The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 1-21-2026 Item No. 15 & 16 Dividend Homes I & II_Written Communications_2CC 01-21-2026 #15 & 16 Dividend Homes I & II Written Communications From:James Lloyd To:Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang Cc:Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject:Re: public comments re agenda items 15 and 16 for tonight"s Council meeting Date:Wednesday, January 21, 2026 11:32:33 AM Attachments:Cupertino - 20045-20065 Stevens Creek Blvd Townhouses - HAA Letter - CC.pdf Cupertino - 20085-20111 Stevens Creek Blvd Townhouses - 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. There was an error with the date in one of the letters with our previous submission. Please refer to the attached public comments instead. Apologies for the inconvenience. 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/ On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 11:20 AM James Lloyd <james@calhdf.org> wrote: Dear Cupertino City Council, Please see attached public comments from the California Housing Defense Fund regarding agenda items 15 and 16 for tonight's Council meeting. the proposed 57-unit housing development project at 20085-20111 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes six median- and five moderate-income units; and the proposed 32-unit housing development project at 20045-20065 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes three median-income units and three moderate-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/ Jan 21, 2026 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Proposed Housing Development at 20045-20065 Stevens Creek Blvd. By email: kmoore@cupertino.gov; lchao@cupertino.gov; smohan@cupertino.gov; jrfruen@cupertino.gov; rwang@cupertino.gov CC: piug@cupertino.gov; CityAttorney@cupertino.gov; CityManager@cupertino.gov; CityClerk@Cupertino.gov; planning@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 laws when evaluating the proposed 32-unit housing development project at 20045-20065 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes three median-income units and three moderate-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), Housing Element Law, AB 130, and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines. The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, 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 findings 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 effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).) 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers 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 building bulk; front, side, and rear setbacks; building forms; lot coverage; parking requirements; mixed-use retail requirements; and common open space requirements. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, 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 findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically 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.) Finally, the project is exempt from state environmental review pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66), which was signed into law on June 30, 2025 and effective immediately (Assembly Bill No. 130, 2025-2026 Regular Session, Sec. 74, available here). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms 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.) 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 benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-ﬂung regions in the state (and out of state). 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-profit 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. 2 of 3 Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3 Jan 21, 2026 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Proposed Housing Development at 20085-20111 Stevens Creek Blvd. By email: kmoore@cupertino.gov; lchao@cupertino.gov; smohan@cupertino.gov; jrfruen@cupertino.gov; rwang@cupertino.gov CC: piug@cupertino.gov; CityAttorney@cupertino.gov; CityManager@cupertino.gov; CityClerk@Cupertino.gov; planning@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 laws when evaluating the proposed 57-unit housing development project at 20085-20111 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes six median- and five moderate-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), Housing Element Law, AB 130, and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines. The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, 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 findings 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 effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).) 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers 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 limits, front, side, and rear setbacks, building form, building bulk, lot coverage, parking requirements, mixed-use retail requirements, and common open space requirements. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, 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 findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically 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.) Finally, 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 and effective immediately (Assembly Bill No. 130, 2025-2026 Regular Session, Sec. 74, available here). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms 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.) 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 benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-ﬂung regions in the state (and out of state). 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. 2 of 3 CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit 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 From:Kitty Moore To:Lauren Sapudar Cc:Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk Subject:Written Communications Items 15 and 16 Date:Wednesday, January 21, 2026 3:58:34 PM Attachments:Cupertino Public Art KM .pdf Dear City Clerk, Please provide the attached Draft PDF as written communications for the Dividend Homes projects tonight. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Mayor City Council KMoore@cupertino.gov (408)777-1389 Cupertino Public Art – DRAFT compilation. October 16, 2025 Picture of Art Artist Title/Description Location 1 “Little Trees”, Menlo Equities NE Corner SCB/Wolfe Rd. 2 John Augsberger Morion sculpture, 1971 (City Hall) SE corner Torre and Rodrigues 3 Peter Max Morion cover Page of Cupertino Courier, 9/03/2003 Courier Article This was part of a promotion. Guests were invited to bring a copy of the Courier to his book signing at Borders Books at Santana Row. Location of original painting unknown. 4 Georgia Gerber “The Dancers” Civic Center Plaza at City Hall 5 ? ? 19800 Wolfe Rd. 6 ? ? Sculpture of a child reading with a rabbit looking on Cupertino Library courtyard 7 ? ? Quail Family South end of Don Burnett Bridge 8 Stanley Proctor “The Guardians” Memorial Park Veterans Memorial The Following Collection is from the Main Street Cupertino Art Master Program - some pieces may have been installed but are not shown, see the Main Street Art Master Program linked Main Street Art Master Program