The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC 09-08-2026 Written CommunicationsPC 09-08-2026 #2 Dividend Homes Written Communications From:Jennifer Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:1655 South De Anza Blvd/Prospect Road Project Has No Retail Date:Monday, September 7, 2026 11:45:51 PM 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 input for Item Number 2 on the September 8, 2026 Planning Commission meeting agenda item) I see that there is now a new housing project being proposed for the 1655 South De Anza Blvd./ Prospect Road Shopping Center site known as the Coachhouse Building site and adjacent shopping center. This is Item Number 2 on the Cupertino Planning Commission Agenda for September 8, 2026. There had been a previous project planned for this site several years ago. That previous Project had housing as well as retail. This new project is all housing with no retail. My husband grew up in this area adjacent to Blue Hills Market etc. The retail is this area has always been very important as well as the associated medical center where my husband's family doctors were located And current family doctors are still located. The intersection of South De Anza Blvd. and Prospect Road has always been a very important retail arena and my family used many retail establishments and restaurants in the area and still do. Many customers from Saratoga and San Jose and Cupertino frequent the retail in this important and historic crossroads area. I am very concerned that the current plans for 1655 South De Anza Blvd/Prospect Road shopping center do not include any retail. Much historic retail is being lost at this shopping center location. It is proposed to all go to housing. We have already lost much valuable, historic retail sites in Cupertino already because Of other SB 330 housing complexes. There are now six other sites where retail is being lost. I hope that retail can be added back to 1655 South De Anza Blvd/Prospect Road like it was in the previous project. We need to maintain retail in Cupertino. My husband and I were in Scotts Valley today frequenting several retail locations and all were full of customers etc. In fact it was amazing the number of customers All over Scotts Valley's retail and shopping centers. The town was literally buzzing and parking lots were full etc. I was very pleased to see the number of new retail shops at the new Target Shopping Center on Mt. Herman Rd. in Scotts Valley. The Target was packed as well as the recently refurbished shopping center with the four new retail shops! It was amazing! Scotts Valley retail serves customers from Felton and beyond As well as Scotts Valley residents from both sides of Highway 17 and residents from Santa Cruz as well as travelers coming along Highway 17 from San Jose/Los Gatos in the north and Santa Cruz/Capitola/ Soquel and Aptos in the south. We need to keep our valuable retail in the Cupertino area so our residents and neighbors have places to shop. I hope 1655 South De Anza Blvd/Prospect Road can retain its very important retail for Cupertino customers and customers from neighboring cities. Thank you very much. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin From:Sophie Haugen To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission 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 meeting Date:Tuesday, September 8, 2026 4:25:12 PM Attachments:Cupertino - 1655 S. De Anza Blvd - HAA.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 City of Cupertino The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits the attached public comment re item 2 for tonight's meeting, the proposed 35 housing development project at 1655 S. De Anza Blvd / 7357 Prospect Rd, which includes which includes 3 very low income and 2 moderate income units. Sincerely, Sophie Haugen California Housing Defense Fund Sophie@calhdf.org CalHDF is grant & donation funded Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/; Sep 8, 2026 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 1655 S. De Anza Blvd - 7357 Prospect Rd To: planningcommission@cupertino.gov; Cc: piug@cupertino.gov; CityAttorney@cupertino.gov; CityManager@cupertino.gov; CityClerk@Cupertino.gov; planning@cupertino.gov; Dear City of Cupertino, 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 35-unit housing development project at 1655 S. De Anza Blvd - 7357 Prospect Rd, which includes 3 very low income and 2 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 maximum ﬂoor area, height limitations, three story height limitation, front setback, design requirements, site and building design, landscape requirements, building stepback height, public improvements, building planes, and retail component. 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.) The project is also eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA 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: 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