avenue, between Rodrigues Avenue and Pacifica Avenue. It is important to note that this location does not offer a strong logistical feasibility, and several factors require attention, as highlighted below.
For the second farmers’ market to operate at this location, the entire block of Torre Avenue will need to be closed every Sunday between 7:00 am and 2:00 pm. In addition to the cost implications to the City as outlined in Attachment A, the following key considerations will need to be addressed:
1. Traffic Impacts: The street closure will affect traffic flow, including detour routes, and will impact local businesses, including the Cupertino Library, the library field, and nearby residents.
2. Parking Considerations: Staff recommends that the Civic Center parking lot be reserved for the use of Civic Center and Library visitors. Therefore, staff also recommends that farmer's market patron parking be limited to street parking in the area outside the Civic Center parking lot and that WCFMA coordinate and obtain permission from nearby property owners for additional parking in advance.
3. Public Safety: Proper arrangements will need to be made for emergency vehicle access and pedestrian safety during market hours. Staff recommends WCFMA contracting with the Sheriff’s Office for necessary enforcement.
4. Staffing Requirement: Logistical coordination for the street closure will require two overtime staff members (Public Works and Parks and Recreation staff) and overhead costs.
5. Community Outreach and Notification: Residents, businesses, library staff and patrons, community hall rental groups, library field youth sports groups, and civic center event organizers need to be informed about street closures in advance and the potential implications for each group need to be considered and evaluated. Staff recommends WCFMA to distribute these notifications with staff’s assistance.
6. Permits and Approvals: WVFMA will need to obtain the necessary permits, such as encroachment and right-of-way use permits from the City.
While Council could provide additional direction to facilitate the operation of a second farmers’ market by WCFMA in the public right-of-way or on City property, based on recent developments, it appears that WCFMA will continue to operate the farmers’ market at De Anza College through July, and a new operator will begin operating a farmers’ market after that time. Given the limited options for alternative locations and the continued availability of the De Anza farmers’ market as an amenity for Cupertino residents, staff is not recommending further action.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
The cost to operate the farmers’ market at Torre Avenue is estimated at $4,288 per week in addition to a one-time business license fee of $174 as outlined in Attachment A.
California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
Prepared by: Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager
Reviewed by: Chris Jensen, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments: Attachment A – Estimated City Costs
4 ATTACHMENT A
Estimated City Costs
Weekly Costs:
Item Rate Quantity Cost
2 Staff - OT $79/Hr 16 $1,264
Overhead $88 1 $88
Sheriff Deputy/ Parking Control $161/Hr 8 $1,287
15% Admin Fee 1 $396
Encroachment Permit $608 1 $608
Private Use for Right-of-Way $1,253 1 $1,253
Total Weekly Cost $4,288
One-Time Costs:
Item Rate Quantity Cost
Business License $174 1 $174
Total One-Time Costs $174
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney"s Office
Subject: Oral Communications, City Council July 2 2024 Purchasing a Building Date: Friday, June 28, 2024 3:21:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I have a number of concerns regarding the purchase of a new building.
1. Typically, it only makes sense to purchase a building when the plan to hold it is at least 10 years. In this case, the idea is to use it for 2 years. It makes no sense to buy a building.
2. Because the intended use is only for 2 years, it looks like a real-estate investment. What is the City investment policy for real estate? And, if it is a good investment, it would have been purchased by now. There are plenty of newer buildings in the City and there will be plenty of even newer ones. I don’t see this as being a good investment and I don’t think that the City should get into real-estate investing anyway.
3. We also need to be looking at either leasing or buying a building for the sheriff substation because the current location is expected to go away. This has been on the City’s radar for quite some time (I recall seeing it on some sort of work plan around the time of public safety forum at Quinlan before the most recent one as I had spoken with Mr. Morely about it). We should not be doing anything with another building that might risk resources that need to be applied to public safety.
Warm Regards,
Rhoda Fry
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: non-agenda oral communications - lawson bike trail Date: Friday, June 28, 2024 3:12:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I am worried about the Lawson bike trail because of the loss of parking.
As the district continues to close schools, students will be coming from further away, which will increase the need for parking.
Please keep this in mind to make sure that there is adequate parking to keep our community safe.
Regards,
Rhoda Fry
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 250th Anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence Date: Thursday, June 27, 2024 5:24:35 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
The Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776 in what was to become The future United States of America. I spent a week in Virginia in May/June of this Year, 2024, and I am already seeing Virginia beginning to celebrate the upcoming 250th Anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration on July 4, 2026.
There are special preparations being made at Monticello and Mount Vernon and Williamsburg and Yorktown.
There are even "Bicentennial Minutes" being reported in the state's newspapers and on-line Media as to what was happening in the colony/state of Virginia and future country on dates leading up to 1776.
These Bicentennial Minutes are similar to those that were broadcast and printed in California media And across the country in 1976 during the Country's Bicentennial Celebration which was a huge Affair.
I don't see any of this acknowledgement of America's 250th Anniversary in our area or even in California. This is an important time leading up to the 250th Anniversary to be thinking about the Birth of our Country and what our country means to us.
I hope Cupertino and the state will do more to remember this important, inspiring and historic event, the 250th Anniversary of our beloved country. I am very proud that I saw Virginia is remembering it.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: AB 1893 (Wicks/Bonta) Allows Developers to Override Planning Department Building Standards Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 2:52:29 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
Zelda Bronstein, writing in a June 25, 2024 article in 48Hills, is very concerned about A housing bill by Assembymember Buffy Wicks and State Attorney General Rob Bonta called AB 1893. This bill would alter the way Builders Remedy is used in the state. This bill Has angered many yimby groups. While Ca Yimby and Housing Action Coalition actively support the Bill, other yimby groups like Yimby Action and Yimby Law don't like the bill because it seriously Affects Builders Remedy which these two groups have promoted.
Ms Bronstein says that AB 1893 goes even further than Builders Remedy to be a threat to Future construction in the state. AB 1893 eliminates the ability of local City Planning Departments To make rational decisions about the actual "buildability" of a project and whether it is not Buildable because of CEQA concerns, and allows "a reasonable person" to make judgements About whether the project is suitable to be built or not.
Under AB 1893, "a reasonable person" can determine that a planning department has inappropriately Delayed a building's construction and can sue that city under the HAA (Housing Accountability Act) to force the building to be built. Developers would be making "fundamental land use decisions" In building construction, rather than trained planners in city planning departments.
Not only do planners have to be concerned about this proposed housing bill AB 1893 by Assemblymember Wicks and AG Bonta, the general public needs to be aware that this Bill is expecting the General Public to be the best judge of what should or should not be Built in the state.
The ramifications of the allowed passage of this bill on the projects built in California in the future is Truly horrifying.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Brett Reed
To: Tina Kapoor
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; City Council; Jerry Lami Subject: Oral Communications July 2 City Council – Save Cupertino Farmers’ Market Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 10:15:49 AM
Attachments: Petition Signatures-r.pdf
Abrava Consulting.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
Please see the support we have for West Coast Farmers’ Market in Cupertino through a petition that was circulated at the market last weekend.
Sincerely,
Brett Reed
831-287-9852 Office
831-345-5731 cell
Abrava Business Systems
www.AbravaConsulting.com
Petition to Foothill-De Anza Community College District Support our Community's Farmers Peak Season
Keep the Cupertino Farmers' Market Open
Name Address (City)
'' CU-
'#vo
.SAzv
<.'s^6(\lN 9^ll\1 /V\o>nW 17;^
'Ot\oo^ t1iu>l-v
Email or other Contact Info
NiSWtgi C^VXchXi ^cKj(pJctK (Ji^n\^ |^'\^\Ay/vcW-(TMfSiyvvj^ $0^ (3-
co\€-^€ "grU / Y-
\l ACM-^
fjovn
yc^JuTh, f/ryr
^SV/\QnVKk.vv\ai
^"^TArvlSHLJ K(
i'A'hy>\y^
C^ppil'w>io
V\g nW pCt/'C
M.eAAn Pa^Jl S,iJlhA^2^Ay^k
hv-)^Ob
n:jV»v\riAfAi^4^
// CV>^v, '• l^i^dxP ^/r^L
'Ct
OvAcka (7
/aU^O.Co^
^uc-il>rJ rr
May
We
Contact
You?
(Y/N)
X
A/
Sciri t) CiPVW pCvl dC/5fc/ V^' ^0 ^
C{^)
wjL^yV'dC^l WtxctS '3[C7J'C \MCI'U0:1^(4 CUa^^>^'j^A^ul;V >> ^ou^olc
'Oy
(HP
iTtCCA-^^ dh^C^ V- C-Oy^
/ ^ AA\J 'fViiQolAtCLL?g ^
PdKli^' ^W< C<Jfcr+ivic <M\/i5'j'lacP
M(1^ '^\r<LA IGf- I M V y
r^Ar q(Lh<7vUrg'^vygW ' crNV-a
Petition to Foothill-DeAnza CommunityCollege District
Support our Community's Farmers Peak Season
Keep the Cupertino Farmers' Market Open
Name
(Mfl.
QiA
LdAAn^
ivvLi/v^^ S-xh-i<=^ ^
-k
L\v\dK
V Cu-^TV-V-
Sc^u^fn,
U^'
Address (City) Email or other Contact Info
r"upfcH In e
kAP^X\iSU)
-tdfx/ie.lQ)
/ I .\^j \/l n
\iX(§ fkiipU'>n'i'
(n^ip Up\^<^^fUKO \ l \ I c.-
C/Uv7?i
j2 ,/i
Jx^x/^Cjck
c/o^ fll'loi~/^/A r^-'x^Py '^u. or
f
Cv Vr^
May
We
Contact
You?
(Y/N)
1 X
X
X<
U
vC/
r
(H
QnM.X)0^ pfTX i,^WtAy5£^
C/vrrA 5"Air*X ^c*JC|tn <sv..-vv<r--tp ^ y
Xm^
Yiu) Hao
Soar
LmA "i-e^
I'yry^^oj\x \ox
k
7 OA
AX UL
^Ai\r<\t /YyCU
kA±
/\.iAv Qnxey
C'i/iperfiHo
£_^er^r\o
iu
f<5xnrf^h^.
n,
C UDP y-i-A Un
/1lKXL
M c V
y-x)
Oursp rt"ti^cA, f[Mpe^-Vvn
CJc^^
j CLKj. z. VHyu (2 fifA ( •C£^
Ijfyj/Momk'f) jM, UcoMi
Pi'5-^g.jAI-D(^^QlAAlL.Co.V)
1'^
J Wi^^vylAjU^j
^ -r / - Cr
.<• by xV - C-cv
D\ /v^-A-A.1
^Aj (xy XY/c:^ /vCD -
f
fU
9^
y ,
A A)
N
h
Y
A
T
Petition to Foothill-DeAnz munity College District
Support our Community's . urmers Peak Season
Keep the Cupertino Farmers' Market Open
Name Address (City)
4?
\/' 1^^^ v/Atv
f ' C] ^•\V^'k^-^(/a A t. t--\.-cr
CP'
4i^
'TcU aVA >jp^W-i'no
(_ ,ipFf^T/r^'V
CuF^xfiL^
C
\AjvW\^ V Set VIivwj k
>5Y<Ntvi YvALir
CW C~v
tTXi t/tN^f>T)>A''^A-aj Oa- M
K\x^A«i feegU
keeftene^ Oyfl-AWvAO
^a^g<^/uV?PtWv
/Jfv. •>' Ai
, -. Hc-1 s
1^
1CZ-i i
SkcM^k^ lypWAtcHV^
Sock. J<»6
\Aib Los
(A,"
b-yfc^ Ck
Ci\f)^/Hnd
/yo
Email or other Contact Info
I
j V- A-L !•
a
(§i m^f r^Jtn
•jry^ iittc /• Cff^
May
We
Contact
You?
(Y/N)
/v.
7 hL
V
A/(r^M 0"H QTC4r(^'^/^A\L.ife^^
I
ci >/c ^ 3 c / i. fr /'. i /• nc t~ w
1 )"/^ (^^p. AtiT*
RRAT6S . ARH 1 UiM/ ,(roN
772
_X
- C< ^R-" c K\ CY V '<T
Pd /pO^ DH (7 r.:iuV(fri L CC7V
y
/
T', 7
(\aS, ivV f
^sftju'-V<\/VYA ^0
Y'y y-. (f^v i/y ['•-tv-rv^<f(*'/'0.v
lQivA<"df\^^.J"/QPauA;\Ai
,](J
Pv/«^
Jz)C-cl/lUn<\(2^ivvL;ti c^
^ v*iw
cj,
/ <^r) V4/-Z j . f LLf.^
Lf-q . I
'^.ywfs.4.iU^
p^ \va^/x^^Lr%H^/Ri^r.rli,(c^Qrd/l-^Othiiwi/JOvicacl/ii ^iMi'l -a/^i i/
Petitionto Foothill-DeAnza CommunityCollegeDistrict
Support our Community's Farmers Peak Season
Keep the Cupertino Farmers' Market Open
Name Address (City)
IL
i"M)AtVi &DCC
MA^l Liu cuPg^EII/Jo
LOJ f
/^TLUK\ KUKAj^ cu^-g^'E'yoo
AX AjA-o'^
(;v.^v^v'v:^c
fh/fnAf) A f P}-2/y<
on
[Ji'}\2nfi./{ji}
^Vx-A
Email or other Contact Info
pAACf<ir>i,L^l^
yoltOO.C£fY\
0 uaii/oO 'COM
loO^ Q 9"*^-1•Cg'A
HprViiSWi^GoC'O ^ Kvn'iMnit-
Hl\^2(Asfuaiu- wA
o-;;^ C>/Z.y&^&
^frAJTITKUt'^;! (O AOL. COH
^-jfyPrO^'l (7y L£r^
; l-^Akd:
/i' ;??^oK3'/^\v\t\of'-c
£w-'V "I . j tgL) ^ (pj
-,
May
We
Contact
You?
jxm
I
A/
yiy
jsL
C .-- -V
Petitionto Foothlll-DeAnza CommunityCollegeDistrict
Support our Community's Farmers Peak Season
Keep the Cupertino Farmers' MarketOpen
Name Address (City) Email or other Contact Info
May
We
Contact
You?
(Y/N)
I -^!; ^CPc^^ia VI. ctV^ r
0 fj. (1^XTtA ,1 >r
^—:i::=
V
<JU
f
C . Uj i]l—.V —
V—_S==Cxxvx K ^ ^ w ,iy,rVI} i v'/
(.W) rf rs/y f^u CU/i jmvAowl^iJ,j\.6'k)\1 ' Ij. t-t-y 7 — {- / i/^ //
W^u {}filfhilcuM^'U^mjf
/C
inmr c ^ (T^
hj/
V (''f 1 , If Ty n A /.
' \laiA ^ (jy
^U{.^A\r\Jalp //^ /I I
V/
. J) ,J
}I'AvNtVI? ^ /( ^ V ''
Name
^rip
Petition to Foothill-DeAnza CommunityCollege District
Support our Community's Farmers Peak Season
Keep the Cupertino Farmers' Market Open
Address (City) Email or other Contact Info
\yiX\6^.9c''
iiyiA
Q rz
/y)ig (g Yq ^CtuX
I0 (/' c
Clto:g/\—,0
D
,kJt CJ^r\
A ^>C
i"M.
ly
P^ I
cU2j^
jn\jU^ \AiviAf
6 . ah,
Cl\Oln{l>ly^^/)^r((l.Cisty-^
Co
Q, 2rVKfXi(-
aa^_CM.
ir'r>;=^c^ <=3 .^>^1.
May
We
Contact
You?
(Y/N)
no
/V
ly
<r<^H! i
Petition to Foothill-DeAnza Community College District
Support our Community's Farmers Peak Season
Keep the Cupertino Farmers' Market Open
Name Address (City) Email or other Contact Info
May
We
Contact
You?
(Y/N)
\f '5. '^RO (V
(
j /
Petition to Foothlll-DeAnza Community College District
Support our Community's Farmers Peak Season
Keep the Cupertino Farmers' Market Open
Name Address (City) Email or other Contact Info
May
We
Contact
You?
(Y/N)
y
1 ^ y (6> I
7. J
.if^btrAch H &^trkvil(Af'K
/
/
Petitionto Foothill-DeAnza CommunityCollegeDistrict
Support our Community's Farmers Peak Season
Keep the Cupertino Farmers' MarketOpen
Name
! J
Address (City) Email or other Contact Info
May
We
Contact
You?
(Y/N)
C>
C \<o
Oi/pfjn^io
}\l\/. .\M olrj /
Petitionto Foothiil-DeAnza CommunityCollegeDistrict
Support our Community's Farmers Peak Season
Keep the CupertinoFarmers'MarketOpen
Name Address (City) Email or other Contact Info
May
We
Contact
You?
(Y/N)
cj •
u
'' 0 ^ —t
Vy
Petition to Foothiil-De Anza Community Coilege District Support our Community's Farmers Peak Season
Keep the Cupertino Farmers' Market Open
Name
r . ^
Address (City) Email or other Contact Info
May
We
Contact
You?
/ ( ^ e>^/hAJ L t-M
—'' ^ L
.
Petition to Foothill-De Anza Community College District Support our Community's Farmers Peak Season
Keep the Cupertino Farmers' Market Open
Name
IfM
JaCr-
Mj
S 5 0
1 Ci+/^-kfhef\Ni CMODHUKV
^s=5i (^. .. A /J^\€^
^sHEAuiH~IM^
^VaC^O-
V>V
<3 <ocUq IK .
Address (City)
SgN/>v <r-e
ecApiA^VtYIQl
/V\\cb
pcAi) Mb
( VIC
c y^jP&Xjj:/uo
rJfuwk
CV\<o
jkAj-
cJ
Email or other Contact Info
^/'g/>—.j^osLr
l\^o
)^a:KawcltOf^ -Cow
'yvy\i>L'p^ Crw
May
We
Contact
You?
(Y/N)
y
X-
CHANDHMH. r & /lFniFFr^fi.lLrfLf
CjgU^gg^, VAAjfc^
f. Cov»^
>Ar^» 0>W
i .OuK
i/'idklp/tk ^
£ V*
v4vq./7/fh^h^
-tPiax)dfrxauyo^Vflfu'D.
Y
N/< fliuT2.3 .yA'Uvvs.c^. y
S'/j-eauiAft ^ yahAOf co?^ y
r-f-^lc/LiX^(^ y% (^r-7^.
\
i/VVJU?Cvkjt (a) 0\jrO-Oc^ ij
PVU © %? ^tct) -rxwc
cnaLA<^
ou .C-rwi
\j
June 26, 2024
To Whom it may concern,
As media producer for Oldtown Salinas Foundation, it has been my pleasure to work alongside Jerry Lami and his West Coast Farmers Market management team for the last year in Salinas, Ca. Our interactions have been nothing less than professional and enjoyable. Mr. Lami runs a well organized, friendly market that boasts a great sense of community among the vendors and customers alike.
I may be reached for comment or dialog via phone or email.
Sincerely,
Brett Reed
831-287-9852 Office
831-345-5731 cell
Abrava Business Systems
www.AbravaConsulting.com
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Cc: Debra Nascimento; Tina Kapoor; Economic Development Subject: Thanks for your swift efforts toward bringing our market back into Cupertino Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:37:03 PM
Attachments: Farmers Market- Support Letter WVCS (2).pdf CFMA_RFQ RESPONSE_CAMPBELL.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi All,
I hope that we can move the Cupertino Farmers’ Market back into our City.
It appears that De Anza has become unworkable.
Things you should know about Cupertino’s Farmers’ Market
1. A Certified Farmers’ Market is a government program run under the auspices of the CA dept. of Agriculture primarily in order to keep small family farms in business
2. The Farmers’ Market provides affordable fresh food to Cupertino residents
3. The West Coast Farmers’ Market has been in operation in Cupertino since 2011
4. West Valley Community Services values to contributions that the market has made available (see first attachment)
5. A Certified Farmers’ Market provides a service to the community – it costs money to operate with various permits, fees, and ancillary expenses
6. Many Farmers’ Market operators are paid to have markets and others have low or no rent. West Coast Farmers’ Markets has a market at 2 County hospitals both of which pay for the annual permits totaling about $3K with the operator paying for inspections at about $600 per year. Larger markets pay more for inspections than smaller markets.
West Valley College pays $300 per week and patrons have access to public restrooms and so on.
7. Given the City’s economic situation, it would make sense for the market operator to defray some of the city’s costs – although the costs should be minimal (e.g., additional sheriff has not been used in the past)
8. Attached and below are letters showing how De Anza RFP process were extortionary
9. Having the market back in Cupertino would allow for economic development for the City like adding a “merchant in the market” which highlights a different local merchant every week. This has been done successfully in Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Thanks for your swift efforts toward bringing our market back into Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry
From: Ron Pardini <[email protected]>
Subject: DeAnza RFP
Date: June 20, 2024 at 3:55:27 PM PDT
To: Chris Winn <[email protected]>, Chris Winn <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: Office <[email protected]>
Dear Foothill-De Anza Community College District,
Thank you for reaching out and sharing the Request for Proposal (RFP) regarding the operations of the DeAnza Farmers' Market with Urban Village Farmers' Market Association (UVFM). UVFM, in operation since 1997, is well respected within the industry and amongst city leaders and community members. We currently run 10 successful and award-winning farmers' markets across the Bay Area, and we appreciate the opportunity to consider your proposal.
Upon careful review of the RFP, UVFM finds itself with significant concerns regarding the issuance of this RFP given the current operational status of the market. It is unusual for an RFP to be issued when there is no apparent issue or dispute with the existing operator, who was curiously also invited to apply. This raises questions about the motivation behind soliciting new operators, particularly whether financial considerations are driving this decision. Many cities and hosts often sponsor farmers' markets, recognizing them as neighborhood treasures rather than attempting to extract every dime from our operations.
The mandatory fees outlined in the RFP for the use of the college parking lot are exorbitant and unprecedented. Such costs would severely hamper our ability to operate the market successfully. Currently, every dollar we earn is crucial to supporting our operations, paying fees, staff, and promoting the market. Implementing these fees would inevitably force us to either pay unlivable wages to our employees or increase stall fees, significantly impacting the already struggling small family farms and local businesses that participate. These vendors are already grappling with rising business costs, the impacts of climate change on crop production, the overall cost of living, etc. Higher costs would likely lead vendors to raise prices, making healthy food less accessible to the community.
We are also disheartened to learn of the impending shutdown in July, which will further impact the farmers and small businesses that rely on the market for their income and community presence. If UVFM were to be awarded the market, we would commit to enhancing it even further with our time, energy, and resources. However, we are concerned about the uncertainty posed by the potential for another RFP every two years, potentially nullifying our hard work and dedication if it were to be handed off to another bidding market organization. Market operators like UVFM are not merely contractors; we are community resources that add significant value to local neighborhoods.
UVFM values transparency, integrity, and mutual respect in all our business dealings.
Therefore, under the current circumstances and considering the concerns outlined above, UVFM will not be submitting a response to your RFP at this time.
Nevertheless, should circumstances change due to termination or a mutual parting with the current operator, UVFM would be open to discussing how we can support and integrate the DeAnza Farmers' Market into our Association, with the understanding that we cannot collaborate with hosts who see the market as a revenue generator and have plans for putting the market out to bid every two years.
We appreciate your attention to these matters and remain hopeful that future decisions regarding the DeAnza Farmers' Market will prioritize the long-term interests of its vendors and the community. Please feel free to contact us if you would like to further discuss these concerns or explore potential collaboration in the future.
Sincerely,
Ron Pardini
Executive Director
e-mail [email protected]
website uvfm.org
Virus-free.www.avg.com
Dear De Anza Board, Interim President Espinosa-Pieb and Chancellor Lambert, I am writing on behalf of West Valley Community Services (WVCS) to express our strong support for the continued operation of the Farmers Market at De Anza College, specifically under the management of the West Coast Farmers Market Association (WCFMA), led by Jerry Lami. The Farmers Market has become an invaluable asset to our community, and its continuation is vital for several reasons that align with both community needs and the college's mission of equity and inclusion.
Firstly, I want to acknowledge the college’s commitment to keeping the Farmers Market open. This decision is crucial for maintaining a healthy and vibrant community resource that provides fresh, nutritious food to the residents of Cupertino and beyond. WVCS has been a proud partner of this market, regularly receiving donations to support De Anza College’s Food Pantry. The loss of this market would significantly impact the availability of fresh produce to some of the college's most needy students, directly affecting their health and well-being.
It is concerning to learn about the recent complications in the selection of the market operator. While it is understood that the college requires a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to ensure fair governance, I must highlight the proven track record of WCFMA. Despite a miscommunication regarding the RFP application process, which can be substantiated with email evidence, the market has consistently demonstrated its commitment to social equity by employing individuals with disabilities and those facing food and housing insecurity. This aligns perfectly with the District’s credo of equity and inclusion.
Moreover, the environmental benefits of the Farmers Market cannot be overstated. By providing locally sourced food, the market significantly reduces the carbon footprint associated with long-distance food transportation, thereby supporting the college's sustainability goals. Additionally, the freshness and nutritional value of the produce from the market far exceed those of supermarket offerings, contributing to the overall health of the community.
The Sunday Cupertino Farmers Market, established by Jerry Lami in 2011, has uniquely catered to the diverse needs of our residents. It stands out among other Bay Area markets for its commitment to small family farmers, who might otherwise be displaced by larger operators. These small farmers have expressed concerns about their future if the market’s management changes, which could result in a loss of the market's unique character and offerings.
To underscore the impact of WCFMA, over the two-year period from June 1, 2022, to May 31, 2024, the market has donated nearly 245,000 pounds of produce, including baked goods. This remarkable contribution highlights the market’s role in combating food insecurity within our
community. Without these donations, WVCS would face a severe shortage of fresh foods for our food market, which currently provides groceries to over 700 persons each week. The loss of these donations would force WVCS to purchase additional food, significantly impacting our operating budget and necessitating cuts to other crucial safety net services.
In conclusion, WVCS strongly urges De Anza College to reconsider any changes that might jeopardize the current operation of the Farmers Market. We ask that you extend the market’s operation at least until October, if not through the end of the year, to allow for a thorough review and consideration of all factors involved. The continued partnership with WCFMA is crucial for maintaining the market’s positive impact on our community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your favorable consideration and are willing to provide any additional information or support required.
Sincerely,
Sujatha Venkatraman Cassandra Magaña Executive Director Asst. Manager of Advocacy & Public PolicyWest Valley Community Services West Valley Community Services
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Too Many Changes to City Infrastructure Tonight Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 2:11:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
I feel like the entire city infrastructure is being destroyed and changed in one night.
Item Number 7 has completely imploded as to any sense of decency with the situation of the Yimby letter being sent in so early to try to sway the Council. We already have an out of control Snowball of a Housing Element with massive rezonings no one understands and out of Control Missing Middle which threatens to destroy any residential area in the city and make High Rise apartments where all the trees will be cut down. There will be no parking because Someone decided they don't like cars. All of the retail will become highrise housing With no way to zone it if we need grocery stores. We will have no gas stations or places To buy medicine. It will just be highrise housing with no one living in it because everyone is Leaving the state. To top it off, HCD created all of this with their bad RHNA numbers. I think Yimby helped them create these bad numbers and now yimby is also trying to destroy the City and build highrise housing on our city hall and our parks.
Item Number 8 is trying to make a nice park, but I think yimby will try to get it and build Highrise housing on it. Yimby SPUR said in San Jose parks are racist Number 9 is trying to get rid of our General Plan. All in one night. The hours and hours the Public spent in the meetings on it are being ignored. 2015 was a year the public and the city Did a lot of detailed work on the General Plan. We all understood what was going on.
So tonight we are supposed to throw it away in one night? Change it all when no one Understands what this new plan is trying to do. So the public was really dumb for making sure We understood in 2015 what the General Plan was? I think yimby has taken over the General Plan also. Who cares if the The public doesn't understand. The public is just stupid anyway Isn't it?
So let's don't please remake the city in one night. This meeting already has too much on its Teetering frame. Please postpone some if these items. I don't think all of these can fit into The evening.
Item 7 already has so many questions, I feel like HCD and yimby is already running the state Never mind my city. I don't want this to happen to the country.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Timing of Cupertino4All Letter on June 18, 2024 Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 8:51:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
The Supplement Reports section for the 7/2/24 City Council Meeting has extra information For Item 7. Council member Chao asks why the letter for Cupertino4All was included in the packet To council. The response was that the Cupertino4All Letter was dated June 18, 2024 and it was Received early enough to be included in the packet.
The agenda for the 7/2/24 meeting was not even released to the public until the previous Wednesday which was June 26. This is the normal order of business. The first letters to the Council appear to be from June 28 from Rhoda Fry and from me on June 27 at 5:24 AM. These Were about the Farmers Market and the Fourth of July holiday.
I don't see how Cupertino4All knew to submit a letter to the Council on Item Number 7 when No one in the public knew what was going to be in the agenda, let alone the agenda number.
I find it very strange that this group would be submitting a letter this early before anyone Else knew what was going on etc, especially since this letter has such controversial items In it.
Why was this letter even included in the drafts given to the Council members? No one else Knew to submit any letters because no one knew what was in or on the agenda.
I am very concerned about this peculiarity because the city Housing Element Rezoning is a High profile event and we have already had undue influence in our Housing Element Environmental Report from Yimby Law. Why was Cupertino4All given access before the public? Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Too Many Items on Agenda for City Council 7/2/24 Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 5:34:55 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
There are probably too many agenda items on the agenda for the city council 7/2/24.
I think Agenda Item 7 is going to take a very long time, based on the questions From the public. There is a lot of dissention on this item.
Agenda item 8 is important also.
Agenda Item 9 should be given a lot of time. This is trying to take apart the General Plan Amendment and that should be given a lot of time itself.
You might need to postpone one of these items.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jay S
To: Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk; Tom Chin
Subject: Eviction of any and all homeless encampments - Supreme Court ruling in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 5:46:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Mohan, Members of the Cupertino City Council, Manager Wu, I am writing to bring to your immediate attention the recent Supreme Court ruling in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v.
Johnson, and to urge swift and immediate action this week regarding the eviction of any and all homeless encampments in Cupertino.
The Supreme Court has unequivocally determined that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment. In this landmark decision, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's previous stance and reinforced the right of cities to maintain public order and safety through the enforcement of their ordinances.
As you are aware, homeless encampments in Cupertino have become a pressing issue, impacting the safety, cleanliness, and overall well-being of our community. With the Supreme Court's clear endorsement, there is now a strong legal foundation to proceed with the immediate eviction of all homeless encampments from public spaces within our city.
It is imperative that the Cupertino City Council act decisively, immediately and without delay. The health and safety of our residents, the preservation of our public spaces, and the enforcement of our laws are at stake. I urge the Council to initiate the eviction process immediately, ensuring that it is carried out within this week.
This action is not just a legal obligation but a moral one. Our community deserves to feel safe and secure in our parks, streets, and public areas. Let us demonstrate our commitment to maintaining the standards of our city and the well-being of all its residents by taking immediate and resolute action.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I look forward to seeing prompt and effective measures taken by the Council.
Sincerely,
Jayshri Yadwadkar
408-888-1543 (c)
Resident of Cupertino
==
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Urgent Action Needed: Eviction of all Cupertino Homeless Encampments Following US Supreme Court Ruling Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 5:29:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Kindly include the below under oral communications for the 07/02/24 city council meeting.
We appreciate the amazing work that city staff do each and every day and thank all of you for your passion and commitment to the city.
Thanks,
Santosh Rao
Begin forwarded message:
On Monday, July 1, 2024, 7:31 AM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mayor Mohan, Members of the Cupertino City Council, and Manager Wu,
I am writing to bring to your attention the recent Supreme Court ruling in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson and to respectfully urge the City and Council to take swift
and immediate action regarding the eviction of any and
all homeless encampments in Cupertino.
The Supreme Court has clearly determined that the enforcement of laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment.
This pivotal decision reverses the Ninth Circuit's previous position and affirms the right of cities to maintain public order and safety through the enforcement of their ordinances.
As you are aware, homeless encampments in Cupertino have become a grave and growing concern, impacting the safety, hygiene, public health, cleanliness, and overall well-being of our community. With the Supreme Court's clear guidance, there is now a strong legal foundation to proceed with the eviction of these encampments from our public spaces.
I respectfully urge the Cupertino City Council to act decisively and promptly. The health and safety of our residents, the preservation of our public spaces, and the enforcement of our laws are at stake. I request the City and Council to initiate the eviction process as soon as possible, ideally within this week.
This action is not only a legal responsibility but also a moral one.
Our community deserves to feel safe and secure in our parks, streets, and public areas. Let us demonstrate our commitment to maintaining the standards of our city and the well-being of all its residents by taking immediate and considerate action.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I look forward to seeing prompt and effective measures taken by the City and Council. I will be closely watching the actions council members take on this matter and you can be rest assured that my votes and the votes of my family and friends for Cupertino council members up for elections in November 2024 and
November 2026 will be based on your prioritization and actions with effective outcomes in this matter.
Thanks,
Santosh Rao
Cupertino Resident and voter
From: Jimmy Chen
To: City Clerk
Subject: Written Communications Today
Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 8:08:25 AM
Attachments: Manager Lobby Email.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Cupertino City Clerk,
Please include following real estate purchasing activity email and attachment for the oral and written communications portion of the meeting today.
“From:
Pamela Wu
To: City Employees
S u b i e c t :
Council Item Tonight - Authorization to Negotiate
D a t e :
Tuesday, June 18, 2024 11:22:56 AM
Dear City Employees,
I am writing to ensure that you are kept in the loop about a significant development around the City Hall conversation. As you may know, Council has directed staff to look for viable options for City Hall.
We have recently identified a property that could potentially serve as an interim City Hall site.
Given the availability of a newer building that we believe does not have the seismic deficiencies that have been identified in the existing building, it's an opportunity worth exploring as an interim solution per Council direction in the past.
At tonight's Council meeting, I will ask the Council for the authority to explore this further and enter into negotiations as needed.
I recognize that this news may raise some budget concerns, especially in light of our current financial situation. However, the adoption of a balanced budget allows me to focus on my other priorities, one of which is ensuring a safer environment for employees. If the Council authorizes me to begin exploration, we will actively explore various financing options and dispositions of city-owned properties to ensure that any action aligns with our budgetary constraints and long-term financial health.
I will keep you informed as we proceed with this exploration and as more details become available. Thank you for your support.
Pamela Wu
City Manager
City Manager's Office [email protected]
(408)777-1322”
CC 07-02-2024
Special Meeting
#1
Enterprise Risk Assessment
Final Report and Internal
Audit Work Plan
Written Communications
From: Kitty Moore
To: Pamela Wu; City Clerk
Subject: Special Meeting Item 1 Questions and Written Communications Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 2:28:09 PM
Dear City Clerk and City Manager,
The following questions are regarding Item 1, the Risk Assessment update.
How can we utilize these important and valuable Risk Assessments into a TQM or Lean Six Sigma for governments framework and ensure these assessments are framed as positive continuous improvement efforts to embrace as a positive process advancing organizational excellence and ultimately “customer/resident” satisfaction? Or, could it be said, that the City is doing that now, continuous process improvement, but not officially labeling it that way? If that is the case, that this is part of a TQM effort, would it help to alter the naming somehow to articulate this better to the public when the reports come out?
We can see that the assessment areas have changed with many improvements since beginning the process with the first assessment of December 2020. What would be the key takeaways from this process overall from initial rollout to the present at a high level view?
The following is a reference link on Lean Six Sigma in a government context:
https://www.msicertified.com/blog/what-is-lean-
government/#:~:text=Lean%20Six%20Sigma%20offers%20a,enhancing%20the%20quality%2 0of%20services.
Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
From:
Claudio Bono <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 4:47 PM
To: Sheila Mohan <[email protected]>; J.R. Fruen <[email protected]>; Hung Wei <[email protected]>; Kitty Moore <[email protected]>; Liang Chao <[email protected]> Cc: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Accept the CFA's Final Report/ Accept the 2024-25 Internal Audit Work Plan Importance: High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the attention of :
Mayor Mohan; Vice Mayor Fruen; Council Member Chao, Moore, Wei, City Manager Wu, City attorney Jensen and staff;
I recommend we accept the 2024-25 Internal Audit Work Plan.
We must approve the CFA’s report and recommendations for Cupertino’s zoning policies and take immediate action to bolster rezoning that emphasizes inclusion. I am in full agreement with the staff’s recommendations, which are in line with our goal to bring our housing element in compliance with state law and create a vibrant, inclusive Cupertino.
While I agree with many of the staff's recommendations, I would like to express my disagreement with the 200-square-foot restriction. Homeowners should have the freedom to decide.
Thank you.
Claudio Bono / Cupertino Resident
20672 Celeste Circle
Cupertino 95014
Claudio Bono
Managing Director
The Cupertino Hotel, The Grand Hotel & The Vidovich Vineyards http://www.Cupertino-Hotel.com
http://www.svGrandHotel.com
http://www.VidovichVineyards.com
Tel : 408.996.7700 Or 408.720.8500
Cell: 305.450.0215
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipients(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information from the CG Hotel Group: The Grand Hotel & The Cupertino Hotel. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by replying to the email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Written
Communications
CC 7-02-2024
Item No. 7
Housing Element
Zoning
From: Connie-Comcast Swim5am
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: 2024-7-2 CC Agenda Item 7, Public Comments Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 8:00:54 PM
Attachments: 2024-7-2 CC Agenda Item 7 Public Communicatons.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
From Connie's iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Swim5am (Connie Cunningham)" <[email protected]> Date: July 2, 2024 at 3:37:40 PM PDT
To: Connie Cunningham <[email protected]>
Subject: 2024-7-2 CC Agenda Item 7, Public Comments
Dear City Clerk, please add these to the written documents for the record.
Thank you, Connie Cunningham
1 Honorable Chair Mohan, Vice Chair Fruen,
Councilmembers Wei, Chao and Moore
I am Connie Cunningham, Housing Commission, speaking
for myself only,
I have been a homeowner for 37 years. Our children
attended local schools. In the early 90’s, after college, they moved away from Cupertino because the cost of
homes was too high. The situation is worse now for our students who graduate from high school.
Thank you, City Council, for adopting the Housing
Element in May! I fully support that extraordinary
document. Tonight, I urge you strengthen it with
zoning to affirmatively further fair housing, a key goal of this 6th Cycle. HCD must agree and approve this re-
zoning, as well as the Housing Element.
Thank you to Staff for your very good work on the
rezonings to date.
New Chapter 19.38 that includes universal design
standards for people of all ages and abilities,
2 New Chapter 19.50 Emergency Shelters: State Law AB
2339. Homelessness is rising. Our community critically needs an emergency shelter.
It is critical to provide homes for all incomes and
abilities, and also to provide climate protections for all residents.
Question: Staff commented on lot coverage on Page 7
Para 1.b. of their Report, dealing with the TownHome
Combining District.
To me, it is not clear what the change would be if they el
iminated the lot coverage standard. What is that
standard? How can it be written to allow developments
to occur with areas for landscaping? Many Cupertino
policies are related to urban heat island effect,
sustainability, and maintaining an urban tree canopy.
This is more complex than it sounds because of the
interplay with other building codes such as FAR and
parking.
Cupertino for All wrote Council describing specific,
actionable changes that you, as policymakers, can enact to ensure that HCD will accept them. I fully support
these recommendations and urge that you adopt them.
3 These strengthen our Housing Element in fully
answering the requirements of state law to
affirmatively further fair housing.
First, Council must remove the 5-story limit, relying
only on the 70-foot height limit.
Second, Council must remove the change in the
definition of a duplex.
Third, Council must Request staff to partner with all
stakeholders in regards to staff’s recommendation to
adopt Objective Development Standards.
-------
These will Give home builders more flexibility to design housing of varying types and for varying incomes &
abilities, without having to rely on state-law
workarounds like the Density Bonus Law.
-------
Thank you for your consideration and effort to foster
an inclusive and vibrant Cupertino.
From: Marilyn Sherry
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: For Public Comment (7/2): Item: Housing Element Rezonings Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 4:38:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Mohan and City Council,
My name is Marilyn Sherry. I am a resident of Cupertino, a resident co-owner, with my daughter's family, of a duplex located on a lot zoned R3, which will continue to be R3 under the new plan. We recently considered adding a third unit as a second story of our duplex, to accommodate a dear friend who is aging alone, only to find that Cupertino zoning regulations would not accommodate this, even though we are zoned R3.
I would like to thank our city's staff for their hard work on the proposed rezonings, which are necessary for the Housing Element to achieve full compliance with HCD. There is, however, still room for improvement. We must approach our rezonings in a manner that encourages flexibility in all types of housing. We cannot stand by and watch unnecessary restrictions cripple Cupertino’s zoning code.
Council has received a letter from Cupertino for All (CFA) describing specific, actionable changes that our Council, as policymakers, can enact to enhance our rezonings and ensure that HCD will ultimately accept them. I support many of the CFA recommendations.
I especially applaud CFA's call for adding greater flexibility for architects designing housing of different forms for different populations at different income levels.
In particular, I think that the definition of a duplex which requires principal dwelling units to be no more than 200 square feet different from each other is absurd and needs to be removed.
It does not reflect current reality in Cupertino or in other cities in the Valley. Homeowners should be allowed greater flexibility than a one-bedroom difference between units, especially if adding what is essentially an ADU.
I also
support parking standards for R2 and R3 lots of 1 enclosed space and 1 exposed space per principal dwelling unit (for a total of 2 parking spaces per unit per lot). This ensures that more of a lot's area can be dedicated to living space for people rather than "living space" for cars. This has the added benefit of fitting in better with existing single-family neighborhoods, which feature this level of parking as standard.
Finally, I agree with CFA that a height limitation stated in feet (or meters) for R4 (or any other R1, R2, or R3) makes better sense than an 'x-story' limit. A 'story' is not a standard measure; such a 'non-standard standard' allows for uncontrolled height in buildings. All standards should be written using measurements approved by a national or international standards body.
Thank you for your consideration and effort to foster an inclusive and thriving Cupertino.
Best regards,
Marilyn Sherry
From: John
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Changes to Building requirements.
Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 5:33:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Recipients:
Current proposed housing element changes are totally unacceptable. To wit:
Eliminating requirements for developers to provide parking, which would result in more cars being parked on our streets.
Until Cupertino provides significantly better public transportation -- and when the California model of suburban design changes to the European or Japanese model of the "hub" -- in no way should parking of residences be ignored.
Raising the maximum building height in our city to SEVEN floors (by aligning with the aggressive State bill, the future max building height could be even higher)
Do the proponents of this change Live in Cupertino? Do they have an idea of the character of the city? Do they really think making Cupertino like The Bronx makes sense? (I suppose I need to put it: this is rhetorical.)
Increasing the floor area ratio (FAR) from the current 55% to 100%, allowing for larger construction on lots.
Low maintenance residences? What is being proposed recalls what I grew up with, calling it a "housing project." The "projects" were a wonderful incubator of crime, gang violence and dead-end life style. I think the English call it "Council Housing." It's a term of opprobrium.
I urge you not to adopt any of the above proposals.
John Michel
Ricardo Road
Cupertino
A resident for the last 47 years.
From: Rod Sinks
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Thoughtful Rezoning - Item 7 on tonight"s agenda Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 6:34:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
HI City Council members,
I'm resending this to ensure you receive it.
Thanks,
Rod Sinks
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rod Sinks <[email protected]
>
Date: Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:07 PM
Subject: Fwd: Thoughtful Rezoning
To: <[email protected]
>
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rod Sinks <[email protected]>
Date: June 26, 2024 at 11:32:13 AM PDT
To: [email protected], [email protected], Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Thoughtful Rezoning
Dear City Planning Leaders,
As a former council member and current FUHSD trustee, I appreciate the need to make thoughtful decisions on zoning. Retaining the city's authority on land use requires that the city make meaningful efforts toward housing production, and zoning is a key tool to that end. I am broadly supportive of measures that will allow Cupertino to generate more infill housing at all income levels, but particularly for those in the missing middle and lower income levels. I also recognize that the City must approach rezoning with care toward current residents; for example, a 20 story building towering over a R-1 neighborhood that dramatically changes the viewshed from that neighborhood is bound to be counterproductive, igniting community pushback.
I support these measures:
1) Removing the 5-story limit in R-4 zones to allow greater flexibility in building housing while retaining a separate cap on building height. 2) Reducing parking requirements to 1 enclosed and 1 exposed per unit in R-2 zones.
3) Allowing lot coverage of up to 50% in R-2 and R-3 zones, and 4 units in R-3.
4) Soliciting input from housing experts on other rezoning measures that would meaningfully improve our housing production.
Finally, I'm writing this in my personal capacity rather than as an FUHSD trustee, but I note that both CUSD and FUHSD would benefit from more students that would result from new housing production.
Sincerely,
Rod Sinks
From: [email protected]
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Urgent Call to City Council and Staff
Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 7:25:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Chitra Iyer
Long time Cupertino resident and voter
From: Balaram Donthi
To: City Clerk; [email protected]
Subject: Municipal Code Text
Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 8:19:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I am a long term resident of the city of cupertino. I am also a Commissioner of TICC.
However, I am speaking on my own behalf.
I support the staff recommendation without any changes.* Do NOT increase maximum floors to 7. Do NOT reduce parking requirements. Do NOT increase Floor Area Ratio (FAR) above 55%. Do NOT add any other changes Let's get the housing element approved by HCD.
Thank you
Balaram Donthi
From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 7 Written Communications
Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 8:46:23 PM
Attachments: AppendixB_AQGHG.pdf
Pages from Exhibit GPA-6 - Env Assessment.pdf
Pages from Pages from Exhibit GPA-6 - Env Assessment-2.pdf Dear City Clerk,
Please include the attachments to this email for Item 7. They include the air quality impacts due to the Housing Element and the health impacts each criteria pollutant can cause.
Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
PLACEWORKS 2-9
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
AESTHETICS (AES)
AES-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic
vista.
Policies LU-3.3, LU-6.7, LU-12.3, and RPC-3.1
Strategies LU-3.3.1, LU-12.4.1, and LU-13.7.5
Policies LU-3.3, LU-6.7, LU-12.3, LU-12.4, LU-13.7, and RPC-3.1
Strategies LU-3.3.1, LU-12.4.1, and LU-13.7.5
LTS
N/A N/A
AES-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a State
scenic highway.
Policies LU-6.1 and ES-5.3
Policies LU-6.1 and ES-5.3
Strategy LU-19.3.10.
LTS
N/A N/A
AES-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project in an urbanized area could conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
AES-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
N/A Policies LU-3.5, LU-20.6 and LU-27.8
Strategy LU-3.5.1
LTS
N/A N/A
AES-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to aesthetic resources.
Policies LU-3.3, LU-6.1, LU-6.7, LU-12.3, and ES-5.3
Strategies LU-3.3.1, LU-12.4.1, and LU-13.7.5
Policies LU-3.3, LU-6.1, LU-6.7, LU-12.3, LU-12.4, LU-
13.7, LU-20.6, LU-27.8, ES-5.3, and RPC-3.1
Strategies LU-3.3.1, LU-12.4.1, LU-13.7.5, and LU-
19.3.10 LTS
N/A N/A
AIR QUALITY (AIR)
AIR-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would conflict with the growth assumptions
under Plan Bay Area 2040 that are applied to the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD)
2017 Clean Air Plan, the proposed Modified Project
would therefore conflict with the air quality emissions forecast in the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan.
Policy M-1.1
Strategy ES-4.1.3
Policy M-1.1
Strategies ES-4.1.1, ES- 4.1.3, and ES- 4.2.1
SU
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-2a: As part
of the City’s development approval process, the City
shall require applicants for future development
projects to comply with the current Bay Area Air
Quality Management District’s basic control measures
for reducing construction emissions of PM
10. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-2b: As part of the City’s development approval process the City
shall require applicants for future development
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-
2b have been incorporated into CMC Section
17.04.050(A), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements Air Quality Permit Requirements,
therefore, compliance with the CMC is required to
mitigate impacts.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
2-10 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
projects that could generate emissions in excess of
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s
(BAAQMDs) current significance thresholds during
construction, as determined by project-level
environmental review, when applicable, to implement
the current BAAQMD construction mitigation
measures (e.g. Table 8-3 of the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines) or any construction mitigation measures
subsequently adopted by the BAAQMD.
AIR-2: Operation of development projects that could
occur from implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would generate emissions that would exceed
Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s regional
significance thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases
(ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), coarse inhalable
particulate matter (PM
10), and fine inhalable
particulate matter (PM2.5).
Policies ES-4.2 and ES- 4.3
Strategy ES-4.1.3
Policies ES-4.1, ES- 4.2, and ES-4.3
Strategies ES-4.1.1, ES-4.1.2, ES-4.1.3, ES- 4.2.1, ES-
4.2.2, ES- 4.2.23, ES- 4.2.4, ES- 4.2.5, ES- 4.3.1, and ES-
4.3.2 SU
N/A N/A
AIR-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU- 20.2, LU-21.3, LU- 21.4,
LU-24.2, M-1.3, M-3.6, M-4.4, ES- 4.2, and HS-6.2
Strategies LU-19.2.2, LU-27.1.1, M-5.1.1, and M-9.3.2
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU- 20.2, LU-21.3, LU- 21.4, LU-
24.2, M-1.3, M-3.6, M-4.4, ES- 4.2, and HS-6.2
Strategies LU-19.2.2, LU-27.1.1, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, and
ES- 4.1.1
SU
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-4a:
Applicants for future non-residential land uses within
the city that: 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more
trucks with operating diesel-powered TRUs, and 2) are
within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g.
residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as
measured from the property line of the proposed
Project to the property line of the nearest sensitive
use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Cupertino prior to future discretionary Project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance
with policies and procedures of the State Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District. If the HRA
shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-4a has been
incorporated into CMC Section 17.04.040(A), Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, Air Quality
Technical Requirements, therefore, compliance with
the CMC is required to mitigate impacts.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
PLACEWORKS 2-11
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3
µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index
exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that Best Available Control
Technologies for Toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of
reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an
acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement
mechanisms. T-BACTs may include but are not limited
to:
Restricting idling on-site.
Electrifying warehousing docks.
Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.
Restricting offsite truck travel through the creation of truck routes.
T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as
mitigation measures in the environmental document
and/or incorporated into the site development plan as
a component of the proposed Project.
AIR-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people.
Policy ES- 4.2
Strategies LU- 27.1.1, ES- 4.2.1, ES- 4.2.2, ES- 4.2.3, ES-4.2.4, and ES-4.2.5
Policy ES- 4.2
Strategies LU- 27.1.1, ES- 4.2.1, ES- 4.2.2, ES- 4.2.3, ES-
4.2.4, and ES-4.2.5
LTS
N/A N/A
AIR-5: The emissions that could occur over the buildout horizon of the proposed Modified Project could
generate a substantial increase in emissions that
exceeds the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District’s significance thresholds and cumulatively
contribute to the nonattainment designations and
health risk in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU- 20.2, LU-21.3, LU- 21.4,
LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.3, M-3.6, M-4.4, ES- 4.2, ES-
4.3and HS-6.2
Strategies LU-19.2.2, LU-27.1.1, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, ES-
4.1.3, ES- 4.2.1, ES- 4.2.2, ES- 4.2.3, ES-4.2.4, and ES-
4.2.5 Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU- 20.2, LU-21.3, LU- 21.4, LU-
24.2, M-1.1, M-1.3, M-3.6, M-4.4, ES-4.1, ES- 4.2, ES-
4.3and HS-6.2
Strategies LU-19.2.2, LU-27.1.1, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, ES-
4.1.1, ES-4.1.2, ES-4.1.3, ES- 4.2.1, ES-4.2.2, ES- 4.2.3, ES- 4.2.4, ES- 4.2.5, ES- 4.3.1, and ES-4.3.2
SU
Implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-
2a, AQ-2b, and AQ-4a
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-
2b have been incorporated into CMC Section
17.04.050(A), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Air Quality Permit Requirements, and
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-4a has been
incorporated into CMC Section 17.04.040(A), Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, Air Quality
Technical Requirements, therefore, compliance with
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
2-12 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
the CMC is required to mitigate impacts.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BIO)
BIO-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plan, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Policies ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-7.8
Strategy ES-5.3.1
Policies LU-3.5, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-
7.8 Strategies LU-3.6.2, LU-12.4.2, and ES-5.3.1
LTS
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures BIO-1: Nests of
raptors and other birds shall be protected when in
active use, as required by the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and
Game Code. If construction activities and any required
tree removal occur during the breeding season
(February 1 and August 31), a qualified biologist shall be required to conduct surveys prior to tree removal
or construction activities. Preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or construction
activities outside the nesting period. If construction
would occur during the nesting season (February 1 to
August 31), preconstruction surveys shall be
conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of
tree removal or construction. Preconstruction surveys
shall be repeated at 14-day intervals until
construction has been initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped. Locations of active nests
containing viable eggs or young birds shall be
documented and protective measures implemented
under the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds.
Protective measures shall include establishment of
clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e. demarcated by
identifiable fencing, such as orange construction
fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as
determined by a qualified biologist, taking into
account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance
for disturbance and proximity to existing
development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a
minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been
incorporated into CMC Section 17.04050(D), Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, Biological
Resources Permit Requirements, therefore, compliance
with the CMC is required to mitigate impacts.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
PLACEWORKS 2-13
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
passerines and other birds. The active nest within an
exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis
throughout the nesting season to identify signs of
disturbance and confirm nesting status. The radius of
an exclusion zone may be increased by the qualified
biologist if project activities are determined to be
adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones
may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in
consultation with California Department of Fish and
Wildlife. The protection measures shall remain in
effect until the young have left the nest and are
foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.
BIO-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
N/A N/A NI
N/A N/A
BIO-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
BIO-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites.
Strategy ES-5.3.1 Strategy ES-5.3.1 LTS
N/A N/A
BIO-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Policies ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-7.8
Strategy ES-5.3.1
Policies LU-3.5, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-
7.8 Strategies LU-3.6.2, LU-12.4.2, and ES-5.3.1
LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
2-14 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
BIO-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan
N/A N/A NI
N/A N/A
BIO-7: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to biological resources.
Policies ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-7.8
Strategy ES-5.3.1
Policies LU-3.5, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-
7.8 Strategies LU-3.6.2, LU-12.4.2, and ES-5.3.1
LTS
Implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been incorporated into CMC Section 17.04050(D), Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, Biological
Resources Permit Requirements,
therefore, compliance
with the CMC is required to mitigate impacts.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES (CUL)
CUL-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU-6.4, LU-6.5, and LU-
6.6 Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU-6.4, LU-6.5, and LU-
6.6 LTS
N/A N/A
CUL-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
CUL-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
CUL-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: (i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
PLACEWORKS 2-15
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or (ii) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c). In applying the criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c) for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead
agency shall consider the significance to a California
Native American tribe.
CUL-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to cultural and tribal cultural
resources.
Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU-6.4, LU-6.5, and LU-
6.6 Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU-6.4, LU-6.5, and LU-
6.6 LTS
N/A N/A
ENERGY (ENE)
ENE-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during
project construction or operation.
N/A Policies HE-4.1, LU-1.1, LU-3.1, M-1.1, M-3.1, M-4.8, M-
8.1, M-8.3, M-9.2, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-3.1, INF-6.1, INF-
6.2, and INF-6.3
Strategies HE- 1.3.5, HE- 2.3.12, HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, HE-
4.1.3, M-8.1.3 ES- 1.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.12, ES-2.1.3, ES-
2.1.4, ES- 2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.2, INF-
6.2.1, INF-6.2.2., INF-6.2.4, INF-6.2.5, and INF-6.3.1
LTS
N/A N/A
ENE-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or
local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
ENE-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a substantial increase in
natural gas and electrical service demands, and would
not require new energy supply facilities and
distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing
alterations to existing facilities.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
2-16 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
ENE-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to energy resources.
N/A Policies HE-4.1, LU-1.1, LU-3.1, M-1.1, M-3.1, M-4.8, M-
8.1, M-8.3, M-9.2, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-3.1, INF-6.1, INF-
6.2, and INF-6.3
Strategies HE- 1.3.5, HE- 2.3.12, HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, HE-
4.1.3, M-8.1.3 ES- 1.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.12, ES-2.1.3, ES-
2.1.4, ES- 2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.2, INF-
6.2.1, INF-6.2.2., INF-6.2.4, INF-6.2.5, and INF-6.3.1
LTS
N/A N/A
GEOLOGY AND SOILS (GEO)
GEO-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway.
ii) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction.
iv) Landslides, mudslides, or other similar hazards.
Policies HS-5.1 and HS-5.2
Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-5.1.1, HS-5.1.2, HS-
5.1.3, HS-5.2.1, HS-5.2.2, HS-5.2.3, HS-5.2.4, and HS-
5.2.5 Policies HS-5.1 and HS-5.2
Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-5.1.1, HS-5.1.2, HS-
5.1.3, HS-5.2.1, HS-5.2.2, HS-5.2.3, HS-5.2.4, and HS-
5.2.5 LTS
N/A N/A
GEO-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, and ES-7.5
Strategy ES-7.2.3,
Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, and ES-7.5
Strategies LU-12.3.1 and ES-7.2.3
LTS
N/A
GEO-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
PLACEWORKS 2-17
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
GEO-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not be located on expansive soil, as
defined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
Policies HS-1.1, HS-5.1, and HS-5.2 Policies HS-1.1, HS-5.1, and HS-5.2 LTS
N/A N/A
GEO-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater.
N/A N/A NI
N/A N/A
GEO-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
GEO-7: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to geology and soils.
Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, ES-7.5, HS-1.1, HS-5.1 and HS-
5.2 Strategies LU-12.3.1, ES-7.2.3, HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-
5.1.1, HS-5.1.2, HS-5.1.3, HS-5.2.1, HS-5.2.2, HS-5.2.3, HS-5.2.4, and HS-5.2.5
Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, ES-7.5, HS-1.1, HS-5.1 and HS-
5.2 Strategies LU-12.3.1, ES-7.2.3, HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-
5.1.1, HS-5.1.2, HS-5.1.3, HS-5.2.1, HS-5.2.2, HS-5.2.3, HS-5.2.4, and HS-5.2.5
LTS
N/A N/A
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (GHG)
GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would exceed the net zero greenhouse gas
emission threshold under Executive Order B-55-18.
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.5, LU-13.6, HE-1.3, M-
1.1, M-3.1, M-3.8, M-8.3, M-8.6, M-9.2, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, and INF-2.5
Strategies HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.2, ES-
1.1.3, ES-1.2.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-
3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.4, and INF-2.5.1
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.5, LU-13.6, HE-1.3, M-
1.1, M-3.1, M-3.8, M-4.8, M-8.1, M-8.3, M-9.2, ES-1.1,
ES-1.2, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, and INF-2.5
Strategies HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M-
8.1.3, ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.2, ES-1.1.3, ES-1.2.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.5, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-
3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.4, and INF-2.5.1
SU
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
2-18 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
GHG-2: The proposed Modified Project would not meet
California Green Building Standards Code
nonresidential voluntary Tier 2 electric vehicle parking standards and would exceed the City of Cupertino’s
vehicle miles traveled reduction threshold, and
therefore be inconsistent with the California Air
Resources Board Scoping Plan.
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.5, LU-13.6, HE-1.3, HE-
4.1, M-1.1, M-3.1, M-3.8, M-8.3, M-8.6, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, and INF-2.5
Strategies HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.2, ES-
1.1.3, ES-1.2.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-
3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.4, and INF-2.5.1
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.5, LU-13.6, HE-1.3, HE-
4.1, M-1.1, M-3.1, M-3.8, M-8.1, M-8.3, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, and INF-2.5
Strategies HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M-
8.1.3, ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.2, ES-1.1.3, ES-1.2.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.5, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-
3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.4, and INF-2.5.1
SU
N/A EA Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Future development
projects in the City of Cupertino shall comply with the voluntary Tier 2 electric vehicle charging standards
under the California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen) version that is applicable at the time of
permit applications and shall illustrate compliance with Tier 2 CALGreen electric vehicle charging standards on
the site plans submitted to the City of Cupertino
Planning Department.
Additionally, the City of
Cupertino shall amend the Chapter 17.04, Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, of the
Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) to require that new
parking amenities included in individual development
projects install electric vehicle spaces in compliance
with the voluntary Tier 2 standards under the
CALGreen version that is applicable at the time of
permit applications. The amended CMC shall require
that all site plans submitted to the City of Cupertino
Planning Department shall illustrate compliance with
Tier 2 CALGreen electric vehicle charging standards.
GHG-3: The proposed Modified Project would result in
vehicle miles traveled that would exceed the City of
Cupertino’s reduction target, and therefore conflict
with the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan
and Executive Order B-55-18.
N/A N/A SU
N/A Implement EA Mitigation Measure GHG-2.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
PLACEWORKS 2-19
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (HAZ)
HAZ-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Policies HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, and HS-6.5 Policies HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, and HS-6.5 LTS
N/A N/A
HAZ-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
HAZ-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25
miles of an existing or proposed school.
N/A N/A LTS
Implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-
4a and HAZ-4b.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and Haz-
4b have been incorporated into CMC Section
17.04.040(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials and in CMC Section
17.04.050(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials Permit
Requirements, therefore, compliance with the CMC is
required to mitigate impacts.
HAZ-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
Policies HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, and HS-6.5 Policies HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, and HS-6.5 LTS General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a:
Construction at the sites with known contamination
shall be conducted under a project-specific
Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that is
prepared in consultation with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The purpose of the
ESMP is to protect construction workers, the general
public, the environment, and future site occupants
from subsurface hazardous materials previously
identified at the site and to address the possibility of encountering unknown contamination or hazards in
the subsurface. The ESMP shall summarize soil and
groundwater analytical data collected on the project
site during past investigations; identify management
options for excavated soil and groundwater, if
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and Haz-
4b have been incorporated into CMC Section
17.04.040(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials and in CMC Section
17.04.050(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials Permit
Requirements, therefore, compliance with the CMC is
required to mitigate impacts.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
2-20 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
contaminated media are encountered during deep
excavations; and identify monitoring, irrigation, or
other wells requiring proper abandonment in
compliance with local, State, and federal laws,
policies, and regulations.
The ESMP shall include measures for identifying,
testing, and managing soil and groundwater
suspected of or known to contain hazardous
materials. The ESMP shall: 1) provide procedures for
evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during project excavation and
dewatering activities, respectively; 2) describe
required worker health and safety provisions for all
workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in
accordance with State and federal worker safety
regulations; and 3) designate personnel responsible
for implementation of the ESMP.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-4b: For
those sites with potential residual contamination in
soil, gas, or groundwater that are planned for
redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a
vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a
licensed environmental professional. If the results of
the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential
for significant vapor intrusion into an occupied
building, project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with
regulatory agency requirements. Soil vapor
mitigations or controls could include passive venting,
and/or active venting. The vapor intrusion assessment
and associated vapor controls or source removal can
be incorporated into the ESMP (Mitigation Measure
HAZ-4a).
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
PLACEWORKS 2-21
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
HAZ-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not, for a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
N/A N/A NI
N/A N/A
HAZ-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.4, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-7.1, and
HS-7.2
Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-2.2.1, HS-3.3.1, HS-3.3.3, and
HS-3.3.4
Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.4, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-7.1, and HS-
7.2 Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-2.2.1, HS-3.3.1, HS-3.3.3, and HS-3.3.4
LTS
N/A N/A
HAZ-7: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, and HS-3.5 Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, and HS-3.5 LTS
N/A N/A
HAZ-8: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to hazards and hazardous
materials.
Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.4, HS-3.1, HS-3.2,HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, HS-6.5, HS-7.1, and HS-
7.2 Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-2.2.1, HS-3.3.1, HS-3.3.3, and HS-3.3.4
Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.4, HS-3.1, HS-3.2,HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, HS-6.5, HS-7.1, and HS-
7.2 Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-2.2.1, HS-3.3.1, HS-3.3.3, and HS-3.3.4
LTS
Implement General Plan Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a:
and HAZ-4b.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and Haz-
4b have been incorporated into CMC Section
17.04.040(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials and in CMC Section
17.04.050(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials Permit
Requirements, therefore, compliance with the CMC is
required to mitigate impacts.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (HYD)
HYD-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.
Policies ES-7.1, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, and ES-7.5
Strategies ES-5.3.1, ES-7.2.2, ES-7.3.2, and ES-7.4.1
Policies ES-5.1, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-7.1, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, ES-
7.4, ES-7.5, ES-7.6, and ES-7.8
Strategies ES-5.1.1, ES-5.1.2, ES-5.2.1, ES-5.3.2, ES-
5.6.1, ES-7.1.1, ES-7.2.1, ES-7.2.2, ES-7.2.3, ES-7.3.1, ES-7.3.2, ES-7.4.1, ES-7.4.2, ES-7.4.3, and ES-7.8.1
LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
2-22 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
HYD-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin.
N/A Policies ES-7.5 and ES-7.8
Strategy ES-7.2.3
LTS
N/A N/A
HYD-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows
Policies INF-1.2 and INF-4.1
Strategy INF-1.1.3
Policies INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-4.1, and INF-4.2
Strategies INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3, INF-1.4.1,
INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-4.1.1, INF-4.1.2, INF-4.1.3, and INF-4.2.1
LTS
N/A N/A
HYD-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not, in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation.
Policies HS-1.1, HS-1.2, and HS-7.2
Strategies HS-1.1.3, HS-1.2.1, HS-1.2.2, and HS-7.2.2
Policies HS-1.1, HS-1.2, HS-7.1, HS-7.2, HS-7.3, and HS-
7.4 Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-1.1.3, HS-1.2.1, HS-
1.2.2, HS-7.2.1, HS-7.2.2, HS-7.4.1, HS-7.4.2, HS-7.4.3 LTS
N/A N/A
HYD-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
HYD-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to hydrology and water quality.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
PLACEWORKS 2-23
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
LAND USE AND PLANNING (LU)
LU-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not physically divide an established
community.
Policies LU-23.1, LU-25.1, LU-25.2, LU-27.1, LU-27.7,
M-2.2, M-3.2, HS-8.5, and RPC-2.4
Strategies LU-1.3.2, LU-3.3.8, LU-8.3.3, LU-27.1.1, LU-
27.1.3, M-3.5.1, and M-3.5.2
Policies LU-4.1, LU-13.1, LU-23.1, LU-25.1, LU-25.2, LU-
27.1, LU-27.7, M-2.2, M-3.2, HS-8.5, and RPC-2.4
Strategies LU-1.3.2, LU-3.3.8, LU-8.3.3, LU-27.1.1, LU-
27.1.3, M-3.5.1, and M-3.5.2
LTS
N/A N/A
LU-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
Policies LU-1.6 and ES-1.2 Policies LU-1.6 and ES-1.2 LTS
N/A N/A
LU-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to land use and planning.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
NOISE (NOI)
NOI-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not generate a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standard.
Policies LU-27.8, HS-8.1, HS-8.3, HS-8.4, HS-8.5, HS-
8.6, and HS-8.7
Strategies HS-8.2.2, HS-8.2.3, and HS-8.6.1
Policies LU-27.8, HS-8.1, HS-8.3, HS-8.4, HS-8.5, HS-8.6, and HS-8.7
Strategies HS-8.2.2, HS-8.2.3, and HS-8.6.1
LTS
N/A N/A
NOI-2: Generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
N/A Policies LU-27.8 and HS-8.1 LTS
N/A N/A
NOI-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not for a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels.
N/A N/A NI
N/A N/A
NOI-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to noise.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
2-24 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
POPULATION AND HOUSING (POP)
POP-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not induce substantial unplanned
population growth or growth for which inadequate
planning has occurred, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure.
Policies LU-1.6, LU-5.3, LU-18.2, LU-23.1, LU-25.1, LU-
27.1, LU-27.2, LU-27.6, HE-1.1, HE-1.2, HE-1.3, HE-2.1, HE-2.2, HE-2.3, HE-3.1, HE-3.2, HE-3.3, HE-4.1, HE-6.1, M-2.2, M-2.4, M-9.1, M-9.3, ES-1.2, INF-2.4,and RPC-
2.4 Strategies LU-1.4.2, LU-3.3.8, LU-9.1.3, LU-13.7.3, LU-
27.1.1, LU-27.1.4, LU-27.6.1, HE-1.3.2, ES-1.2.1, INF-
1.1.2, and INF-1.4.2
Policies LU-1.6, LU-5.3, LU-18.2, LU-23.1, LU-25.1, LU-
27.1, LU-27.2, LU-27.6, HE-1.1, HE-1.2, HE-1.3, HE-2.1, HE-2.2, HE-2.3, HE-3.1, HE-3.2, HE-3.3, HE-4.1, HE-6.1, M-2.2, M-2.4, M-9.1, M-9.3, ES-1.2, INF-2.4,and RPC-
2.4 Strategies LU-1.3.2, LU-3.3.8, LU-9.1.3, LU-13.7.3, LU-
27.1.1, LU-27.1.4, LU-27.6.1, HE-1.3.2, ES-1.2.1, INF-
1.1.2, and INF-1.4.2
LTS
N/A N/A
POP-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
POP-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to population and housing.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION (PS)
PS-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in the need for new or physically
altered fire protection and emergency medical
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives.
Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, HS-3.7, and HS-38
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-3.3.4
Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, HS-3.7, and HS-38
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-3.3.4
LTS
N/A N/A
PS-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to fire protection services.?
Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, HS-3.7, and HS-38
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-3.3.4
Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, HS-3.7, and HS-38
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-3.3.4
LTS
N/A N/A
PS-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in the need for new or physically
altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives.
Policies HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.2
Strategy 4.2.2
Policies HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.2
Strategy 4.2.2
LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
PLACEWORKS 2-25
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
PS-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to police protection services.
Policies HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.2
Strategy 4.2.2
Policies HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.2
Strategy 4.2.2
LTS
N/A N/A
PS-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in the need for new or physically
altered public school facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts to
maintain acceptable service ratios or other
performance objectives.
Policies HE-7.1, LU-1.6, LU-11.1, and RPC-8.1
Strategies HE-7.3.2, RPC-8.1.1, and RPC-8.1.2
Policies HE-7.1, LU-1.6, LU-11.1, and RPC-8.1
Strategies HE-7.3.2, RPC-8.1.1, and RPC-8.1.2
LTS
N/A N/A
PS-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in significant cumulatively
considerable impact with respect to public school
services.
Policies HE-7.1, LU-1.6, LU-11.1, and RPC-8.1
Strategies HE-7.3.2, RPC-8.1.1, and RPC-8.1.2
Policies HE-7.1, LU-1.6, LU-11.1, and RPC-8.1
Strategies HE-7.3.2, RPC-8.1.1, and RPC-8.1.2
LTS
N/A N/A
PS-7: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in the need for new or physically
altered public libraries, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios or other
performance objectives.
Policies RPC-6.1 and RPC-6.4
Strategy RPC-1.1.2
Policies RPC-6.1 and RPC-6.4
Strategy RPC-1.1.2
LTS
N/A N/A
PS-8: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to the construction of other public libraries.
Policies RPC-6.1 and RPC-6.4
Strategy RPC-1.1.2
Policies RPC-6.1 and RPC-6.4
Strategy RPC-1.1.2
LTS
N/A N/A
PS-9: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in the need for new or physically
altered park facilities or other recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, or other performance
objectives.
Policies RPC-1.2 and RPC-2.4
Strategy HE-3.3.5
Policies RPC-1.2 and RPC-2.4
Strategy HE-2.3.9 and HE-3.3.5
LTS
N/A N/A
PS-10: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur, or be accelerated.
Policies LU-7.1, RPC-1.1, and RPC-5.1
Strategies RPC-1.1.1, and RPC-2.5.1
Policies LU-7.1, RPC-1.1, and RPC-5.1
Strategies RPC-1.1.1 and RPC-2.5.1
LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
2-26 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
PS-11: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in significant cumulative
impacts with respect to parks.
Policies LU-7.1, RPC-1.1, RPC-1.2, RPC-2.4, and RPC-
5.1 Strategies HE-3.3.5, RPC-1.1.1, and RPC-2.5.1
Policies LU-7.1, RPC-1.1, RPC-1.2, RPC-2.4, and RPC-5.1 Strategies HE-3.3.5, RPC-1.1.1, and RPC-2.5.1
LTS
N/A N/A
TRANSPORTATION (TRANS)
TRANS-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities.
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.1, LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-
21.4, LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.2, M-1.3, M-1.4, M-3.1, M-
3.6, M-4.4, M-7.1, M-8.1, and M-9.2
Strategies LU-8.3.3, LU-12.5.1, LU-13.7.4, LU-19.2.2,
LU-25.4.2, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, and ES-2.1.9
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.1, LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-
21.4, LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.3, M-3.1, M-3.2, M-3.3, M3-
4, M-3.5, M-3.6, M3.7, M-3.8, M-4.1, M-4.2, M-4.3, M-
4.4, M-4.5, M-4.6, M-4.7, M-4.8, M-5.1, M-7.1, M-8.1,
M-8.2, M-9.2, M-10.1, M-10.3, and ES-1.2.
Strategies LU-8.3.3, LU-12.5.1, LU-13.7.4, LU-19.2.2,
LU-25.4.2, M-5.1.1, M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M-8.1.3, M-8.2.1, M-8.2.2, M-8.2.3, M-8.2.4, M-9.3.2, ES-1.2.1, and ES-
2.1.9 LTS
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 was
required for impacts related to level of service (LOS), which is no longer a threshold under CEQA.
N/A
TRANS-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would exceed the adopted Cupertino vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) threshold per service population
of 31.30 VMT by 3.5 VMT per service population, due
to forecasted growth through 2040.
N/A Policies M-8.1, M-8.2, and M-8.3
Strategies M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M-8.1.3, M-8.2.1, M-8.2.2, M-8.2.3, and M-8.2.4
SU
N/A N/A
TRANS-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment).
Policies LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-21.4, LU-24.2, M-2.2, M-
3.5, M-3.6, M-7.2, and HS-3.2
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-8.7.2
Policies LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-21.4, LU-24.2, M-2.2, M-
3.5, M-3.6, M-7.2, and HS-3.2
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-8.7.2
LTS
N/A N/A
TRANS-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in inadequate emergency
access.
Policies HS-2.2, HS-2.4, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, and HS-7.1
Strategies HS-3.3.2 and HS-3.3.3
Policies HS-2.2, HS-2.4, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, and HS-7.1
Strategies HS-3.3.2 and HS-3.3.3
LTS
N/A N/A
TRANS-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would cumulatively contribute to regional
vehicle miles traveled.
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.1, LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-
21.4, LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.2, M-1.3, M-1.4, M-3.1, M-
3.6, M-4.4, M-7.1, M-8.1, M-9.2, HS-2.2, HS-2.4, HS-
3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, and HS-7.1
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.1, LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-
21.4, LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.3, M-1.4, M-3.1, M-3.6, M-
4.4, M-4.8, M-7.1, M-8.1, M-8.2, M-9.2, ES-1.2, HS-2.2, HS-2.4, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, and HS- SU
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
PLACEWORKS 2-27
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
Strategies LU-8.3.3, LU-12.5.1, LU-13.7.4, LU-19.2.2,
LU-25.4.2, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, HS-3.3.2, HS-3.3.3, HS-
8.7.2, and ES-2.1.9
7.1 Strategies LU-8.3.3, LU-12.5.1, LU-13.7.4, LU-19.2.2, LU-25.4.2, M-5.1.1, M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M-8.1.3, M-8.2.1, M-8.2.2, M-8.2.3, M-8.2.4 M-9.3.2, HS-3.3.2, HS-3.3.3,
HS-8.7.2, ES-1.2.1, and ES-2.1.9
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 was
required for impacts related to level of service (LOS), which is no longer a threshold under CEQA.
N/A
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (UTIL)
UTIL-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years.
Policies ES-1.1 and ES-7.9
Strategy ES-7.9.1
Policies ES-1.1, ES-3.1, ES-7.6, ES-7.9, ES-7.10, ES-7.11, INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-2.5, INF-3.1, and INF-3.2
Strategies ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.3, ES-3.1.1, ES 3.1.2, ES-
3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-7.8.1, ES-7.9.1, ES-7.10.1, ES-7.10.2, ES-7.11.1, ES-7.11.2, ES-7.11.3, ES-7.11.4, ES-7.11.5,
ES-7.11.6, ES-7.11.7, INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3,
INF-1.4.1, INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-2.5.1, INF-2.5.2, INF-
2.5.3, and INF-3.1.1
LTS
N/A N/A
UTIL-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects.
Policies ES-1.1 and ES-7.9
Strategy ES-7.9.1
Policies ES-1.1, ES-3.1, ES-7.6, ES-7.9, ES-7.10, ES-7.11, INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-2.5, INF-3.1, and INF-3.2
Strategies ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.3, ES-3.1.1, ES 3.1.2, ES-
3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-7.8.1, ES-7.9.1, ES-7.10.1, ES-7.10.2, ES-7.11.1, ES-7.11.2, ES-7.11.3, ES-7.11.4, ES-7.11.5,
ES-7.11.6, ES-7.11.7, INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3,
INF-1.4.1, INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-2.5.1, INF-2.5.2, INF-
2.5.3, and INF-3.1.1
LTS
N/A N/A
UTIL-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to water services.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
UTIL-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
Policy ES-7.7
Strategy INF-5.1.2
Policies ES-7.7, INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-
5.1, and INF-5.2
Strategies INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3, INF-1.4.1,
INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-5.1.1, and INF-5.1.2
LTS
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
2-28 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
cause significant environmental effects. N/A N/A
UTIL-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in the determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it does not have adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
Policy ES-7.7
Strategy INF-5.1.2
Policies ES-7.7, INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-
5.1, and INF-5.2
Strategies INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3, INF-1.4.1,
INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-5.1.1, and INF-5.1.2
LTS
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a: The City
shall work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to
increase the available citywide treatment and
transmission capacity to 8.65 million gallons per
day, or to a lesser threshold if studies justifying
reduced wastewater generation rates are approved
by CSD as described in Mitigation Measure UTIL-6c.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-6b: The City
shall work to establish a system in which a
development monitoring and tracking system to
tabulate cumulative increases in projected
wastewater generation from approved projects for
comparison to the Cupertino Sanitary District’s
treatment capacity threshold with San Jose/Santa
Clara Water Pollution Control Plant is prepared and
implemented. If it is anticipated that with approval of a development project the actual system discharge
would exceed the contractual treatment threshold, no
building permits for such project shall be issued prior to increasing the available citywide contractual
treatment and transmission capacity as described in
Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-6c: The City
shall work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to
prepare a study to determine a more current estimate
of the wastewater generation rates that reflect the
actual development to be constructed as part of
Project implementation. The study could include
determining how the green/LEED certified buildings in
the City reduce wastewater demands.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b,
and UTIL-6c, have been incorporated into CMC Section
17.04.050(I)(1), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Manage Wastewater Inflow and
Infiltration to Sewer System, therefore, compliance the CMC is required to mitigate impacts.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
PLACEWORKS 2-29
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
UTIL-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to wastewater services.
N/A N/A LTS
Implement General Plan Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a,
UTIL-6b, and UTIL-6c.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b,
and UTIL-6c, have been incorporated into CMC Section
17.04.050(I)(1), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Manage Wastewater Inflow and
Infiltration to Sewer System, therefore, compliance
with this section of the CMC is required to mitigate
impacts.
UTIL-7: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects.
Policies ES-7.2 and ES-7.4
Strategy ES-7.2.3
Policies ES-7.1, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, ES-7.4, and ES-7.5
Strategies ES-7.1.1, ES-7.2.1, ES-7.2.2, ES-7.2.3, ES-
7.3.1, ES-7.4.1, ES-7.4.2, ES-7.4.3, and ES-7.8.1
LTS
N/A N/A
UTIL-8 : Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in significant cumulative
impacts with respect to stormwater.
Policies ES-7.2 and ES-7.4
Strategy ES-7.2.3
Policies ES-7.1, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, ES-7.4, and ES-7.5
Strategies ES-7.1.1, ES-7.2.1, ES-7.2.2, ES-7.2.3, ES-
7.3.1, ES-7.4.1, ES-7.4.2, ES-7.4.3, and ES-7.8.1
LTS
N/A N/A
UTIL-9: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
N/A Policies INF-7.1, INF-7.2, INF-7.3, INF-7.4, and INF-8.1 Strategies INF-7.3.1, INF-8.1.1, INF-8.1.2, INF-8.1.3,
INF-8.1.4, INF-8.1.5, INF-8.1.6, and INF-8.1.7
LTS
N/A N/A
UTIL-10: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would comply with federal, State, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
N/A N/A LTS
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures UTIL-8: The City
shall continue its current recycling ordinances and
zero-waste policies in an effort to further increase its diversion rate and lower its per capita disposal rate. In addition, the City shall monitor solid waste generation volumes in relation to capacities at receiving landfill sites to ensure that sufficient capacity exists to
accommodate future growth. The City shall seek new
landfill sites to replace the Altamont and Newby
Island landfills, at such time that these landfills are closed.
N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
2-30 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
UTIL-11: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to solid waste.
N/A N/A LTS
Implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-
8. N/A
UTIL-12: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which would cause
significant environmental effects.
Policies ES-1.1, ES-2.1, and ES-3.1
Strategies ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.7, ES-
2.1.8, and ES-3.1.1
Policies ES-1.1, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, INF-6.1, INF-6.2, and INF-
6.3 Strategies ES-1.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-
2.1.4, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, INF-6.2.1, INF-6.2.2, INF-
6.2.3, INF-6.2.4, INF-6.2.5, and INF-6.3.1
LTS
N/A N/A
UTIL-13: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a
cumulatively considerable impact to electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.
Policies ES-1.1, ES-2.1, and ES-3.1
Strategies ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.7, ES-
2.1.8, and ES-3.1.1
Policies ES-1.1, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, INF-6.1, INF-6.2, and INF-
6.3 Strategies ES-1.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-
2.1.4, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, INF-6.2.1, INF-6.2.2, INF-
6.2.3, INF-6.2.4, INF-6.2.5, and INF-6.3.1
LTS
N/A N/A
WILDFIRE (FIRE)
FIRE-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan.
N/A Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.2, HS-2.4, HS-3.2, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, and HS-3.6
Strategies HS-3.3.2, HS-3.3.3, HS-3.3.4, and HS-3.4.2
LTS
N/A N/A
FIRE-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire.
N/A Policies HS-1.1, HS-3.1, HS-3.2, HS-3.5, and HS-3.7 Strategies HS-1.1.1 and HS-1.1.2
LTS
N/A N/A
FIRE-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not require the installation or
maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) but would not exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
PLACEWORKS 2-31
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
FIRE-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
N/A Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, ES-7.5, and HS-7.5 Strategies ES-7.3.1 and ES-7.8.1
LTS
N/A N/A
FIRE-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to wildfire.
N/A N/A LTS
N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable
2-32 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-1
4.2 AIR QUALITY
This chapter describes the potential impacts to air quality associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and baseline conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the potential air quality impacts, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies and/or strategies that could minimize any potentially significant impacts.
4.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
AIR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Criteria Air Pollutants
The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are categorized as primary and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) have been established for them. VOC and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria air pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Table
4.2-1, Criteria Air Pollutant Health Effects Summary, summarizes the potential health effects associated with the criteria air pollutants.
TABLE 4.2-1 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT HEALTH EFFECTS SUMMARY Pollutant Health Effects Examples of Sources
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Chest pain in heart patients, Headaches,
nausea, Reduced mental alertness
Death at very high levels
Any source that burns fuel such as cars, trucks,
construction and farming equipment, and
residential heaters and stoves
Ozone (O3)
Cough, chest tightness, Difficulty taking a deep
breath, Worsened asthma symptoms
Lung inflammation
Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with
nitrogen oxides in sunlight
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Increased response to allergens, Aggravation of respiratory illness
Same as carbon monoxide sources
Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Hospitalizations for worsened heart diseases,
Emergency room visits for asthma, Premature
death
Cars and trucks (particularly diesels),
Fireplaces and woodstoves, Windblown dust
from overlays, agriculture, and construction
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Aggravation of respiratory disease
(e.g., asthma and emphysema)
Reduced lung function
Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels,
smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores, and
industrial processes
Lead (Pb) Behavioral and learning disabilities in children, Nervous system impairment
Contaminated soil
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2024, Common Air Pollutants: Air Pollution and Health, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/common-air- pollutants, accessed January 29, 2024; South Coast Air Quality Management District, May 6, 2005, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf, accessed January 29, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-2 APRIL 2024
A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is presented below.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near traffic-congested corridors and intersections. When inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces its oxygen-carrying capacity. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or anemia, as well as for fetuses. Even healthy people exposed to high CO concentrations can experience headaches, dizziness, fatigue, unconsciousness, and even death. Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) are a by-product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of ground-level O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. The principal form of NOX produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts quickly with oxygen to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. NO2 is an acute irritant and more injurious than NO in equal concentrations. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO2 acts as an acute irritant and in equal concentrations is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (2 and 3 years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm). Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and chemical processes at plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not release significant quantities of SO2. When sulfur dioxide forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). Thus, SO2 is both a primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to SO2, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an array of adverse respiratory effects, including bronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms. These effects are particularly adverse for asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates (e.g., while exercising or playing) at lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. In the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB or Air Basin), most particulate matter is caused by combustion, factories, construction, grading, GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-3
demolition, agricultural activities, and motor vehicles. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, include particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10 millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less.
Inhalable fine particles, or PM
2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (i.e.,
2.5 millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch). Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is also classified as a carcinogen. Extended exposure to particulate matter can increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease. PM10 bypasses the body’s natural filtration system more easily than larger particles and can lodge deep in the lungs. The EPA scientific review concluded that PM2.5 penetrates even more deeply into the lungs, and this is more likely to contribute to health effects—at concentrations well below current PM10 standards. These health effects include premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms (e.g., irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing). Motor vehicles are currently responsible for about half of particulates in the SFBAAB. Wood burning in fireplaces and stoves is another large source of fine particulates. Ozone (O3) is a key ingredient of “smog” and is a gas that is formed when ROGs and NOX, both by- products of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in sunlight. O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions for its formation. O
3 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. Breathing O3 can trigger a variety of health problems, including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma; reduce lung function; and inflame the linings of the lungs. Besides causing shortness of breath, it can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.
Chronic exposure to high ozone levels can permanently damage lung tissue. O 3 can also damage
plants and trees and materials such as rubber and fabrics. Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs)/Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are compounds composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of ROGs. Other sources of ROGs include evaporative emissions from paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by ROGs, but rather by reactions of ROGs to form secondary pollutants such as O3. There are no AAQS established for ROGs. However, because they contribute to the formation of O3, the BAAQMD has established a significance threshold for this pollutant. Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the phasing out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions. The highest levels of lead in the air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. Because ........................................................................................................................
A PPENDIX B :
A IR Q UALITY AND G REENHOUSE
G AS E MISSIONS D ATA
........................................................................................................................
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Appendix
Assumptions Worksheet
Name: Cupertino Housing Element and Safety Element Update Project Number: COCU-26
Project Location: City of Cupertino
County: Santa Clara County
Climate Zone: 4
Land Use Setting: Urban
Operational Year: 2031
Utility Company: PG&E, Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) Air Basin: San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB)
Air District: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Project Components Units1 Acres1 Population2
Apartments Low-Rise 317 8.58 932
Apartments Mid-Rise 2,773 46.91 8,153
Condo/Townhouse 218 9.36 641
Single Family Housing3 9 1.34 27
Total 3,317 66.19 9,753
Notes
1 Based on data from Tables 3-4 and 3-5 from Chapter 3, Project Description. 2 Proposed population is the net new dwelling units x 2.94 persons per household 3 CalEEMod Land Use Inputs
Land Use Type Land Use Subtype Unit Amount Size Metric Acres Land Use Square
Feet Population
Residential Apartments Low-Rise 317 Dwelling Unit 8.580 336,020 932 Residential Apartments Mid-Rise 2,773 Dwelling Unit 46.910 2,662,080 8,153 Residential Condo/Townhouse 218 Dwelling Unit 9.360 231,080 641 Residential Single Family Housing 9 Dwelling Unit 1.340 17,550 27 Net Trips
Weekday Average Daily Trips Weekday Daily VMT
Cumulative Conditions (Baseline) 425,290 4,389,760
Cumulative Conditions with Project
Conditions (Proposed Project) 451,170 4,561,890
Net New Trips 25,880 172,130
Land Use Type CalEEMod Weekday Trip Rate
CalEEMod Saturday
Trip Rate
CalEEMod Sunday Trip
Rate
Apartments Low-Rise 7.32 8.14 6.28
Apartments Mid-Rise 5.44 4.91 4.09
Townhomes 7.32 8.14 6.28
Single Family Homes 9.44 9.54 8.55
Land Use Type Weekday Trips Weekday Trip Rate 1 Saturday Trips Saturday Trip Rate2 Sunday Trips Sunday Trip Rate2 Average Trip Rate Apartments Low-Rise 2,473 7.802230932 2,750 8.676251499 2,122 6.693717314 7.7687 Apartments Mid-Rise 21,636 7.802230932 19,528 7.042086816 16,266 5.866015692 7.4170 Townhomes 1,701 7.802230932 1,891 8.676251499 1,459 6.693717314 7.7687 Single Family Homes 70 7.802230932 71 7.884882002 64 7.066639716 7.7090 25,880 24,240 19,911
Notes:
1 Based on net new trip data from transportation analysis multiplied by the percentage of each residential land use type. 2 Saturday and Sunday trip rates extrapolated from CalEEMod default weekday and weekend trip rates.
Sources:
Fehr & Peers. 2024, January. Cupertino General Plan and Zoning Updates: Transportation Analysis for the Environmental Review.
Land Use Type
Weekday Total Miles
Traveled Weekday Miles/Trip
Saturday Total Miles
Traveled Saturday Miles/Trip
Sunday Total Miles
Traveled Sunday Miles/Trip
Apartments Low-Rise 16,450 6.651081917 18,293 6.651081917 14,113 6.651081917 Apartments Mid-Rise 143,900 6.651081917 129,880 6.651081917 108,190 6.651081917 Townhomes 11,313 6.651081917 12,580 6.651081917 9,705 6.651081917 Single Family Homes 467 6.651081917 472 6.651081917 423 6.651081917 172,130 161,225 132,431
Total VMT 60,196,060
Land Use
Res H-W Trip % Res H-S Trip % Res H-O Trip %
Apartments Low-Rise 29% 17% 54%
Apartments Mid-Rise 29% 17% 54%
Townhomes 29% 17% 54%
Single Family Homes 29% 17% 54%
Adjusted Trip Type Percentages
(For All Land Uses) 100% 0% 0%
Fireplaces (CalEEMod Default)
No wood-burning stoves or fireplaces anticipated in new development, consistent with BAAQMD District Regulation 6, Rule 3: Wood-Burning Devices.
Land Use # Wood # Gas # Propane # without Fireplace Hours/Day Days/Year Wood Mass
(lb/year)
Apartments Low-Rise 0 161.7 0 155 3.5 9.00 0
Apartments Mid-Rise 0 1,414.2 0 1,359 3.5 9.00 0
Townhomes 0 111.2 0 107 3.5 9.00 0
Single Family Homes 0 1.8 0 7 3.0 9.00 0
Trip Type Percentages
CalEEMod Inputs - Cupertino Housing Element and Safety Element Update, Operation For consistency with the 3,317 homes analyzed in the transportation analysis, additional units have been added to the single family homes category.
Water Use and Wastewater Generation (CalEEMod Defaults) Land Use Indoor Outdoor Total
Apartments Low-Rise 11,496,449 0 11,496,449
Apartments Mid-Rise 100,566,727 0 100,566,727
Townhomes 7,906,075 0 7,906,075
Single Family Homes 326,398 1,377,374 1,703,771
Total 120,295,649 1,377,374 121,673,023
Solid Waste (CalEEMod Defaults)
Land Use
Total Solid Waste
(tons/resident/yr)3
Total Solid Waste
(tons/yr)
Apartments Low-Rise 0.25 230.50
Apartments Mid-Rise 0.25 2,016.34
Condo/Townhouse 0.25 158.53
Single Family Housing 0.26 7.05
CalEEMod Energy Use
Land Use Subtype
Total Annual Electricity
Consumption (kWh/year)
Total Annual Natural
Gas Consumption
(kBTU/year)
Title-24 Electricity
Energy Intensity
(kWhr/size/year)*
Title-24 Natural Gas
Energy Intensity
(KBTU/size/year)*
Nontitle-24
Electricity Energy
Intensity
(kWhr/size/year)
Nontitle-24 Natural
Gas Energy Intensity
(KBTU/size/year)
Apartments Low-Rise 1,188,904.61 6,327,100.54 244,198.70 5,944,215.26 944,705.91 382,885.28 Apartments Mid-Rise 9,459,953.20 24,413,689.13 2,323,627.43 22,688,205.97 7,136,325.77 1,725,483.16 Condo/Townhouse 931,838.79 6,370,960.36 160,764.40 6,016,868.81 771,074.39 354,091.55 Single Family Housing 55,663.71 415,997.30 8,057.83 391,758.70 47,605.88 24,238.60 Total 11,636,360.31 37,527,747.33
Architectural Coating
Percent Painted
Interior Painted: 100%
Exterior Painted: 100%
CalEEMod Default
Interior Paint VOC content: 100 grams per liter
Exterior Paing VOC content: 100 grams per liter
Structures Land Use Square Feet CalEEMod Factor2
Total Paintable
Surface Area
Paintable Interior
Area1
Paintable Exterior
Area1
Residential Structures
0 3,246,730 2.7 8,766,171 6,574,628 2,191,543
8,766,171 6,574,628 2,191,543
Pacific Gas and Electric Carbon Intensity Factors
Forecasted Year 2031
CO2:1,2 203.98 pounds per megawatt hour
CH4:3 0.033 pound per megawatt hour
N2O:3 0.004 pound per megawatt hour
1CalEEMod methodology calculates the paintable interior and exterior areas by multiplying the total paintable surface area by 75 and 25 percent, respectively. 2 The program assumes the total surface for painting equals 2.7 times the floor square footage for residential and 2 times that for nonresidential square footage defined by the user.
Changes to the CalEEMod Defaults - Fleet Mix 2031
Trips 25,880
Default HHD LDA LDT1 LDT2 LHD1 LHD2 MCY MDV MH MHD OBUS SBUS UBUS FleetMix (Model Default
Percentage 0.792551041 51.2655735 3.467168659 24.09308106 2.450372092 0.624942593 2.191876434 13.70431185 0.223160908 0.973518193 0.106175896 0.067909597 0.039357701100.00 FleetMix (Converted) 0.007925510.5126557350.0346716870.2409308110.0245037210.0062494260.0219187640.1370431180.0022316090.0097351820.0010617590.0006790960.000393577 100% Trips 205 13,268 897 6,235 634 162 567 3,547 58 252 27 18 10 25,880 Percent 81% 5% 14% 100%
without buses/MH 0.007926 0.512656 0.034672 0.240931 0.024504 0.006249 0.021919 0.137043 0.002232 0.009735 0.001062 0.000679 0.000394 100% Percent 81% 5% 14% 100%
Adjusted without buses/MH 0.007926 0.512656 0.034672 0.240931 0.024504 0.006249 0.021919 0.137043 0.002232 0.009735 0.001062 0.000679 0.000394 Percent adjusted 81% 5% 14% 100%
Assumed Mix 97.0% 1.00% 2.00% 100%
Adjusted with Assumed Mix
Percentage 0.001502 0.613787 0.041511 0.288459 0.004643 0.001184 0.026243 0.020000 0.000423 0.001844 0.000201 0.000129 0.000075 100% Adjusted CalEEMod Input 0.150162 61.378694 4.151134 28.845905 0.464263 0.118405 2.624266 2.000000 0.042281 0.184449 0.020117 0.012867 0.007457 Percent Check: 97% 1% 2%
Trips 39 15,885 1,074 7,465 120 31 679 518 11 48 5 3 2 25,880 25,104 1,417 518
Fleet mix for the project is modified to reflect a higher proportion of passenger vehicles that the regional VMT. Assumes a mix of approximately 97% passenger vehicles, 2% medium duty trucks, and 1% heavy duty trucks and buses.
Emissions Worksheet
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Summary - Operations, 2025 Cupertino Housing Element Update
Mitigated Operational
TOG ROG NOx CO SO ₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Category tons/yr
Mobile 58 54 26 389 1 0 103 104 0 26 27
Area 2 16 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Energy 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 60 71 28 407 1 1 103 104 1 26 27
BAAQMD Threshold (T/YR) NA 10 10 NA NA NA NA 15 NA NA 10 Exceeds thresholds Yes Yes Yes Yes
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Summary - Operations, 2025 Annual emissions divided by 365 days/year to obtain average daily emissions.
Cupertino Housing Element Update
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T lbs/day
Mobile 298 143 2132 5 2 564 570 2 143 145
Area 90 2 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Energy 1 9 4 0 1 0 1 1 0 1
Total 389 154 570 146
BAAQMD Threshold (Daily) 54 54 82 82
Exceeds Threshold Yes Yes Yes Yes
GHG Emissions Inventory
Proposed Project Buildout
Operations1 MTCO2e/Year2
Operations %
Mobile 78,838 96%
Area 210 0%
Energy3 3,068 4%
Water 73 0%
Solid Waste 0 0%
Refrigerants 0 0%
82,189 100%
Notes
1 CalEEMod, Version 2022.1
2 MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
CalEEMod Outputs
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Cupertino Housing Element Update
Operational Year 2031
Lead Agency
Land Use Scale Plan/community
Analysis Level for DefaultsCounty
Windspeed (m/s) 2.7
Precipitation (days) 25.6
Location Cupertino, CA, USA
County Santa Clara
City Cupertino
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1708
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.21
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq ft)Special Landscape Area (sq ft)Population Description Apartments Low Rise 317Dwelling Unit 8.58 336020 0 932
Apartments Mid Rise 2773Dwelling Unit 46.9 2662080 0 8153 Condo/Townhouse 218Dwelling Unit 9.36 231080 0 641
Single Family Housing 9 Dwelling Unit 1.34 17550 105416 27
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO₂ NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e Daily, Summer (Max)
Unmit. 92.9 167 70.8 698 1.34 3.97 122 126 3.91 31 34.9 1531 168694 170225 161 4.14 245 175735 Daily, Winter (Max)
Unmit. 73.7 149 75 487 1.26 3.88 122 126 3.85 31 34.8 1531 160613 162143 162 4.62 29 167598 Average Daily (Max)
Unmit. 73.4 150 39.7 524 1.01 1.32 113 115 1.27 28.6 29.9 1531 115466 116997 161 4.13 113 122357 Annual (Max)
Unmit. 13.4 27.4 7.25 95.7 0.18 0.24 20.7 20.9 0.23 5.23 5.46 253 19117 19370 26.6 0.68 18.8 20258
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO₂ NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e Daily, Summer (Max)
Mobile 70.8 66.6 26.9 491 1.06 0.47 122 123 0.44 31 31.4 107740 107740 4.7 3.34 222 109073 Area 21 100 34.4 203 0.22 2.73 2.73 2.71 2.71 0 41985 41985 0.8 0.08 42029 Energy 1.11 0.55 9.48 4.03 0.06 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 18530 18530 2.12 0.15 18628 Water 231 439 670 23.7 0.57 1432
Waste 1300 0 1300 130 0 4549
Refrig. 23.3 23.3
Total 92.9 167 70.8 698 1.34 3.97 122 126 3.91 31 34.9 1531 168694 170225 161 4.14 245 175735 Daily, Winter (Max)
Mobile 68.8 64.3 32.8 469 0.99 0.47 122 123 0.44 31 31.4 100162 100162 5.41 3.82 5.74 101442 Area 3.82 83.9 32.7 13.9 0.21 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 0 41481 41481 0.78 0.08 41524 Energy 1.11 0.55 9.48 4.03 0.06 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 18530 18530 2.12 0.15 18628 Water 231 439 670 23.7 0.57 1432
Waste 1300 0 1300 130 0 4549
Refrig. 23.3 23.3
Total 73.7 149 75 487 1.26 3.88 122 126 3.85 31 34.8 1531 160613 162143 162 4.62 29 167598 Average Daily
Mobile 63.7 59.6 28.6 427 0.94 0.44 113 114 0.41 28.6 29.1 95226 95226 4.8 3.41 90 96452 Area 8.57 90.1 1.67 93.5 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.1 0.1 0 1271 1271 0.03< 0.005 1273 Energy 1.11 0.55 9.48 4.03 0.06 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 18530 18530 2.12 0.15 18628 Water 231 439 670 23.7 0.57 1432
Waste 1300 0 1300 130 0 4549
Refrig. 23.3 23.3
Total 73.4 150 39.7 524 1.01 1.32 113 115 1.27 28.6 29.9 1531 115466 116997 161 4.13 113 122357 Annual
Mobile 11.6 10.9 5.22 77.9 0.17 0.08 20.7 20.8 0.08 5.23 5.3 15766 15766 0.79 0.56 14.9 15969 Area 1.56 16.4 0.3 17.1< 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 210 210< 0.005 < 0.005 211 Energy 0.2 0.1 1.73 0.74 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 3068 3068 0.35 0.02 3084 Water 38.2 72.7 111 3.93 0.09 237
Waste 215 0 215 21.5 0 753
Refrig. 3.85 3.85
Total 13.4 27.4 7.25 95.7 0.18 0.24 20.7 20.9 0.23 5.23 5.46 253 19117 19370 26.6 0.68 18.8 20258
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO₂ NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e Daily, Summer (Max)
Apartments Low Rise 7.39 6.95 2.8 51.3 0.11 0.05 12.8 12.8 0.05 3.23 3.28 11246 11246 0.49 0.35 23.1 11386 Apartments Mid Rise 58.2 54.7 22.1 403 0.87 0.39 101 101 0.36 25.4 25.8 88469 88469 3.86 2.74 182 89564 Condo/Townhouse 5.09 4.78 1.93 35.3 0.08 0.03 8.79 8.83 0.03 2.22 2.25 7734 7734 0.34 0.24 15.9 7830 Single Family Housing 0.19 0.18 0.07 1.32< 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 0.33< 0.005 0.08 0.08 290 290 0.01 0.01 0.6 294 Total 70.8 66.6 26.9 491 1.06 0.47 122 123 0.44 31 31.4 107740 107740 4.7 3.34 222 109073 Daily, Winter (Max)
Apartments Low Rise 7.18 6.71 3.43 48.9 0.1 0.05 12.8 12.8 0.05 3.23 3.28 10455 10455 0.56 0.4 0.6 10589 Apartments Mid Rise 56.5 52.8 27 385 0.81 0.39 101 101 0.36 25.4 25.8 82247 82247 4.44 3.14 4.72 83297 Condo/Townhouse 4.94 4.62 2.36 33.7 0.07 0.03 8.79 8.83 0.03 2.22 2.25 7190 7190 0.39 0.27 0.41 7282 Single Family Housing 0.19 0.17 0.09 1.26< 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 0.33< 0.005 0.08 0.08 270 270 0.01 0.01 0.02 273 Total 68.8 64.3 32.8 469 0.99 0.47 122 123 0.44 31 31.4 100162 100162 5.41 3.82 5.74 101442 Annual
Apartments Low Rise 1.16 1.08 0.52 7.73 0.02 0.01 2.05 2.06 0.01 0.52 0.53 1566 1566 0.08 0.06 1.48 1586 Apartments Mid Rise 9.65 9.03 4.33 64.6 0.14 0.07 17.2 17.2 0.06 4.34 4.4 13079 13079 0.66 0.47 12.4 13247 Condo/Townhouse 0.79 0.74 0.36 5.32 0.01 0.01 1.41 1.42 0.01 0.36 0.36 1077 1077 0.05 0.04 1.02 1091 Single Family Housing 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.22< 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06< 0.005 0.01 0.01 44.1 44.1< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 44.7 Total 11.6 10.9 5.22 77.9 0.17 0.08 20.7 20.8 0.08 5.23 5.3 15766 15766 0.79 0.56 14.9 15969
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO₂ NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e Daily, Summer (Max)
Apartments Low Rise 664 664 0.11 0.01 671
Apartments Mid Rise 5287 5287 0.86 0.1 5339
Condo/Townhouse 521 521 0.08 0.01 526
Single Family Housing 31.1 31.1 0.01< 0.005 31.4
Total 6503 6503 1.05 0.13 6567
Daily, Winter (Max)
Apartments Low Rise 664 664 0.11 0.01 671
Apartments Mid Rise 5287 5287 0.86 0.1 5339
Condo/Townhouse 521 521 0.08 0.01 526
Single Family Housing 31.1 31.1 0.01< 0.005 31.4
Total 6503 6503 1.05 0.13 6567
Annual
Apartments Low Rise 110 110 0.02< 0.005 111
Apartments Mid Rise 875 875 0.14 0.02 884
Condo/Townhouse 86.2 86.2 0.01< 0.005 87.1
Single Family Housing 5.15 5.15< 0.005 < 0.005 5.2
Total 1077 1077 0.17 0.02 1087
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO₂ NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e Daily, Summer (Max)
Apartments Low Rise 0.19 0.09 1.6 0.68 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 2028 2028 0.18< 0.005 2033 Apartments Mid Rise 0.72 0.36 6.16 2.62 0.04 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 7824 7824 0.69 0.01 7846 Condo/Townhouse 0.19 0.09 1.61 0.68 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 2042 2042 0.18< 0.005 2047 Single Family Housing 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.04< 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 133 133 0.01< 0.005 134 Total 1.11 0.55 9.48 4.03 0.06 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 12027 12027 1.06 0.02 12060 Daily, Winter (Max)
Apartments Low Rise 0.19 0.09 1.6 0.68 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 2028 2028 0.18< 0.005 2033 Apartments Mid Rise 0.72 0.36 6.16 2.62 0.04 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 7824 7824 0.69 0.01 7846 Condo/Townhouse 0.19 0.09 1.61 0.68 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 2042 2042 0.18< 0.005 2047 Single Family Housing 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.04< 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 133 133 0.01< 0.005 134 Total 1.11 0.55 9.48 4.03 0.06 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 12027 12027 1.06 0.02 12060 Annual
Apartments Low Rise 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.12< 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 336 336 0.03< 0.005 337 Apartments Mid Rise 0.13 0.07 1.12 0.48 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 1295 1295 0.11< 0.005 1299 Condo/Townhouse 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.12< 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 338 338 0.03< 0.005 339 Single Family Housing < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.1 22.1< 0.005 < 0.005 22.1 Total 0.2 0.1 1.73 0.74 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 1991 1991 0.18< 0.005 1997
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO₂ NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e Daily, Summer (Max)
Hearths 3.82 1.91 32.7 13.9 0.21 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 0 41481 41481 0.78 0.08 41524 Consumer Products 69.5
Architectural Coatings 12.5
Landscape Equipment 17.2 16.3 1.75 189 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 503 503 0.02< 0.005 505 Total 21 100 34.4 203 0.22 2.73 2.73 2.71 2.71 0 41985 41985 0.8 0.08 42029 Daily, Winter (Max)
Hearths 3.82 1.91 32.7 13.9 0.21 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 0 41481 41481 0.78 0.08 41524 Consumer Products 69.5
Architectural Coatings 12.5
Total 3.82 83.9 32.7 13.9 0.21 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 0 41481 41481 0.78 0.08 41524 Annual
Hearths 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06< 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 169 169< 0.005 < 0.005 170 Consumer Products 12.7
Architectural Coatings 2.29
Landscape Equipment 1.55 1.46 0.16 17 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 41.1 41.1< 0.005 < 0.005 41.2 Total 1.56 16.4 0.3 17.1< 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 210 210< 0.005 < 0.005 211
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO₂ NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e Daily, Summer (Max)
Apartments Low Rise 22 41.6 63.6 2.27 0.05 137
Apartments Mid Rise 193 364 557 19.8 0.48 1194
Condo/Townhouse 15.1 28.6 43.8 1.56 0.04 93.9
Single Family Housing 0.63 4.98 5.6 0.06< 0.005 7.71
Total 231 439 670 23.7 0.57 1432
Daily, Winter (Max)
Apartments Low Rise 22 41.6 63.6 2.27 0.05 137
Apartments Mid Rise 193 364 557 19.8 0.48 1194
Condo/Townhouse 15.1 28.6 43.8 1.56 0.04 93.9
Single Family Housing 0.63 4.98 5.6 0.06< 0.005 7.71
Total 231 439 670 23.7 0.57 1432
Annual
Apartments Low Rise 3.65 6.89 10.5 0.38 0.01 22.6
Apartments Mid Rise 31.9 60.3 92.2 3.28 0.08 198
Condo/Townhouse 2.51 4.74 7.25 0.26 0.01 15.5
Single Family Housing 0.1 0.82 0.93 0.01< 0.005 1.28
Total 38.2 72.7 111 3.93 0.09 237
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO₂ NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e Daily, Summer (Max)
Apartments Low Rise 124 0 124 12.4 0 435
Apartments Mid Rise 1087 0 1087 109 0 3802
Condo/Townhouse 85.4 0 85.4 8.54 0 299
Single Family Housing 3.8 0 3.8 0.38 0 13.3
Total 1300 0 1300 130 0 4549
Daily, Winter (Max)
Apartments Low Rise 124 0 124 12.4 0 435
Apartments Mid Rise 1087 0 1087 109 0 3802
Condo/Townhouse 85.4 0 85.4 8.54 0 299
Single Family Housing 3.8 0 3.8 0.38 0 13.3
Total 1300 0 1300 130 0 4549
Annual
Apartments Low Rise 20.6 0 20.6 2.06 0 72
Apartments Mid Rise 180 0 180 18 0 629
Condo/Townhouse 14.1 0 14.1 1.41 0 49.5
Single Family Housing 0.63 0 0.63 0.06 0 2.2
Total 215 0 215 21.5 0 753
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO₂ NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e Daily, Summer (Max)
Apartments Low Rise 2.41 2.41
Apartments Mid Rise 19.1 19.1
Condo/Townhouse 1.65 1.65
Single Family Housing 0.13 0.13
Total 23.3 23.3
Daily, Winter (Max)
Apartments Low Rise 2.41 2.41
Apartments Mid Rise 19.1 19.1
Condo/Townhouse 1.65 1.65
Single Family Housing 0.13 0.13
Total 23.3 23.3
Annual
Apartments Low Rise 0.4 0.4
Apartments Mid Rise 3.16 3.16
Condo/Townhouse 0.27 0.27
Single Family Housing 0.02 0.02
Total 3.85 3.85
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO₂ NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e Daily, Summer (Max)
Total
Daily, Winter (Max)
Total
Annual
Total
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO₂ NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e Daily, Summer (Max)
Total
Daily, Winter (Max)
Total
Annual
Total
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO₂ NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e Daily, Summer (Max)
Total
Daily, Winter (Max)
Total
Annual
Total
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Vegetation TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO₂ NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e Daily, Summer (Max)
Total
Daily, Winter (Max)
Total
Annual
Total
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO₂ NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e Daily, Summer (Max)
Total
Daily, Winter (Max)
Total
Annual
Total
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO₂ NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e Daily, Summer (Max)
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequestered
Subtotal
Removed
Subtotal
Daily, Winter (Max)
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequestered
Subtotal
Removed
Subtotal
Annual
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequestered
Subtotal
Removed
Subtotal
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/WeekdayTrips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/WeekdayVMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Low Rise 2,473 2,750 2,122 898,881 16,450 18,293 14,113 5,978,532 5,978,562 Apartments Mid Rise 21,636 19,528 16,266 7,507,117 143,900 129,880 108,190 49,930,448 49,937,540 Condo/Townhouse 1,701 1,891 1,459 618,158 11,313 12,580 9,705 4,111,419 4,111,513 Single Family Housing 70 71 64 25,324 467 472 423 168,431 168,427 60,188,830 60,196,042
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Low Rise
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 162
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 155
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Apartments Mid Rise
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 1414
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 1359
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Condo/Townhouse
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 111
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 107
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Single Family Housing
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 2
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 7
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential
Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential
Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential
Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area
Coated (sq ft)
6574628 2191543 0 0
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Land Use
Electricity
(kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O
Natural Gas
(kBTU/yr)
Apartments Low Rise 1188905 204 0.033 0.004 6327101
Apartments Mid Rise 9459953 204 0.033 0.004 24413689
Condo/Townhouse 931839 204 0.033 0.004 6370960
Single Family Housing 55664 204 0.033 0.004 415997
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Low Rise 11496449 0
Apartments Mid Rise 100566727 0
Condo/Townhouse 7906075 0
Single Family Housing 326398 1377374
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Low Rise 230
Apartments Mid Rise 2016
Condo/Townhouse 159
Single Family Housing 7.05
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment TypeRefrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak RateService Leak RateTimes Serviced Apartments Low Rise
Average room A/C
& Other residential
A/C and heat
pumps R-410A 2088 < 0.005 2.5 2.5 10
Apartments Low Rise
Household
refrigerators
and/or freezersR-134a 1430 0.12 0.6 0 1
Apartments Mid Rise
Average room A/C
& Other residential
A/C and heat
pumps R-410A 2088 < 0.005 2.5 2.5 10
Apartments Mid Rise
Household
refrigerators
and/or freezersR-134a 1430 0.12 0.6 0 1
Condo/Townhouse
Average room A/C
& Other residential
A/C and heat
pumps R-410A 2088 < 0.005 2.5 2.5 10
Condo/Townhouse
Household
refrigerators
and/or freezersR-134a 1430 0.12 0.6 0 1
Single Family Housing
Average room A/C
& Other residential
A/C and heat
pumps R-410A 2088 < 0.005 2.5 2.5 10
Single Family Housing
Household
refrigerators
and/or freezersR-134a 1430 0.12 0.6 0 1
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per DayHours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per DayHours per Day Hours per YearHorsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number
Boiler Rating
(MMBtu/hr)
Daily Heat Input
(MMBtu/day)
Annual Heat Input
(MMBtu/yr)
Climate Hazard Exposure ScoreSensitivity ScoreAdaptive Capacity ScoreVulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme HeatN/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 1 1 2
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use based on data from Tables 3-4 and 3-5 from Chapter 3, Project Description. Proposed population is the net new dwelling units x 2.94 persons per household.
Operations: Fleet Mix Fleet mix for the project is modified to reflect a higher proportion of passenger vehicles that the regional VMT. Assumes a mix of approximately 97% passenger vehicles, 2% medium duty trucks, and 1% heavy duty trucks and buses.
Operations: Vehicle Data based on data provided by F&P
Energy Calculations
Operation-Related Vehicle Fuel/Energy Usage
VMT Gallons VMT Gallons VMT Gallons VMT kWh
Proposed Passenger Vehicles 54,030,711 1,723,451 435,463 35,719 6,803 981 5,723,083 2,110,930 Total 54,030,711 1,723,451 435,463 35,719 6,803 981 5,723,083 2,110,930 Electricity
PROJECT LAND USE COMMUTE
Vehicle Type Gas Diesel CNG
Land Use
Vehicle type Fleet percent VMT
All Vehicles All Vehicles Total
HHD 0.15% 90,391 90,391
LDA 61.38% 36,947,556 36,947,556
LDT1 4.15% 2,498,819 2,498,819
LDT2 28.85% 17,364,098 17,364,098
LHD1 0.46% 279,468 279,468
LHD2 0.12% 71,275 71,275
MCY 2.62% 1,579,705 1,579,705
MDV 2.00% 1,203,921 1,203,921
MH 0.04% 25,452 25,452
MHD 0.18% 111,031 111,031
OBUS 0.02% 12,109 12,109
SBUS 0.01% 7,745 7,745
UBUS 0.01% 4,489 4,489
100.00% 60,196,060 60,196,060
Vehicle type Gas percent Diesel percent CNG percent Electricity percent LDA 86.13% 0.10% 0.00% 13.77%
LDT1 97.95% 0.00% 0.00% 2.05%
LDT2 96.93% 0.36% 0.00% 2.72%
MDV 94.73% 1.22% 0.00% 4.04%
LHD1 55.47% 32.78% 0.00% 11.75%
LHD2 26.63% 61.94% 0.00% 11.44%
MHD 12.35% 73.95% 1.08% 12.62% << Equal to T6 (https://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2014/emfac2014-vol3-technical-documentation-052015.pdf) HHD 0.02% 88.91% 5.11% 5.96% << Equal to T7 (https://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2014/emfac2014-vol3-technical-documentation-052015.pdf) OBUS 17.35% 78.74% 1.01% 2.90% << Motor coach, all other buses, and OBUS (https://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2014/emfac2014-vol3-technical-documentation-052015.pdf) UBUS 8.18% 51.35% 14.86% 25.62%
MCY 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
SBUS 36.71% 53.75% 2.61% 6.94%
MH 66.05% 33.95% 0.00% 0.00%
VMT mpg Gallons VMT mpg Gallons VMT mpg Gallons VMT m/kWh kWh LDA 31,822,548 34.28 928,314 35,801 48.12 744 0 0.00 0 5,089,206 2.68 1,898,039 LDT1 2,447,604 28.53 85,794 18 29.73 1 0 0.00 0 51,197 2.76 18,525 LDT2 16,830,490 28.07 599,613 62,029 37.50 1,654 0 0.00 0 471,579 2.83 166,833 MDV 1,140,521 23.23 49,106 14,736 27.90 528 0 0.00 0 48,663 2.76 17,655 LHD1 155,016 10.64 14,568 91,607 16.41 5,584 0 0.00 0 32,845 1.53 0 LHD2 18,977 9.39 2,021 44,146 13.89 3,177 0 0.00 0 8,152 1.55 0 MHD 13,713 5.12 2,676 82,112 8.78 9,357 1,194 7.27 0 14,012 0.00 0 HHD 14 4.48 3 80,369 6.61 12,164 4,618 5.30 871 5,390 0.55 9,878 OBUS 2,101 5.15 408 9,535 8.74 1,091 122 8.31 0 351 0.00 0 UBUS 367 10.10 36 2,305 8.80 0 667 6.05 110 1,150 0.57 0 MCY 1,579,705 42.89 36,832 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
SBUS 2,843 10.20 279 4,163 8.38 497 202 5.65 0 537 0.95 0 MH 16,811 4.42 3,802 8,641 9.36 923 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0
54,030,711 1,723,451 435,463 35,719 6,803 981 5,723,083 2,110,930 Electricity
Operational Land Use
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
Vehicle type Gasoline Diesel CNG
VMT/day Gallons/day Miles/gallon VMT/day Gallons/day Miles/gallon VMT/day Gallons/day Miles/gallon VMT/day kWh/day Miles/kWh All other buses 0 0 0.00 52,310 5,558 9.41 826 99 8.31 0 0 0.00 LDA 22,458,335 655,145 34.28 25,266 525 48.12 0 0 0.00 3,591,639 1,339,516 2.68 LDT1 1,496,573 52,458 28.53 11 0 29.73 0 0 0.00 31,304 11,327 2.76 LDT2 11,191,983 398,732 28.07 41,248 1,100 37.50 0 0 0.00 313,592 110,941 2.83 LHD1 719,038 67,574 10.64 424,916 25,900 16.41 0 0 0.00 152,349 99,806 1.53 LHD2 85,545 9,110 9.39 199,001 14,323 13.89 0 0 0.00 36,746 23,702 1.55 MCY 170,934 3,985 42.89 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00
MDV 6,091,481 262,272 23.23 78,706 2,821 27.90 0 0 0.00 259,910 94,292 2.76 MH 19,813 4,480 4.42 10,184 1,088 9.36 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 Motor coach 0 0 0.00 12,282 2,082 5.90 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 OBUS 14,235 2,765 5.15 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2,376 2,632 0.90 PTO 0 0 0.00 23,571 4,398 5.36 0 0 0.00 3,688 7,639 0.48 SBUS 9,700 951 10.20 14,204 1,695 8.38 689 122 5.65 1,834 1,932 0.95 T6 68,067 13,282 5.12 407,572 46,443 8.78 5,926 815 7.27 69,551 75,729 0.92 T7 179 40 4.48 1,007,730 152,525 6.61 57,908 10,917 5.30 67,584 123,864 0.55 UBUS 4,912 486 10.10 30,832 3,503 8.80 8,921 1,474 6.05 15,382 26,815 0.57 Total 42,330,795 1,471,281 28.77 2,327,834 261,961 8.89 74,269 13,427 5.53 4,545,954 1,918,194 2.37 Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub-Area
Region: Santa Clara (SF)
Calendar Year: 2031
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC202x Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population Total VMT CVMT EVMT Trips Fuel Consumption Energy Consumption Santa Clara (SF) 2031 All Other Buses Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 953.1226477 52309.77038 52309.77038 0 8482.791564 5.558242859 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031All Other Buses Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 13.13397101 825.9794288825.9794288 0 116.892342 0.099379098 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 603399.0962 22013784.6 22013784.6 0 2803164.773 639.8711052 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 883.737468 25266.3984925266.39849 0 3799.765194 0.525104131 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 76860.81775 3030639.55 0 3030639.55 365231.4147 0 1170076.999 Santa Clara (SF) 2031LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 25461.03533 1005550.246444550.7961 560999.4498 105281.3811 15.2736845 169438.5543 Santa Clara (SF) 2031LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 46901.01193 1490241.88 1490241.88 0 209139.0513 52.23945503 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 0.276777681 10.9753779710.97537797 0 1.355425552 0.000369199 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 522.3461965 22273.32517 0 22273.32517 2538.366039 0 8599.341832 Santa Clara (SF) 2031LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 365.1119945 15362.32276331.484675 9030.838022 1509.738097 0.21852187 2727.582245 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 319369.3963 11103089.38 11103089.38 0 1484055.287 395.6457694 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1173.677606 41248.49698 41248.49698 0 5500.09096 1.099841882 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 6220.407446 193057.8902 0 193057.8902 30819.47911 0 74536.27956 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 5316.757023 209427.4567 88893.38585 120534.0709 21984.79029 3.086434609 36404.88189 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 LHD1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 19687.3566 719037.7306 719037.7306 0 293312.2792 67.57417896 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 LHD1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 11330.44455 424916.3376 424916.3376 0 142522.7388 25.89958754 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 LHD1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2756.217427 152348.5119 0 152348.5119 38618.42883 0 99806.15562 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 LHD2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2433.678314 85545.01417 85545.01417 0 36258.1807 9.11006936 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 LHD2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 5486.176806 199001.0884 199001.0884 0 69009.20261 14.32252025 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 LHD2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 693.8669749 36745.81904 0 36745.81904 9200.423634 0 23701.75018 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 30211.11579 170933.851 170933.851 0 60422.23158 3.985415077 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 177155.5583 6038275.157 6038275.157 0 820036.2994 260.3981834 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2393.450036 78706.49268 78706.49268 0 10984.30797 2.821356323 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 6088.019047 187882.3823 0 187882.3823 30112.24512 0 72538.10636 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 3252.526344 125233.1296 53205.86268 72027.26688 13449.19643 1.873612648 21754.38135 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1997.870826 19812.81141 19812.81141 0 199.8669974 4.480433606 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1078.004466 10184.13476 10184.13476 0 107.8004466 1.08776648 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 Motor Coach Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 104.062505 12282.4362 12282.4362 0 2391.356365 2.082130844 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 362.1380916 14235.44914 14235.44914 0 7245.658936 2.764627118 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 30.9887658 2375.644602 0 2375.644602 620.0232262 0 2631.850728 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 PTO Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 0 23571.30287 23571.30287 0 0 4.39815388 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 PTO Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 0 3687.769943 0 3687.769943 0 0 7639.284649 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 199.6537134 9699.906901 9699.906901 0 798.6148537 0.951047046 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 649.5338804 14203.54124 14203.54124 0 9405.250589 1.695311692 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 57.0000408 1833.643979 0 1833.643979 667.0697929 0 1931.6625 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 29.82555163 688.6908673 688.6908673 0 431.8739876 0.121825891 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 CAIRP Class 4 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2.989550976 194.2537576 194.2537576 0 68.69988142 0.02073872 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 CAIRP Class 4 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 0.497832659 40.32125631 0 40.32125631 11.44019451 0 43.80031639 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 CAIRP Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3.831799442 268.7767351 268.7767351 0 88.05475118 0.028768663 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 CAIRP Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 0.597332908 53.01800175 0 53.01800175 13.72671022 0 57.59258177 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 CAIRP Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 15.15568421 682.9800719 682.9800719 0 348.277623 0.072334856 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 CAIRP Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2.923782457 157.878782 0 157.878782 67.18852085 0 171.5011197 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 CAIRP Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 24.83420154 4759.123678 4759.123678 0 570.6899514 0.450536572 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 CAIRP Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2.430891096 515.1680692 0 515.1680692 55.86187738 0 559.6185856 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 612.6632563 20002.71391 20002.71391 0 8742.704667 2.335574146 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 71.56519873 2852.161121 0 2852.161121 1021.235386 0 3046.904056 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 4.689188827 168.1774704 168.1774704 0 66.91472456 0.024397807 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Delivery Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 715.4954394 23238.24283 23238.24283 0 10210.11992 2.733163614 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031T6 Instate Delivery Class 5Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 79.29019057 3155.895384 0 3155.895384 1131.471019 0 3371.377015 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Delivery Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 4.71921648 171.0192496 171.0192496 0 67.34321917 0.024564469 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1359.813581 44245.91556 44245.91556 0 19404.5398 5.183459894 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 154.3537729 6110.703573 0 6110.703573 2202.62834 0 6527.936785 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 9.130251529 331.3186951 331.3186951 0 130.2886893 0.047502867 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031T6 Instate Delivery Class 7Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 208.0817191 10088.1316210088.13162 0 2969.326131 1.197056862 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 9.316471157 482.2115295 0 482.2115295 132.9460434 0 515.1364886 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 4.226504661 210.683322 210.683322 0 60.31222151 0.030746272 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Other Class 4 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1082.291907 42110.16643 42110.16643 0 12511.29444 4.755659785 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Other Class 4 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 143.8047757 6918.298318 0 6918.298318 1662.383207 0 7333.957198 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Other Class 4 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 8.047416455 366.697701 366.697701 0 93.02813422 0.046434166 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Other Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2249.427479 88255.49468 88255.49468 0 26003.38165 10.00194531 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Other Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 282.7537776 13644.72888 0 13644.72888 3268.633668 0 14464.51902 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Other Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 15.22881788 693.5004631 693.5004631 0 176.0451346 0.086870135 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Other Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2123.239651 83235.0548 83235.0548 0 24544.65036 9.374002964 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Other Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 270.9201066 12991.86534 0 12991.86534 3131.836432 0 13772.43073 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Other Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 14.70201783 669.4783717 669.4783717 0 169.9553261 0.083869062 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Other Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 976.8350637 36700.12736 36700.12736 0 11292.21334 4.161190875 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Other Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 61.0929124 4155.618066 0 4155.618066 706.2340673 0 4405.292115 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Other Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 23.41491052 892.4658481 892.4658481 0 270.6763657 0.117237963 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 7.955489937 387.9993876 387.9993876 0 91.96546368 0.042545286 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 0.960505556 64.2620298 0 64.2620298 11.10344423 0 68.12296238 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 0.064947403 3.882390094 3.882390094 0 0.75079198 0.000474849 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 302.1542892 15517.11222 15517.11222 0 3492.903583 1.646510573 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 9.575285682 776.9139976 0 776.9139976 110.6903025 0 823.5918348 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 6.289914165 326.3452811 326.3452811 0 72.71140775 0.041258727 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 OOS Class 4 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1.953080254 129.8267635 129.8267635 0 44.88178423 0.0130979 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 OOS Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2.477047427 178.0989735 178.0989735 0 56.92254987 0.018053041 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 OOS Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 10.06137948 465.3777133 465.3777133 0 231.2105005 0.046334351 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 OOS Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 13.32317768 3383.874668 3383.874668 0 306.1666232 0.310916894 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Public Class 4 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 122.6336269 4412.267222 4412.267222 0 629.1105059 0.543655061 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Public Class 4 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 13.20106669 566.940599 0 566.940599 67.72147211 0 669.5004693 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Public Class 4 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 8.754782708 335.9938952 335.9938952 0 44.91203529 0.051292887 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Public Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 215.8983509 7645.134527 7645.134527 0 1107.55854 0.945651452 0
ELECGAS DSL
EMFAC Fuel Usage: Year 2031
Vehicle type NG
Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Public Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 23.64888983 1016.341746 0 1016.341746 121.3188048 0 1200.198535 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Public Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 16.10459934 597.3592497 597.3592497 0 82.61659461 0.090121731 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Public Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 113.3690076 4131.144331 4131.144331 0 581.5830091 0.509435807 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Public Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 12.44166331 529.6117588 0 529.6117588 63.82573277 0 625.418821 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Public Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 7.548483951 290.545521 290.545521 0 38.72372267 0.043454492 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Public Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 280.2507129 12420.12573 12420.12573 0 1437.686157 1.495880554 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Public Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 30.43763504 1858.381302 0 1858.381302 156.1450678 0 2194.563515 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Public Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 18.02356908 820.6508988 820.6508988 0 92.46090936 0.120543157 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Utility Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 88.81105877 3542.793316 3542.793316 0 1136.781552 0.386015915 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Utility Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 19.50495374 840.1244834 0 840.1244834 249.6634079 0 940.9926751 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Utility Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 0.846626098 32.34038211 32.34038211 0 10.83681405 0.004234467 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Utility Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 16.77612121 668.8564018 668.8564018 0 214.7343514 0.072714534 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Utility Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 3.69651702 159.2106441 0 159.2106441 47.31541786 0 178.3260134 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Utility Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 0.165891826 6.327373732 6.327373732 0 2.123415377 0.000827892 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Utility Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 18.53311175 908.0556189 908.0556189 0 237.2238304 0.097977402 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Utility Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 4.0832461 243.2138799 0 243.2138799 52.26555008 0 272.4149623 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6 Utility Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 0.21228626 9.650305424 9.650305424 0 2.717264128 0.001253915 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6TS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1347.937181 68067.01645 68067.01645 0 26969.52711 13.2822748 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T6TS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 162.1560979 12418.47591 0 12418.47591 3244.419206 0 14485.40723 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 CAIRP Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1033.080016 205283.3741 205283.3741 0 23740.17877 30.04095324 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 CAIRP Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 110.9762814 23383.21619 0 23383.21619 2550.234947 0 42696.02419 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 CAIRP Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 2.025018252 398.3369536 398.3369536 0 46.53491942 0.06636668 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 NNOOS Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 996.6750667 271970.9382 271970.9382 0 22903.59303 37.44066548 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 NOOS Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 431.710698 98825.2679 98825.2679 0 9920.711841 14.02262898 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Other Port Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 95.1803273 23245.55411 23245.55411 0 1557.150155 3.497861789 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Other Port Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 6.671907472 2143.462702 0 2143.462702 109.1524062 0 3901.031891 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 POAK Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 647.2566174 71540.61596 71540.61596 0 10589.11826 11.18630159 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 POAK Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 42.03116743 4422.854619 0 4422.854619 687.6298992 0 8049.450501 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 POAK Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 1.167481527 128.8339023 128.8339023 0 19.09999778 0.021789503 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Public Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 648.5583298 27204.74551 27204.74551 0 3327.104232 4.911900549 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Public Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 54.97357904 3316.172941 0 3316.172941 282.0144605 0 6508.263188 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Public Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 3.78009555 168.6078707 168.6078707 0 19.39189017 0.035436993 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Single Concrete/Transit Mix Class 8Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 367.0371985 24219.8734 24219.8734 0 3457.49041 3.832478065 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Single Concrete/Transit Mix Class 8Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 76.60845525 6112.605118 0 6112.605118 721.6516485 0 11144.22153 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Single Concrete/Transit Mix Class 8Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 23.244144 1524.844016 1524.844016 0 218.9598365 0.251612525 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Single Dump Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 738.7127681 37862.90642 37862.90642 0 6958.674276 6.301437446 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Single Dump Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 64.74983892 5214.464687 0 5214.464687 609.9434827 0 9506.773059 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Single Dump Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 47.96362173 2504.340868 2504.340868 0 451.8173167 0.446926643 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Single Other Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1138.75072 49464.57234 49464.57234 0 10727.03178 8.129993578 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Single Other Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 117.74036 7245.276753 0 7245.276753 1109.114191 0 13209.25655 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Single Other Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 71.03367787 3133.255749 3133.255749 0 669.1372455 0.554814413 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 SWCV Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 167.4736841 10870.2114 10870.2114 0 770.378947 4.35317106 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 SWCV Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 58.85991169 3761.382045 0 3761.382045 270.7555938 0 6998.242017 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 SWCV Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 468.8898827 30383.66785 30383.66785 0 2156.893461 6.008423941 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Tractor Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2946.223163 184134.2354 184134.2354 0 42808.62256 28.29152703 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Tractor Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 153.4545817 11570.90732 0 11570.90732 2229.695072 0 21067.26434 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Tractor Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 327.1732484 19665.9185 19665.9185 0 4753.8273 3.531470405 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Utility Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 73.96960851 3107.467998 3107.467998 0 946.8109889 0.515991589 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7 Utility Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 6.308413763 378.8744662 0 378.8744662 80.74769616 0 713.3441946 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7IS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1.471837454 178.9219048 178.9219048 0 29.44852377 0.039924839 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 T7IS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 0.152984214 34.88493835 0 34.88493835 3.06090815 0 70.09548845 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 47.03544053 4911.900021 4911.900021 0 188.1417621 0.486261683 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 294.097702 30831.58765 30831.58765 0 1176.390808 3.50289306 0 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 124.5167043 15381.9903 0 15381.9903 498.0668171 0 26814.56413 Santa Clara (SF) 2031 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 76.8255673 8920.556737 8920.556737 0 307.3022692 1.473549158 0 From: Nicole Phan
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Agenda Item #7: Amendments for 6th Cycle Housing Element Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 3:08:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Honorable Mayor Sheila Mohan, Vice-Mayor JR Fruen, Councilmembers and staff, I am Nicole – a lifelong resident of Cupertino – writing to you about the Housing Element, an issue extremely important to me.
I believe a strong and robust Housing Element in compliance with state law is principal to bolstering Cupertino school enrollment, the city's economy, our community's resilience. It will also mitigate the worsening effects of climate change fueled primarily by single occupancy vehicle emissions due to commuting great lengths in California. The heat waves and severe drought that Cupertino experiences will only get worse and more frequent until we readily allow an increase in housing supply near schools, work, transit and amenities.
I strongly urge the council to adopt all of the city staff's recommendations regarding:
R3 and R4 Zoning and eliminating the 5-story requirement which will allow for greater flexibility in development
Parking standards - which should either be reduced or eliminated completely to allow for even greater flexibility with land use for housing
Increasing height limits to 35 feet because General Plan Actions taken by Council (May 2024) already set height limits for various properties
The definition of Duplexes as the existing definition of a Duplex is unenforceable under Housing Accountability Act so the council should eliminate the proposed standard.
Retain the staff recommendation on retaining the proposed lot coverage standard and increasing FAR standard to 85% (Incorporated into MCA Draft Ordinance) The city has so much potential to create a more vibrant and inclusive city that will strengthen our community and schools AND mitigate the effects of climate change on our environment with these implementations, so please adopt all staff recommendations.
Kind regards,
Nicole
From: Soluna Espinosa Pieb
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 3:04:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the Cupertino City Council:
My name is Soluna Espinosa Pieb. I grew up in Cupertino, and am now living in San Jose due in large part to the cost of housing in Cupertino. The Housing Element is a commendable project that I am enthusiastic to support, especially if it is strengthened by this Council to fully bolster affordable housing projects.
I would like to thank Staff for their proposed rezonings, which are necessary for our Housing Element to achieve full compliance with HCD. Our Housing Element will no longer be eligible for state certification if we do not approach our rezonings in a manner that encourages all types of housing. We cannot stand by and watch unnecessary, harmful restrictions characterize Cupertino’s zoning code.
Council has received a letter from Cupertino for All describing specific, actionable changes that they, as policymakers, can enact to enhance our rezonings and ensure that HCD will ultimately accept them. I fully support the CFA recommendations and ask that you adopt them as your own.
I would like to take a moment to highlight the following recommendations which ensure that our Housing Element is successful in fully answering the requirements of state law to affirmatively further fair housing.
First, Council must remove the 5-story limit, relying only on the 70 foot height limit (which is already in place) for R-4 Zoning. This will:
Allow for greater flexibility to architects designing housing of different forms for different populations at different income levels;
Grant architects more freedom to design housing typologies of varying types and for varying incomes without forcing developers to rely on state-law workarounds like the Density Bonus Law.
Our new codes should reflect state law requirements to support a range of housing across different income levels. The 5-story limit is an unnecessary limit that pushes developers toward more expensive housing forms, which is contrary to the general thrust of Housing Element Law, HCD guidance, and affirmatively furthering fair housing principles.
Moreover, Council should strengthen the Strategy HE 1.3.6 (The Missing Middle Program).
Revisions in the December 2023 submission of the Housing Element changed this strategy from allowing four-unit developments under R-3 standards, which were designed for small apartment buildings, to instead allowing development under the city’s highly restrictive R-2 standards.
To fully enable the Strategy to work as it is intended to, the new duplex overlay must be much more flexible than what is currently proposed. In particular, Council should:
Remove the change in the definition of a duplex, which requires principal dwelling units to be no more than 200 square feet different from each other; According to the staff report, the change was meant to define comparable sized units, but, in reality, distorts the Missing Middle Program. Council can and should eliminate this proposed standard;
Remove the 55% FAR limitation;
Expand the 40% lot coverage maximum;
Reexamine the interior side setback minimums.
Finally, Council should provide additional direction (via requesting staff to partner with stakeholders, community-based organizations, developers, and homeowners) in regards to staff’s recommended Ordinance to adopt objective development Standards. They should do so to ensure that future development standards emphasize increased flexibility and architectural freedom, as opposed to unnecessary restrictions.
Thank you for your consideration and effort to foster an inclusive and vibrant Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Soluna Espinosa Pieb
--
All the best,
Soluna Espinosa Pieb
(Pronouns: they/them/theirs, Mx.)
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Subject: Fwd: 2024-07-02 City Council Meeting Agenda ITEM #7 - HE Re-zoning Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 2:56:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Resending because I forgot to sign my name.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Mayor Mohan and Council Members,
Please do not make any further changes
to the staff’s proposal to complete the Housing
Element. The staff knows our city and the various areas and what is required by HCD. These changes are significant as it is and will drastically change our city.
Mayor Mohan and Council member Wei, you have repeatedly said you “trust our staff”. This is the time to show you really mean this by passing their proposal without changes .
Mayor Mohan and Council member Wei, you ran promising you would preserve “neighborhood integrity”. This is the time to show you meant it by passing the staff’s proposal without changes .
Please support the staff and our neighborhoods by passing the staff’s proposal without changes.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Eric Schaefer
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 2:53:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Staffers and City Council,
Do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal.
It has already received approval from HCD.
Any further changes should consider the following issues:
A. Preserve community character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure that new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
B. Support equitable housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex”.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
C. Maintain standards and order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties
D. Consider long-term Impact:
Align future ordinance updates with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring that changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eric Schaefer
From: Hal and Janet Van Zoeren
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 2:38:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Mohan and City Council,
My name is Janet Van Zoeren, and as you know, I am a resident of Cupertino.
I would like to compliment the Staff for their proposed rezonings, which are necessary for our Housing Element to achieve full compliance with HCD. I understand our Housing Element will no longer be eligible for state certification if we do not approach our rezonings in a manner that encourages all types of housing.
Council has received a letter from Cupertino for All describing specific, actionable changes that they, as policymakers, can enact to enhance our rezonings and ensure that HCD will ultimately accept them. I fully support the CFA recommendations and ask that you adopt them.
Thank you for your consideration and effort to foster an inclusive and vibrant Cupertino.
You are close to the finish line on the Housing Element. We will sigh in relief when the HCD approves it for us. Wow, this has been a huge undertaking! Whew! Warm regards,
Janet Van Zoeren
From: LimTak Cheung
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Stop adding more aggressive items to the Housing Elements Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 2:08:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to ask that you please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter.
This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Lim Cheung
From: hsiaofang chen
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: DO NOT build any building anymore and give me Cupertino residents peaceful lives Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 2:00:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I live in Cupertino for over 20 years and I love living here. However, more and more company want to earn money from the city not consider our residents peaceful lives. 20 years ago, I did not need to close the door or garage door and feel safety. However, right now I need to close the door and garage door and use locker for side yard door, I also need to use monitor to avoid strangers or thieves come to my house. We are more threatened than before. More and more people come to the city not want to live here only want to earn money or fraud money or steal things from the city. The construction company only want to build appartments to lease to engineers or people for earning money not for considering give Cupertino better life.
I am writing to ask that you please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Hsiaofang Chen
From: Philip Nguyen
To: City Council
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item #7, Municipal Code Text, Specific Plan, Below Market Rate Mitigation Manual and Zoning Map Amendments related to implementing the 6th Cycle Housing Element Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 1:55:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Honorable Mayor Sheila Mohan, Vice-Mayor JR Fruen, Councilmembers and staff,
My name is Philip and I am a long-time community member of Cupertino and this issue is very important to me as a person who believes a strong, compliant Housing Element is absolutely paramount to supporting enrollment in Cupertino schools, creating a stronger community overall, as well as mitigate the effects of climate catastrophe fueled especially by single occupancy vehicle emissions in California. The heat wave we are experiencing this week this early in the season will only get worse if we do not take cars off the road through an increase of housing supply near schools, work, transit and amenities.
I strongly urge the council to adopt all of the city staff's recommendations especially regarding:
Increasing height limit to 35 feet because General Plan Actions taken by Council (May 2024) already set height limits for various properties R4 Zoning and eliminating the 5 story requirement which will allow for greater flexibility in development
The definition of Duplexes as the existing definition of a Duplex is unenforceable under Housing Accountability Act so the council should eliminate proposed standard.
Parking standards which should either be reduced or eliminated completely to allow for even greater flexibility with land use for housing.
The city has an immense amount of potential to create a more resilient and inclusive city that will bolster our community, and schools as well as sustain the environment with these implementations so please adopt all staff recommendations.
Sincerely,
Philip
From: Max K. Agoston
To: City Clerk
Subject: Housing Plan
Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 1:37:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Cupertino City Clerk
I am writing to ask that you please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Max Agoston
19787 La Mar Drive
Cupertino
95014
From: Gauri Chawla
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 1:28:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon,
Please see the attached letter for Public Comment regarding Agenda Item #7 for Tuesday's (7/2) Council meeting. The letter details suggestions for Cupertino's rezoning to ensure a compliant, state-certified Housing Element.
Thanks,
Gauri Chawla
For Public Comment (7/2) – Item #7 Housing Element …
Re:ForPublicComment(7/2)–Item7HousingElementRezonings
TotheCupertinoCityCouncil:
MynameisGauriChawla,andI amacurrentresidentofCupertino.I grewuphere,andwenttoelementary, middle,andhighschoolshere.Asastudentandmemberofmycommunity, I’vegrownuphearingaboutCupertino’scontinuallyhigherhousingprices,andthusdecliningenrollment.WemustseetheHousingElementasanopportunitytotransformCupertinointoathrivinglivingenvironment,andourRezoningsareacrucialpartofthat.
TheHousingElementisacommendableprojectthatI amenthusiastictosupport,especiallyifitisstrengthenedbythisCounciltofullybolsteraffordablehousingprojects.OurHousingElementcanbeatrulypowerfuldocument,ifitisapproachedcorrectly. Councilhasaresponsibilitytofulfillthisdocument'sfullpotential,especiallyconsideringHCD'scurrentconditionalapproval.
I wouldliketothankStaff fortheirproposedrezonings,whicharenecessaryforourHousingElementtoachievefullcompliancewithHCD.OurHousingElementwillnolongerbeeligibleforstatecertificationifwedonotapproachourrezoningsinamannerthatencouragesalltypesofhousing.Wecannotstandbyandwatchunnecessary, harmfulrestrictionscharacterizeCupertino’szoningcode.
CouncilhasreceivedaletterfromCupertinoforAlldescribingspecific,actionablechangesthatthey, aspolicymakers,canenacttoenhanceourrezoningsandensurethatHCDwillultimatelyacceptthem.IfullysupporttheCFArecommendationsandaskthatyouadoptthemasyourown,butalsoaddinmyownsuggestionsthatgofurtherthanwhatisoutlinedinCFA'sletter.
Councilmustremovethe5-storylimit,relyingonlyonthe70footheightlimit(whichisalreadyinplace)forR-4Zoning.Thiswill:
● Allowforgreaterflexibilitytoarchitectsdesigninghousingofdifferentformsfordifferentpopulationsatdifferentincomelevels;● Grantarchitectsmorefreedomtodesignhousingtypologiesofvaryingtypesandforvaryingincomeswithoutforcingdeveloperstorelyonstate-lawworkaroundsliketheDensityBonusLaw.
Ournewcodesshouldreflectstatelawrequirementstosupportarangeofhousingacrossdifferentincomelevels.The5-storylimitisanunnecessarylimitthatpushesdevelopers towardmoreexpensivehousingforms,whichiscontrarytothegeneralthrustofHousingElementLaw, HCDguidance,andaffirmativelyfurtheringfairhousingprinciples.
Moreover, CouncilshouldstrengthentheStrategyHE1.3.6(TheMissingMiddleProgram).RevisionsintheDecember2023submissionoftheHousingElementchangedthisstrategyfromallowingfour-unitdevelopmentsunderR-3standards,whichweredesignedforsmallapartmentbuildings,toinsteadallowingdevelopmentunderthecity’shighlyrestrictiveR-2standards.
TofullyenabletheStrategytoworkasitisintendedto,thenewduplexoverlaymustbemuchmoreflexiblethanwhatiscurrentlyproposed.Inparticular, Councilshould:
● Removethechangeinthedefinitionofaduplex,whichrequiresprincipaldwellingunitstobenomorethan200squarefeetdifferentfromeachother;○ Accordingtothestaff report,thechangewasmeanttodefinecomparablesizedunits,but,inreality, distortstheMissingMiddleProgram.Councilcanandshouldeliminatethisproposedstandard;● Removethe55%FARlimitation.Thislimitationisnotonlyredundantinitsapplication,buthasnobearingontherealityofduplexandotherR-2zoningstandards.TheStaffReportclaimsthatthislimitationisinplacetoavoidpossible80%FARratios,butnoduplexinCupertinohasthisratio.ThereisnoreasontolimitFARduetoahypotheticalfearofexpansion;● Expandthe40%lotcoveragemaximum;● Reexaminetheinteriorsidesetbackminimumsandimplementa5feetminimumasopposedto12;● Eliminateparkingstandardsforprincipaldwellingunits.Astheyarecurrently, muchoftherestrictionsleavenoroomforanactualdwellingunit;allthisroomismadeforcars.Councilshouldremembertheirobligationtohousingindividuals,notcars,andmakeitsothatlotcoverageisdedicatedtolivingspaceforpeople.
Finally, Councilshouldprovideadditionaldirection(viarequestingstaff topartnerwithstakeholders,community-basedorganizations,developers,andhomeowners)inregardstostaff’srecommendedOrdinancetoadoptobjectivedevelopmentStandards.Theyshoulddosotoensurethatfuturedevelopmentstandardsemphasizeincreasedflexibilityandarchitecturalfreedom,asopposedtounnecessaryrestrictions.
ThankyouforyourconsiderationandefforttofosteraninclusiveandvibrantCupertino.
Sincerely,
GauriChawla
From: Debbie Timmers
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 7/2 Agenda (Rezoning: Item #7)
Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 1:14:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello, my name is Debra Timmers. I have been a resident of Cupertino for the past decade, and I love living here. I purchased a home with my daughter and son-in-law in 2014 and can personally attest to the scarcity of affordable housing in our city. The situation has become so dire that if I were, instead, to purchase today, I would be unable to, even with pooling my resources with my daughter and son-in-law, both of whom are PhD engineers in high-tech firms. I live in an area with multi-family housing, like ours, and our neighbors are wonderful. I can't imagine why anyone would want to limit residents like us.
This lack of affordable housing has a profound impact on our community. Each year, several families with children attending my grandsons' Cupertino public school are forced to relocate due to financial constraints. This not only disrupts friendships but also threatens the viability of our local elementary school, which could eventually face closure.
I express my gratitude to the staff for their proposed rezonings, which are essential for our Housing Element to achieve full compliance with the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). As stated in the April 10, 2024 letter from the HCD, our Housing Element will not be eligible for state certification if we do not rezone in a manner that encourages all types of housing.
2024-04-10 Letter from HCD. It is imperative that
Cupertino's zoning code does not perpetuate unnecessary and harmful restrictions. Failure to obtain certification would result in the loss of local control and impede access to potential grants.
I fully support the recommendations of Cupertino For All and urge the Council to adopt them. Removing the 5-story limit while retaining the existing 70-foot height limit for R-4 Zoning is crucial. Additionally, the Council should bolster Strategy HE 1.3.6 (The Missing Middle Program) and eliminate the proposed change in the definition of a duplex. Future development standards must prioritize flexibility and architectural design freedom rather than imposing unwarranted restrictions.
Thank you for your commitment and efforts in cultivating an environment that embraces diversity and enhances the vibrancy of our wonderful Cupertino community. Thank you, too, for your service and dedication.
.
Sincerely,
Debra Timmers
From: Yvonne Strom
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezoning Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 12:25:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council,
I am a homeowner in Cupertino, and I am very pleased to see rezoning moving forward with improvements for building much needed housing at all levels. Thanks to the staff, the planning commissioners, and everyone who has worked toward this important milestone so far.
In the spirit of not having to revisit rezoning again very soon, I hope you will implement the additional recommendations proposed by Cupertino For All. These are thoughtful, common sense zoning rules to allow design flexibility and avoid unintended incentives toward more expensive housing.
1. Remove the 5-story limit in R-4 zones, and rely only on the 70 foot height limit. As shown in
the Planning Commission discussion of this item, the city’s consultant described how the 5-story limit would foster development of amenity-rich high-density housing with units that have very high ceilings → That is code for expensive housing
2. Strengthen the Missing Middle Program (HE section 1.3.6) to allow flexibility to build more types of housing at all income levels. Specifically,
- Remove the change to the definition of a “duplex” in Section 19.08.030 - Eliminate minimum lot size requirements, and allow lot coverage up to 50% - Align side yard setbacks in R-2 zone to be consistent with R-1 rules - Remove the 55% FAR limitation
- Reduce parking requirements to 1 enclosed and 1 exposed per unit
3. To summarize, Council should provide additional direction to the City Staff so that future development standards err on the side of increased flexibility and architectural freedom rather than creating new or unnecessary restrictions.
Thank you again for your efforts toward rezoning in Cupertino and embracing the spirit of affirmatively furthering fair housing in our city.
Respectfully,
Yvonne Thorstenson
From: [email protected]
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Bring Cupertino Housing Element into full compliance Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 11:21:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the member of the City Council
I have been a resident of Cupertino since 1980. I support efforts to maintain Cupertino as a vibrant city open to resident of all incomes. As such, I am in support of bringing Cupertino’s Housing Element into full compliance with State Law. I appreciate the City Council’s and Planning Commission recent actions in this regard. The City Council has recently received a letter from Cupertino for All
describing specific, actionable changes that you, as policymakers, can enact to enhance our rezonings and ensure that state will ultimately accept them. I support the CFA recommendations and ask that you adopt them as your own.
Best regards
Tom Scannell
From: J Shearin
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Make sensible zoning changes to encourage more housing | City Council Agenda item # 7 Housing Element Rezonings (July 2, 2024)
Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 11:00:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Honorable Mayor Mohan, City Councilmembers, and City Manager Wu:
My family and I have rented our home here in Cupertino for the past 15 years and are looking for long-term housing here. As such, I hope you consider my viewpoint as someone who is deeply invested in Cupertino’s Housing Element plan for building 4500 homes over the next eight years.
This cycle’s Housing Element has given a sense of hope for all those who wish for housing here in Cupertino that it will be built soon.
First, I want to say thank you as I appreciate all the work done by the City Council and city staff to get us to this point.
There still some needed small zoning changes that need to be made to offer greater inclusion and encourage more housing. The minor zoning changes (tweaks, really) are a personal issue for many current residents including myself, not just lines in a zoning document that don’t have real world implications. My daughter, for example, who lives with us right now, could really use a small duplex to move into, which there are no where near enough supply today in Cupertino. My husband and I would really like to retire into a small condo or one side of a duplex ourselves. These are housing options that are just not very available here in Cupertino, and have a lot of demand. Making these changes could make real and discernible change.
Overall, I have read the Cupertino for All recommendations to the Council and support them. I urge you to adopt them.
I am personally most concerned about the following changes which will encourage more duplexes to be built or converted. These are commonsense changes that should be made to the zoning changes. Specifically:
Eliminating the 55% Floor Area Ratio for R-2 homes, as other constraints will work without it for lot coverage.
Eliminating the requirement that homes in a duplex are equal size (within 200 sq ft), which reduces flexibility for homeowners considering subdividing or those planning to build for families of all
sizes. This requirement will discourage building of duplexes in favor of large single family homes with small ADUs instead.
Allowing 5 foot setbacks on the sides of R-2 duplexes, like R-1 zoning. (The Cupertino For All recommendation is to “reexamine the interior side setback minimums “ and I am in favor of this as long as it is no smaller than 5 feet.) This is sensible and keeps neighborhood consistency.
Eliminating the minimum lot requirement for R-2 homes. As long as it meets all our other standards, we should not be constraining building new homes in this way.
Eliminating the requirement to have more than 1 interior parking space per side of the duplex, and 1 exterior parking space. Land space should be for people to live on, not as concrete parking which may or may not be ever used.
This has been a long road but the end is in sight with these zoning changes. We need to make sure that we pass these final ‘hurdles’ that HCD is looking for, so that we can get final approval which sticks for our Housing Element. Thank you for considering my input today. I urge you to encourage more housing by making these changes!
Best Wishes,
Jennifer Shearin
-----------------------------------
This message is from my personal email account. I am only writing as myself, not as a representative or spokesperson for any other organization.
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Elimination of Parking in Cupertino in Agenda Item 7 (City Council 4/2/24) Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 1:00:24 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
I am very concerned about the city trying to reduce or eliminate parking in the city of Cupertino in Item Number 7 of the Cupertino City Council Meeting Agenda in 7/2/24.
Number 7 cites AB 2097 by Assemblymember Laura Friedman. I have disagreed with AB 2097 since the day it was put forward by Laura Friedman in 2022 and signed by Governor Newsom. The public in California never had any ability to vote on whether they agreed with This preposterous bill.
I think this bill is discriminatory toward people who do not walk well. It is an egotistical, judgemental and Snobby bill which ignores anyone in the public who has difficulty moving or does not agree With the premise of the bill which is to eliminate the use of cars.
No one gave the public the ability to disagree with this nasty bill in 2022 so people are Having to do it now that HCD is putting Missing Middle in Cupertino's Housing Element.
I think AB 2097 is wrong and I think Missing Middle is wrong. This bill and this dogma of Missing Middle have no right to restrict the parking in Cupertino. Why are they doing this? To make builders not have to provide parking since it makes it too expensive for them To build. This is just a free ride that Ms Friedman is giving her developer friends who Paid for her bill. She didn't seem to ask anyone else in the state. She just did pay to Play. You give me the money and I will write you a bill so you don't have to provide parking.
Parking should be provided in abundance in Cupertino. If someone thinks New York City Transit Is so great, that person should probably move to New York and use it, rather than whine And complain and accuse California of not being like New York. These people do not seem To understand the history of the Bay Area in California. The Bay Area was a rural agricultural Area with orchards. It was developed as an agricultural area. It is not New York. Anyone who Does not understand this needs to go back and look at the history of the Bay Area in California or indeed the whole state.
Some of the statements made about how California should be like New York are truly astounding. They are really illogical and show a lack of understanding or comprehension of California or its history. In fact they Make blanket judgements about the people who live in California that are truly disrespectful and Vicious.
Please do not allow the parking in Cupertino to be reduced as Item Number 7 of the City Council Agenda from the 7/2/24 City Council Meeting is trying to do. Please do not Assume this is the will of the people of Cupertino. Please do assume AB 2097 is the Will of the people of Cupertino or even those of the people of California. We never got A chance to vote on AB 2097 and we don't seem to be getting a vote in this Missing Middle Dogma being inserted into the Housing Element, especially when groups pushing Missing Middle Dogma like Yimby Law have interfered in our city's Housing Element already.
The reduction of parking in Cupertino also affects who I choose to vote for in City Council In November, 2024 as well as who I vote for elected offices in the state and who I vote For governor in the future and who I will even vote for president in 2028 because I will not Vote for our current governor for president since he signed AB 2097 into law in the First place.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Christine Cheng
To: City Clerk; City Council; Pamela Wu; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly Subject: No higher density or overdevelopment please!
Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 9:17:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Christine Cheng and family
Cupertino residents and voters
From: Deepak Balasubramaniam
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Please pass the HCD approved Housing Element Proposal draft without delay! Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 6:40:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Deepak Balasubramaniam
Cupertino resident and voter
From: Uma Krishnan
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: *Urgent call to action. *
Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 6:28:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Uma Krishnan
Cupertino resident and voter
From: Bikram Srivastava
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Re: Cupertino housing element draft and rezoning Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 3:35:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Bikram Srivastava
Cupertino resident and voter
From: Xiangchen Xu
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Please keep the drafted Housing Elements
Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 3:34:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Councilmembers, I am writing to express my support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Please keep my email in record. Thank you!
Sincerely yours,
Xiangchen
From: Sunil Malkani
To: Pamela Wu; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Council; City Clerk Subject: Housing Element Proposal
Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 3:04:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Sunil Malkani
Cupertino resident and voter
--
Sunil Malkani
From: Ashwin Krishnan
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Urgent call to action Cupertino council members Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 2:52:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Ashwin Krishnan,
Cupertino resident and voter
From: Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Cupertino Housing Draft and Rezoning
Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 2:06:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Yuva Athur
Cupertino resident and voter
From: Jay S
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Support for Maintaining Current Housing Element Draft and Rezoning Proposal Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 1:30:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter.
This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Jayshri Yadwadkar
Cupertino resident and voter
408-888-1543(c)
==
From: S B
To: City Council; City Clerk; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu Subject: Full support for the housing element
Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 1:14:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter.
This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Sashi Begur
Cupertino resident and voter
Sent from my iPhone
From: Deepa Mahendraker
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Regarding proposed housing element draft and re-zoning Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 12:54:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes.
Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Deepa Mahendraker
Cupertino resident and voter
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Tina Kapoor; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her) Cc: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Please leave housing element as is
Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 11:46:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Manager Wu,
The Housing Element has been an arduous overly-long expensive process.
Please, we’re near the finish line, let’s get it done.
Through multiple roadblocks and delays, Assistant Director of Community Development Luke Connolly has deftly managed to usher the housing element toward compliance.
I am grateful for the Planning Department’s hard work.
I was dismayed to watch the Planning Commission meeting where commissioners proposed to further loosen our zoning rules.
The impacts of the Housing Element are already drastic – let’s please not make it worse and let’s please expedite its completion.
The City gave up CEQA to expedite the Housing Element, let’s not delay it any further.
We are already experiencing a reduced quality of life through the City’s densification.
Please do not add more density, reduce parking or increase building heights to our zoning. - Ever since 9 homes replaced a church at the end of my street, I get a nasty sewer smell in my front yard and cannot open the windows that face the street on a hot day. - I can’t imagine what further densification could do on my street - infrastructure is being overwhelmed and parking is becoming hard to find.
- Taller buildings are also making it harder to add solar and reduce what little privacy we have
Presently, the State does not allow down-zoning.
Please, let’s live with our housing element and new zoning rules for a few years before making any more changes.
With Gratitude,
Rhoda Fry, 40+ year Cupertino Resident
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From: Ravi Kiran Singh
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Support for Maintaining Current Housing Element Draft and Rezoning Proposal Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 10:50:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I'm writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. I urge you to maintain the current proposal, which has already received HCD approval, and avoid making significant changes that could jeopardize the housing element and Builders Remedy.
I believe it's crucial to balance new housing with preserving our community's character and existing standards. I request that you:
- Maintain the 5-story limit in R-4 zones
- Retain the 55% FAR limitation
- Keep the current definition of a duplex
- Preserve existing parking requirements
- Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements - Retain existing interior side yard setbacks
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ravi Kiran Singh
Cupertino resident and voter
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Support for Maintaining Current Housing Element Draft and Rezoning Proposal. Please do NOT make further changes.
Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 10:15:37 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include my letter below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting.
Thank you for your excellent contributions on and off Dias and your service to the city. We appreciate your great work.
Thanks,
Santosh Rao
Begin forwarded message:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2024, 10:12 AM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council,
I am writing to express my full support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh.
Please do NOT make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes.
This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional last minute changes from unqualified zealots who second guess our very capable and experienced Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh in the last minute. They do not understand the unique needs of our community. Now is NOT the time for late breaking changes risking another round of reviews and increasing our exposure to builders remedy.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards.
Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid
complications in design and development processes.
Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure
sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and
needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without
compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address housing needs and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my voting decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Santosh Rao
Cupertino resident, US citizen and US voter
Working in Cupertino since 1998
Living in Cupertino since 2015
From: Abdullah Enes Kut
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 2:34:44 PM
Attachments: Housing Element Rezoning Recommendations - Abdullah Enes Kut.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Afternoon
I hope this email finds you well. I am Abdullah Enes Kut, an inhabitant and student of the city of Cupertino, who wishes to pioneer a positive impact for the community at large. Attached below, please find a recommendation letter with proposed policies towards the inclusivity, affordability and accessibility of the housing element of the city of Cupertino, which risks ineligibility from state certification at this time. Mutual effort, and the recommendations proposed by the CFA, map out a detailed plan to overcome this barrier, to which I urge your attention.
Thank you for your positive work towards the city we call home, and for considering our request towards a better Cupertino, for all.
Sincerely,
Abdullah Enes Kut
TotheCupertinoCityCouncil:
I hopethisletterfindsyouwell.MynameisAbdullahEnesKut.I amaresident,studentandworkeratCupertino.TheHousingElementisacommendableprojectthatI amenthusiastictosupport,especiallyifitisstrengthenedbythisCounciltofullybolsteraffordablehousingprojects.Inthisletter, I wouldliketoaddressprevioussuccesses,aswellasproposeandpromotebetterpolicies,tostrengthentheinclusivity, affordabilityandaccessibilityofhousinginCupertinoasanentity.
I wouldliketothankStaff fortheirproposedrezonings,whicharenecessaryforourHousingElementtoachievefullcompliancewithHCD.OurHousingElementwillnolongerbeeligibleforstatecertificationifwedonotapproachourrezoningsinamannerthatencouragesalltypesofhousing.Wecannotstandbyandwatchunnecessary, harmfulrestrictionscharacterizeCupertino’szoningcode.
CouncilhasreceivedaletterfromCupertinoforAlldescribingspecific,actionablechangesthatthey, aspolicymakers,canenacttoenhanceourrezoningsandensurethatHCDwillultimatelyacceptthem.IfullysupporttheCFArecommendationsandaskthatyouadoptthemasyourown.
I wouldliketotakeamomenttohighlightthefollowingrecommendationswhichensurethatourHousingElementissuccessfulinfullyansweringtherequirementsofstatelawtoaffirmativelyfurtherfairhousing.
First,Councilmustremovethe5-storylimit,relyingonlyonthe70footheightlimit(whichisalreadyinplace)forR-4Zoning.Thiswill:
● Allowforgreaterflexibilitytoarchitectsdesigninghousingofdifferentformsfordifferentpopulationsatdifferentincomelevels;● Grantarchitectsmorefreedomtodesignhousingtypologiesofvaryingtypesandforvaryingincomeswithoutforcingdeveloperstorelyonstate-lawworkaroundsliketheDensityBonusLaw.
Ournewcodesshouldreflectstatelawrequirementstosupportarangeofhousingacrossdifferentincomelevels.The5-storylimitisanunnecessarylimitthatpushesdeveloperstowardmoreexpensivehousingforms,whichiscontrarytothegeneralthrustofHousingElementLaw,HCDguidance,andaffirmativelyfurtheringfairhousingprinciples.
Moreover, CouncilshouldstrengthentheStrategyHE1.3.6(TheMissingMiddleProgram).RevisionsintheDecember2023submissionoftheHousingElementchangedthisstrategyfrom allowingfour-unitdevelopmentsunderR-3standards,whichweredesignedforsmallapartmentbuildings,toinsteadallowingdevelopmentunderthecity’shighlyrestrictiveR-2standards.
TofullyenabletheStrategytoworkasitisintendedto,thenewduplexoverlaymustbemuchmoreflexiblethanwhatiscurrentlyproposed.Inparticular, Councilshould:
● Removethechangeinthedefinitionofaduplex,whichrequiresprincipaldwellingunitstobenomorethan200squarefeetdifferentfromeachother;○ Accordingtothestaff report,thechangewasmeanttodefinecomparablesizedunits,but,inreality, distortstheMissingMiddleProgram.Councilcanandshouldeliminatethisproposedstandard;● Removethe55%FARlimitation;● Expandthe40%lotcoveragemaximum;● Reexaminetheinteriorsidesetbackminimums.
Finally, Councilshouldprovideadditionaldirection(viarequestingstaff topartnerwithstakeholders,community-basedorganizations,developers,andhomeowners)inregardstostaff’srecommendedOrdinancetoadoptobjectivedevelopmentStandards.Theyshoulddosotoensurethatfuturedevelopmentstandardsemphasizeincreasedflexibilityandarchitecturalfreedom,asopposedtounnecessaryrestrictions.
ThankyouforyourconsiderationandefforttofosteraninclusiveandvibrantCupertino.
Sincerely,AbdullahEnesKut
From: susan chen
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Stop adding more aggressive items to the Housing Elements Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 3:22:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to ask that you please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Susan Chen,
Cupertino citizen
From: Sean Hughes
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 3:27:13 PM
Attachments: Council_Comment-Hughes-DraftMCA-07.02.24_.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I would like to the submit the attached document as comment for Agenda Item 7 in tomorrow's Council Meeting.
Thank you,
Sean
Re: For Public Comment (7/2) on Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings To Cupertino’s City Council:
My name is Jun-Xiong (Sean) Hughes, and I am a former resident in Cupertino; I grew up and went to school here, and also lived here from 2019 through the most of the 2020 COVID pandemic. I moved away, in large-part due to a lack of affordable housing, and have followed the Housing Element process with interest given the implications it has for Cupertino’s inclusivity and climate change policies.
I appreciate the staff’s work and changes to the municipal code amendments, in particular the increase to 85% Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) requirement in the Townhome (TH) combining district, the consideration of Cupertino for All’s letter within the staff report and the suggested amendments for Council consideration. I hope the Council can adopt many of these amendments, as the current proposal without amendments appears inadequate to successfully achieve the goals and requirements of our Housing Element (HE). Furthermore, I hope that additional changes could be beneficial for creating a development environment that is more open, more beneficial to the City, and more supportive of the HE goals around affordability and inclusion of current and future residents.
In the past, Cupertino- not unlike many other cities across the country- have purposefully or inadvertently made the development of diverse housing opportunities difficult or logistically improbable by a myriad of arbitrary and restrictive zoning codes and housing policies. With these amendments, Cupertino has a rare opportunity to build a better “outline” for this City’s development. I hope to see the following:
● Align code amendments to support, not frustrate, the stated purpose of Strategy HE-1.3.6: Encourage Missing-Middle Housing Developments to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.
○ As outlined in previous drafts, this strategy should open up historically exclusive neighborhoods to a diverse range of residents, enhancing our community’s strength through diversity and building a more stable and sustainable community. Amendments should be considered in this context, and efforts should be made to avoid diluting the effectiveness of programs like this one.
○ For example, to my understanding the 55% floor-area ratio requirement in the R-2 “overlay” (Part K. in Section 19.28.040, Permits required for development in Single-Family Zones) is a new restriction that goes beyond the underlying R-2 standard. This new restriction seems randomly instituted, limits the effectiveness of this “overlay” policy within the missing-middle strategy 1.3.6, and will likely restrict the type of buildings possible in a zone with already smaller lots. ○ Additionally, the change to the definition of a “duplex” in the “Definitions” (Section 19.08.030), creates a 200-foot distance requirement between primary dwelling units. The staff report for the July 2, 2024 Council meeting acknowledges that this “may create legal non-conforming structures within R2”, and states that this standard was created to have an objective standard for comparable units, and dissuade the development of “very large single-family homes with attached ADU”. While the possibility of very large single-family home with an attached ADU is not preferable to a duplex development from a affordability and unit volume perspective, there are other policy mechanisms and programs that could dissuade or persuade the development of duplexes, rather than legislating through the zoning code in a way that may create net-new problems.
○ Given the importance of AFFH compliance within the HE, staff and the City should consider removing the additional FAR requirement on R-2 (Duplex) “overlay” standards and align the “overlay” standards with the underlying R-2 standards instead of adding new requirements, to ensure the success of Strategy 1.3.6 rather than undercutting its scope and effectiveness.
● Re-evaluate parking standards in all zones with consideration of commitments made in the Climate Action Plan Update 2.0 in 2023, and in consideration of neighboring jurisdictions who have gone further and created parking maximums rather than minimum requirements.
○ I support calls to reduce parking minimums, but given neighboring jurisdiction policies and the desire for Cupertino to be a leader in climate action and improve walkability, there should be consideration of the removal or implementation of maximums rather than parking minimums.
● Review and consider lowering all setback requirements within the R-3 and R-4 zones; especially the additional “upper-floor” setbacks. ○ These standards do not seem necessary for building integrity or success of a project, as other cities and neighborhood examples demonstrate otherwise. (See example below, or this lot for a townhome example of a project with high lot coverage, making use of a small lot). ○ Some discussion in the staff report regarding the TH district suggests that expanded lot coverage would not be “sustainable” or in-line with “urban heat island” goals - suggesting that it would not be possible for lots to have space for mature trees. However, the trade-off of more desirable or feasible townhomes on smaller plots of land seem much more sustainable or climate action forward than the trade-off of having a mature tree on every single TH lot. Without even mentioning that there are other ways of greening or cooling a space, it is worth considering how higher density developments would likely have a much greater environmental impact than latching onto an idea that a mature tree on every lot is the only way to design a home with less urban heat-island impacts. In short, concepts of “gray” vs. “green” environmentalism should be considered when deliberating trade-offs, especially in districts directly adjacent to medium to very high-density developments.
● For R-4 zones in particular:
○ Remove the five-story restriction
○ Consider a higher, or removal altogether, of a height limit in R-4 zones ○ Re-consider the “stair-stepped” or upper floor setback requirements to a more reasonable number like 8 feet, and remove the additional 10 foot requirement if adjacent to primary residential zones (which could be R-3 or TH zones anyways)
○ Remove or expand the maximum lot coverage restriction to 70 or 80 percent of net lot area
In particular, the R-4 zone is rather disappointing. My understanding is that the R-4 zone is supposed to be one of our most ambitious zoning districts meant to support “high to very-high” density development. However the restrictions here don’t seem very ambitious nor helpful, and may actively limit the quality of developments and housing opportunities we could have on our already very limited sites. There was discussion in the last planning commission meeting that the reference to a five-story restriction was for a) layman’s understanding and b) could encourage development of mixed-use buildings. However, code amendments have legal implications so the layman’s understanding is of lesser importance than the highly prescriptive and restrictive nature of the five-story limit, and we did not see any evidence to support the idea why the presence of a five-story limit would be any less supportive of mixed-use development than the absence of a limit in the code. In the staff report, there was discussion that the story / height limit was based on developer surveys and feedback, but it is difficult to comprehend how no limit or a higher limit would be detrimental to developments in the supposedly most ambitious zoning district in the City. Cupertino is home to one of the most profitable companies in the world, and constraining future development to modest heights barely taller than the “Main Street Cupertino” development seems baffling and not very sustainable from a climate action perspective.
Furthermore, real-world projects raise questions of the value of many of these restrictions. For example, I currently reside in Ballard, a neighborhood in Seattle: this development in Ballard ( 2318 NW MARKET ST 98107 ) is on ~50,000 sq. ft lot with nearly 80% lot coverage, height at 75 feet (retail 14, apartment levels 10), setbacks (above 45 ft: 10 feet (avg), above 65 ft: 15 feet (avg)) meet zoning requirements of 8 feet from front lot line, and the project has less than 250 units. This project is not the tallest building in the neighborhood and is relatively modest in size, and while I understand the development environment is different between here and Cupertino, the point is that this type of project seems illegal to build when considered against the proposed R-4 standards. This seems significantly counter-intuitive toward the stated purpose of this new zone and meeting our HE goals.
Thank you for your consideration and continued work.
Regards,
Sean Hughes
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]; City Clerk
Subject: Missing Middle in the Housing Element
Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 3:42:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
Why are we putting Missing Middle in our Housing Element? It has no place in the Housing Element. All these yimby groups are demanding we put Missing Middle in our Housing Element. Yimby Law is demanding we put Missing Middle in our Housing Element. These Pay to Play groups are all getting money from unknown sources and trying to take over Our Housing Element. They are demanding we do this and that and rezone this and That. Who are these people? Where did they get the money from to do this? Is this like Forever California where groups or PACs with money from who knows where are Going to take over all the land and cities in California? This money may be coming From outside of the country. Are they just going to take over every city and elected position in the state?
Why doesn't the governor confront Missing Middle for what it is: Money from anarchists And Communist sources. It has no place in our Housing Element or cities. Please Protect our city from these things bad money is trying to buy.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Missing Middle in the Housing Element
Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 3:43:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
FYI. Please add these comments as public comments for Agenda Item Number 7 in The 7/2/24 City Council meeting. Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Missing Middle in the Housing Element
From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024, 3:41 PM
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected],[email protected]
Dear City Council:
Why are we putting Missing Middle in our Housing Element? It has no place in the Housing Element. All these yimby groups are demanding we put Missing Middle in our Housing Element. Yimby Law is demanding we put Missing Middle in our Housing Element. These Pay to Play groups are all getting money from unknown sources and trying to take over Our Housing Element. They are demanding we do this and that and rezone this and That. Who are these people? Where did they get the money from to do this? Is this like Forever California where groups or PACs with money from who knows where are Going to take over all the land and cities in California? This money may be coming From outside of the country. Are they just going to take over every city and elected position in the state?
Why doesn't the governor confront Missing Middle for what it is: Money from anarchists And Communist sources. It has no place in our Housing Element or cities. Please Protect our city from these things bad money is trying to buy.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From: John Zhao
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 3:47:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
I am writing to you in my capacity as an individual, not as a member of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission. I am a renter living with my family in Cupertino.
I am happy to see the progress that the City has made on the Housing Element, though this Council has an important opportunity to strengthen the plan to more effectively pursue affordable housing and sound planning for the future of our community.
I would like to thank Staff for their proposed rezonings, which are necessary for our Housing Element to achieve full compliance with HCD. Our Housing Element will no longer be eligible for state certification if we do not rezone to allow for a diversity of types of homes, including duplexes, fourplexes, and multi- story multi-family housing units. Unnecessary zoning restrictions in the city's zoning code will only hamper our ability to plan for an inclusive, vibrant community.
Council has received a letter from Cupertino for All describing specific, actionable changes that they, as policymakers, can enact to enhance our rezonings and ensure that HCD will ultimately accept them. I fully support the CFA recommendations and ask that you adopt them as your own.
I would like to take a moment to highlight the following recommendations which ensure that our Housing Element is successful in fully answering the requirements of state law to affirmatively further fair housing.
First, Council must remove the 5-story limit, relying only on the 70 foot height limit (which is already in place) for R-4 Zoning. This will:
Allow for greater flexibility to architects designing housing of different forms for different populations at different income levels;
Grant architects more freedom to design housing typologies of varying types and for varying incomes without forcing developers to rely on state-law workarounds like the Density Bonus Law.
Our new codes should reflect state law requirements to support a range of housing across different income levels. The 5-story limit is an unnecessary limit that pushes developers toward more expensive housing forms, which is contrary to the general thrust of Housing Element Law, HCD guidance, and affirmatively furthering fair housing principles.
Moreover, Council should strengthen the Strategy HE 1.3.6 (The Missing Middle Program).
Revisions in the December 2023 submission of the Housing Element changed this strategy from allowing four-unit developments under R-3 standards, which were designed for small apartment buildings, to instead allowing development under the city’s highly restrictive R-2 standards.
To fully enable the Strategy to work as it is intended to, the new duplex overlay must be much more flexible than what is currently proposed. In particular, Council should:
Remove the change in the definition of a duplex, which requires principal dwelling units to be no more than 200 square feet different from each other;
According to the staff report, the change was meant to define comparable sized units, but, in reality, distorts the Missing Middle Program. Council can and should eliminate this proposed standard;
Remove the 55% FAR limitation;
Expand the 40% lot coverage maximum;
Reexamine the interior side setback minimums.
Third, Council should provide additional direction (via requesting staff to partner with stakeholders, community-based organizations, developers, and homeowners) in regards to staff’s recommended Ordinance to adopt objective development Standards. They should do so to ensure that future development standards emphasize increased flexibility and architectural freedom, as opposed to unnecessary restrictions. In general, across different zoning types, the City should reconsider the purpose of FAR, setbacks, and parking standards. These zoning tools currently lead to sprawled suburban design, with seas of parking lots and architecture that is hostile to non- automobile users. This leads to an unpleasant experience for all involved, especially for pedestrians and active transportation users. Reconsidering these restrictive requirements - especially for R2, R3, and R4 zoning - would enable us to plan for a city that actually centers people's experiences over automobiles. There is a reason why some people are so drawn to indoor malls -- it's because (to some degree) they are a snippet of what an actually walkable and human-centered (sub)urban experience can feel like. Rather than keeping that design isolated in a moat of parking lots, why not actually integrate it into our cityscape? Thank you for your consideration and effort to foster an inclusive and vibrant Cupertino.
Sincerely,
John Zhao
representing myself only
Commissioner, Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Commission
From: Swim5am (Connie Cunningham)
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2024-7-2 City Council Agenda Item 7 Rezoning for Housing Element Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 3:49:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Chair Mohan, Vice Chair Fruen and Councilmembers, My name is Connie Cunningham,
Chair, Housing Commission, self only, homeowner
I have lived here 37 years. Both my step-children attended local elementary, middle schools and high schools. After college, they each chose to move away from Cupertino because the cost of homes was too high. That was in the early 1990’s. The situation is worse now for our children who live in Cupertino through high school, but are forced to live elsewhere afterwards.
Thank you for adopting the Housing Element in May! The Housing Element is a commendable project that I am enthusiastic to support, especially if it is strengthened by this Council to fully bolster affordable housing projects.
I would like to thank Staff for their proposed rezonings, which are necessary for our Housing Element to achieve full compliance with HCD. Our Housing Element will no longer be eligible for state certification if we do not approach our rezonings in a manner that encourages all types of housing. We cannot stand by and watch unnecessary, harmful restrictions characterize Cupertino’s zoning code.
I like many of the rezoning topics, especially:
New Chapter 19.38 that includes universal design standards for people of all ages and abilities, as well as standards for the maintenance of common open spaces and landscaping.
New Chapter 19.50 Emergency Shelters: State Law AB 2339 One point I would like to emphasize and agree with is the Staff Comment on Page 7 of their Staff Report, dealing with the TH Combining District.
Eliminating the lot coverage standard
could allow developments to occur with limited
areas for landscaping. This would be contrary to many of the City’s policies related to urban heat island effect, sustainability, and maintaining an urban tree canopy. Staff recommends retaining the lot coverage standard
to ensure that there continue to be
opportunities to plant trees that can attain a substantial stature at maturity and will be in a more appropriate scale for projects that are more urban in nature.
It is important to provide not only homes, but other protections like these, that are designed for all residents.
Council has received a letter from Cupertino for All describing specific, actionable changes that they, as policymakers, can enact to enhance our rezonings and ensure that HCD will ultimately accept them. I fully support the CFA recommendations and ask that you adopt them as your own.
I would, also, like to take a moment to highlight the following recommendations which ensure that our Housing Element is successful in fully answering the requirements of state law to affirmatively further fair housing.
First, Council must remove the 5-story limit, relying only on the 70 foot height limit (which is already in place) for R-4 Zoning. This will:
Allow for greater flexibility to architects designing housing of different forms for different populations at different income levels;
Grant architects more freedom to design housing typologies of varying types and for varying incomes without forcing developers to rely on state-law workarounds like the Density Bonus Law.
Our new codes should reflect state law requirements to support a range of housing across different income levels. The 5-story limit is an unnecessary limit that pushes developers toward more expensive housing forms, which is contrary to the general thrust of Housing Element Law, HCD guidance, and affirmatively furthering fair housing principles.
Moreover, Council should strengthen the Strategy HE 1.3.6 (The Missing Middle Program).
Revisions in the December 2023 submission of the Housing Element changed this strategy from allowing four-unit developments under R-3 standards, which were designed for small apartment buildings, to instead allowing development under the city’s highly restrictive R-2 standards.
To fully enable the Strategy to work as it is intended to, the new duplex overlay must be much more flexible than what is currently proposed. In particular, Council should:
Remove the change in the definition of a duplex, which requires principal dwelling units to be no more than 200 square feet different from each other; According to the staff report, the change was meant to define comparable sized units, but, in reality, distorts the Missing Middle Program. Council can and should eliminate this proposed standard;
Remove the 55% FAR limitation;
Expand the 40% lot coverage maximum;
Reexamine the interior side setback minimums.
Finally, Council should provide additional direction (via requesting staff to partner with stakeholders, community-based organizations, developers, and homeowners) in regards to staff’s recommended Ordinance to adopt objective development Standards. They should do so to ensure that future development standards emphasize increased flexibility and architectural freedom, as opposed to unnecessary restrictions.
Thank you for your consideration and effort to foster an inclusive and vibrant Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Connie L. Cunningham
……………………………….
Connie Cunningham
From: Kamyab Mashian
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Proposed Rezonings
Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 3:50:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the Cupertino City Council:
My name is Kamyab Mashian. I am a former resident of Cupertino, and I hope to be able to return, so I have remained actively involved in the community.
I am writing to address the proposed rezonings. In the Housing Element, Cupertino finally committed to a realistic path towards getting enough homes for everyone in the community. I appreciate the work that staff put into implementing the Housing Element through the rezoning, but (like many members of the community) I had some concerns about the initial proposal. I therefore urge the City Council to implement the changes proposed by Cupertino For All in their letter to staff.
One of these proposed changes would be to drop the 5-floor limit on R-4 zoning. The "five- over-one" construction style is at its most cost-effective for 6- or 7-floor buildings, so builders should be given flexibility to build those kinds of homes. The existing 70' limit already does more than enough to limit overly tall structures. By limiting apartments to both 70' but also 5 floors, we would only be encouraging more high-ceiling luxury development, rather than the more attainable homes that Cupertino so desperately needs.
I also strongly support Cupertino For All's recommendations for strategy HE 1.3.6. These changes will prevent builders from being needlessly hamstrung, and allow the "missing middle" housing our community needs to actually get built.
I hope you will take these recommendations into account at tomorrow's meeting, which I will be following closely. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kamyab Mashian (he/him)
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 295-4360
From: Sandhana Siva
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Rezoning and Housing Element
Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 3:52:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council,
My name is Sandhana Siva. I am a resident of the Rancho RInconada neighborhood of Cupertino. I am a rising freshman at San Jose State University hoping to study Geography, Urban planning, and ecology/Environmental Science. I am happy to support the Housing Element, and I will be even more excited if the city council has support to fully bolster the supply of affordable housing projects. Furtherly, being an urbanist and environmentalist I strongly believe that the housing element will push Cupertino further away from sprawling into open space areas such as the vast grasslands and oak savannas and woodlands found in the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, Rancho San Antonio, and Mclellan Ranch Preserve which is important for groundwater percolation and storage, wildlife linkage and migration and gene transfer, flood protection, carbon sequestration, and wildfire and heat hazard buffer. I am also a young person who would love to live in a multifamily home in Cupertino in the future, so including more affordable housing would be perfect.
I would like to thank the staff for their rezonings, which are necessary for the Housing Element to be in compliance with the department of Housing and Community Development’s new policies on affirmatively furthering fair housing. Our Housing Element will no longer be eligible for state certification if we do not approach our rezonings in a manner that encourages all types of housing. We cannot stand by and watch unnecessary, harmful restrictions characterize Cupertino’s zoning code.
The Council has received letters from Cupertino For All describing specific, actionable changes that you as policymakers, to enhance rezonings to be in compliance with HCD. I fully support Cupertino For All’s proposed changes and recommendations and ask that you also accept it.
I would like to take a moment to go over the recommendations put forth by Cupertino For All to ensure that our Housing Element successfully furthers fair housing.
1. Council must remove the 5 story limit, and rely only on the 70 ft height limit for the R4 zoning district which will allow for greater flexibility for architects in designing housing for people of different backgrounds without forcing developers to work around state laws such as the density bonus law.
2. Council should strengthen HE 1.3.6 (The Missing Middle Program). To fully enable this strategy, council must remove the change in definition of a duplex which require principle dwelling units to be no more than 200 square feet different from eachother.
They should also remove the 55% floor area ratio restriction, expand the 40% lot coverage maximum, and reexamine interior side setback minimums. There should also only be 1 parking space per dwelling unit to reserve more area for living space rather than cars.
Finally, Council should provide additional direction (via requesting staff to partner with stakeholders, community-based organizations, developers, and homeowners) in regards to staff’s recommended Ordinance to adopt objective development Standards. They should do so to ensure that future development standards emphasize increased flexibility and architectural freedom, as opposed to unnecessary restrictions.
Thank you for your consideration and effort to foster an inclusive and vibrant Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Sandhana Siva
From: Jean Bedord
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item #7: Rezoning for Housing Element Rezoning - Public Comment Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 3:56:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Mayor Sheila Mohan, Vice-Mayor J.R. Fruen, Councilmembers Hug Wei, Liang Chao and Kitty Moore, and staff
Thank you for all the hard work to thoughtfully develop a set of zoning modifications to ensure compliance with the Housing Element that was approved by HCD, It's critical for council to approve these tonight so the city will belatedly have final approval, and forstall builders remedy projects, thus gaining more control over local land use development, rather than ceding to state control. I support the following:
* Allowing duplexes on corner lots and lots abutting commercial corridors in r-1 zones. is a sensible recommendation. Given the abysmal turnover of properties in Cupertino and having to teardown an existing structure, this policy will have relatively low impact on neighborhoods. Every bit counts in reaching RHNA numbers. * Reducing the parking requirements to 4 spaces total for duplexes in the R-1 zoning district.
It makes no sense to require 6 parking spaces for the same lot that would have 4 spaces for a single family house.
* Increasing the FAR coverage to 85% encourages varied unit sizes and taller structures, allowing vegetation on the lower level.
* Remove the 200 sq. ft. requirement for duplexes because it would create legal non- conforming structures within the R-2 district. It's OK to be more flexible and see whether the hypothetical staff concerns regarding size of units actually occur. Usually they don't and should they occur, can be addressed in the future.
In general, I support the recommendations of the Cupertino For All housing advocacy group.
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
Long time resident and City Council Observer
From: louise saadati (via Google Docs)
To: City Clerk
Cc: City Council
Subject: Letter City Council 7/1/24
Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 3:56:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
louise saadati attached a document
louise saadati ([email protected]) has attached the
following document:
Public Comment for 7/2/24 Item 7 Housing Element
Letter City Council 7/1/24
Snapshot of the item below:
To the Cupertino City Council:
My name is Louise Saadati. I have been a homeowner and resident in Cupertino for over 38 years. I would like to see Cupertino to have smart development that will enable our community to grow to include fuller range of residents adult including our children, workers including wider range of income a chance of living in Cupertino.
Thank you to the Council for adopting the new Housing Element in May, which puts Cupertino on the path to greater inclusion and affordability.
Thank you to the staff for the proposed rezonings to achieve full compliance.
Rezonings are to keep the Housing Element in compliance with state law; without these rezonings, our Housing Element will no longer be eligible for state certification
There’s a lot to be commended in this document, especially the creation of the townhome combining district.
However, there’s a handful of key points that should be addressed to ensure that this Housing Element is successful and fully answers the requirements of state law to affirmatively further fair housing in particular.
I am 1000% in favor of our Housing Element to be successfully achieved. I would like the council to support rezoning that would enable the Housing Element to be achieved smoothly and efficiently. Please do not allow rezonings which would inhibit and hinder the Housing Element’s successful completion.
Council has received a letter from Cupertino for All describing specific, actionable changes that they, as policymakers, can enact to enhance our rezonings and ensure that HCD will ultimately accept them. I fully support the CFA recommendations and ask that you adopt them as your own.
The following are a few highlights of the CFA recommendations that are critical to the success of our Housing Element.
First, Council must remove the 5-story limit, relying only on the 70 foot height limit (which is already in place) for R-4 Zoning.
Our new codes should reflect state law requirements to support a range of housing across different income levels. The 5-story limit is an unnecessary limit that pushes developers toward more expensive housing forms, which is contrary to the Housing Element Law, HCD guidance, and affirmatively furthering fair housing principles.
The Council should strengthen the Strategy HE 1.3.6 (The Missing Middle Program). Revisions in the December 2023 submission of the Housing Element changed this strategy from allowing four-unit developments under R-3 standards, which were designed for small apartment buildings, to instead allowing development under the city’s highly restrictive R-2 standards.
To fully enable the Strategy to work as it is intended to, the new duplex overlay must be much more flexible than what is currently proposed. In particular, Council should:
Remove the change in the definition of a duplex, which requires principal dwelling units to be no more than 200 square feet different from each other;
According to the staff report, the change was meant to define comparable sized units, but, in reality, distorts the Missing Middle Program. Council can and should eliminate this
proposed standard;
Remove the 55% FAR limitation;
Expand the 40% lot coverage maximum;
Reexamine the interior side setback minimums.
Finally, Council should provide additional direction to staff to increase partnership, involvement and collaboration in regards to staff’s recommended Ordinance to adopt objective development Standards.
The staff should ensure that future development standards emphasize increased flexibility and architectural freedom, as opposed to unnecessary restrictions.
Thank you for all your work to help Cupertino become a more vibrant and inclusive community.
Sincerely,
Louise Saadati
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
You have received this email because [email protected] shared a document with you from Google Docs.
From: [email protected]
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: DO NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER CHANGES TO PREVIOUSLY DRAFTED HOUSING Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 3:55:38 PM
Attachments: 2024CupCityCouncil.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
July 1, 2024
Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council,
I am writing to ask that you please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council,
I am writing to ask that you please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Jame and Constance Guidotti
22640 Ricardo Road
Cupertino, CA 95014
[email protected]
From: Anne Ezzat <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 12:35 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Item#7 for Jlyy 2, 2024
Mayor Mohan, Vice Mayor Fren, Council Members Chao, Moore, and Wei, I am writing to urge you to accept the staff recommendations regarding the housing element which has already been approved by the state. Although there is a concerted effort to pile on and add more to the mix, please just get on with it and approve what you have. Several council members have stated they appreciate and trust the staff. Now is the time to prove it by accepting the plan staff drew up and was accepted by the state. Several council members campaigned on neighborhood integrity and local control, now is the time to prove it by accepting the staff’s plan that was approved by the state.
Thank you and best regards,
Brooke Ezzat
From: Piyush Jain
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Input on housing element proposal
Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 3:58:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am resident of Cupertino since 2004.
I am writing to express my firm support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh, which has already been approved by HCD. It is crucial to avoid further changes to this proposal, as external influences could disrupt the process and jeopardize Cupertino’s ability to pass the housing element and lead to extending Builders Remedy.
Recent suggestions for significant changes to the draft are concerning. I strongly urge you to reject these alterations, as major changes now could drastically alter Cupertino’s character.
Luke and Piu’s draft effectively addresses our community’s unique needs, and additional input from those unfamiliar with Cupertino’s context is unnecessary.
Balancing new housing needs with preserving our community’s character and standards is essential. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. We should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino’s current character. This includes preserving the current 3-story limit or 35-foot height restriction in R-4 zones, retaining the 55% FAR limitation, and maintaining current definitions and requirements for duplexes, parking, lot coverage, and interior side yard setbacks.
Future ordinance updates should align with our long-term vision, benefiting all residents without compromising quality of life. Addressing housing needs and complying with state regulations is important, but we must also consider the potential negative impacts of drastic changes. A balanced approach that preserves current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for considering my perspective as a long-term resident and voter. This issue is critical to me, and the Council’s decisions will influence my choices in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026. I trust the Council will act in the best interest of our community.
Regards
Piyush Jain
From: Neil Park-McClintick
To: City Clerk
Subject: For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 3:50:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
As a renter, whose family home for nearly 20 years would be rendered illegal under these proposed rezoning, I am writing to express concern for the proposed rezonings, which do not match the ambition of the housing element plan that we previously passed.
I appreciate the proposed rezonings by Staff, which are essential for our Housing Element to meet full compliance with HCD. Without proactive rezonings that encourage diverse housing types, our Housing Element will lose eligibility for state certification. We must prevent unnecessary and detrimental restrictions from defining Cupertino’s zoning code.
I support the requests by Cupertino for All, which uphold the original vision of our ambitious housing element, without making dramatic changes to the proposed rezonings.
My personal experience highlights the importance of flexible zoning. I have spent most of my life in a duplex that would be rendered illegal under the current proposed rezoning due to exceeding the 200-square-foot difference limit. This duplex has been crucial in allowing me and my neighbors to call Cupertino home.
I would like to emphasize several key recommendations to ensure our Housing Element successfully meets state law requirements and promotes fair housing.
Council should remove the 5-story limit, relying instead on the existing 70-foot height limit for R-4 Zoning. Our new codes should align with state law requirements to support a range of housing across different income levels. The 5-story limit is an unnecessary restriction that encourages more expensive housing forms, which contradicts Housing Element Law, HCD guidance, and fair housing principles.
Additionally, Council should strengthen Strategy HE 1.3.6 (The Missing Middle Program). The December 2023 submission of the Housing Element altered this strategy from permitting four- unit developments under R-3 standards to the city’s highly restrictive R-2 standards.
To ensure middle middle homes actually get built, we should:
*Remove the new definition of a duplex that requires principal dwelling units to be within 200 square feet of each other, as this change distorts the Missing Middle Program. *Eliminate the 55% FAR limitation.
*Expand the 40% lot coverage maximum.
*Reexamine the interior side setback minimums.
Finally, Council should direct staff to collaborate with stakeholders, community-based organizations, developers, and homeowners in accordance with the proposed ordinance— to ensure that future development standards emphasize flexibility and architectural freedom, rather than imposing unnecessary restrictions.
Thank you for your consideration and your efforts to create an inclusive and vibrant Cupertino.
Neil Park-McClintick
[email protected]
801 Miller Ave.
Cupertino, California 95014
From: Terry Griffin
To: City Council; Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Clerk Subject: 7-2-2024 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 7-Housing Element Re-zoning Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 3:04:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Mohan, City Council and Staff,
I support the staff recommendation without any changes. Please vote accordingly.
Sincerely,
Terry Griffin
10727 Randy Ln.
Sent from my iPhone
From: edward auch
To: City Council
Subject: 7-2-2024 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 7 housing element Re-Zoning Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 2:49:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Mohan , City Council and Staff,
I support the recommendation without any changes.
Sincerely,
Ed and Laura Auch
Sent from my iPhone
From: Ali Sapirman
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: Corey Smith
Subject: RE: Agenda Item #7 - Housing Element Implementation Amendments Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 2:32:25 PM
Attachments: Cupertino Housing Element.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council,
Please see the attached letter with our comments on Agenda Item 7.
In solidarity,
--
Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them
South Bay & Peninsula Organizer | Housing Action Coalition 555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111
Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: [email protected] To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all".
July2, 2024
RE: AgendaItem#7- HousingElement ImplementationAmendments Dear CupertinoCityCouncil,
I amwritingonbehalfoftheHousingActionCoalition(HAC).HACisamember-supportednonprofitthatadvocatesforbuildinghousingatallincomelevelsinordertoalleviateCaliforniaandtheBayArea’shousingshortage,affordability, anddisplacementcrisis.WehavebeenspecificallydedicatedtosupportingcitiesinmeetingtheirhousinggoalsthroughtheHousingElement.
Wearewritingtoexpressour concernsregardingtheproposedamendmentsrelatedtothe6thCycleHousingElement. Certainaspectsof theseamendmentsretainsignificant barrierstohousingproductionandfail tomeet stateAffirmativelyFurtheringFair Housing(AFFH)requirements, potentiallyjeopardizingCalifornia’sDepartment of HousingandCommunityDevelopment (HCD) certificationof Cupertino’sHousingElement.
The6thCycleHousingElement Updateoffersauniquechancetoaddresshousingneedsandremovedevelopment constraints. OnApril 10, 2024, HCDindicatedthat thereviseddrafthousingelement meetsstatutoryrequirementsonceadoptedandapproved, per GovernmentCodesection65585.
StrategyHE1.3.6iscrucial for enablingmissingmiddlehousingandimprovingaccesstohigh-resourceareas. However, theproposedamendmentsmaintainexistingbarriersandintroducenewones, contradictingthestrategy’sintent.
Werecommendthefollowingchangestotheproposedzoningamendmentsfor StrategyHE1.3.6:
● Eliminatethe.55FARlimit topermit two-storyduplexesonstandardlots.● Removethe“comparablesize” requirement for duplexestoallowmoreflexiblehousingconfigurations.● ReduceR-2parkingrequirementsto2spacesper unit.● Aligninterior sideyardsetbackswiththeR-1standardof 5feet.● Permit minimumlot coverageof at least 50%andremoveminimumlot sizerequirements.● AlignexistingR-2standardswiththeduplexoverlayinStrategyHE1.3.6.
For R-4andR-3zones, werecommend:
● Removethe5-storylimit inR-4zonestomaintainthe70-foot height potential.
● Increaselot coveragemaximumfor R-3propertiesproposingupto4unitstoat least50%.● EliminatetheR-3minimumlot sizestandard.
WeappreciateCupertino’seffortsandcommendtheprogressmade, includingTheRisedevelopment. However, theproposedamendmentsimposenewconstraintsthat hindercompliancewithstateAFFHrequirements. Wewelcometheopportunityfor further dialoguetoaddresstheseissues.
Sincerely,
CoreySmith, ExecutiveDirectorHousingActionCoalition(HAC) AliSapirman,SouthBay&PeninsulaOrganizerHousingActionCoalition(HAC)
From: Liana Crabtree
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: written communication, Support, Agenda Item 7, Council Meeting, 7/2/2024 Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 1:39:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please include this letter as written communication for Agenda Item 7 for the 7/2/2024 council meeting.
Honorable Mayor Mohan, Vice Fruen, Council Members Chao, Moore, and Wei:
I am writing in support of the Staff recommendation for Agenda Item 7, “Municipal Code Text, Specific Plan, Below Market Rate Mitigation Manual and Zoning Map Amendments related to implementing the 6th Cycle Housing Element….”, 7/2/2024. Please approve Agenda Item 7 “as is” as presented in the staff report and including the accompanying resolution and ordinances. No additional changes.
Further, as a separate and subsequent action, I encourage Council Members to firmly assert their support that Cupertino’s housing supply must be protected as long-term homes for people by entertaining a future agenda item to stiffen regulation for short-stay rental use of homes, as New York City did in 2023. OR, to ban outright short-stay rental use of homes as Barcelona has enacted, effective 2028.
In September 2023, New York City activated strict protection of its housing supply by regulating short-stay rentals (AirBnB, VRBO, others). Property owners must be registered with the city and living on site in the home during the rental period.
Barcelona also centers preservation of its housing supply with a full ban on short-stay rentals in homes effective in 2028.
Enabling more housing construction alone is not sufficient to reduce housing costs and increase housing supply, if long-term housing use must compete with a more lucrative hotel use of Cupertino’s homes.
Thank You for your consideration of Agenda Item 7 and the strong need to protect Cupertino’s housing supply for use as long-term housing for residents.
Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
References
Staff Report, Agenda Item 7: https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx? M=F&ID=13055202&GUID=7429B047-EC18-4371-BEDF-EDF0E57D2761 “What Does a World Without AirBnB Look Like?” by Laura Hall, BBC, 7/2/2024: https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20240701-what-does-a-world-without-airbnb- look-like
“New York City’s Crackdown on Airbnb Is Starting. Here’s What to Expect.” by Mihir Zaveri, NYT, 9/5/2023: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/05/nyregion/airbnb-regulations- nyc-housing.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb “Barcelona Ending Apartment Rentals by Foreign Tourists”, Reuters/CNN, 6/24/2024: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/24/travel/barcelona-ending-apartment-rentals-by- foreign-tourists/index.html
From: Danessa Techmanski
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: City Rezoning--JULY 2, 2024 Council Meeting
Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 9:37:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL FOR THE JULY 2 COUNCIL MEETING AND ADD TO THE PUBLIC RECORD. THANK YOU!
Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to ask that you please do not make any further changes to our zoning above and beyond what is needed to be compliant with our recently accepted housing element We are lucky that we finally got approval from HCD, so after all of that time and work I do not see any reason to make further changes. Let’s no mess up a job well done already.
Considering that California actually seems to be losing population and that currently assigned RHNA numbers for this cycle are being called out for reevaluation it seems premature to play guessing games with additional needed zoning changes until the dust settles and we have a better picture of our future needs. I think that Piu Gosh, Luke Connolly and Staff have done a great job meeting the needs of our current Housing Element zoning and that we should heed to their expertise in these matters. I understand that outside special interest groups are putting pressure on our city to make significant changes as per our last city council meeting, but I I do not feel that they understand the big picture, the unique needs of our community, and the critical balance of carefully planned density and infrastructure. I also do not feel that they represent the will of the majority of our residents.
Adding density for densities sake is a Winchester Mystery House approach to planning- everything needs to be in balance. While more housing is a priority, there is a point of diminishing returns where too much density, insufficient parking, traffic, diminished fire safety, lack of green or open space, and overcrowding can make our city an unbearable place to live and any semblance of Cupertino’s current character will be lost forever.
In particular I would like to see the following:
That the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones maintained to destroy the character of existing neighborhoods.
That the current 55% FAR limitation be maintained to prevent overcrowding and stress on local infrastructure and resources.
Maintain our current standards and definition for duplexes.
Keep our existing parking requirements until effective and efficient transit alternatives for cars become available.
Retain current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements, plus existing yard setbacks to reduce overcrowding and stress between neighbors, increase airflow, increase fire safety, increase natural daylight, and allow more plants and trees for cleaner air and reduced temperatures.
Let’s not jump the gun and go on a rezoning frenzy. If we are on our way to meet our current RHNA numbers and have an acceptable housing element let’s see how that plays out before we make drastic decisions that completely change the character of Cupertino that we cannot reverse.
A livable and successful city takes careful time and planning.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Danessa Techmanski
32-year Cupertino resident
From: Xinpei Lu
To: City Clerk
Subject: For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 6:13:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia,
As an incoming LQBTQ+ college student who is priced out and unable to stay in Cupertino and had to move back to Texas which you’re most likely aware of the danger the state poses to LGBTQ+ people, especially youth, due to sky high cost of living and rent, I urge you to take this opportunity rectify the rules and regulations that makes this commonplace.
The Housing Element is a commendable project that I am enthusiastic to support, especially if it is strengthened by this Council to fully bolster affordable housing projects.
I would like to thank Staff for their proposed rezonings, which are necessary for our Housing Element to achieve full compliance with HCD. Our Housing Element will no longer be eligible for state certification if we do not approach our rezonings in a manner that encourages all types of housing. We cannot stand by and watch unnecessary, harmful restrictions characterize Cupertino’s zoning code.
Council has received a letter from Cupertino for All describing specific, actionable changes that they, as policymakers, can enact to enhance our rezonings and ensure that HCD will ultimately accept them. I fully support the CFA recommendations and ask that you adopt them as your own.
I would like to take a moment to highlight the following recommendations which ensure that our Housing Element is successful in fully answering the requirements of state law to affirmatively further fair housing.
First, Council must remove the 5-story limit, relying only on the 70 foot height limit (which is already in place) for R-4 Zoning. This will:
Allow for greater flexibility to architects designing housing of different forms for different populations at different income levels;
Grant architects more freedom to design housing typologies of varying types and for varying incomes without forcing developers to rely on state-law workarounds like the Density Bonus Law.
Our new codes should reflect state law requirements to support a range of housing across different income levels. The 5-story limit is an unnecessary limit that pushes developers toward more expensive housing forms, which is contrary to the general thrust of Housing Element Law, HCD guidance, and affirmatively furthering fair housing principles.
Moreover, Council should strengthen the Strategy HE 1.3.6 (The Missing Middle Program).
Revisions in the December 2023 submission of the Housing Element changed this strategy from allowing four-unit developments under R-3 standards, which were designed for small apartment buildings, to instead allowing development under the city’s highly restrictive R-2 standards.
To fully enable the Strategy to work as it is intended to, the new duplex overlay must be much more flexible than what is currently proposed. In particular, Council should:
Remove the change in the definition of a duplex, which requires principal dwelling units to be no more than 200 square feet different from each other; According to the staff report, the change was meant to define comparable sized units, but, in reality, distorts the Missing Middle Program. Council can and should eliminate this proposed standard;
Remove the 55% FAR limitation;
Expand the 40% lot coverage maximum;
Reexamine the interior side setback minimums.
Finally, Council should provide additional direction (via requesting staff to partner with stakeholders, community-based organizations, developers, and homeowners) in regards to staff’s recommended Ordinance to adopt objective development Standards. They should do so to ensure that future development standards emphasize increased flexibility and architectural freedom, as opposed to unnecessary restrictions.
Thank you for your consideration and effort to foster an inclusive and vibrant Cupertino.
Xinpei Lu
[email protected]
15614 Thirsty Horse Trail
Cypress, Texas 77433
From: Dennis Vaughn
To: Luke Connolly; Pamela Wu; Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Clerk; City Council Cc: Kelly Cell
Subject: !vaughn: HOUSING ELEMENT commentS
Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 5:47:21 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Luke, Piug, Pamela, Cupertino City Council Members, and Cupertino City Clerks Office.
Good evening. I’ve been a home owner in Cupertino for over 20 years. I moved from Los Angeles to the Bay Area in order to have a better life, such as a slower pace, less density, community members who knew and cared for each other to name a few.
I’m also a teacher in a neighboring city. My wife and I were diligent in saving for several years before buying our townhouse. Our children walk out our back gate and there is Cupertino High School where they both attend.
My parents are very happy we moved to Cupertino where my family is part of a community.
They still live in Los Angeles, not a suburb, but the City of Los Angeles. They complain of ever increasing density, multistory apartments that are now legal to build in their quaint neighborhood, more and more people who move into the now dense neighborhood and don’t get to know their neighbor.
Many years ago there were council members who wanted to build high density buildings and mixed use buildings. One is on the southeast corner of De Anza and Stevens Creek. There were condos above and couple retail establishments below; Le Boulanger and some other place; both have gone out of business. The Le Boulanger has been closed for quite some time and looks like it’s used as a storage facility for something. We were highly encouraged to accept this new kind of city planning. Don’t think that’s working.
City council:
1. No new changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD
2. Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
3. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
4. Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes
5. Preserve existing parking requirements
6. Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements
7. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks
Cupertino council stick to the original plan. I enjoy most of Cupertino, yet not a lot of the decisions of council members who have pushed for growth over maintaining Cupertino’s way of life.
Maintaining this way of life is important to me and will affect the way I vote in future elections.
Thank you for taking time to read and seeing from a long time Cupertino resident’s perspective.
Dennis Vaughn
From: du vote
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Please DO NOT make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 12:21:49 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to ask that please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Luke and Piu have done an excellent job and we do not need additional input from those who actually do not fully understand the needs of our community. We as Cupertino residents know our own needs not the outside people and why let the outside influences/disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino's housing element?
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
1. Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
2. Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
3. Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
1. Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
1. Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
2. Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
1. Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I trust the council will make the appropriate decision to reflect the best interests of our community. We will always select the people who can raise our voice and speak for us as Cupertino residents.
Sincerely,
Vera
From: Joan Owyang-Lee
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Stop aggressive changes to housing elements
Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 10:42:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I request you not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal.
1.Do not accept changes to reduce parking requirements. The neighborhood needs any new residential units to have adequate parking, preferably 2 spaces per unit.
2. Do not accept any increase in building floor heights from what was previously approved.
The lower the building height, the better.
3. Do not increase floor area ratio from 55% to 100%. Cupertino does not need more construction on lot.
4. Stop pushing for higher density, it will ruin Cupertino's character! Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, others who favor aggressive growth do not understand desires of residents in the neighborhood.
We need to Preserve Community Character and:
1) Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones
2) Retain the 55% FAR limitation
3) Keep the current definition of a “duplex”
4) Preserve existing parking requirements
5) Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements 6) Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
I will NOT vote for council members who choose aggressive growth which change the character of Cupertino. I am a 30 year resident of this city.
Sincerely,
Joan Owyang-Lee
From: Isaac Lee
To: City Clerk; City Council; Pamela Wu; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly Subject: Please stop high density housing & overdevelopment Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 10:21:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connelly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my support for the proposed housing element draft and rezoning, as previously developed by Luke Connelly and Piu Ghosh. Please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter.
This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Isaac Lee & Family
Long time Cupertino residents and voters
From: Ping Ding
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 5:06:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to ask that you please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Ping Ding
From: Ping Gao
To: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Pamela Wu; City Council; City Clerk Subject: NO to Housing Element Draft Change
Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 4:43:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Luke Connolly, Piu Ghosh, Pamela Wu, and Cupertino City Council, This is Ping, a 17-year Cupertino Resident. I am writing to ask that you please do not make any further changes to the previously drafted housing element proposal, which has already received approval from HCD. Now is not the time to allow outside influences to disrupt the process and jeopardize the prospects of Cupertino passing the housing element and extending Builders Remedy.
It has come to my attention that certain advocates have suggested significant changes to the housing element draft during the last council meeting. I urge you not to accept any of those changes. This is not the time for major alterations, as doing so could lead to extreme conditions that would make Cupertino unrecognizable from its current character.
Luke and Piu have done an excellent job, and we do not need additional input from those who may not fully understand the unique needs of our community.
It is crucial to balance the need for new housing with the preservation of our community's character and existing standards. Increasing flexibility in rezoning and reducing parking requirements could lead to overdevelopment and strain our infrastructure. Instead of pushing for higher density and fewer restrictions, we should maintain reasonable limitations that align with Cupertino's current character.
Specifically, I urge you to consider the following points:
Preserving Community Character:
Maintain the current 5-story limit in R-4 zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure new developments harmonize with existing neighborhood aesthetics.
Retain the 55% FAR limitation to avoid excessive density that could overwhelm local resources and infrastructure.
Supporting Equitable Housing:
Keep the current definition of a “duplex” to avoid complications in design and development processes. Flexibility is important, but it should not come at the expense of community cohesion and established standards.
Preserve existing parking requirements to ensure adequate parking availability and minimize congestion in residential areas.
Maintaining Standards and Order:
Uphold current lot coverage limits and minimum lot size requirements to maintain orderly development and prevent overcrowding.
Retain existing interior side yard setbacks to ensure sufficient space between properties, promoting privacy and reducing potential conflicts between neighbors.
Consideration of Long-term Impact:
Any future ordinance updates should be carefully considered and aligned with the community’s long-term vision and needs, ensuring changes benefit all residents without compromising the quality of life.
While it is crucial to address the housing needs of underrepresented communities and comply with state regulations, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of drastic changes. A balanced approach that maintains some current restrictions will better serve Cupertino in the long run.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my perspective as a long-term Cupertino resident and current voter. This is a critical matter to me, and council members' votes on this issue will impact my decisions in the upcoming elections in November 2024 and 2026.
I trust that the Council will make decisions that reflect the best interests of our entire community.
Sincerely,
Ping Gao
17-year Cupertino Resident
From: Cupertino ForAll
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: For Public Comment (7/2): Item 7 Housing Element Rezonings Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 4:33:18 PM
Attachments: 07.01.24 - Letter to City Council.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon,
Please see the attached commentary for Public Comment regarding Item 7 for Tuesday's (7/2) Council Meeting.
Regards,
Steering Committee
Cupertino for All
July1, 2024
CupertinoCityCouncil10350TorreAvenueCupertino, California95014 ForPublicCommentRe: 7/2Council Meeting- Item7HousingElementRezonings DearCupertinoCityCouncil andtowhomitmayconcern,
WearepleasedtoseetheStaff’sReportconsiderstheletterwesentonJune18. Oursuggestionsarereflectiveof ourhopeforthecitytostrengthentheHousingElementbyimplementingzoningcodeamendmentsthatallowforflexibledevelopmentstandardsandarchitectural freedomtocreatemorehousingaffordableatall incomelevels. WewanttoemphasizeCouncil’sroleasthepolicymakingbodyof thecity. YoucanandshouldactoncertainrezoningsitemslistedbyStaff.
Pleasealsorecall thatperAssemblyBill 1398(2021), thoughCupertinohasadoptedaHousingElement, thecitycannotbeconsideredcertifieduntil ithasconductedrequiredrezonings. Assuch, CupertinohasnocertifiedHousingElementuntil thecityrezones. 1 TheCaliforniaDepartment of HousingandCommunityDevelopment (HCD) must alsostill reviewsuchrezoningsfor adequacy.Acceptanceisnot guaranteed. Similarly, pursuanttoAssemblyBill 72(2017), HCDmaintainsongoingauthoritytorevokeacity’sHousingElementforfailuretocomplywiththeobligationstowhichthecitybounditself byadoptingtheHousingElement 1 Wehavebecomeawareof publiccomments(specificallyduringtheOral CommunicationssectionoftheJune18, 2024Council Meeting) claimingthatanyalterationof theproposedMunicipal Codeamendmentswould“jeopardize” theHousingElementcertification, orthatweareaskingfortheHousingElementtobe“reopened.” Thesecommentsmisstateormisunderstandthepositionof theHousingElementandthepathtocertification. TheHousingElementisadopted. TherezoningsandrelatedactionsinItem7arepart of therequiredseriesof actionstoimplement theHousingElement. AsHCDhasnotedinpriorcomments, thecitymayalwaysbemoreambitiousinitsHousingElementimplementationthantheprogramsandpoliciesitcommittedtoatadoption. Itisemphaticallynotallowedtodoless. Inother words, theHousingElement isafloor, not aceiling. Erringonthesideof amorepermissiveandambitiousHousingElementimplementationincreasesthelikelihoodthatHCDwill acceptthecity’srezonings. Wedonot believethat thespecifiedpoliciesweaskyoutoadjust currentlymeet HCD’srequirements. 1 –includingthroughitspolicyimplementation. Indeed, inthe6thRHNACycle, HCDhasalreadyrevokedthecertificationof theTownof PortolaValley. 2 Irrespectiveof therequirementsof statelaw, rezoningsthatreflectthoughtful andsupportiveimplementationof theHousingElementwouldensurethatCupertinonotonlycomplieswiththeletterandspiritof statelaw, butalsocreatesthelegalframeworkwithinwhichwearepositionedtobuildenoughof therighttypesofhousingtomakeaseriousdentinourhousingcrisis. Thoughtheproposedrezoningscontainmanyimprovementsforwhichstaff andthecity’sconsultantsshouldbelauded–especiallytheinnovationof thetownhomecombiningdistrict–anumberofpoliciesundermineorfrustratetheHousingElement’splainpurposeand, westronglybelieve, jeopardizethecity’sconditional certification. WethereforeaskthatCouncil enactthefollowingrefinementstotheMunicipal Codeamendments:
1. Removethe5-storylimit for thenewR-4ZoningDistrict: The5-storyrestrictionisunnecessary, andonlyfurtherlimitsdevelopments. The70footheightlimitismorethansufficient.
Removingthe5-storylimitpromotesflexibilityindesigninghousingof allforms, thusempoweringarchitectstodesignhousingof varioustypesandforvaryingincomeswithoutforcingdeveloperstorelyonworkaroundssuchastheDensityBonusLaw, whichwouldallowsignificantdeviationsfromotherdevelopmentstandards.
Ournewcodesshouldreflectstatelawrequirementstosupportarangeofhousingacrossdifferentincomelevels. The5-storylimitencouragesdeveloperstodesignmoreexpensivehousing, 3 whichdoesnotupholdtheprinciplesof affirmativelyfurtheringfairhousingorthefundamentaloverarchinggoal of HousingElementlawandHCD’sfocusof ensuringthatthecityhasenabledandsupportedtheconstructionof housingforpeopleofall incomelevels. 3 AttheJune11, 2024PlanningCommissionmeetingwheretheserezoningswerepreviouslyconsidered,thecity’sconsultantfromPlaceworksdescribedthe5-storylimitationasfavoringa“reallyhighqualityproduct” withhigherceilingsandtoutedthefactthatsuchdevelopmentswouldbeamenity-richorallowforground-floorretail. Forcingdevelopersdownthispathunnecessarilyproducesamoreexpensiveproductsinceconstructioncostswouldhavetobedistributedoverfewerunitsandwouldcommandhigherrentsformoreamenities. Removingthestoryrestrictionwouldallowarchitectsmorefreedomtodesignhousingtypologiesof varyingformsthatcouldcatertoawiderrangeof housingneedsandbemorelikelytoreachorexceedthecapacityassumptionsintheHousingElement. 2 SeeLetterof HCDtoTownof PortolaValley, datedMarch26, 2024(revokingfindingof substantialcomplianceforfailuretoimplementHousingElementprograms), availableat:https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/portola-valley-rev-032624.pdf. 2 2. StrengthenImplementationof StrategyHE1.3.6: TheMarch2024revisionoftheThirdSubmittal of theDraftHousingElement 4 changedtheStrategytoallowdevelopmentunderseverelylimitingR-2standards, asopposedtothefour-unitdevelopmentsunderR-3standards(whichweredesignedforgardenapartmentandfourplex-styledevelopment, andthusarebetterfitforStrategyHE1.3.6). 5 If theStrategyistocreatereal opportunityinCupertino, thenewduplexoverlaymustbemuchmoreflexiblethanwhatiscurrentlyproposed,especiallywhenconsideringtheantiquatedR-2standardstowhichitrefers.Council should:
A. Establishparkingstandardsat 1 enclosedspaceand1 exposedspaceper principal dwellingunit intheduplexoverlay.
CurrentR-2zoningstandardsrequire1.5enclosedspacesand1.5exposedparkingspacesperprincipal dwellingunit. Thisstandardrequirestheconstructionof athree-cargaragewithaninteriorsquarefootageof 600squarefeet, all of whichcountstowardsthelotcoverageandfloorarearatioof theproposedstructure.
Council shouldnotrequiresuchexcessivelylargegaragesbecausethey(1) generallygounusedforcarstorage, (2) reducetheallowableusagelivingspaceforpeople, and(3) arevisuallyintrusiveonlotswithsmallerfrontages, andthereforeoutof alignmentwiththeaestheticgoalsofthepolicy.
Ona50-footwidelot, forinstance, athree-cargaragespanning30feetwouldconsumemorethan50%of thefacadeof thebuilding. Allowingfortwo-cargaragesinsteadwill permithomeownersandarchitectsdevelopingunderthesestandardstobuildhomesthatlookmorelikethesingle-familyhomesaroundthemthatareonlyrequiredtohaveatwo-cargarage. Moreover, housingbuiltwithlessspacededicatedto 5 Indeed, theaforementionedHousingElementdraftandthestaff reportbothadmitthatthischangewasmadenotinresponsetofeedbackfromthecommunitieshistoricallyexcludedfromhousinginCupertino, buttoaestheticconcernsraisedbyothersaswell asuntowardworriesaboutthepotentialapplicationof theDensityBonusLaw. 4 Seehttps://ehq-production-us-california.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/3003c6a0b619866578abf9d066a0e48e95ca8ede/original/1714502824/e489f6eef8b1d5e01798357c1bae860a_Third_Draft_Housing_Element_-_Submitted_to_HCD_March_28__2024.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA4KKNQAKICO37GBEP%2F20240701%2Fus-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240701T221600Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=676da40a488d9943d71acb139c385285c8bdedc1cefbc9fb0685f730264f145b(Page21/H-17). 3 carstoragewouldbecheapertobuildandcorrespondinglycheapertorentorsell. 6 B. Removethechangeinthedefinitionof aduplex, whichrequiresprincipal dwellingunitstobenomorethan200squarefeet differentfromeachother.
Accordingtothestaff report, thischangewasmeanttodefinecomparablesizedunits, but, inreality, itdistortstheMissingMiddleProgram(StrategyHE1.3.6). Thesamerestrictionexistsinthecity’sSB9implementationordinance–anordinancewhichhasfailedtoproduceanySB9units. Weshouldnotreplicateademonstrablyfailedpolicy.
Thechangealsogeneratestheunfortunateresultof creatinglegalnonconformingduplexesinexistingR-2zones. Inaddition, withoutclarityonhowenclosedparkingspaceswouldbecounted, theextraparkingrequiredforaduplexwouldconsumetheentire200squarefootdifferential betweenunits, requiringtwounitstoberigidlyandpreciselythesamesize. Council canandshouldeliminatethisnewproposedrestriction.
C. Removethefloor arearatio(FAR) limit intheduplexoverlay.
Theimpositionof a55%FARintheproposedMunicipal CodeamendmentreflectsareductionfromtheR-2standardstowhichtheoverlayotherwiserefers. R-2currentlyhasnoFARlimitation. If wedonotimposeaFARrestrictiononR-2zonedsites, whichalreadysitinneighborhoodswithpredominantlysingle-familyhomes, thenthesuddenchoicetoaddonetotheR-1 duplexoverlayseemsunnecessary.
Moreover, whenStrategyHE1.3.6wasoriginallycontemplatedinprioriterationsof theHousingElementdraft, itreferredinsteadtoR-3standardsfordevelopmentsupto4units. ThesestandardslikewiselackaFARstandardperthestaff report.
Assuch, thelackof aFARstandardhasalwaysbeencontemplatedforthesesitesuntil theirfirstappearanceintheMunicipal Code 6 Weareawarethatstaff intendtobringbackacomprehensivereformof parkingstandards. However,adoptingourproposedchangetotheduplexoverlayparkingstandardswouldallowStrategyHE1.3.6tobeusablenow. Thehousingcrisisisnow–ourresponseshouldbenow. 4 amendmentsasoriginallyproposed.
7 If thepermissiblebuildingspaceforstructuresbuiltundertheduplexoverlayistoosmall, homeownerswill haveanincentive, instead, tobuildmaximumFARsingle-familyhomes(socalled“monster” homes) withADUs. ThatresultwouldrenderStrategyHE1.3.6largelyinertandwouldbelessfavorabletothecitybecauseof thereducedimpactfeescollectedfromADUsrelativetoprincipal dwellingunits.
D. Adjust thelot coveragemaximumintheduplexoverlayandinR-3ZoningDistrictsfor developmentsof upto4unitsto50%.
R-2andsmallerR-3standardsrestrictdevelopmentto40%of thelot.ThisislowerthanR-1 standards, whichsitat45%. 8 Byexpandingpermissiblelotcoverageto50%, homeownerswill haveanincentivetobuildunderthenewduplexoverlaystandardsandtobuildmorecheaplyatthefirststoryinsteadof beingforcedtobuildupwardtoobtainadditional squarefootage. Keepingbuildingcostsdownfavorstheproductionof naturallylessexpensivehousing. Allowingshorterbuildingsalsocreateslessvisual impactinneighborhoods, whichwouldincreasethepresumedaestheticcompatibilityof thesedevelopmentswithsuchneighborhoods.
E. Establishaninterior sideyardsetbackminimumof 5feet intheduplexoverlay.
R-1 zonescurrentlyhaveaminimuminteriorsideyardsetbackof 5feet.DuplexesdevelopedundertheStrategyHE1.3.6overlayshouldbeallowedtoutilizethismodestlyreducedstandardfromR-2standards.
3. Provideadditional directiontotheCityManager tofavor increasedflexibilityandarchitectural freedomintheupcomingobjective 8 SeeCupertinoMunicipal Code, Table19.28.070, “BuildingDevelopment Regulations” (describingR-1lotsasenjoying45%FARand45%lot coveragemaximums). 7 Thestaff reportdescribestheFARstandardasbeingderivedfromsurveyingnearbyjurisdictions. Italsopaintsacuriouspictureof anunreasonablyunlikelypotential foraduplexinexcessof 80%FAR. Thescenariodescribedfailstoaccountfornumerousotherstandardslikesecond-storysetbacksandpresumestheuseof exceptionsforbalconyoverhangsandthelike. Weappreciatestaff’sconcernforpotential impacts, butwebelievethisscenariotobeunrealistic. OurcurrentR-2standards, again, havenoFARrestrictionsandnoduplexlooksthewaydescribedinthestaff report. Thoughwefavorsimplicityandconsistencyacrosssimilarlysituatedzoningdistrictsandhousingtypologies, if CouncilfeelsaneedtocreateaFARrestriction, then65%wouldbereasonableundertheoverlay–providedthatparkingrestrictionsarereduced. Functionally, wedonotseeanyrealisticlikelihoodof aduplexdevelopingatagreaterFARevenwithouttheFARrestrictiongiventheotherrestrictionsimposedunderR-2standards. 5 development standardsordinanceandtoharmonizeit withtoday’supdates:
Council shouldencouragedevelopmentstandardsthatadvocateforincreasedflexibilityandarchitectural freedomratherthancreatingnew, oftenunnecessary, restrictions(see: theR-45-storyrestriction, thechangeinthedefinitionof aduplex).
InordertobringlifetotheHousingElement, Council shouldfacilitateprojectsthatareassuredlyfeasibleandresponsivetomarketdemands. Therefore, wecall onCouncil toaskstaff topartnerwithstakeholders, communitybasedorganizations, developers, andhomeownerswithrespecttothecreationofobjectivedevelopmentstandards. ThesestandardsshouldalsoaidStrategyHE1.3.6andrevisionstothecity’sSB9implementationordinanceinordertosuccessfullyalignourzoningstandardswithourHousingElementandensureconsistencyintheCupertinozoningcode.
Council hasanongoingdutytoaffirmativelyfurtherfairhousing. Thoughtfulimplementationof Strategy1.3.6andgreaterconsistencywithinthezoningcodewillassistinthisgoal.
Withoutyourthoroughconsiderationof thewayrezoningsareapproached, ourHousingElementisindangerof losingitseligibilityforstatecertification. PleaseupholdyourcommitmenttoCupertinoanditsabilitytogovernitsownhousingplansbyincorporatingthesechanges.
Regards,
SteeringCommitteeCupertinoForAll
6 From: Anne Ezzat <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 12:35 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Item#7 for Jlyy 2, 2024
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Kirsten, would you be able to include my comments in the record? Thanks!
Brooke
Mayor Mohan, Vice Mayor Fren, Council Members Chao, Moore, and Wei, I am writing to urge you to accept the staff recommendations regarding the housing element which has already been approved by the state. Although there is a concerted effort to pile on and add more to the mix, please just get on with it and approve what you have. Several council members have stated they appreciate and trust the staff. Now is the time to prove it by accepting the plan staff drew up and was accepted by the state. Several council members campaigned on neighborhood integrity and local control, now is the time to prove it by accepting the staff’s plan that was approved by the state.
Thank you and best regards,
Brooke Ezzat
From: Alison Cingolani <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 1:53 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Luke Connolly <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Agenda Item #7- Municipal Code Text, Specific Plan, Below Market Rate Mitigation
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Mohan, Vice Mayor Fruen, Councilmembers Wei, Chao, and Moore, and Mr. Connolly,
SV@Home has had the privilege of engaging on the City of Cupertino’s housing element throughout its process, and we have been pleased to see it evolve into a plan to achieve real change in the city and earn conditional approval from HCD. However, we believe parts of the zoning ordinance amendment coming to Council on Tuesday, July 2nd (Agenda Item #7) undermine important programs in the city’s housing element by leaving in place
significant known constraints to housing production and failing to meet state requirements to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). We are concerned that these changes jeopardize the certification by HCD of the City of Cupertino’s Adopted Housing Element. Please see the attached letter detailing our concerns and proposed solutions.
SV@Home values its partnership with the City of Cupertino, and it is in that spirit that we provide our feedback on the City’s Housing Element.
Warm regards,
Alison Cingolani
Policy Manager|SV@Home
408.785.0531 | [email protected]
Join our Houser Movement. Become a member!
350 W Julian St. #5, San José, CA 95110
Website Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
RE: AgendaItem#7- Municipal CodeText, SpecificPlan, BelowMarket RateMitigationManual andZoningMapAmendmentsrelatedtoimplementingthe6thCycleHousingElement Wewritetoexpressour concernswiththeagendaitemabove, portionsof whichleaveinplacesignificant knownconstraintstohousingproductionandfail tomeet staterequirementstoaffirmativelyfurther fair housing(AFFH). Weareconcernedthat thesechangesjeopardizethecertificationbyHCDof theCityof Cupertino’sAdoptedHousingElement. SV@HomevaluesitspartnershipwiththeCityof Cupertino, andit isinthat spirit that weprovideour feedbackontheCity’sHousingElement.
The6thCycleHousingElement UpdateprocessisauniqueopportunitytofullyassessandaddresshousingneedsinCupertinoandtoidentifyandremoveconstraintsonhousingdevelopment. OnApril 10, 2024, theCityreceivedaletter fromHCDstatingthat thereviseddraft housingelement meetsthestatutoryrequirementsof StateHousingElement Lawonceadopted, submittedto, andapprovedbyHCD, inaccordancewithGovernment Codesection65585.
StrategyHE1.3.6istheCity’sprimaryHousingElement programtoaddressAFFHbyenablingmissingmiddlehousingtypesacrossthecityandexpandingmoreequitableaccesstohigh-resourceareas. Weareconcernedthat, rather thanidentifyingandremovingbarrierstothedevelopment of much-neededmissingmiddlehousinginCupertino, theproposedzoningordinanceamendmentsleaveexistingbarriersinplaceandaddnewones. Fromour reading,theseproposedactionsexpandonandfurther codifytheunnecessaryconstraintsfromtheCity’sSB-9implementingordinance, suchthat StrategyHE1.3.6doesnot enablenewtypesofdevelopment tobefeasible. Thisisnot what weunderstandtobetheintent of themissingmiddlestrategy.
SV@HomerecommendsthefollowingchangestotheproposedzoningamendmentsconcerningStrategyHE1.3.6:
● Removethe.55FARlimit, anewconstraint relativetoexistingR-2standards, whicheffectivelyprecludesatwo-storyduplexonatypical lot.● Removethenewconstraint of thedefinitionof a“duplex” inSection19.08.030bystrikingtheline“of comparablesize.” Requiringamaximumdifferenceof 200squarefeetbetweenunitsunnecessarilylimitstheabilitytoconfigurehousingfor arangeof needs.● Addresstheexistingconstraint of R-2parkingrequirementsof 1.5enclosedand1.5exposedparkingspacesper unit (6spacesper duplex) byreducingtherequirement to2parkingspacesper unit.● Addresstheexistingconstraint of interior sideyardsetbacksbyaligningtotheminimumR-1standardof 5feet.● Addresstheexistingconstraintsonlot coverageandminimumlot sizesbyallowingminimumlot coverageof at least 50%andimposingnominimumlot sizerequirement. ● For consistency, inthisor afutureordinanceupdate, alignexistingR-2standardswiththeduplexoverlayinStrategyHE1.3.6 Wearealsoconcernedabout height andlot coverage/ sizelimitationsinR-4andR-3andrecommendthefollowingchangestotheproposedzoningamendments:● Removethenewconstraint of a5-storylimit inR-4zones, whichwhenappliedtoanexistingheight limit of 70feet, underminesthepotential for affordabilityandincentivizesmoreexpensivehousing.● Withrespect tochangestoR-3zoning○ Addressanexistingconstraint byexpandingthelot coveragemaximumforR-3-zonedpropertiesproposingupto4unitstoat least 50%.○ Addressanexistingconstraint byeliminatingtheR-3minimumlot sizestandard.
Wevaluethisopportunitytoshareour commentsontheCityof Cupertino’sHousingElementUpdate, andappreciatetheenormousamount of workthat Cupertinostaff, electedandappointedrepresentatives, andmembersof thecommunityhavedonetodate. WearepleasedwiththeCity’sreal progresstowardenablingmorehousingdevelopment, includingentitlementof TheRisemixed-usedevelopment onthesiteof theformer VallcoMall. However, weremainconcernedthat theobjectivestandardscreatedbytheproposedzoningamendmentsleaveinplacesignificant knownconstraintstohousingproductionandimposenewconstraintsthatprevent compliancewithstaterequirementstoaffirmativelyfurther fair housing. Wewelcometheopportunitytoengageinanongoingdialoguewithyouasyoudeemhelpful.
SV@Homeisanonprofit organizationthat workswithabroadcoalitionof strategicpartnerstoaddresstheurgent housingneedsof SantaClaraCounty'sdiverseresidentsacrossall ourcommunities. Weadvocatefor solutionsincludingincreasingproductionof homesat all incomelevels, especiallyaffordablehousing; preservingexistingaffordablehousing; andprotectingourcommunity’smost vulnerableresidentsfromdisplacement.
Written
Communications
CC 7-02-2024
Item No. 9
Repeal of GPA
Authorization Process
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council; Benjamin Fu; Pamela Wu
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2024-07-02 City Council Meeting Agenda ITEM 9-DO NOT Repeal GPA Process Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 2:29:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Mayor Mohan and City Council,
I urge you to leave this GPA process in place but correct the issues listed in the Staff Report.
The reason we have this process is that projects would appear before the Planning Commission and City Council without ANY public review
! By the time the public was made
aware of the projects, they were a “done deal”. There was no negotiation. There were no changes.
Huge amounts of staff time and developer costs for designs and detailed plans would be presented. There was no input as to whether the amendment to our GP was even acceptable! Everything was left up to behind-the-scenes lobbying and deals that had no transparency and no public input.
The Staff Report lists 4 reasons it is recommending rescinding the GPA approval process. #1-Confusion regarding whether a GPA authorization approval means the project has been approved…Over and over we have heard that it does NOT mean the project has been approved, just that it can continue with the process and submit their plans.
SOLUTION…make it clearer! Sunnyvale’s flowchart says just that! #2-It’s created an additional process increasing project review time…Duh, the applicant is asking to make a change to our General Plan! It SHOULD require additional review! In the
case that the GPA application is not acceptable to the City Council, then it has SAVED process and review time both for the staff and the applicant! #3-Community Benefits are inconsistent and don’t provide the intended benefits…Easy, don’t have them! When community benefits were first brought up, the public was outraged and did not want them yet the crept in anyway. The project should stand on its own and be a benefit to the community as it is presented. Eliminate the community benefits. Many of these “deals” have not come to fruition or were abused. Eliminate them! Problem solved. #4-Project modification after approval triggered re-authorization. It should! Sunnyvale has a 2-year waiting period before the project can be re-submitted. That would be a good incentive to submit an accurate project in the first place.
Removing this procedure and process goes back to the back room deals and no public input.
All decisions would be left up to staff with no input from the public until it has already been decided.
Don’t undo this procedure and process. Tighten it up!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: General Plan Amendment Procedure in City
Date: Thursday, June 27, 2024 4:48:33 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
I was shocked to see Agenda Item 9 from the 4/2/24 City Council Meeting which is Suggesting changing the Cupertino General Plan Amendment Procedure. This has nothing To do with the Housing Element. The state and HCD do not dictate how Cupertino handles It's General Plan Amendments. It is even all the more concerning since we are conducting This City Council Meeting two days before the Fourth of July holiday and 248 years Since the beginning of the Revolutionary War.
Item 8 of this City Council meeting is already inflammatory enough with the proposed Rezoning of most of the city by a fraudulent Housing Element with a bunch of illegal, scandalous Missing Middle Dogma dumped into it. What have the bad RHNA numbers brought to This city? Apparently all of this. And a complete rebuild of the city's General Plan Amendment to boot.
A lot of us spent our precious time in 2015 going to city meetings. So someone now Says it was wasted time? I don't think it was wasted time and we should not be trying To rebuild the city's General Plan Amendment Process in one night, especially when The Housing Element Rezoning is being dumped into the previous agenda item.
The City Rezoning by the Scandal Prone Statewide Sixth Cycle Housing Element should at least take more than one night. Victory by HCD should not be made that easy.
I still have tons of questions for the Rezoning which will be going through an audit in The fall. Does HCD even care? What happens on July 2 determines how I will vote in The upcoming City Election in November. It determines who I vote for governor and Other state level elections and who I vote for president even one day.
With the toil and trauma of 1776, I have my right to vote and not even HCD can take that Away from me.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
Bay Pacific Properties, LLC
Mailing: Post Office Box 1652, Martinez CA 94553-0652
Overnight Delivery: 41 Shrewsbury Way, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-2007 Tel. +1 925 550 8082, Facsimile +1 925 935 8222
Sent Via Email
July 1, 2024
Mayor Mohan & Members of the City Council:
I am writing to you concerning the Regular Meeting, Action Item 9 “Repeal of existing General Plan Amendment (GPA) Authorization procedure and process” scheduled for the Council Meeting at 6:45 PM on July 2, 2024. While I plan to speak during the public hearing portion of the Agenda Item, I wanted to summarize my thoughts for your consideration.
I represent the owners of the properties located at 10145 North DeAnza Boulevard and 10118- 10122 Bandley Drive, both located in the City of Cupertino.
We support the staff’s recommendation to return the GPA process to the protocol that was in place before Resolution 15-078.
The proposed process will 1) encourage, rather than discourage GPA amendments that could result in more housing for the community. As a city that just endured the long and arduous process of revising the General Plan and Housing Element, each and every unit added to the community helps to meet the overall housing goals for the community.
The current process adds an additional step. It would appear to provide a false hope to an applicant if successful with the “GPA Authorization” hearing when in reality it just signals the start of assembling a credible application that meets the needs of the City and provides community benefits.
The elimination of the GPA Authorization step will free up both staff and Council’s time to focus on more important aspects of managing the City while not eliminating any opportunity for stakeholder input and a rigorous review from both the Planning Commission and City Council.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Greg Endom
925-550-8082
From: Greg Endom
To: Liang Chao; J.R. Fruen; Sheila Mohan; Kitty Moore; Hung Wei Cc: Benjamin Fu; Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: City Council Meeting July 2, 2024 - Agenda Item 9 Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 3:22:33 PM
Attachments: Letter to Council 7-2-24.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mayor Mohan & Members of the City Council:
Please see the attached letter relating to Agenda Item 9 for the upcoming meeting.
Thank you.
Greg
Greg Endom
925-550-8082
DRE# 00766333
Bay Pacific Properties, LLC
Mailing: Post Office Box 1652, Martinez CA 94553-0652
Overnight Delivery: 41 Shrewsbury Way, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-2007 Tel. +1 925 550 8082, Facsimile +1 925 935 8222
Sent Via Email
July 1, 2024
Mayor Mohan & Members of the City Council:
I am writing to you concerning the Regular Meeting, Action Item 9 “Repeal of existing General Plan Amendment (GPA) Authorization procedure and process” scheduled for the Council Meeting at 6:45 PM on July 2, 2024. While I plan to speak during the public hearing portion of the Agenda Item, I wanted to summarize my thoughts for your consideration.
I represent the owners of the properties located at 10145 North DeAnza Boulevard and 10118- 10122 Bandley Drive, both located in the City of Cupertino.
We support the staff’s recommendation to return the GPA process to the protocol that was in place before Resolution 15-078.
The proposed process will 1) encourage, rather than discourage GPA amendments that could result in more housing for the community. As a city that just endured the long and arduous process of revising the General Plan and Housing Element, each and every unit added to the community helps to meet the overall housing goals for the community.
The current process adds an additional step. It would appear to provide a false hope to an applicant if successful with the “GPA Authorization” hearing when in reality it just signals the start of assembling a credible application that meets the needs of the City and provides community benefits.
The elimination of the GPA Authorization step will free up both staff and Council’s time to focus on more important aspects of managing the City while not eliminating any opportunity for stakeholder input and a rigorous review from both the Planning Commission and City Council.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Greg Endom
925-550-8082