Planning Commission reviews sample objective design standards for multifamily housing; PlaceWorks presents five priorities

PlaceWorks consultant Greg Goodfellow presented sample objective design standards (ODS) for multifamily and mixed‑use housing to the City of Cupertino Planning Commission at a July 22 study session, and commissioners provided substantive feedback on content, format and implementation.

The presentation, requested as part of work on Cupertino’s housing element, showed sample standards that translate local design priorities into objective, quantifiable rules intended to streamline review of multifamily projects while protecting neighborhood character.

Why it matters California law increasingly requires objective, quantifiable design criteria for multifamily housing so that cities cannot deny projects on subjective design grounds. The standards under discussion would apply citywide to multifamily and mixed‑use projects and are intended to make design review more predictable for developers while addressing local priorities such as privacy, tree canopy and pedestrian experience.

What PlaceWorks presented Goodfellow said the team drafted sample standards in response to commissioner feedback and summarized five local design priorities the draft seeks to address: ensure new buildings are sensitive to surrounding low‑density residences; make surface parking and loading areas less intrusive to neighborhoods; minimize privacy impacts on adjacent residences; require tree cover to avoid heat‑island effects; and activate ground‑floor retail and improve walkability.

Sample approaches shown in the session included: - Side and rear upper floor setbacks and rear facade modulation to reduce bulk facing single‑family homes. - A daylight plane graphic to limit shadows on adjacent residences. - Façade wrapping and horizontal alignment of window heads and sills to reduce blank rear façades. - Parking and loading screening standards (solid masonry/metal walls colored to match primary building, landscape buffers, covered parking where visible from neighbors). - Standards for enclosed solid‑waste facilities located within a 60‑foot radius of the nearest entry, with screening and a roof providing clearance. - Privacy measures such as offset windows and careful balcony placement; the team noted existing Cupertino code already addresses some balcony spacing. - Ground‑floor retail standards including a sample transparency target (60% glazing between 2 and 8 feet above sidewalk level), taller ground‑floor ceilings, and requirements that primary entries provide unobstructed ingress/egress during business hours.

Legal and policy context presented Goodfellow and staff framed the work in state law: they cited several bills influencing objective standards and housing streamlining, including Senate Bills 423, 330 and 35, as well as SB 167, SB 6 and Assembly Bill 211; Goodfellow quoted Senate Bill 330 (Housing Crisis Act) on the requirement that multifamily projects not be disapproved on subjective criteria and that consistency be judged against objective, quantifiable standards. The team said projects with environmental or site hazards (for example, wetlands or sites subject to CEQA issues) would be excluded from streamlined treatment.

Commissioner and public feedback Commissioners repeatedly asked for examples of how other Bay Area cities implement ODS; Palo Alto and Sunnyvale were discussed as contrasting approaches (Palo Alto’s checklist/code integration versus Sunnyvale’s more illustrated guideline booklet). Commissioners requested: - A set of case studies or concise examples showing formats that have worked (stand‑alone illustrated guideline booklet, checklist, or zoning‑code integration). - Clear cross‑references to existing city ordinances and standards so the ODS does not conflict with established zoning, Heart of the City (HOC) standards or other plans. - A checklist appendix to accompany the illustrated standards to support ministerial (objective) review by staff and to speed the permit process. - Practical simplifications (for example, percent tree canopy targets for parking lots rather than many small numeric prescriptions) and clearer guidance for small‑scale residential (duplexes/triplexes) versus block‑scale multifamily.

Commissioners and the public raised implementation limits and waiver risk Several commissioners and members of the public noted that many multifamily projects seek density bonuses tied to affordability requirements and that density bonus law can allow applicants to seek waivers of certain standards. Commissioner Scharf and others observed that a large share of upcoming multifamily projects are likely to use density bonus provisions (triggered by BMR set‑asides as small as 5% in some cases), which can lead to more frequent waivers of objective standards where they conflict with state law. Goodfellow acknowledged that some standards will be waived in specific cases, but argued ODS still matter as a way to articulate local design priorities and reduce discretionary negotiation.

Public commenters and additional topics Public commenters urged the commission to treat glazing and signage carefully (one speaker noted ground‑floor glazing that later was covered with paper during occupancy), to protect dark‑sky and bird‑safe policies, and to use the ODS to promote placemaking — seating, trees, art and clustering retail to create viable commercial areas. Speakers also asked for outreach examples other cities used to gain community input.

Next steps and deliverables requested by the commission Commissioners asked PlaceWorks and staff to return with: - A draft ODS document (admin draft) that includes the full set of standards organized into chapters and cross‑referenced to existing city codes and specific plans (for example, Heart of the City). Goodfellow indicated the team intends a stand‑alone illustrated guideline booklet with a checklist appendix that could be referenced from the zoning code. - A short package of case studies showing different formats used by other cities and notes on what worked in practice. - Recommendations for outreach and stakeholder engagement (including developers and applicants) and a simplified checklist for staff review.

Speakers and participants Greg Goodfellow — Senior Associate, PlaceWorks (presenter) City planning staff (Luke and other planners; several exchanges in the record) Commissioners: Chair Rao; Vice Chair Kasselstrom; Commissioners Fung, Lindskog, Scharf, Linscott Public commenters: Jennifer Griffin; Lisa Warren; Peggy Griffin; “Sweetheart” (resident)

Authorities { "type":"statute","name":"Senate Bill 330 (Housing Crisis Act) and related housing streamlining statutes","citation":"SB 330; SB 423; SB 35; SB 167; SB 6; AB 211","referenced_by":["Greg Goodfellow"] } { "type":"other","name":"California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)","citation":"CEQA","referenced_by":["Greg Goodfellow"] } { "type":"policy","name":"Cupertino Housing Element obligations","citation":"City housing element (referenced)","referenced_by":["Greg Goodfellow"] }

Actions []

Clarifying details [ {"category":"ground_floor_transparency","detail":"Sample glazing target for ground‑floor retail","value":"60","units":"percent","approximate":true,"source_speaker":"Greg Goodfellow"}, {"category":"applicability","detail":"Types of projects ODS apply to","value":"all multifamily residential projects including townhomes; mixed‑use residential projects with >=30% residential floor area","approximate":false,"source_speaker":"Greg Goodfellow"}, {"category":"small_scale_threshold","detail":"ODS applicability for small projects","value":"2 units+ for multifamily; 5 units+ often associated with density bonus","approximate":false,"source_speaker":"City staff"} ]

Proper names [ {"name":"PlaceWorks","type":"organization"}, {"name":"City of Cupertino Planning Commission","type":"agency"}, {"name":"Heart of the City (HOC)","type":"program"}, {"name":"Sunnyvale","type":"location"}, {"name":"Palo Alto","type":"location"} ]

Community relevance { "geographies":["citywide (Cupertino)","Stevens Creek corridor","neighborhoods with multifamily rezoning sites"], "funding_sources":[], "impact_groups":["residents near multifamily projects","prospective multifamily developers","local businesses impacted by ground‑floor retail design"] }

Meeting context { "engagement_level":{"speakers_count":~20,"duration_minutes":~160,"items_count":1}, "implementation_risk":"medium","history":[{"date":"2025-05-13","note":"Previous study session input from commissioners"} ] }

Searchable_tags ["Objective design standards","ODS","multifamily","PlaceWorks","housing element","SB 330","ground‑floor retail","tree canopy","privacy"]

Provenance { "transcript_segments":[ {"block_id":"seg_1579.755-1600.6901","local_start":0,"local_end":121,"evidence_excerpt":"Yes. Thank you. Good evening, planning commission. Tonight we have here our, consultant. Actually, we have Greg here who will be presenting on behalf of PlaceWorks, who is our consultant working on the objective design standards we commenced on this project in conjunction with the amendment and adoption of the housing element.","tc_start":"00:26:19","tc_end":"00:26:40","reason_code":"topicintro"}, {"block_id":"seg_7312.945-7341.015","local_start":0,"local_end":228,"evidence_excerpt":"So in each of these zones, I offer, a list of allowed amenities in that zone and, you know, which includes public art, trees, seating, and other places. Do you think this would be a good place to change that allowed amenities into a required list? You must include at least 3 to 5 of these amenities in these sidewalk areas as opposed to just saying what's allowed?","tc_start":"02:02:?","tc_end":"02:04:??","reason_code":"topicfinish"} ] }