Cupertino planning commission studies objective design standards for multifamily and mixed‑use projects

The Cupertino Planning Commission held a study session May 13 on proposed objective design standards (ODS) for multifamily and residential mixed‑use developments, hearing a consultant's explanation of the legal need for measurable standards and taking commissioner and public input on priorities such as privacy, streetscape livability and townhome design.

PlaceWorks consultant Greg Goodfellow told the commission that state housing laws have pushed cities to replace subjective design review with objective, quantifiable standards if they want to preserve local design control while remaining eligible for expedited (ministerial) review. "Objective design standards...involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and that are uniformly verifiable by quantifiable standards," Goodfellow said, summarizing the legal definition used in multiple state bills.

The commission's discussion focused on how detailed the ODS should be, how the rules should treat townhouses and smaller multiplexes versus larger mixed‑use projects, and how the city will balance streamlining review with local design priorities such as street trees, active ground floors and the visual screening of parking and service areas.

Why it matters: Recent state laws cited in the session (including SB 35, SB 330 and SB 167, among others) encourage more multifamily housing and require objective criteria for fast‑track approvals; without objective standards local jurisdictions risk losing design control for projects that qualify for ministerial review. Goodfellow told the commission that adopting ODS is the primary way to maintain predictable local design expectations while complying with state streamlining rules.

What the consultant presented and what commissioners asked for

Goodfellow walked commissioners through what ODS can cover, examples from Bay Area jurisdictions and a recommended document structure with separate chapters for large multifamily/mixed‑use buildings and for small‑scale residential (duplex, triplex, townhomes). He stressed that ODS need not be limited to single numeric measures—standards can use checklists, ranges, required elements and diagrams to remain objective.

Key points from the presentation: - ODS typically apply to "multifamily" projects with two or more units and to residential mixed‑use projects where at least 30 percent of gross floor area is residential. Single‑family projects and some hazard or historic resource sites are generally excluded. (Goodfellow) - ODS should avoid repeating or conflicting with existing zoning standards (he noted Cupertino's zoning already includes some objective standards such as stepbacks, visual privacy and balcony rules). (Goodfellow) - Examples from other cities showed multiple approaches—tabular checklists, graphic plan‑level figures, photograph‑based themes and axonometric massing diagrams—illustrating the tradeoff between detail and flexibility. (Goodfellow)

Commissioners and staff asked for: clearer outreach to developers and townhome builders; a separate chapter or clear treatment for townhouses (several speakers said townhomes are a common product type in Cupertino); explicit privacy protections where multifamily adjoins R‑1 neighborhoods; and more frequent checkpoints so the commission can review a draft before it goes to council. Commissioner comments repeatedly emphasized privacy, streetscape and tree canopy, and ground‑floor design that supports walkability.

Public input and community meeting results

Goodfellow summarized qualitative results from a February community session, including post‑it board comments urging more entry points into buildings, concern about crowding at driveways and calls to limit reflective ground‑floor glass and "double‑height" retail space. One written comment presented to the commission quoted the community note, "driveways with just garages do not create communities." The consultant said about 13–15 people responded to the quantitative boards during the outreach.

During the public‑comment period resident Jennifer Griffin urged the commission to preserve the subjective elements of local design traditions and questioned whether state rules reduce meaningful public input. She told the commission she had heard a San Jose planner describe local public comment as "too subjective," a remark she said underscored community concerns about losing local voice.

Process and next steps

Staff and Goodfellow said the ODS work is at the pre‑draft stage: the consultant sought commission priorities rather than presenting a full draft. Goodfellow said the project will return to the planning commission later this year with an initial draft; staff said the document will then go to the city council for at least one study session. Commissioners asked staff to seek developer input outside formal meetings—staff said they would attempt informal outreach and that the document will be posted publicly for a 30‑day review once a draft is available.

What the commission did not decide

This meeting was a study session; no formal vote on ODS, standards or code changes occurred. Commissioners and staff repeatedly noted that some incentives (for example, density‑bonus waivers) can allow applicants to request reductions or waivers of objective standards under state law; commissioners asked that those limitations be made clear in any draft.

Clarifying details and technical points raised

- Applicability: ODS apply to projects with two or more units and mixed‑use where at least 30% of square footage is residential. Single‑family homes and certain hazardous or historic resource sites are generally excluded. (Goodfellow) - Infill test example: Goodfellow cited a typical infill rule where a site is not considered infill if less than 75% of the perimeter is developed. (Goodfellow) - Community meeting participation: the consultant reported roughly 13–15 participants filled the quantitative boards at the February outreach event. (Goodfellow) - Staff timeline: consultants and staff expect a draft to return to planning commission in the fall, followed by city council hearings; staff noted contract and budget limitations could affect scheduling.

Who spoke (selected) - Greg Goodfellow, PlaceWorks, project consultant (presenter) - Charlie Knox, PlaceWorks (mentioned in presentation) - "Luke," staff member (city staff, referenced by consultant) - Commissioner Fung (Planning Commissioner) - Commissioner Lindscoff (Planning Commissioner) - Commissioner Scharf (Planning Commissioner) - Vice Chair Kasolsharan (Planning Commissioner) - Commissioner Pho (Planning Commissioner) - Chair Rao (Planning Commission Chair) - Jennifer Griffin (resident/public commenter)

Proper names mentioned PlaceWorks; City of Cupertino; De Anza College (as context in Stevens Creek example); state laws cited in the presentation (see authorities list below).

Authorities referenced in the presentation - SB 330 (Housing Crisis Act) — referenced in the consultant's legal background on ODS - SB 35 — cited as a streamlined ministerial approval law - SB 167 — cited for how objective standards should be interpreted - SB 6, SB 9, AB 2011 — cited among other housing bills discussed by the consultant (Article limits discussion to the laws explicitly named in the meeting presentation.)

Discussion vs. decision

This session was discussion only. Commissioners provided policy direction and priorities for staff and the consultant to use in shaping the draft ODS; no formal action was taken.

Ending

Staff said it will try to return the ODS work with a draft for commission review in the fall and to continue developer outreach outside formal hearings. The commission asked staff to seek broader stakeholder input—particularly from townhome developers and architects—before the next formal draft is prepared.

Searchable tags: ["objective design standards","multifamily","mixed‑use","PlaceWorks","Cupertino","design review","housing law","SB330","townhomes"]

Provenance (transcript evidence): topicintro: "As staff mentioned, we're here for a planning commission study session about multifamily and mixed use objective design standards." topicfinish: consultant/staff closing remarks and public comments ending the session.