HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 05-12-26 Written CommunicationsPC 05-12-2025
#2
10268
Bandley
Drive
Written
Communications
From: Jack Farrell <jack@yesinmybackyard.org>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 10:03 AM
To: Gian Martire <gianm@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Letter of Support for 10268 Bandley Drive
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.
Good morning,
Please find attached YIMBY Law's letter of support for Item 2 of the 5/12/26 Planning
Commission hearing.
Sincerely,
Jack Farrell he/him
Research Attorney
267-218-1147
Check out everything we achieved in 2025!
May 11, 2026
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Proposed Housing Development at 10268 Bandley Drive
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 27-unit housing
development project at 10268 Bandley Drive, which includes 5 median- and
moderate-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the
Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), 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
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 front setback, rear setback, landscape planter, landscape
setback and area, and requirement for non-residential uses. 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.
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
From: Cathy Helgerson <cathyhelger@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 1:27 PM
To: Tracy Kosolcharoen <Tkosolcharoen@cupertino.org>; sscharf@cupertino.gor; David Fung
<dfung@cupertino.org>; Seema Lindskog <slindskog@cupertino.org>; Santosh Rao
<SRao@cupertino.gov>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <piug@cupertino.org>; Gian Martire
<gianm@cupertino.org>; Nicky Vu <NickyV@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Kitty Moore <kmoore@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <liangchao@cupertino.org>; Sheila Mohan
<smohan@cupertino.org>; J.R. Fruen <jrfruen@cupertino.org>; R "Ray" Wang
<rwang@cupertino.gov>
Subject: 10268 Bandley Drive Public Hearing
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.
Hello ALL,
My name is Cathy Helgerson. I live at 20697 Dunbar Drive, Cupertino, Ca. I have lived at
this address for 46 years and still counting. I have come to this meeting to voice my
objections to this build at 10268 Bandley Drive, Cupertino, Ca. The development of 27
three story townhome condominiums, including 5 affordable units, with associated site
improvement, to replace a commercial office building on a 1.55-acre site, located mid-
block on Bandley Drive between Mariani Avenue and Lazaneo Drive. The Planning
Commission has scheduled a public hearing to review this possible build at Bandley
Drive in Cupertino. My concerns are many and I will try and cover most of them in this e-
mail.
My home is on the other side of the proposed build further down the road over the wall.
Apple Computer has a Research and Development lab building and has been there for
over 30 years and counting. My concern has been that later and who really knows when
that there could be additional builds proposed and that maybe more commercial
buildings will be taken over by this housing build requirements. Years ago Better
Cupertino sent me a photo they made with a 5 story building built right where Apple
Computer has their R & D Lab and they mentioned that this build could happen right next
to my property over the wall. I was very alarmed over this and got involved in city and
county matters over the years.
My fear now is that once the City of Cupertino accepts projects like this one on the other
side of Bandley Drive that soon they will start to open up things and could possibly
develop the other side of the road. This could be a very serious problem with the people
that live next to the wall. Single family homes could be endangered by high rise
buildings.
The Bandley Drive Road building project is listed as Residential R-2 Development. The
buildings on Bandley Drive are Commercial Buildings and have been for decades. I ask
that the zoning be limited to Commercial Buildings and the Residential category zoning
be taken out. We need the Commercial Buildings which are very important to the city.
I attended the Economic Development Committee meeting that was just recently
formed again. They are looking at adding and encouraging businesses to come to
Cupertino to set up businesses. There will be a meeting again in July and I will be
attending and I think they will have monthly meetings after that.
We should look at the builds on Stevens Creek Blvd. that the City of Cupertino has
approved that will be replacing the Pizza Hut, Staples Store and Fontana's Restaurant.
They will be gone which is a real shame. Many people have lost their jobs at Staples
Store and complained but no one listened. There is also on the other side of Stevens
Creek Blvd. another approved build that will be replacing the Voyager Coffee shop and
the Panera Bread this is another build. This building will also replace the Daycare Center
and Office Center. The Cupertino small offices at this site are necessary to the city. We
need this Daycare Center. This has all been approved. This is all so sad and the public
really did not get a chance to stop this terrible tragedy.
My feeling now is that I have to comment by asking the question: how can Cupertino
attract any new businesses if in fact there could be a possibility that once they establish
themselves and set up their businesses all that would have been in vain. A housing
project could come up and they would have to move. Or never to be heard of again. The
question I asked at the Economic Development Committee meeting was how can you
think that any business would want to come to Cupertino if they knew that once they got
their business established that they may have to move out because of the housing quota
requirements. How can the Economic Development Committee even function after
that? I am sure they have to look at this great problem.
I pulled off a report on the web titled Major Residential Projects Cupertino, Ca. This
report shows a list of housing projects that have been approved or reviewed still
pending. It left out some key details that I have contacted staff to see if they can put the
details in. These details would include how many units at each location and the date
that the projects were approved. This report should also include where we stand with the
quota ongoingly. There is a lot of information that needs to be added. The building quota
over all of Cupertino at this time is 4,600 units; the city zoning can allow for over 5,800
units exceeding the minimum state requirements by roughly 28%. This could be just for
one year. Each year there is a new quota. The SB 330 bill is set for a period of 8 years and
the information should be listed for each build on a formal report that goes to the State
Senator. We also should take into account the total number of units each quarter.
It should also be noted that the key project, "The Rise" (Formally Vallco), is currently
slated to provide 2,669 units of housing that is not listed on the City of Cupertino's Major
Projects list. As of April 2025 the City of Cupertino at this site has approved 2,852 units
of housing and has 424 additional units under review, totalling 3,267 units of housing.
This is roughly 70% of the goal certified between 2023-2031 Housing Element to comply
with the State Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Of these, approximately
1,880 units must be affordable to lower-income households. How is the quota really
decided? Who is in charge of that determination?
I contacted Cupertino's District 13 Senator Josh Becker's office and spoke to Alex
Kobayashi who told me that the last count of housing that they had received from
Cupertino was 254 units. So it seems they receive a report every year. This is not
accurate by any means. I would suggest and it sure would be nice to send out this report
quarterly to the Senator and other Senators from other cities. How can the housing
requirements be held if the reports are not accurate and up to date? I have to ask when
was this housing unit quota established? How are the quotas for every city, especially
Cupertino established? The bill established by the Senate only lasts 8 years I guess or
does it? Where are we now in the calculations? This should all be public information and
it is not.
The quotas set for housing do not take into account what will happen with the traffic
gridlock. They do not consider the additional resources that the cities will have to take
on because of these builds. We will probably need more Sherriffs. I was told we only
have 3 as of now. The city has a problem paying them now. What will happen later? Will
the city hire their own police?
There are many commercial properties and restaurants that have closed down because
of many reasons and it is time to look at these properties with jobs lost. The City needs
to take into account what will happen when the traffic problems are way out of control
and there is no Mono Rail system. Highways 85, 280 and 101 are overwhelmed by the
traffic and at some times backed up considerably. Vallco (Rise) will bring in many people
from all over the valley, other states and other countries this will cause traffic and other
problems. There was a shooting at the WestGate Shopping Center not long ago that was
really scary, and so I do not shop there anymore. The shops are too expensive and most
people go there for the food court anyway.
We must look at the big picture. Do we want Cupertino and other cities to become
ghettos? People will come here from all over the United States and from other countries.
This is already a reality. More people mean more crime, violence, disease, crowding,
gridlock traffic problems, more taxes to support the poor and homeless, higher prices,
more pollution and many other problems. The projects in New York City started in this
way one at a time slowly creating a very sad situation. People used to say they lived in a
ghetto and the projects turned into ghetto's. I do not want our great city of Cupertino and
other cities to turn into a ghetto nor should anyone.
I will be working on these problems and hope that others will join me. I do not want this
27 three story townhome condominiums project to be approved. Keep Bandley Drive
Commercial buildings only no Residential Housing change the zoning. Stop killing good
businesses of restaurants, coffee shops, and commercial buildings with these housing
projects that are not what the public wants.
I hope that the Planning Commissions and the City Council will listen to my plea. Please
do not approve this Bandley Drive housing project. No more residential units on Bandley
Drive.
I have sent this e-mail message to the City of Cupertino's City council in hopes that they
will listen to my plea.
Thanks you,
Cathy Helgerson - 408-253-0490
1
Lindsay Nelson
From:Rhonda L <rlukich@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2026 3:25 PM
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:Rhonda Lukich; Gian Martire
Subject:Comments to proposed development, 10268 Bandley Drive
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:
City of Cupertino Planning Commission
From:
Rhonda Lukich, Owner/Manager, Boyer Family Partnership I, 20605 Lazaneo Drive
David Wollenberg, President of The Cortana Corporation, Managing General Partner of Cupertino
Industrial Associates, Owner, 10460 Bandley Drive
Date:
5/11/26
Subject:
Proposed Summerhill Development, 10268 Bandley Drive, Cupertino
Hello,
As the Planning Commission considers Summerhill Development Company’s proposed residential
project of 27 three story townhomes at 10268 Bandley Drive, I’d like to introduce factors that could
potentially have negative impacts on our properties which are adjacent to the project and and most
importantly, our Tenant. We understand the State's need for more housing and the pressure the City
of Cupertino is under to satisfy the State’s mandated goals. That being said, this property is first and
foremost a commercial business park. When it was developed, back in 1977 there was never any
intention of residential housing like this proposed development of fitting into this environment. If this
development passes, future residents of these units must be made aware before purchasing that our
Tenant is likely to have business related activities that could very well be unappealing to residential
housing including evening and overnight noise from generators, air-conditioners and various other
commercial related operations, deliveries and potential future remodeling projects.
Factors that should be considered in Summerhill’s proposal are:
1)
A construction mgmt. plan should be made available for surrounding properties to review.
2)
No parking on our properties before, during or after construction, into perpetuity.
3)
CC&R’s and marketing materials need to include and be clear on the fact that his is a commercial
business park first and foremost. Future residents cannot come back and complain to the City about
commercial activity and/noise.
4)
CC&R’s need to be clear that residents will be restricted from using Tenant's leased property as a
passthrough to other streets.
5)
2
Signs need to be installed that designate our parcels as private property and that violators risk being
towed.
6)
CC&R’s need to be written to strictly enforce parking restrictions, trash removal, landscape
maintenance and keeping their space clean and in an orderly manner.
7)
Strong HOA needs to have strong enforcement mechanisms in their CC&R’s.
8)
A 7’ noise barrier wall, preferably concrete, should be installed to protect everyone’s interests.
We are hopeful that the incorporation of the above comments into Summerhill’s development plans
will bring peace of mind for us as owners and Apple. Our priority is to protect our Tenant’s rights as
they have the right to quiet enjoyment of their buildings.
Thank you for your consideration.
Rhonda Lukich
David Wollenberg
3
Lindsay Nelson
From:James Lloyd <james@calhdf.org>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2026 3:26 PM
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 the 5/12/26 Planning Commission hearing
Attachments:Cupertino - 10268 Bandley Drive - 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 letter in support of item 2 for the
5/12/26 Planning Commission hearing, the proposed 27-unit housing development project at 10268 Bandley Drive, which
includes 5 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/
May 11, 2026
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Proposed Housing Development at 10268 Bandley Drive
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 27-unit housing
development project at 10268 Bandley Drive, which includes 5 median- and
moderate-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the
Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), 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
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 front setback, rear setback, landscape planter, landscape
setback and area, and requirement for non-residential uses. 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.
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