The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 10-06-2026 Item No. 13 Coach House Development Project_Written CommunicationsCC 10-06-2026 #13 Coach House Written Communications From:Sophie Haugen To:Public Comments; 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:Revised Public Comment re item 13 for tonight"s City Council Meeting Date:Tuesday, October 6, 2026 1:49:04 PM Attachments:_Cupertino - 1655 S. De Anza Blvd - HAA - CC 10_6 .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) resubmits the revised attached public comment re item 13 for tonight's city council meeting, the proposed 35 unit housing development project at 1655 S. De Anza Blvd - 7357 Prospect Rd, which includes 3 very low income units, and 2 moderate income units. Please refer to the attached comment instead of the previously submitted comment. Sincerely, Sophie Haugen California Housing Defense Fund Sophie@calhdf.org CalHDF is grant & donation funded Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/; Oct 6, 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: publiccomment@cupertino.gov; 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 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 From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Council; City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Item Number 13, Retail and Housing Numbers Date:Tuesday, October 6, 2026 9:25:31 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 City Council: (Please consider the following as public input on Item Number 13 on the Cupertino City Council Meeting Agenda on September 6, 2026.) On the Agenda Item Number 13 on the housing proposed at the Coach House Shopping Center for the September 6, 2026 City Council Meeting please help any retail that is at this site. This has been a shopping center for a long time and we are losing so much retail in the city to other building sites. We have six townhouse projects on Stevens Creek Blvd. and much retail is being displaced. Please help the Coach House retail try to relocate in Cupertino. We need to keep retail in our town. People in Cupertino have to shop in other cities now because of the lack of retail opportunites in our city. Keeping and recruiting retail in our city is good for the city and shoppers and business. The concept of No Net Loss is being played out in the city for the first time. This means the inflated RHNA numbers are having to be redistributed across our Housing Element sites again. I don't think No Net Loss is a good plan for the state and its new housing laws. It will make the Housing Elements worse and the Sixth Cycle Housing Element has already been shown to have many idemic and inherent problems across the state. Please try to help the retail at this site stay in the city and try to mitigate the problems that No Net Loss is propagating across our city. Thank you very much. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin