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
speci ic, 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 e ects of the
action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL o ers 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 speci ic, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there
is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the speci ic 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 identi iable and
actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a speci ic, 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 speci ically 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 signi icant e ects relating to traf ic, 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 af irms 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 a ordable 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
quanti ication 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 identi ied 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 bene it; it will provide badly-needed
a ordable 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-pro it 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