Loading...
CC 07-01-2025 Item No. 12 Public Hearing Townhome Development_Written Communications (2)1 Lauren Sapudar From:James Lloyd <james@calhdf.org> Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:20 PM To:Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang Cc:Piu Ghosh (she/her); City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney's Office; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk Subject:public comment re item 12 for tonight's Council meeting Attachments:Cupertino - 20770-20840 Stevens Creek Blvd - HAA Letter - CC.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, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 12 for tonight's Council meeting, the proposed 59-unit housing development project at 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes 6 moderate-income units and 6 median-income units. Sincerely, James M. Lloyd Director of Planning and Investigations California Housing Defense Fund james@calhdf.org CalHDF is grant & donation funded Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/ Jul 1, 2025 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Proposed Housing Development at 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd By email: lchao@cupertino.gov; kmoore@cupertino.gov; smohan@cupertino.gov; jrfruen@cupertino.gov; rwang@cupertino.gov CC: piug@cupertino.gov; planning@cupertino.gov; CityAttorney@cupertino.gov; CityManager@cupertino.gov; CityClerk@Cupertino.gov Dear Cupertino City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed 59-unit housing development project at 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes 6 moderate-income units and 6 median-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), state Housing Element Law, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and AB 130. The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless indings can be made regarding speciic, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written indings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3).) The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental eects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).) 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL oers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to height, front setback, setback from landscape easement, side setback, rear setback, service access, private outdoor space clearance, building form, lot coverage, parking space size, planter strip, and retail component. If the City were to deny the requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires indings that the waivers would have a speciic, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the speciic adverse impact. If the City were to deny the requested requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires indings that the concessions would not result in identiiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a speciic, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such indings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL speciically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) Additionally, the project is exempt from state environmental review under the Class 32 CEQA categorical exemption (In-Fill Development Projects) pursuant to section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, as the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as the applicable zoning designation and regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than ive acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; approval of the project would not result in any signiicant eects relating to trafic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Furthermore, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66), which was signed into law on June 30, 2025. Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal afirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) CalHDF notes that the City’s Housing Element planned for 145 units of housing on the site, which included 59 units planned to be aordable to low-income households. Pursuant to Government Code section 65863, the City must make “no net loss” indings that the remaining sites in its Housing Element site inventory are adequate to accommodate its share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. These indings must “include a 2 of 3 quantiication of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identiied in the housing element to accommodate that need by income level.” (Gov. Code, § 65863, subd. (b)(2).) If the City cannot make such indings – in other words, if the remaining sites in the City’s Housing Element site inventory cannot accommodate the City’s housing need – then the City must identify and rezone additional sites within 180 days to ensure it maintains zoned capacity for its share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. (Id. at subd. (c)(2).) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public beneit; it will provide badly-needed aordable housing; it will bring increased tax revenue and new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents into homelessness. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law. CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-proit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3 2 Lauren Sapudar From:Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:15 PM To:City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Public Comment #12 Summerhill 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 read the commentary by “Cupertino for All” that indicated that there has been no opposition to this project. This is untrue. Specifically, I have heard a number of neighbors who have objected to aspects of this project. That organization, which I understand has councilmember Fruen as a founder, evidently is not a reliable source of information. Furthermore, I am very sad to see us losing more retail. In addition to losing sales-tax-revenue, having retail is a quality-of-life issue. Sincerely, Rhoda Fry