Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 03-24-2026 Written Communications (Updated 03-25-2026)PC 3-24-2026 #2 Residential Development Written Communications From:Piu Ghosh (she/her) To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Fwd: Support New Family Housing at 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Blvd! Date:Friday, March 20, 2026 6:51:58 AM ​​​​  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. Planning Manager Piu Ghosh, Dear Cupertino Planning Commissioners, I am writing to strongly urge you to recommend approval for the proposed residential project at 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard. This development represents a rare and vital opportunity to create 122 for-sale townhomes in our city, providing the high-quality, family-sized housing that Cupertino desperately needs. By building 100% three- and four-bedroom units and including a significant 20% on-site affordable component, this project ensures that both growing families and our local workforce have a path to homeownership. This is a smart, logical conversion of an underutilized commercial site that will actually benefit the surrounding neighborhood by reducing net daily traffic by 40%. Furthermore, the project team’s commitment to preserving the historic pear trees and creating a new public linear park shows a clear dedication to enhancing our community’s character and green space. Cupertino must approve thoughtful infill projects like this to meet our housing goals and remain a welcoming city for families of all income levels. I respectfully ask that you vote yes and move this project forward to the City Council. Jeffrey Herdman jherdman123@gmail.com San Jose, California 95129 From:Cathy Helgerson To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; J.R. Fruen; Sheila Mohan; R "Ray" Wang Subject:Public Hearing File# 26-14967 Housing Proposal Date:Monday, March 23, 2026 6:58:05 AM 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. Addressing: The Cupertino Planning Commission & the Cupertino City Council Planning Commissions Members: Tracy Kosolcharoen - Chair, Steven Scharf, Vice -Chair, David Fung, Seema Lindskog, Santosh Rao and Staff Liaison - Piu Ghosh and City Council Members - Kitty Moore, Mayor, Liang Chao, J.R. Fruen, Sheila Mohan and Ray Wang. Regarding: Public Hearing File # 26-14967 - Meeting date: Tuesday -3/24/2026 at 6:45 PM. Public Hearing Subject: Consider a Use Permit, Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit for the construction of a 122 -unit residential development, consisting of 66 small-lot single family homes and 56 townhomes located at the Stevens Creek Office Centersite, which includes a multi-tenant retail building (Voyager Coffee and Panera Bread). The Project utilizes Senate Bill 330 and provisions of State Density Bonus law, (Application No(s): U-2024-008, TM-2024-006, ASA-2024-011, TR-2024-003; Applicant: Kevin Choy, Harvest Properties, Location: 20807, 20813, 20823 & 20883 Stevens Creek Blvd; APN: 326-32-050, 051, 052 and - 053. From: Cathy Helgerson - Phone No: 408-253-0490 - Address: 20697 Dunbar Drive The Planning Commission and the Cupertino City Council turn down this Use Permit. Senate Bill 330 and its extensions are performing havoc and widespread destruction on our city and the cities all over California. This bill needs to be brought back into the Senate for review by the Senate and the Legislature. This project and the requested permit for this project will destroy and demolish the Voyager Coffee Shop, Panera Bread, Stevens Creek Office Center, Daycare Center and more needs to be disapproved and the public's disapproval needs to be seriously considered. Many of these stores, coffee shops and restaurants employ workers that continually lose their jobs to these developments. No considerations are ever considered for what this does to our loyal employees who need these jobs. This total injustice must end. What is replacing these stores, office center and daycare center nothing they are gone forever? Where will these new residents shop and enjoy the camaraderie of their fellow man. Oh and women. We need places to congregate. The City of Cupertino has continually over decades lost many restaurants, retail stores of all kinds, department stores and there is a long list of what has taken place too long to mention here. One specifically just recently was the Stapes Store that many of us use for office supplies that has closed due to the build that will take place. There truly has been no effort to consider what the closures of these much needed commercial properties mean to the people of Cupertino. How can this continue? We must go long distances to buy our office supplies. The public is not asked to vote for these properties; the city has not considered a voting process of mailing to our homes to vote for them or against them. Why has no voting system been implemented so that all citizens of Cupertino's votes can be recognised and so the vote can be counted for and against? The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 is not to be taken lightly so they think and pass a bill like the Senate Bill 330 without even really working to understand how this really is going to affect our cities and communities. What will the traffic be like and how will the city handle the grid lock on our street and highways? I am gravely disappointed with those who make our laws on all levels but especially with the City Council in Cupertino who should be protecting the public from this Senate Bill. Instead it looks as if no one will oppose this bill. This is terribly wrong. They need to bring this bill back for review and have it voted upon by the public. A lawsuit if necessary should be started. The City of Cupertino and other cities should join together and issue such a suit. The City of Cupertino is turning into a Mega Highrise Housing Community void of commercial properties that provide a service to the community. This is not what the citizens in Cupertino want. It is important that the public is included in the decision making of our city. I ask that the City of Cupertino Planning take back their approval of this project and reconsider going forward with its approval to the City Council. Project Locations application No.(s) U-2024-008, TM2024-006, ASA-2024-001, & TR-2024-033. There is and could be the possibility of another site being selected and I propose this to the Planning Commission and to the City of Cupertino's City Council. The Library Field area next to City of Cupertino's City Hall and City Library is open and should be available for such a project and even more the building of a new City Hall and office building should be considered and looked at. It seems that in the past people in our City have opposed such a build but there was never a city vote taken by the people as a whole. The field has been used for a soccer field for kids and just a few people, coaches and parents opposed using the field for the City Hall build and so it sits there. The other citizens in Cupertino were not allowed to vote on this use of the field and I think this is very wrong. Note: The City of Cupertino has not retrofitted its City Hall and office building to fit the earthquake regulations seismic stability must be instigated to protect the public and the workers. This Library Field project, if implemented, would take care of this problem. I am against this proposed project that will kill and destroy living trees and property. The cost of the demolition of the buildings and the dust and pollution that it would cause is money being wasted. Using the Library Field will be the better way to go. There is no doubt in my mind that this field will someday be used. How could it not be used? It needs to be used for a City Hall and City offices and so much more. The time is and should be now! Why not? Save our commercial and retail properties. Please do not approve this build permit! Thanks you, Cathy Helgeson - 408-253-0490 From:Witt Turner To:Tracy Kosolcharoen; Steven Scharf; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Santosh Rao; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:Piu Ghosh (she/her); City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject:Formal Letter of Support - Harvest Properties | Housing Action Coalition Date:Monday, March 23, 2026 4:48:26 PM Attachments:Stevens Creek Cupertino - HAC Letter of Endorsement.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 Members of the Cupertino Planning Commission and Staff, I am writing on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition (HAC) to formally present our letter of support for Harvest Properties' proposed residential redevelopment at 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard. HAC is a statewide member-supported organization. We advocate for building more homes at all income levels to alleviate California’s housing crisis which directly impacts Cupertino. This project transforms aging commercial buildings into 122 much-needed for-sale homes, addressing a critical gap in "missing middle" housing. All proposed units feature three or four bedrooms, providing essential homeownership opportunities for local families. Furthermore, the development meets Cupertino’s 20% inclusionary requirement by delivering 24 below-market-rate homes onsite. The project is a logical infill strategy that aligns with the General Plan and utilizes state streamlining and density bonus laws. Beyond providing housing, it includes beneficial community features such as a central linear park and a projected 40% net decrease in trip generation compared to the current office use. Our formal letter of support is attached. We respectfully urge the Planning Commission to support this project and allow it to move forward through the entitlement process. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Witt Turner Housing Action Coalition -- Witt Turner He/Him/His Office: (415)-300-0967 Cell: 510-421-9401 Advocacy and Operations Associate | Housing Action Coalition 555 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111 housingactioncoalition.org March 23, 2026 Cupertino Planning Commission Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Staff, The Housing Action Coalition (HAC) is a member-supported nonprofit that advocates for creating more housing for residents of all income levels to help alleviate California’s housing shortage, displacement, and affordability crisis. The Housing Action Coalition is pleased to endorse Harvest Properties’ proposed residential redevelopment at 20807–20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino. Following review by the HAC Project Review Committee, we find that the project represents a thoughtful conversion of aging commercial buildings into much-needed for-sale housing, aligned with Cupertino’s General Plan and inclusionary housing requirements. Land Use. The project will redevelop six one- and two-story commercial structures totaling approximately 117,500 square feet, including roughly 7,000 square feet of retail, into a 100% residential community. The site fronts Stevens Creek Boulevard, a commercial corridor, and Alves Drive, a single-family neighborhood. Transitioning this aging office site into housing is a logical infill strategy that responds to changing market conditions and community needs. Density. The project proposes 122 for-sale homes, all consisting of three- and four-bedroom units. The net density of approximately 17.84 dwelling units per acre is within the base zoning allowance of 25 dwelling units per acre. Heights are generally around 40 feet from proposed grade, with certain homes requiring waivers due to Cupertino’s measurement methodology. The project utilizes State Density Bonus Law, SB 330 streamlining, and AB 130. Affordability. The development meets Cupertino’s 20% inclusionary requirement, delivering 24 below-market-rate homes onsite. Of these, 12 units are at the Moderate AMI level (120%) and 12 at the Median AMI level (100%). By providing ownership opportunities for moderate- and median-income households in a city where entry-level homeownership is often out of reach, the project addresses a critical gap in missing middle housing supply. Transportation and Parking. The project includes 244 covered resident parking spaces (two per unit) plus 27 guest spaces, consistent with State Density Bonus parking standards and below what would otherwise be required under Cupertino Municipal Code. Bicycle parking is provided within each garage, along with additional publicly available racks. A completed traffic study demonstrates a net decrease of approximately 40% in trip generation compared to the existing office use. Urban Design and Open Space. The project incorporates a network of small paseos and a central linear park designed to foster neighborhood interaction and community life. The internal park includes seating areas, shade structures, lawn areas, and pedestrian pathways. Each unit includes a private deck, and select homes include rooftop decks. Memorial Park and William Faria Elementary School are located within a half-mile of the site, further supporting livability for families. Environmental Features. The project will meet California Building Code and Title 24 sustainability requirements, including rooftop solar installation and EV charging infrastructure. While not pursuing third-party certification, the development complies fully with current state and municipal environmental standards. Community Engagement. Although not legally required to host outreach meetings, the project team conducted two in-person neighborhood meetings and engaged Planning Commissioners, City Councilmembers, and surrounding residents. In response to feedback, the project team preserved the pear trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard and evaluated retail retention before determining that preserving retail would require significant resubmission and delay. Overall, this proposal converts underperforming commercial buildings into 122 new for-sale homes—including 24 affordable units—in a city facing severe housing constraints. We support this project and encourage the City of Cupertino to continue advancing it through the entitlement process. Sincerely, Corey Smith, Executive Director From:Shelby Maples To:City Clerk Subject:Fw: Public Hearing File# 26-14967 Housing Proposal Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 9:34:19 AM ​​​​  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. Addressing: The Cupertino Planning Commission & the Cupertino City Council Planning Commissions Members: Tracy Kosolcharoen - Chair, Steven Scharf, Vice -Chair, David Fung, Seema Lindskog, Santosh Rao and Staff Liaison - Piu Ghosh and City Council Members - Kitty Moore, Mayor, Liang Chao, J.R. Fruen, Sheila Mohan and Ray Wang. Regarding: Public Hearing File # 26-14967 - Meeting date: Tuesday -3/24/2026 at 6:45 PM. Public Hearing Subject: Consider a Use Permit, Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit for the construction of a 122 -unit residential development, consisting of 66 small-lot single family homes and 56 townhomes located at the Stevens Creek Office Centersite, which includes a multi-tenant retail building (Voyager Coffee and Panera Bread). The Project utilizes Senate Bill 330 and provisions of State Density Bonus law, (Application No(s): U-2024-008, TM-2024-006, ASA-2024-011, TR-2024-003; Applicant: Kevin Choy, Harvest Properties, Location: 20807, 20813, 20823 & 20883 Stevens Creek Blvd; APN: 326-32-050, 051, 052 and - 053. From: Cathy Helgerson - Phone No: 408-253-0490 - Address: 20697 Dunbar Drive The Planning Commission and the Cupertino City Council turn down this Use Permit. Senate Bill 330 and its extensions are performing havoc and widespread destruction on our city and the cities all over California. This bill needs to be brought back into the Senate for review by the Senate and the Legislature. This project and the requested permit for this project will destroy and demolish the Voyager Coffee Shop, Panera Bread, Stevens Creek Office Center, Daycare Center and more needs to be disapproved and the public's disapproval needs to be seriously considered. Many of these stores, coffee shops and restaurants employ workers that continually lose their jobs to these developments. No considerations are ever considered for what this does to our loyal employees who need these jobs. This total injustice must end. What is replacing these stores, office center and daycare center nothing they are gone forever? Where will these new residents shop and enjoy the camaraderie of their fellow man. Oh and women. We need places to congregate. The City of Cupertino has continually over decades lost many restaurants, retail stores of all kinds, department stores and there is a long list of what has taken place too long to mention here. One specifically just recently was the Stapes Store that many of us use for office supplies that has closed due to the build that will take place. There truly has been no effort to consider what the closures of these much needed commercial properties mean to the people of Cupertino. How can this continue? We must go long distances to buy our office supplies. The public is not asked to vote for these properties; the city has not considered a voting process of mailing to our homes to vote for them or against them. Why has no voting system been implemented so that all citizens of Cupertino's votes can be recognised and so the vote can be counted for and against? The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 is not to be taken lightly so they think and pass a bill like the Senate Bill 330 without even really working to understand how this really is going to affect our cities and communities. What will the traffic be like and how will the city handle the grid lock on our street and highways? I am gravely disappointed with those who make our laws on all levels but especially with the City Council in Cupertino who should be protecting the public from this Senate Bill. Instead it looks as if no one will oppose this bill. This is terribly wrong. They need to bring this bill back for review and have it voted upon by the public. A lawsuit if necessary should be started. The City of Cupertino and other cities should join together and issue such a suit. The City of Cupertino is turning into a Mega Highrise Housing Community void of commercial properties that provide a service to the community. This is not what the citizens in Cupertino want. It is important that the public is included in the decision making of our city. I ask that the City of Cupertino Planning take back their approval of this project and reconsider going forward with its approval to the City Council. Project Locations application No.(s) U-2024-008, TM2024-006, ASA-2024-001, & TR- 2024-033. There is and could be the possibility of another site being selected and I propose this to the Planning Commission and to the City of Cupertino's City Council. The Library Field area next to City of Cupertino's City Hall and City Library is open and should be available for such a project and even more the building of a new City Hall and office building should be considered and looked at. It seems that in the past people in our City have opposed such a build but there was never a city vote taken by the people as a whole. The field has been used for a soccer field for kids and just a few people, coaches and parents opposed using the field for the City Hall build and so it sits there. The other citizens in Cupertino were not allowed to vote on this use of the field and I think this is very wrong. Note: The City of Cupertino has not retrofitted its City Hall and office building to fit the earthquake regulations seismic stability must be instigated to protect the public and the workers. This Library Field project, if implemented, would take care of this problem. I am against this proposed project that will kill and destroy living trees and property. The cost of the demolition of the buildings and the dust and pollution that it would cause is money being wasted. Using the Library Field will be the better way to go. There is no doubt in my mind that this field will someday be used. How could it not be used? It needs to be used for a City Hall and City offices and so much more. The time is and should be now! Why not? Save our commercial and retail properties. Please do not approve this build permit! Thanks you, Cathy Helgeson - 408-253-0490 Shelby Maples Senior Planner ​​​​ Community Development ShelbyM@cupertino.gov (408)777-1333 From:Jennifer Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Loss of Retail at Panera/Voyager Coffee SB 330 Site Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 9:59:32 AM 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 Planning Commission: (Please consider the following as public comment for Item 2 on the Planning Commission meeting On 3/24/26.) The SB 330 Project of Voyager Coffee and Panera Bread is going to result in the loss of 110,000 square feet of prime, traditional Cupertino shopping space along Stevens Creek Blvd. The very popular Good Earth Restaurant was located on this site for many years. The loss of retail to the city is unfathomable. There have now been seven of these SB 330 projects, all along Stevens Creek Blvd. The city is having Prime retail sites wiped out from West to East in the city. If each site contains 100,000 square feet Of retail that means the city is losing over 700,000 square feet of retail in just under one year, all along Stevens Creek Blvd. The city requires retail to be included in developments along Stevens Creek Blvd., but yet none Of these projects provide retail. SB 330 is a rather lopsided, unwise housing law thrust upon the population Of the state of California without the public being able to weigh in or vote on. It is obvious now the law has some overwhelming problems and one of them is the destruction of Retail in our city. The law has caused so much loss of retail that it can truly be called the "Retail Crisis" bill. I think it would be much better if this current project retained its nice active retail of popular Voyager Coffee and the very successful Panera Bread. We love the very nice shopping center on Scott and El Camino in Santa Clara where another Panera Bread is located. This shopping center is very successful and has multiple active restaurants and shopping opportunities. Why can't we have such Nice retail in Cupertino? We have the dining and shopping population. I think all the SB 330 sites in Cupertino should retain retail. Really, SB 330 is short-changing our city. We are losing 700,000 square feet of prime retail and current tenants are in danger of being kicked Out or abandoned by the city. Please make sure Voyager and Panera have homes in our city if their current locations are lost. We really do not want to lose anymore retail. We are becoming a bedroom community for Sunnyvale which has much active retail. I think we need to have a Study Session on SB 330 and its impacts on Cupertino. What have other cities done about this burgeoning problem? I am also concerned about the traffic complications of having one active SB 330 at Staples directly across The street (Stevens Creek Blvd.) from this new Voyager/Panera SB 330. Have the traffic patterns been studied? The traffic signal at Saich and Stevens Creek Blvd. is going to get clogged up and impassable. I really think we need to think carefully about what the multitude of SB 330s are doing to our City and the overall burgeoning pattern of retail loss. Once retail is lost along the Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor of Cupertino, we the shoppers of Cupertino never get it back. Thank you very much. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin From:James Lloyd To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Santosh Rao; Tracy Kosolcharoen; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Steven Scharf Cc:Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject:public comment re item 2 for tonight"s Planning Commission meeting Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 12:02:27 PM Attachments:Cupertino - 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Blvd - HAA Letter.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 Planning Commission, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 2 for tonight's Planning Commission meeting, the proposed 122-unit housing development project at 20807, 20813, 20823 & 20883 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes 24 median- and 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/ Mar 24, 2026 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 20807, 20813, 20823 & 20883 Stevens Creek Blvd By email: planningcommission@cupertino.gov; srao@cupertino.org; Tkosolcharoen@cupertino.gov; dfung@cupertino.gov; slindskog@cupertino.gov; SScharf@cupertino.gov; CC: piug@cupertino.gov; CityAttorney@cupertino.gov; CityManager@cupertino.gov; CityClerk@Cupertino.gov; planning@cupertino.gov; Dear Cupertino Planning Commission, 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 122-unit housing development project at 20807, 20813, 20823 & 20883 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes 24 median- and moderate-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), Housing Element Law, and AB 130. 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 Of note, the City has planned for housing development on the site by including it in its current Housing Element site inventory. Specifically, the City has planned for 51 units on the site including 21 lower-income units. 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, front setbacks, side setbacks, rear setbacks, building forms, roof plans, lot coverage, number of stories, minimum lot width, landscape easement, parking space size, tandem parking, parking setback, and affordable unit size. 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). 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: 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:Patrick Bumb To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:Blair Volckmann; Kevin Choy Subject:3.24.26 Planning Commission Hearing – 20807–20883 Stevens Creek Blvd. Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 2:40:33 PM Attachments:Letter to Planning Commission_3.24.26.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. To Whom It May Concern, Please find the attached letter regarding the proposed 122-unit residential development at 20807– 20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino. This letter is intended for discussion in connection with tonight’s Planning Commission hearing. Sincerely, Patrick Bumb Vice President Borelli Investment Company 2051 Junction Avenue, Suite 100 San Jose, CA 95131 Cell: (408) 499-9815 DRE# 01913911 From:Shelby Maples To:City Clerk Subject:Fw: Public Comment on Item 2: Stevens Creek Office Center Development Project Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 3:24:24 PM ​​​​ ​​​​ om: David Susman <stevenscreekoffice@gmail.com> Date: March 24, 2026 at 3:18:39 PM PDT To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.gov> Cc: Tracy Kosolcharoen <Tkosolcharoen@cupertino.gov>, Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.gov>, David Fung <dfung@cupertino.gov>, Seema Lindskog <SLindskog@cupertino.gov>, Santosh Rao <SRao@cupertino.gov>, "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.gov> Subject: Public Comment on Item 2: Stevens Creek Office Center Development Project  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 Chair Kosolcharoen, Vice-Chair Scharf, and the rest of the Cupertino Planning Commission: I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed development at 20807- 20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard. This project destroys essential community spaces, damages a vibrant small business, and leaves seniors and young people in Cupertino with hardly anywhere left to go. Back in 2021-2022, the owners of Voyager Craft Coffee poured their time, energy, money, creativity, heart, and belief into a total renovation of the former Peet's Coffee space. What resulted was a fabulously successful small business where lines for coffee famously stretch out the door and sometimes around the building on weekends. The owners of Voyager thoughtfully created a huge outdoor patio for people to enjoy and connect -- and, in doing so, helped provide a vital third space for people in Cupertino to share a sense of community. This proposed development project would wipe out Voyager's investment, do great harm to their small business -- a true South Bay success story that started with a single coffee cart -- and leave Cupertino without one of its signature spaces for people to come together. Voyager is exactly the kind of business Cupertino needs, and should be trying to attract, support, and sustain. This is not the type of business we want to eliminate! While I am merely a customer of Voyager, I am not even certain that Voyager was ever contacted by anyone at the city about this project. They should be right in the middle of this discussion, not excluded from it while their livelihood -- and the place they've poured themselves into -- sits in danger of closing. This isn't just about Voyager or Panera. It's about the seniors, students, and young people of Cupertino. Where else do groups of seniors have to meet for coffee in the morning? Where do high school and De Anza students meet to study or work on group projects? Just do a quick search for meetups in Cupertino -- political activism groups, interest groups (whether it be knitting, startups, or book clubs), etc. all congregate at this location, especially at Panera. Not only is retail in Cupertino dying, but vital "third spaces" that support community are dying as well. This development project eliminates vital community space for people who can't easily invite others into their homes. In addition, it eliminates the natural connections and community that emerge when people come together in a central gathering place. In this time where the prices of everything are skyrocketing, where housing is generally unaffordable to young people and seniors, where the future of Cupertino looks like a nearly silent wall of townhomes and a few scattered offices -- it's more important than ever to protect and provide spaces to gather, connect, and meet. I urge the Planning Commission and City Council not to participate in destroying one the few places remaining where true community has the ability to take root. Thank you for taking the time to hear my thoughts. David Susman From:Patrick Bumb To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:C. Jang; Crystal Jang; Patrick Bumb Subject:3.24.26 Planning Commission Hearing – 20807–20883 Stevens Creek Blvd. Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 5:54:01 PM Attachments:Easement Agreement.pdf Letter to Planning Commission_3.24.26 (1).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 Planning Commission, On behalf of our client, Saich Way LLC, we respectfully request that the Commission continue the hearing scheduled for this evening to a future date. This will allow the parties additional time to coordinate and address outstanding issues in a thoughtful and productive manner. Our client was made aware of the proposed development within the past 48 hours and has not had sufficient time to fully evaluate the potential impacts. Given the shared infrastructure and interrelated considerations between the properties, additional time is warranted to ensure a well- coordinated outcome. Additionally, the existing Reciprocal Easement Agreement (attached) reflects extensive coordination between the parties and the City, particularly with respect to traffic circulation and shared site improvements. The requirement for City Manager approval under Section 23 further underscores that these matters extend beyond a private agreement and are integral to the City’s original project approvals. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the considerations outlined in the attached "Letter to Planning Commission_3.24.26" be carefully evaluated and incorporated into any project conditions of approval. Sincerely, Patrick Bumb Vice President Borelli Investment Company 2051 Junction Avenue, Suite 100 San Jose, CA 95131 Office: (408) 560-1519 DRE# 01913911 From: Patrick Bumb <patrick@borelli.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 2:39 PM To: planningcommission@cupertino.gov <planningcommission@cupertino.gov> Cc: Blair Volckmann <bvolckmann@harvestproperties.com>; Kevin Choy <kchoy@harvestproperties.com> Subject: 3.24.26 Planning Commission Hearing – 20807–20883 Stevens Creek Blvd. To Whom It May Concern, Please find the attached letter regarding the proposed 122-unit residential development at 20807– 20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino. This letter is intended for discussion in connection with tonight’s Planning Commission hearing. Sincerely, Patrick Bumb Vice President Borelli Investment Company 2051 Junction Avenue, Suite 100 San Jose, CA 95131 Cell: (408) 499-9815 DRE# 01913911 Staff and Commission Reports Written Communications PC 3-24-2026 Commission Report - Tracy Kosolcharoen - March 24, 2026 ●On March 11-13, three Cupertino Planning Commission members attended the 2026 Planning Commissioners Academy. I thank staff for making available this excellent opportunity to meet other commissioners from across the state, learn about the latest housing legislation, and further our knowledge on topics like CEQA, wildfire risk, and the planning process. ●Some observations/learnings: ○There are many new state and assembly bills coming down the pipeline that may significantly impact local control across planning, permitting, and housing finance. These bills are at an early stage and may change quite a bit by the time they are signed, but the city may want to track them in its legislative review committee. ■Source:https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/planning-commissioners- academy---session-materials/legislative-update18f98ab2-6a98-490e-a10e-b7f89 c07a33d.pdf?sfvrsn=10e0e4f4_1 ○AB130 is a very new state law. Only one commissioner I met had dealt with an AB130 project. ○A common theme during the conference was around Planning Commission’s significantly reduced quasi-judicial authority on housing projects, due to new state laws. The Planning Commission still plays an advisory role in General Plans and other legislative decisions, and a quasi-judicial role for non-residential projects. ■Practical Guidance for Planning Commissioners session, slides 6-10: Localities face “Greatly reduced timelines for many approvals, more ministerial approvals (no public input, no CEQA), increased authority to HCD, and increased penalties for noncompliance.” ■Source:https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/planning-commissioners- academy---session-materials/california-housing-law-updates-practical-guidance- for-planning-commissioners.pdf?sfvrsn=b92c0930_1 ○Planning Commissions should build for resiliency – “ability to adapt, withstand, and recover.” Resiliency in Action session, slide 8 provides some excellent questions we should ask: “Does this decision increase or reduce our community’s vulnerability to known hazards? How will this project perform as conditions change? Does this decision strengthen or undermine our adopted resiliency goals?” ■Source:https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/planning-commissioners- academy---session-materials/resiliency-in-action-what-every-planning-commissi oner-should-ask---streeter.pdf?sfvrsn=363b62ee_1 ●If residents want to provide input around state housing laws, they are encouraged to contact their legislators.