CC 06-17-2025 Oral Communications (updated 6-17-25)CC 06-17-2025
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From:Jean Bedord
To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject:Oral Communications, City Council, June 17, 2025: Building permits
Date:Tuesday, June 17, 2025 3:52:40 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.
City clerk - please include in Written Communications
Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore and Council Members Fruen, Mohan and Wang
Last week I attended Mayor Chao’s community chat. I heard a litany of
complaints about the permitting process in the city. Unfortunately,
Mayor Chao and Planning Commission Chair contributed to the
misinformation regarding building permits
One of the complaints was the cost of building permits. Chair Rao
accused the previous council for responsibility for raising fees for
residents, disregarding the city policy of cost recovery for all
departments including planning. This policy was NOT put into place
by the previous council as accused. It was a matter of prudent
fiscal responsibility put into place many councils ago.
I agree that permit fees, particularly for small projects, seem high, and
the timeframes for approval seem to be problematic. However, just
reducing fees without addressing the underlying issues will only
contribute to a budget shortfall for the city.
First of all, is planning fully staffed? Are there any vacancies?
Secondly, how many on the staff have at least a year’s experience in
Cupertino? My observation is that the turnover has been high for the
past 4-6 years. As those of us who have worked in industry know, it
takes six months or so for a staff member to be fully productive. Staff
may not be able to determine this, but how many different planners
“touch” an individual permit? I talked with one developer who had to
work with three different planners, which meant a lot of extra time for
both staff and the developer to come up to speed. In addition, each
planner may focus on different aspects.
Thirdly, how many iterations are typically involved in an approval? How
many applications are approved on the first submission? I’m guessing
not many. Multiple submissions are a stop-start process so the planner
goes on to the next application until resubmission. Are homeowners
aware that changes and multiple iterations take more staff time and
lengthen the approval process? Under the current regime, are staff
meetings required or does the individual planner have ministerial
authority? All of these contribute to costs and delays in approval.
Fourthly, can the city have an expedited process, similar to Sunnyvale,
which does over-the-counter approvals for run-of-the-mill minor
residential projects?
Arbitrarily, cutting fees only contributes to the city’s financial
shortfall. More importantly, the city needs to streamline its permitting
process to reduce the amount of staff time and the resulting delays for
the homeowner. The city work plan is intended to address this - but
was NOT mentioned by either Mayor Chao or Planning Chair Rao.
Stop the misinformation.
Jean Bedord
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Fw: Written Communications
Date:Monday, June 16, 2025 6:45:44 PM
Attachments:PC 6-10-2025 Written Communications.pdf
Dear City Clerk,
I am forwarding written comments from 06/10/25 planning commission that were also
addressed to city council.
Please include the below in written communications for the 06/17/25 city council meeting.
Thank you.
Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
SRao@cupertino.gov
From: Lindsay Nelson <LindsayN@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 5:35 PM
Subject: Written Communications
Hello Commissioners (bcc’d)
Attached are the written communications for tonight’s meeting
Lindsay
Lindsay Nelson
Administrative Assistant
Community Development
LindsayN@cupertino.gov
(408)777-1374
PC 6-10-2025
Oral
Communications
Written
Communications
#138007 Concerns regarding the citywide active transportation plan
surveys
Submitted
June 2, 2025 at 4:34 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Xin Wang <xinxwang@gmail.com>
CCs
Citycouncil <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>, info@cupertinoATP.org <info@cupertinoatp.org>
Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Xin Wang June 2, 2025 at 4:34 PM
Dear City Staff, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners,
I live in Cupertino. I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the surveys linked on the
Citywide Active Transportation Plan webpage, particularly the project survey and the map survey:
Citywide Active Transportation Plan Page
I am seeing the city wasting huge amount of money on this kind of things but not benefit anybody. I
am wondering anybody ever seriously considered what gain is achieved. Thousands of people
(most if not all) will suffer due to this bad planning. But I am confused what drove the city to make
wrong decisions again and again? here might be the answer.
In the project survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/extra-survey), all questions focus exclusively on
improving walking and biking in Cupertino. While these are important topics, the survey does not
include a single question addressing the needs or experiences of those who drive cars or ride
motorcycles—despite being labeled a “transportation” survey. We believe the term “transportation”
should encompass all forms of travel, including motor vehicles, which are essential for most
residents' daily lives. Excluding drivers from this discussion feels like a form of discrimination and
does not reflect the full scope of community transportation needs.
In the map survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/survey), when respondents indicate dissatisfaction
with a roadway, the only improvement option was adding barriers or gaps for bike and pedestrian
routes. This approach suggests that the only areas in need of improvement are bike and pedestrian
routes, ignoring broader concerns about road quality, traffic flow, lane design or driving safety.
Many residents I’ve spoken with have found the surveys difficult or irrelevant to complete and have
ultimately chosen not to participate. As such, I urge the City not to treat the survey results as a
comprehensive or representative reflection of community input when making decisions about future
transportation projects.
Please consider designing a more inclusive survey that better captures the full range of
transportation experiences and needs in Cupertino. And please put my comments in public record.
Thank you!
6/9/25, 11:23 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138007/print
https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138007/print 1/2
Sincerely yours,
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:23 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138007/print
https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138007/print 2/2
#138019 An Apple Employee has big concerns regarding the
Citywide Active Transportation Surveys
Submitted
June 2, 2025 at 5:41 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Tao Shui <tshui@apple.com>
CCs
Citycouncil <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>, info@cupertinoATP.org <info@cupertinoatp.org>
Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Tao Shui June 2, 2025 at 5:41 PM
Dear City Staff, Council-members, and Planning Commissioners,
I am a Cupertino resident for more than 15 years. I am writing to express serious concerns
regarding the surveys linked on the Citywide Active Transportation Plan webpage, particularly the
project survey and the map survey:
Citywide Active Transportation Plan Page
In the project survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/extra-survey), all questions focus exclusively on
improving walking and biking in Cupertino. While these are important topics, the survey does not
include a single question addressing the needs or experiences of those who drive cars or ride
motorcycles—despite being labeled a “transportation” survey. We believe the term “transportation”
should encompass all forms of travel, including motor vehicles, which are essential for most
residents' daily lives. Excluding drivers from this discussion feels like a form of discrimination and
does not reflect the full scope of community transportation needs.
In the map survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/survey), when respondents indicate dissatisfaction
with a roadway, the only improvement option was adding barriers or gaps for bike and pedestrian
routes.
I believe this survey and the approach you are taking is severely biased, as it suggests that the only
areas in need of improvement are bike and pedestrian routes, ignoring broader concerns about
road quality, traffic flow, lane design or driving safety. The vast interest of motorist residents are not
taken into account.
Many residents I’ve spoken with have found the surveys difficult or irrelevant to complete and have
ultimately chosen not to participate. As such, I urge the City not to treat the survey results as a
comprehensive or representative reflection of community input when making decisions about future
transportation projects.
Please consider designing a more inclusive survey that better captures the full range of
transportation experiences and needs in Cupertino. And please put my comments in public record.
Thank you!
6/9/25, 11:23 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138019/print
https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138019/print 1/2
Yours sincerely,
Tao Shui
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:23 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138019/print
https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138019/print 2/2
#138349 Concerns Regarding the Citywide Active Transportation
Plan Surveys
Submitted
June 5, 2025 at 4:49 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
mingrui bao <purple11777@yahoo.com>
CCs
Citycouncil <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>, info@cupertinoATP.org <info@cupertinoatp.org>
Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
mingrui bao June 5, 2025 at 4:49 PM
Dear City Staff, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners,
I am a West San Jose resident. I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the surveys linked on the
Citywide Active Transportation Plan webpage, particularly the project survey and the map survey:
Citywide Active Transportation Plan Page
In the project survey (https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fcupertinoatp.org%2f%23%2fextra-
survey&c=E,1,C5an7G9PndEDI_7Q3HWjg-
cBRE2eCRKJofUK6iUBiCRWStOlmcToJDIOH542gTZu1p2X5bCQVsVyx7_4OdNpg9vvgdgCTs5ESNQR-
pmHT0Jb1s2j5Ow,&typo=1), all questions focus exclusively on improving walking and biking in Cupertino. While
these are important topics, the survey does not include a single question addressing the needs or experiences of
those who drive cars or ride motorcycles—despite being labeled a “transportation” survey. We believe the term
“transportation” should encompass all forms of travel, including motor vehicles, which are essential for most
residents' daily lives. Excluding drivers from this discussion feels like a form of discrimination and does not reflect
the full scope of community transportation needs.
In the map survey (https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fcupertinoatp.org%2f%23%2fsurvey&c=E,1,tzFYkIBJtiuh3De5Q8z6_ODGN0ev-
uDQ3pXIfnBTlhhNo2Ff2SvXl2wgwqwWcLCzBI_yhKaQZ0UYyjjksvmDwSs8jn7ZVej1cnBlZF4WomWG&typo=1),
when respondents indicate dissatisfaction with a roadway, the only improvement option was adding barriers or
gaps for bike and pedestrian routes. This approach suggests that the only areas in need of improvement are bike
and pedestrian routes, ignoring broader concerns about road quality, traffic flow, lane design or driving safety.
Many residents I’ve spoken with have found the surveys difficult or irrelevant to complete and have ultimately
chosen not to participate. As such, I urge the City not to treat the survey results as a comprehensive or
representative reflection of community input when making decisions about future transportation projects.
Please consider designing a more inclusive survey that better captures the full range of transportation
experiences and needs in Cupertino. And please put my comments in public record. Thank you!
Ming
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:24 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138349/print
https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138349/print 1/1
#138356 Concerns Regarding the Citywide Active Transportation
Plan Surveys
Submitted
June 5, 2025 at 9:17 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Lidanj72 <lidanj72@gmail.com>
CCs
Citycouncil <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>, info@cupertinoATP.org <info@cupertinoatp.org>
Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Lidanj72 June 5, 2025 at 9:17 PM
Dear City Staff, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners,
I am a west san jose resident. I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the surveys
linked on the Citywide Active Transportation Plan webpage, particularly the project survey and the
map survey:
Citywide Active Transportation Plan Page
In the project survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/extra-survey), all questions focus exclusively on
improving walking and biking in Cupertino. While these are important topics, the survey does not
include a single question addressing the needs or experiences of those who drive cars or ride
motorcycles—despite being labeled a “transportation” survey. We believe the term “transportation”
should encompass all forms of travel, including motor vehicles, which are essential for most
residents' daily lives. Excluding drivers from this discussion feels like a form of discrimination and
does not reflect the full scope of community transportation needs.
In the map survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/survey), when respondents indicate dissatisfaction
with a roadway, the only improvement option was adding barriers or gaps for bike and pedestrian
routes. This approach suggests that the only areas in need of improvement are bike and pedestrian
routes, ignoring broader concerns about road quality, traffic flow, lane design or driving safety.
Many residents I’ve spoken with have found the surveys difficult or irrelevant to complete and have
ultimately chosen not to participate. As such, I urge the City not to treat the survey results as a
comprehensive or representative reflection of community input when making decisions about future
transportation projects.
Please consider designing a more inclusive survey that better captures the full range of
transportation experiences and needs in Cupertino. And please put my comments in public record.
Thank you!
Sincerely yours,
Lidan Jiang
Sent from my iPhone
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:24 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138356/print
https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138356/print 1/1
#138357 Concerns Regarding the Citywide Active Transportation
Plan Survey
Submitted
June 5, 2025 at 10:04 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Christine Cheng <huayingnew@yahoo.com>
CCs
Citycouncil <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>, info@cupertinoATP.org <info@cupertinoatp.org>
Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Christine Cheng June 5, 2025 at 10:04 PM
Dear City Staff, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners,
We’ve been long time Cupertino residents. We’re writing to express serious concerns regarding the
surveys linked on the Citywide Active Transportation Plan webpage, particularly the project survey
and the map survey: Citywide Active Transportation Plan Page
In the project survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/extra-survey), all questions focus exclusively on
improving walking and biking in Cupertino. While these are important topics, the survey does not
include a single question addressing the needs or experiences of those who drive cars or ride
motorcycles—despite being labeled a “transportation” survey. We believe the term “transportation”
should encompass all forms of travel, including motor vehicles, which are essential for most
residents' daily lives. Excluding drivers from this discussion feels like a form of discrimination and
does not reflect the full scope of community transportation needs.
In the map survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/survey), when respondents indicate dissatisfaction
with a roadway, the only improvement option was adding barriers or gaps for bike and pedestrian
routes. This approach suggests that the only areas in need of improvement are bike and pedestrian
routes, ignoring broader concerns about road quality, traffic flow, lane design or driving safety.
Many residents we’ve spoken with have found the surveys difficult or irrelevant to complete and
have ultimately chosen not to participate. As such, we urge the City not to treat the survey results
as a comprehensive or representative reflection of community input when making decisions about
future transportation projects.
Please consider designing a more inclusive survey that better captures the full range of
transportation experiences and needs in Cupertino. And please put my comments in public record.
Thank you!
Sincerely yours,
Christine & Isaac
6/9/25, 11:25 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138357/print
https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138357/print 1/3
Internal noteQing Li June 5, 2025 at 10:15 PM
Dear Mayor Chao and City Council Members,
As a longtime Cupertino resident and parent, I’m writing on behalf of myself and my family to ask
you to defund the Active Transportation Program (ATP) and Vision Zero initiatives in their current
form and instead direct staff to return with a roadmap of modern technology driven road safety
improvements.
While I appreciate the city’s efforts to improve safety, I believe we need a more practical and future-
ready approach—one that focuses on modern, proven technologies rather than changes that
disrupt traffic without clear and measurable safety benefits.
Other Bay Area cities are beginning to explore or adopt innovations that improve safety for both
pedestrians and drivers. Cupertino should consider doing the same by prioritizing tools such as:
Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI): Give pedestrians a brief head start at intersections.
High-visibility crosswalks and stop lines: Make crossings more visible and reduce encroachment.
Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE): Discourage speeding through the use of speed cameras in
key areas.
Red light cameras: Help prevent dangerous intersection behavior.
Smart/adaptive traffic signals: Adjust timing based on real-time conditions for improved flow and
safety.
AI-powered safety analytics: Detect near-misses and risky behavior before accidents happen.
Pedestrian beacons: Increase driver compliance at crossings with simple signal systems.
Automated pedestrian detection at signals: Improve accessibility and ease of use without push
buttons.
These technologies offer a data-driven, effective way to improve safety without compromising traffic
flow or relying on outdated infrastructure concepts.
I also want to point out that public input processes often attract only a narrow group of special-
interest voices that focus only on a specific agenda. Many residents with busy lives are unable to
attend city meetings, and as a result, the broader community’s views are not fully represented. I
respectfully ask the City Council to defund ATP and Vision Zero in their current form, and instead
instruct the transportation department to return with a comprehensive, modern road safety plan
based on technology, data, and engineering best practices.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
6/9/25, 11:25 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138357/print
https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138357/print 2/3
Qing and family
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:25 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138357/print
https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138357/print 3/3
#138358 Concerns Regarding the Citywide Active Transportation
Plan Survey
Submitted
June 5, 2025 at 10:06 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Adalia Lee <adalialee@gmail.com>
CCs
Citycouncil <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>, info@cupertinoATP.org <info@cupertinoatp.org>
Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Adalia Lee June 5, 2025 at 10:06 PM
Dear City Staff, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners,
We’ve been long time Cupertino residents. We’re writing to express serious concerns regarding the
surveys linked on the Citywide Active Transportation Plan webpage, particularly the project survey
and the map survey: Citywide Active Transportation Plan Page
In the project survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/extra-survey), all questions focus exclusively on
improving walking and biking in Cupertino. While these are important topics, the survey does not
include a single question addressing the needs or experiences of those who drive cars or ride
motorcycles—despite being labeled a “transportation” survey. We believe the term “transportation”
should encompass all forms of travel, including motor vehicles, which are essential for most
residents' daily lives. Excluding drivers from this discussion feels like a form of discrimination and
does not reflect the full scope of community transportation needs.
In the map survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/survey), when respondents indicate dissatisfaction
with a roadway, the only improvement option was adding barriers or gaps for bike and pedestrian
routes. This approach suggests that the only areas in need of improvement are bike and pedestrian
routes, ignoring broader concerns about road quality, traffic flow, lane design or driving safety.
Many residents we’ve spoken with have found the surveys difficult or irrelevant to complete and
have ultimately chosen not to participate. As such, we urge the City not to treat the survey results
as a comprehensive or representative reflection of community input when making decisions about
future transportation projects.
Please consider designing a more inclusive survey that better captures the full range of
transportation experiences and needs in Cupertino. And please put my comments in public record.
Thank you!
Sincerely yours,
Adalia & Sophia
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:25 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138358/print
https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138358/print 1/1
#138360 Concerns Regarding the Citywide Active Transportation
Plan Surveys
Submitted
June 5, 2025 at 10:54 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Wenguang Wang <wenguangwang@mac.com>
Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Wenguang Wang June 5, 2025 at 10:54 PM
Dear City Staff, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners,
I am a Cupertino area resident. I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the surveys
linked on the Citywide Active Transportation Plan webpage, particularly the project survey and the
map survey:
Citywide Active Transportation Plan Page
In the project survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/extra-survey), all questions focus exclusively on
improving walking and biking in Cupertino. While these are important topics, the survey does not
include a single question addressing the needs or experiences of those who drive cars or ride
motorcycles—despite being labeled a “transportation” survey. We believe the term “transportation”
should encompass all forms of travel, including motor vehicles, which are essential for most
residents' daily lives. Excluding drivers from this discussion feels like a form of discrimination and
does not reflect the full scope of community transportation needs.
In the map survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/survey), when respondents indicate dissatisfaction
with a roadway, the only improvement option was adding barriers or gaps for bike and pedestrian
routes. This approach suggests that the only areas in need of improvement are bike and pedestrian
routes, ignoring broader concerns about road quality, traffic flow, lane design or driving safety.
Many residents I’ve spoken with have found the surveys difficult or irrelevant to complete and have
ultimately chosen not to participate. As such, I urge the City not to treat the survey results as a
comprehensive or representative reflection of community input when making decisions about future
transportation projects.
Please consider designing a more inclusive survey that better captures the full range of
transportation experiences and needs in Cupertino. And please put my comments in public record.
Thank you!
Sincerely yours,
Wenguang Wang
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:25 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138360/print
https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138360/print 1/1
#138445 Deeply concerned about the Cupertino Transportation
Study Survey
Submitted
June 7, 2025 at 8:30 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Peng L <pngl8260@gmail.com>
CCs
Citycouncil <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>
Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Department
Planning
Peng L June 7, 2025 at 8:30 PM
Dear Councilmembers and Planning Commission members,
I’m a local resident, and recently my friends and I have become deeply concerned about the design of the
Citywide Transportation Survey. It appears there are serious flaws in the way the survey is structured, making it
difficult—or even impossible—for many of us to finish it.
For example, on the project survey page (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/extra-survey), we were only asked about
walking and biking experiences. However, many of my neighbors are more interested in improving the driving
experience on local roads. Unfortunately, this concern seems to have been overlooked entirely. It feels as though
the city did not prioritize gathering feedback from those who drive daily, which excludes a large portion of the
community.
Additionally, when reviewing the map survey results (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/survey), I noticed that many
comments call for wider barriers on Bollinger Road. Yet none of my friends support that idea. In fact, we found
that the survey provided very limited options for expressing dissatisfaction with the current road design—and no
opportunity to explain why we hope the road design can be improved. As a result, only those who supported
changes like wider barriers could easily complete the survey, while others were effectively silenced.
This has left many of us feeling frustrated and excluded. Some even feel discriminated against by a survey design
that doesn’t allow for diverse perspectives. We hope the city will consider revising the survey process to be more
inclusive and better reflect the full range of resident voices.
Sincerely yours,
Peng
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:26 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138445/print
https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138445/print 1/1
#138457 Concerns Regarding the Citywide Active Transportation
Plan Surveys
Submitted
June 8, 2025 at 10:39 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
liang xue <liangx99@gmail.com>
CCs
Citycouncil <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>, info@cupertinoATP.org <info@cupertinoatp.org>
Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
liang xue June 8, 2025 at 10:39 PM
Dear City Staff, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners,
We do not need more bike lanes. We need more car lanes.
I am a Cupertino resident. I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the surveys linked on
the Citywide Active Transportation Plan webpage, particularly the project survey and the map
survey:
Citywide Active Transportation Plan Page
In the project survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/extra-survey), all questions focus exclusively on
improving walking and biking in Cupertino. While these are important topics, the survey does not
include a single question addressing the needs or experiences of those who drive cars or ride
motorcycles—despite being labeled a “transportation” survey. We believe the term “transportation”
should encompass all forms of travel, including motor vehicles, which are essential for most
residents' daily lives. Excluding drivers from this discussion feels like a form of discrimination and
does not reflect the full scope of community transportation needs.
In the map survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/survey), when respondents indicate dissatisfaction
with a roadway, the only improvement option was adding barriers or gaps for bike and pedestrian
routes. This approach suggests that the only areas in need of improvement are bike and pedestrian
routes, ignoring broader concerns about road quality, traffic flow, lane design or driving safety.
Many residents I’ve spoken with have found the surveys difficult or irrelevant to complete and have
ultimately chosen not to participate. As such, I urge the City not to treat the survey results as a
comprehensive or representative reflection of community input when making decisions about future
transportation projects.
Please consider designing a more inclusive survey that better captures the full range of
transportation experiences and needs in Cupertino. And please put my comments in public record.
Thank you!
Liang Xue
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:26 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138457/print
https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138457/print 1/1
From:Victor Khan
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Fwd: 10095 orange ave Cupertino
Date:Friday, June 6, 2025 9:00:48 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.
>
> Hello ,
> Pls. Advise why the setbacks on the new home construction right next to my home 10101 orange ave is less than
3 feet .
>
> Is it something was approved by the city ?
>
> Thank you
> Viktor khan
> 10101 orange ave
> Cupertino ca 95014
> Sent from iPhone
>
From:Victor Khan
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Fwd: 10095 orange ave Cupertino
Date:Friday, June 6, 2025 9:02:43 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.
Sent from iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
>
>
> Here are some
> Pics
>
> Sent from iPhone
>
>
>> On Jun 5, 2025, at 7:22 PM, Victor Khan <vitek1971@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello ,
>> Pls. Advise why the setbacks on the new home construction right next to my home 10101 orange ave is less than 3 feet .
>>
>> Is it something was approved by the city ?
>>
>> Thank you
>> Viktor khan
>> 10101 orange ave
>> Cupertino ca 95014
>> Sent from iPhone
>>
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:Nhu.Nguyen@sanjoseca.gov
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:1000 South De Anza Blvd.
Date:Friday, June 6, 2025 11:04:59 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.
Thank you for sending the notice about 1000 South De Anza Blvd. This is the site of the old Mari
Kitchen Building.
At 90 feet the building is too tall for the area. This is very close to the city of Cupertino so sensitivity
Should be considered when building this structure. I think it is important that the city of San Jose
Have outreach about this building to the city of Cupertino and residents of both Cupertino and
San Jose as South De Anza Blvd. is shared by both cities. There needs to be some coordination in
Construction so that there are not giant high rises from San Jose abutting new three story buildings
From Cupertino. This makes for a very disorganized landscape. My husband grew up near South De Anza Blvd.
And Prospect in an area that was San Jose and switched to Cupertino in 1976. He attended Monta
Vista High School. What high school will these students attend at 1000 South De Anza Blvd?
It is also important to have adequate setback of buildings from De Anza Blvd. There needs to be room
For trees and sidewalks.
I'm also concerned about the amount of traffic coming out of this project. The Traders Joes Shopping
Center already has too much traffic at the corner of Bollinger and South De Anza Blvd. I am
Glad that there will be adequate parking on site the property because this project could have people
Parking in the adjacent shopping center parking lots or the Home Depot across the street.
I wish they had put a restaurant back in. We depend on South De Anza Blvd. to provide dining
options.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
Cupertino Resident
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Fwd: Public Review Draft EIR: 1000 South De Anza Boulevard Residential Project (H23-029 & ER23-232)
Date:Friday, June 6, 2025 11:09:35 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.
FYI.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Public Review Draft EIR: 1000 South De Anza Boulevard Residential Project (H23-029
& ER23-232)
From: City of San José <webrequests@sanjoseca.gov>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025, 10:32 AM
To: grenna5000@yahoo.com
CC:
Public Review Draft EIR: 1000 South De Anza Boulevard Residential
Project (H23-029 & ER23-232)
The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 1000 South De Anza Boulevard
Residential Project is now available online.
Post Date: 06/06/2025
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a Site Development Permit to allow the demolition of an existing
single-story commercial structure and the removal of 13 trees for the construction a
97-foot tall, seven-story, 77,660 square foot, 120-unit residential building on a 0.72-
gross-acre site. The new residential building would have 5,017 square feet of
common open space and a 148-stall parking area with mechanical lifts and eight
outdoor guest parking spaces. The building would be 91 feet tall from the top of the
grade to the roofline. Sixteen of the units in the building are included as below
market rate affordable living spaces.
LOCATION
The approximately 0.72-acre project site (APN 372-26-018) is located at 1000 South
De Anza Boulevard in San José.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
372-26-018
PUBLIC RECIRCULATION PERIOD
The Draft EIR will be circulated for public review and comment from June 6, 2025
through July 21, 2025.
The public is welcome to review and comment on the draft documents. Public
comments must be submitted to the Environmental Project Manager no later than
5:00 p.m. on July 21, 2025.
Project website: 1000 South De Anza Boulevard Residential Project|City of San Jose
(sanjoseca.gov)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT MANAGER
Nhu Nguyen
408-535-6894
Nhu.Nguyen@sanjoseca.gov
Having trouble viewing this email? View on the website instead.
Change your eNotification preference.
Unsubscribe from all City of San José eNotifications.
PC 6-10-2025
Item No.2
SummerHill
Homes
Written
Communications
#138188 Letter of Support for 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd
Submitted
June 4, 2025 at 12:19 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Andrew Ha <aha@greenbelt.org>
CCs
Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.gov>, Jordan Grimes <jgrimes@greenbelt.org>, Lin, Austin
<alin@shhomes.com>, McNamara, Ryan <rmcnamara@shhomes.com>, Sbull <sbull@shhomes.com>
Status
Solved
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Andrew Ha June 4, 2025 at 12:19 PM
To whom this may concern,
My name is Andrew Ha and I'm writing on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance, an organization dedicated to advancing
sustainable land use and climate-smart development in the 9 county Bay Area.
We would like to express our support for the 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd project (#DP-2024-002), which has
now been certified by our Development Endorsement Program. We believe that this project will provide much
needed sustainable infill housing to Cupertino and hope that the city's planning commission would agree.
Thank you so much for reviewing this project and we hope to see it break ground soon.
––
Sincerely,
Andrew Ha (he/him)
State and Regional Resilience Associate
Greenbelt Alliance
827 Broadway Ste 310 | Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 543-6771 ext. 322
greenbelt.org | Facebook | Instagram | X
From Surviving to Thriving: Greenbelt Alliance’s New Strategic Plan
Read our vision for the next five years: greenbelt.org/strategic-plan
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 2:38 PM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138188/print
https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138188/print 1/1
June 4, 2025
RE: Endorsement of 20840 Stevens Creek in Cupertino, CA
Dear Cupertino Planning Commission,
For over 60 years, Greenbelt Alliance has helped create cities and
neighborhoods that make the Bay Area a better place to live—healthy
places where people can walk and bike; communities with parks, shops, transportation options; homes
that are affordable and resilient to the impacts of climate change. Greenbelt Alliance’s Climate
SMART—Sustainable, Mixed, Affordable, Resilient, Transit-Oriented—Development Endorsement
Program provides support for projects that advance the right kind of development in the right places. By
promoting climate-smart development we can create thriving, resilient neighborhoods with ready access
to transit and housing choices for all of the Bay Area’s people.
After careful review, Greenbelt Alliance is pleased to endorse the proposed 20840 Stevens Creek
project.
Location and Economic Benefits
In hopes to build more infill housing, the developer SummerHill Homes is proposing a 59-unit
townhome neighborhood nearby a plethora of community amenities including shops, parks,
schools, and a community college. It is well situated for residents to have access to many of their
basic needs. 12 of the units will be deed-restricted, below-market rate housing which will promote
affordability and accessibility in the community.
Sustainable Development
The project will be an all-electric residential neighborhood, providing solar panels and EV
charging capacities within each home. Sustainability is also reflected in their landscaping and
water management practices: SummerHill will grow drought tolerant and native plants, include
climate sensitive controllers in common areas, and set up biological treatment for stormwater
runoff. The development will also be built in an area with minimal fire and flood risks, promoting
its overall resilience to climate hazards.
Moreover, the 20840 Stevens Creek project will be moderately connected to public transit. It will
be besides multiple VTA bus routes including the 55, 51, Rapid 523, and 23. Residents are also
encouraged to bike to nearby amenities, with each garage allotting 2 spaces for bicycles.
According to GreenTRIP—a free online tool created by Transform that models traffic and
greenhouse gas impacts of residential projects in California— the 20840 Stevens Creek project
development will result in:
●231 fewer miles driven every day compared to the Santa Clara County average.
●12% fewer GHG impacts every day compared to the Santa Clara County average.
●3% less parking use every day compared to the Santa Clara County average.
Greenbelt Alliance believes the 20840 Stevens Creek project will provide much needed SMART,
infill housing in Cupertino and we are proud to give this project an endorsement! We hope its
approval will inspire higher density development in the city and around the Bay Area.
Sincerely,
Andrew Ha
State and Regional Resilience Associate
Greenbelt Alliance
#136248 Public Comment, May 13th meeting agenda item 3
Submitted
May 12, 2025 at 5:23 AM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Jack Farrell <jack@yesinmybackyard.org>
CCs
Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.gov>, Lin, Austin <alin@shhomes.com>, McNamara, Ryan
<rmcnamara@shhomes.com>, Sbull <sbull@shhomes.com>
Status
Solved
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Jack Farrell May 12, 2025 at 5:23 AM
Good morning,
Please find attached correspondence from YIMBY Law regarding the proposal at 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Sincerely,
Jack Farrell he/him
Research Attorney
267-218-1147
Check out everything we achieved in 2024!
McNamara, Ryan June 4, 2025 at 1:04 PM
Hi Emi, I just wanted to resend the attached from Jack Farrel for the June 10th Planning Commission packet.
Thanks,
Ryan
Ryan McNamara
Director of Development
SummerHill Homes
📞 Tel: (925)244-8706 | 📱 Mobile (925)766-1350
Follow Us:
All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to SummerHill Homes LLC
and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes
LLC. All rights reserved.
6/9/25, 2:40 PM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/136248/print
https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/136248/print 1/2
YIMBY La w
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
hello@yimbylaw.org
1
YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114
1
05/12/2025
Ci ty of Cupertino
Planning Commission
10300 Torre Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014
Via email (planning@cupertino.gov)
Re: May 13, 2025 hearing, agenda item 3
Dear Planning Commission of Cupertino,
We are pleased to submit this letter of support of the proposed Summerhill Homes project at
20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard. YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission
is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. The Summerhill Homes
project will consist of 59 townhomes, which include 12 below market rate townhomes, on a site
designated for residential development in the Cupertino Housing 2023-2031 Housing Element.
Summerhill’s proposal is consistent with the Heart of the City specific plan, the Cupertino
General Plan, and local zoning ordinances. As your officials have already identified to
California’s Department of Housing and Community Development that the site is appropriate
for residential use and may contribute to the RHNA obligations, it is inarguably beneficial to
public welfare that it be used for that purpose.
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) and the City’s Housing Element
SummerHill proposes to develop 59 townhome-style condominiums on a portion of the
approximately 2.97-acre site at 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevcard. SummerHill submitted an
SB 330 Preliminary Application for the project on January 29, 2024. Pursuant to section 65589.5
YIMBY La w
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
hello@yimbylaw.org
2
YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114
2
of the Government Code, the project is subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards
adopted and in effect when the Preliminary Application was submitted.
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinance and other
applicable objective standards. In addition, the City’s subsequently approved 2023–2031
Housing Element identifies the project as a Housing Inventory Site . By designating the site as a
Housing Inventory Site, the City selected the site for residential use and determined that
residential development of the site would assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs
Allocation.
The State Density Bonus Law
SummerHill proposes to provide 12 of the 59 townhome-style condominiums at below market
rate prices. By designating at least 10 percent of the units for Moderate Income households, the
project qualifies for benefits under the State Density Bonus Law.
Under the State Density Bonus Law, a developer may propose unlimited waivers of development
standards that would have the effect of physically precluding construction of a qualifying project
at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by the Density Bonus Law.
SummerHill is entitled to the waivers it has requested, all of which will provide relief from
development standards that would physically preclude construction of the project at the density
proposed.
Once a project qualifies for a density bonus, State law provides that the City may deny a
requested waiver only if it would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, would
have an adverse impact on a historic resource, or would be contrary to State or Federal law. In
this context, specific adverse impact “means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable
impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or
conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”1 There is no
1 Gov. Code, §§ 65915, subd. (e)(1), 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).
YIMBY La w
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
hello@yimbylaw.org
3
YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114
3
substantial evidence in the record that any of SummerHill’s requested waivers would meet the
criteria for City denial.
The Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act, in Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A)-(B), limits a municipality’s ability
to deny or condition on lower density a housing development project that complies with
objective standards. The City may only disapprove the project or impose conditions on the
project that would reduce density if necessary to avoid a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards,
policies, or conditions as they existed on th e date the application was deemed complete” and
there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid those impacts other than disapproval or
development at a lower density.
We have reviewed the project plans, the CEQA document and the various expert reports that have
been prepared for the project, and there is not a preponderance of evidence in the record that
would justify the City’s disapproval of the project or conditionin g the project in a manner that
would reduce density.
Summ ary
The Legislature has made numerous amendments to California Housing Law in an effort to
provide increased clarity and certainty for both municipalities and housing providers. Based on
these laws, the project is subject only to the objective standards that were in effect on the date
of the Preliminary Application; the project is entitled to the requested waivers under Density
Bonus law; with those waivers the project is consistent with applicable objective standards; and
the evidence in the record would not justify the City’s denial of the project or imposition of
approval that would reduce density. Disapproval of the project or approval with conditions that
would render the project infeasible at the density proposed would contravene State law.
YIMBY La w
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
hello@yimbylaw.org
4
YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114
4
It is YIMBY Action’s understanding that City staff has processed SummerHill’s development
application with professionalism and recognition of the City’s obligations under State law. We
appreciate the staff’s cooperation and encourage the Planning Commission and the City Council
to continue to uphold the same standard.
I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a
resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. I look forward to
seeing this project approved and bought to realization to help change the tides of the housing
crisis in the Bay Area.
Sincerely,
So nja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY La w
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Council
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:SB 330 Project at Staples Shopping Center & LOS Traffic Studies
Date:Thursday, June 5, 2025 7:37:02 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 City Council:
I am very concerned about the traffic congestion from the upcoming Staples SB 330 project. This is a very
Complicated area already with the current street configurations of Stevens Creek Blvd, Saich
Ave, Bandley, the entrances and exits to the adjacent shopping centers. Also, the adjacent SB 330
Project at Panera Bread across Stevens Creek Blvd will have a traffic impact on the area too. It
Will affect the same intersections.
Are there going to be LOS studies to determine the traffic impacts on the area and determine
The Level of Service for each intersection in the area? Also, because Staples is filing first, will
This mean that the traffic issues from the Panera SB 330 Project will be taken into account for the
Staples SB 330 Project?
I think VMT is of little real value to determine how the Level of Service in the adjacent intersections
To these two projects will be affected. LOS is the true indicator of future traffic trends.
Please make sure that the VMT Traffic Studies are performed. We are losing viable active retail
Which is a true loss to the city. We don't want SB 330 to be both a retail crisis for the city
As well as a traffic crisis in our city.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Council
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Re: SB 330 Project at Staples Shopping Center & LOS Traffic Studies
Date:Thursday, June 5, 2025 8:06:12 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.
Please see the corrected version of my letter to City Council to indicate that LOS Studies should be
Performed on the Staples SB 330 Project.
Thank you.
Dear City Council:
I am very concerned about the traffic congestion from the upcoming Staples SB 330 project.
This is a very complicated area already with the current street configurations of Stevens
Creek Blvd, Saich Ave, Bandley, the entrances and exits to the adjacent shopping centers.
Also, the adjacent SB 330 Project at Panera Bread across Stevens Creek Blvd will have a
traffic impact on the area too. It will affect the same intersections.
Are there going to be LOS studies to determine the traffic impacts on the area and determine
The Level of Service for each intersection in the area? Also, because Staples is filing first,
will this mean that the traffic issues from the Panera SB 330 Project will be taken into account
for the Staples SB 330 Project?
I think VMT is of little real value to determine how the Level of Service in the adjacent intersections
to these two projects will be affected. LOS is the true indicator of future traffic trends.
Please make sure that the LOS Traffic Studies are performed. We are losing viable active retail
which is a true loss to the city. We don't want SB 330 to be both a retail crisis for the city
As well as a traffic crisis in our city.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
On June 5, 2025, at 7:36 PM, Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council:
I am very concerned about the traffic congestion from the upcoming Staples SB 330 project. This is a very
Complicated area already with the current street configurations of Stevens Creek Blvd, Saich
Ave, Bandley, the entrances and exits to the adjacent shopping centers. Also, the adjacent SB 330
Project at Panera Bread across Stevens Creek Blvd will have a traffic impact on the area too. It
Will affect the same intersections.
Are there going to be LOS studies to determine the traffic impacts on the area and determine
The Level of Service for each intersection in the area? Also, because Staples is filing first, will
This mean that the traffic issues from the Panera SB 330 Project will be taken into account for the
Staples SB 330 Project?
I think VMT is of little real value to determine how the Level of Service in the adjacent intersections
To these two projects will be affected. LOS is the true indicator of future traffic trends.
Please make sure that the VMT Traffic Studies are performed. We are losing viable active retail
Which is a true loss to the city. We don't want SB 330 to be both a retail crisis for the city
As well as a traffic crisis in our city.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Heritage Oak Tree South of Dish Dash Restaurant and Pizza Hut (By SB 330 Staples Project)
Date:Thursday, June 5, 2025 9:02:34 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 City Council and Planning Commission:
There is a heritage oak tree located just to the south of the Dish Dash Restaurant building
And the Pizza Hut Building. The city planted the Valley Oak ten years ago to replace
Another Oak Tree in the same location that was perhaps 150 years old. This was
When the Dish Dash Building was being remodeled from the Marie Calendars that was
There before.
The old oak tree had been on this site when the old house on the property was there. This old
House was used as a mortuary and the oak tree was located adjacent to the house. The house
Had probably been there since perhaps 1900 and I am assuming the oak was left on the
Property as the tree was perhaps from 1860 from observing the huge diameter of the trunk.
The tree was clearly observable from the (former) Mervyns parking lot which is adjacent to
The east and south side of the oak tree.
This 150 year old heritage oak tree was replaced by the city ten years ago. There is now a large
Twenty foot tall Valley Oak in excellent condition. The tree has a large open area around its
Perimeter and canopy and nothing is crowding it. It had plenty of space to grow to a
Magnificent specimen tree.
I am concerned the proposed SB 330 Staples Condominium Project might be encroaching on this
Heritage tree. I cannot tell from the plans where the tree is located, but I have always assumed
It was on the Dish Dash property or the Mervyns parking lot property.
Please make sure this oak tree is not crowded or disturbed by this SB 330 Housing project.
This is a protected heritage oak tree that is protected by city law. The city has taken great pains
And invested money in this tree and it would be an absolute travesty to see one of our city
Heritage trees senseless destroyed or harmed by an SB 330 Project or any development for that matter.
I will be attending the June 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting on this SB 330 Staples
Housing Project and will bring up the issues concerning the safety of this tree in this
Potential construction zone. This Valley Oak has a good ten years of growing time already
And I don't want to see this tree destroyed or damaged by getting housing construction
Close to it. Valley Oaks are precious trees to California and this tree is irreplaceable.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From:James Lloyd
To:Santosh Rao; Tracy Kosolcharoen; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Steven Scharf; City of Cupertino Planning
Commission
Cc:City Clerk; Piu Ghosh (she/her); City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City
Attorney"s Office
Subject:public comment re item 2 for 6/10/25 Planning Commission meeting
Date:Friday, June 6, 2025 12:26:49 PM
Attachments:Cupertino - 20770-20840 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 6/10/25 Planning Commission meeting, the proposed 59-unit housing development
project at 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes 6 moderate-income
units and 6 median-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/
Jun 6, 2025
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Proposed Housing Development at 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd
By email: srao@cupertino.org; Tkosolcharoen@cupertino.gov; dfung@cupertino.gov;
slindskog@cupertino.gov; SScharf@cupertino.gov;
planningcommission@cupertino.gov
CC: piug@cupertino.gov; planning@cupertino.gov; CityAttorney@cupertino.gov;
CityManager@cupertino.gov; CityClerk@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 housing laws when evaluating the proposed 59-unit
housing development project at 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd, which
includes 6 moderate-income units and 6 median-income units. These laws include the
Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and AB 2097.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general
plan compliant housing development projects unless indings can be made regarding
speci ic, 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 indings 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 e ects of the
action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL o ers 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 setback, setback from landscape easement,
side setback, rear setback, service access, private outdoor space clearance, building form, lot
coverage, parking space size, planter strip, and retail component. If the City were to deny the
requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires indings that
the waivers would have a speci ic, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there
is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the speci ic adverse impact. If the
City were to deny the requested requested concessions, Government Code section 65915,
subdivision (d)(1) requires indings that the concessions would not result in identi iable and
actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a speci ic, 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 indings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note,
the DBL speci ically 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.)
Additionally, the project is exempt from state environmental review under the Class 32
CEQA categorical exemption (In-Fill Development Projects) pursuant to section 15332 of the
CEQA Guidelines, as the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation
and all applicable general plan policies as well as the applicable zoning designation and
regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more
than ive acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the project site has no value as
habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; approval of the project would not result
in any signi icant e ects relating to traf ic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site
can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Caselaw from the
California Court of Appeal af irms 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 bene it; it will provide badly-needed
a ordable housing; it will bring increased tax revenue and new customers to local
businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents into homelessness. 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-pro it 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:David Rolnick
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Housing Project on Staples/Fontana"s/Pizza Hut Properties
Date:Sunday, June 8, 2025 8:51:00 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.
Some thoughts on the housing project being proposed for the Staples and former Pizza Hut and
Fontana properties:
1.There should be a retail component to this development. This may be one of the best
areas in the city for retail to work. If we want a walkable pedestrian friendly city, Stevens
Creek Blvd. frontage should be retail. If this developer can get away without providing any
retail, the message it will send to other developers is that Cupertino does not require retail
as part of any new development.
2.No Very Low Income (VLI) Housing is being proposed. The Housing plan called for 59 VLI
units at this site. Zero are being proposed. If this developer can get away with provide zero
units, other developers will try the same tactics.
3.Appropriate setbacks for the units on the south end of the property (bordering the
homes on Scofield Drive) should be provided.
Thank you.
David Rolnick
From:Louis Mirante
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Support Letter for Stevens Creek
Date:Monday, June 9, 2025 2:49:29 PM
Attachments:Outlook-Logo Desc.png
Outlook-Text Desc.png
Outlook-Logo, icon.png
Outlook-Icon Desc.png
Outlook-Icon Desc.png
BAC Support - SummerHill Cupertino.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.
Hey Cupertino Planning Commission,
Please see the attached letter of support letter from the Bay Area Council for the 59-unit
townhome project on Stevens Creek Boulevard you will consider at your meeting tomorrow. If
you have any questions about our letter, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Best wishes,
Louis
Louis Mirante
Vice President of Public Policy, Housing
Phone: (510) 908-0537 | Email: lmirante@bayareacouncil.org
The Historic Klamath, Pier 9, The Embarcadero, San Francisco
www.bayareacouncil.org
P. 415.946.8777 Bay Area Council Bay Area Council Bay Area Council
www.bayareacouncil.org The Historic Klamath PO Box 5135 1215 K Street, Suite 2220
Pier 9, The Embarcadero Berkeley, CA 94705 Sacramento, CA 95814
San Francisco, CA 94111
June 9, 2025
City of Cupertino
Cupertino Planning Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Support for SummerHill Homes’ 59-Unit Townhome Project at Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Dear Commissioners,
On behalf of the Bay Area Council, I write to express strong support for the proposed 59-
unit townhome condominium development by SummerHill Homes at 20770, 20830, and 20840
Stevens Creek Boulevard. This project represents a vital opportunity for Cupertino to advance
toward meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets —particularly for
moderate-income households—through thoughtful infill development.
The Bay Area Council represents 350 of the largest employers in the Bay Area, including
companies, public agencies, and unions. We convene conversations on the most important issues
facing the Bay Area and we work to make the Bay Area the best place to work and play. We are
deeply committed to building the 3.5 million new homes our state needs to address our existing
shortfall and the attendant high housing prices. Our goal is to endorse housing in areas that have
important benefits to the region’s environment and transportation system, so we are especially
supportive of projects close to jobs.
This project is one of the most important projects for meeting our goals we have seen in
recent years. The proposal replaces an underutilized retail site with new homes, including 12
deed-restricted affordable ownership units for moderate- and median-income households. These
types of for-sale affordable homes are among the most difficult to produce in California, and
their inclusion makes this project especially valuable in addressing the city’s housing shortfall.
The units will count toward Cupertino’s RHNA obligations under the 6th Cycle Housing
Element, helping ensure the city remains in compliance with state law and avoids consequences
for underproduction.
SummerHill’s project is consistent with the city’s General Plan and the Heart of the City
Specific Plan, and makes thoughtful use of the state Density Bonus Law to deliver a feasible and
high-quality community that includes open space, landscaping, and public art. This development
helps Cupertino make real progress toward its 2023–2031 housing targets by bringing a
meaningful number of homes to a central location near jobs, schools, and services. Given the
city’s ambitious RHNA goals, timely approval of well-located projects like this one is essential.
The Bay Area Council applauds Cupertino for its work to advance housing solutions and
urges the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this project. Doing so sends a clear
P. 415.946.8777 Bay Area Council Bay Area Council Bay Area Council
www.bayareacouncil.org The Historic Klamath PO Box 5135 1215 K Street, Suite 2220
Pier 9, The Embarcadero Berkeley, CA 94705 Sacramento, CA 95814
San Francisco, CA 94111
message that the city is serious about building housing for all income levels and meeting its long -
term obligations under state housing law.
Sincerely,
Louis Mirante
Vice President, Public Policy
Bay Area Council
lmirante@bayareacouncil.org
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:City Council; grenna5000@yahoo.com; City Clerk
Subject:Letters on Staples SB 330 Project
Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:05:02 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:
I sent several letters to the Planning Commission about the SB 330 Staples Project site. I had
Concerns about the traffic load, the heritage oak tree on the Southern side of Pizza Hut
And Dish Dash Restaurant and loss of retail as I shop at the Staples frequently. I don't see
Any of my letters in the comments received section. I am particularly concerned about the
Potential of another SB 330 going in across Stevens Creek Blvd. at Panera Bread. We need
To have LOS service traffic studies before this project is built.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City Council
Subject:Fwd: Heritage Oak Tree South of Dish Dash Restaurant and Pizza Hut (By SB 330 Staples Project)
Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:17:59 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.
FYI. Letter of concern about Oak Tree on the Southern Side of Dish Dash Restaurant and
Pizza Hut sent on
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Heritage Oak Tree South of Dish Dash Restaurant and Pizza Hut (By SB 330 Staples
Project)
From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025, 9:02 PM
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org,planningcommission@cupertino.org
CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com
Dear City Council and Planning Commission:
There is a heritage oak tree located just to the south of the Dish Dash Restaurant building
And the Pizza Hut Building. The city planted the Valley Oak ten years ago to replace
Another Oak Tree in the same location that was perhaps 150 years old. This was
When the Dish Dash Building was being remodeled from the Marie Calendars that was
There before.
The old oak tree had been on this site when the old house on the property was there. This old
House was used as a mortuary and the oak tree was located adjacent to the house. The house
Had probably been there since perhaps 1900 and I am assuming the oak was left on the
Property as the tree was perhaps from 1860 from observing the huge diameter of the trunk.
The tree was clearly observable from the (former) Mervyns parking lot which is adjacent to
The east and south side of the oak tree.
This 150 year old heritage oak tree was replaced by the city ten years ago. There is now a
large
Twenty foot tall Valley Oak in excellent condition. The tree has a large open area around its
Perimeter and canopy and nothing is crowding it. It had plenty of space to grow to a
Magnificent specimen tree.
I am concerned the proposed SB 330 Staples Condominium Project might be encroaching on
this
Heritage tree. I cannot tell from the plans where the tree is located, but I have always assumed
It was on the Dish Dash property or the Mervyns parking lot property.
Please make sure this oak tree is not crowded or disturbed by this SB 330 Housing project.
This is a protected heritage oak tree that is protected by city law. The city has taken great
pains
And invested money in this tree and it would be an absolute travesty to see one of our city
Heritage trees senseless destroyed or harmed by an SB 330 Project or any development for
that matter.
I will be attending the June 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting on this SB 330 Staples
Housing Project and will bring up the issues concerning the safety of this tree in this
Potential construction zone. This Valley Oak has a good ten years of growing time already
And I don't want to see this tree destroyed or damaged by getting housing construction
Close to it. Valley Oaks are precious trees to California and this tree is irreplaceable.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:City Council; City Clerk; grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Fwd: SB 330 Project at Staples Shopping Center & LOS Traffic Studies
Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:31:14 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.
Please include this letter from June 5 in the public comments about SB 330 at the
Tuesday, June 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting on Item Number 2. Thid letter went to
City Council as well as
Well as the Planning Commission on June 5 asking that an LOS (Level of Service)Traffic Study
be conducted
On the SB 330 Staples Project as the LOS tells the actual degradation of the surrounding
Intersections due to increased traffic load from this and other proposed projects. Please
include this
Letter in comments on the SB 330 Project for the June 10 Planning Commission meeting.
Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: SB 330 Project at Staples Shopping Center & LOS Traffic Studies
From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025, 8:05 PM
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org
CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com,planningcommission@cupertino.org
Please see the corrected version of my letter to City Council to indicate that LOS Studies
should be
Performed on the Staples SB 330 Project.
Thank you.
Dear City Council:
I am very concerned about the traffic congestion from the upcoming Staples SB 330 project.
This is a very complicated area already with the current street configurations of Stevens
Creek Blvd, Saich Ave, Bandley, the entrances and exits to the adjacent shopping centers.
Also, the adjacent SB 330 Project at Panera Bread across Stevens Creek Blvd will have a
traffic impact on the area too. It will affect the same intersections.
Are there going to be LOS studies to determine the traffic impacts on the area and determine
The Level of Service for each intersection in the area? Also, because Staples is filing first,
will this mean that the traffic issues from the Panera SB 330 Project will be taken into account
for the Staples SB 330 Project?
I think VMT is of little real value to determine how the Level of Service in the adjacent
intersections
to these two projects will be affected. LOS is the true indicator of future traffic trends.
Please make sure that the LOS Traffic Studies are performed. We are losing viable active
retail
which is a true loss to the city. We don't want SB 330 to be both a retail crisis for the city
As well as a traffic crisis in our city.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
On June 5, 2025, at 7:36 PM, Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council:
I am very concerned about the traffic congestion from the upcoming Staples SB 330 project.
This is a very
Complicated area already with the current street configurations of Stevens Creek Blvd, Saich
Ave, Bandley, the entrances and exits to the adjacent shopping centers. Also, the adjacent SB
330
Project at Panera Bread across Stevens Creek Blvd will have a traffic impact on the area too. It
Will affect the same intersections.
Are there going to be LOS studies to determine the traffic impacts on the area and determine
The Level of Service for each intersection in the area? Also, because Staples is filing first, will
This mean that the traffic issues from the Panera SB 330 Project will be taken into account for
the
Staples SB 330 Project?
I think VMT is of little real value to determine how the Level of Service in the adjacent
intersections
To these two projects will be affected. LOS is the true indicator of future traffic trends.
Please make sure that the VMT Traffic Studies are performed. We are losing viable active
retail
Which is a true loss to the city. We don't want SB 330 to be both a retail crisis for the city
As well as a traffic crisis in our city.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:City Council; grenna5000@yahoo.com; City Clerk
Subject:Loss of Retail at SB 330 Staples Site on Stevens Creek Blvd.
Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:52:21 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 include this as comment on Item Number 2 (SB 330 Staples Project) on the June
10, 2025 Planning Commission Agenda)
SB 330 was supposed to be a "Housing Crisis" bill. It is now apparently becoming a "Retail
Crisis" bill because Cupertino is losing so much viable retail down Stevens Creek Blvd.
80,000 square feet of retail is being lost from the collection of SB 330 projects being
Proposed on Stevens Creek Blvd.
I shop at the Staples frequently. This store fulfills many needs. It has a Fed Ex office, office
Supplies, packing equipment and it sells other items too. It is near De Anza College
And also sells computer equipment.
I am very concerned that Cupertino will become a "retail desert" by using SB 330 so much.
SB 330 is not a very good housing bill and it should be amended to promote the retention
Of retail.
Why is no retail being required at this SB 330 site? I don't want to have to shop outside of
Cupertino for supplies and food. When my grandmother lived in Cupertino, you could get
everything you needed in Cupertino. When my husband's family grew up in Cupertino,
They always shopped in Cupertino. When I first moved to Cupertino, I could get everything I
Needed in town. Now we are having to go to other cities or even to Morgan Hill or
Santa Cruz to get supplies, food and services.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Fwd: Loss of Retail on Stevens Creek Blvd.
Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:49:23 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.
FYI. Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Loss of Retail on Stevens Creek Blvd.
From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025, 11:17 AM
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org,cityclerk@cupertino.org
CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com
Dear City Council:
(Please include this comment as public comment for the "Public Comment" section for the
June 17, 2025 City Council
Meeting.)
I am very concerned that we are losing valuable retail space on Stevens Creek Blvd.
due to the ever increasing SB 330 projects being introduced. SB 330 was marketed as
A "Housing Crisis" bill, but it is rapidly becoming apparent it is in reality a "Retail
Crisis" bill. It is wiping out all retail in easily accessible areas in Cupertino. We will have
No place to buy food or medicine or services in this city. It will just be miles of
Highrise housing complexes (especially if SB 79 passes) and there will be no place
To shop for essentials.
I think the ability to get food and medicine and fuel and medical access should be added
To the list of items that CEQA protects.
We should have a Study Session about the issues emerging from SB 330. These
May have been unanticipated consequences, but SB 330 was never marketed to all of
Us in the state before it was passed and we never got to comment on its downfalls.
Well, we are QAing it now. We are in the field and doing Beta Tests that should have been
Performed before it was brought to market as an apparently "flawed" product. One of
Its problems is that it is leading to a loss of retail which is a problem for the city.
We need to correct this bill flaw before it is too late and we have no retail left at all
In Cupertino.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Demolition of Retail Buildings at SB 330 Staples Project
Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:01:42 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:
It might be advisable to not have all the retail buildings at the SB 330 Staples Project
Be demolished at the same time. We would wind up with another situation like we
Have had at Westport or Vallco/The Rise and El Paseo de Saratoga Shopping Center in
West San Jose. You have perfectly good retail buildings taken down to only become
Vacant lots.
The El Paseo Shopping Center is particularly worrisome because busy retail was taken down
And now the shopping center is just sitting with nothing much in the shopping center and no
Hope of anything being built. The examples were the busy Luckys Grocery Store and the
Lovely Hallmark Store which were pretty well closed and demolished in like a week.
I would like to see the Staples Store in Cupertino stay on the SB 330 Staples Project site
As long as possible since my family and my mother-in-law's family shop there regularily.
My friend's family in Los Altos as well as my friend in Santa Clara use the Cupertino
Staples. The Los Altos friend was upset that the store would be closing.
It is hoped the Staples can be encouraged to relocate elsewhere in Cupertino after
Its lease is up in 2026. It would not be good to knock the building down now because the
Store has active retail and it has new service where you can return clothing and shoes
And other items to the store and they will return them to the manufacturer for you.
My friend in Los Altos uses the Staples for this also as she has an elderly mother to
Take care of too. I use the Staples service for my mother also as I purchase clothing and
Shoes for her.
The Staples is a wonderful store and I think it should be encouraged to remain in Cupertino
And not just knocked down.
The Fontana Restaurant Building is brand new and hardly used. It is beautiful inside and
It is a shame to knock it down. Both of my mother-in-laws ate at Fontanas over the years
And both were in the new building when it was open a number of years ago. Why are
They trying to knock down such a beautiful building built in the lovely Italian Mediterranean
Style? Why can't they use it as a Club House for the Condo Buildings or keep this building
As a lovely retail building amenity for a nail salon or cafe again like Bobbies? We are going to be losing
Panera Bread across the street soon with that SB 330 project Alottas in Los Altos was just
Closed. Why do all the nice things In Cupertino get bulldozed?
It doesn't look like this SB 330 Staples townhouse complex will be built all at once so I hope that the
Existing retail on site can remain so the site is not just an empty location. It will make
Shoppers just drive by Stevens Creek Blvd if it is empty and go shop elsewhere in another city,
Especially if the Panera Bread is torn up across the street, not to mention Stevens Creek
Blvd.
I see El Paseo de Saratoga and how empty it is and I just drive on by. Even the Red Robims
Closed which is so sad. Its better to go to El Camino in Sunnyvale where they have lots of
Restaurants and grocery stores. We live Marie Callendars and Black Bear Diner. We recently
Had a family reunion at Black Bear Diner. It was wonderful.
Please preserve retail at SB 330 Staples Project as long as possible. Demolishing all
The buildings at once looks so sad and makes no one want to shop or dine in Cupertino.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Fwd: Demolition of Retail Buildings at SB 330 Staples Project
Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:03:30 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.
(Please include the following as comments on Item Number 2 at the June 10,
2025 Planning Commission meeting on the SB 330 Staples Project. Thank you.)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Demolition of Retail Buildings at SB 330 Staples Project
From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025, 3:01 PM
To: planningcommission@cupertino.org
CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com
Dear Planning Commission:
It might be advisable to not have all the retail buildings at the SB 330 Staples Project
Be demolished at the same time. We would wind up with another situation like we
Have had at Westport or Vallco/The Rise and El Paseo de Saratoga Shopping Center in
West San Jose. You have perfectly good retail buildings taken down to only become
Vacant lots.
The El Paseo Shopping Center is particularly worrisome because busy retail was taken down
And now the shopping center is just sitting with nothing much in the shopping center and no
Hope of anything being built. The examples were the busy Luckys Grocery Store and the
Lovely Hallmark Store which were pretty well closed and demolished in like a week.
I would like to see the Staples Store in Cupertino stay on the SB 330 Staples Project site
As long as possible since my family and my mother-in-law's family shop there regularily.
My friend's family in Los Altos as well as my friend in Santa Clara use the Cupertino
Staples. The Los Altos friend was upset that the store would be closing.
It is hoped the Staples can be encouraged to relocate elsewhere in Cupertino after
Its lease is up in 2026. It would not be good to knock the building down now because the
Store has active retail and it has new service where you can return clothing and shoes
And other items to the store and they will return them to the manufacturer for you.
My friend in Los Altos uses the Staples for this also as she has an elderly mother to
Take care of too. I use the Staples service for my mother also as I purchase clothing and
Shoes for her.
The Staples is a wonderful store and I think it should be encouraged to remain in Cupertino
And not just knocked down.
The Fontana Restaurant Building is brand new and hardly used. It is beautiful inside and
It is a shame to knock it down. Both of my mother-in-laws ate at Fontanas over the years
And both were in the new building when it was open a number of years ago. Why are
They trying to knock down such a beautiful building built in the lovely Italian Mediterranean
Style? Why can't they use it as a Club House for the Condo Buildings or keep this building
As a lovely retail building amenity for a nail salon or cafe again like Bobbies? We are going to
be losing
Panera Bread across the street soon with that SB 330 project Alottas in Los Altos was just
Closed. Why do all the nice things In Cupertino get bulldozed?
It doesn't look like this SB 330 Staples townhouse complex will be built all at once so I hope
that the
Existing retail on site can remain so the site is not just an empty location. It will make
Shoppers just drive by Stevens Creek Blvd if it is empty and go shop elsewhere in another
city,
Especially if the Panera Bread is torn up across the street, not to mention Stevens Creek
Blvd.
I see El Paseo de Saratoga and how empty it is and I just drive on by. Even the Red Robims
Closed which is so sad. Its better to go to El Camino in Sunnyvale where they have lots of
Restaurants and grocery stores. We live Marie Callendars and Black Bear Diner. We recently
Had a family reunion at Black Bear Diner. It was wonderful.
Please preserve retail at SB 330 Staples Project as long as possible. Demolishing all
The buildings at once looks so sad and makes no one want to shop or dine in Cupertino.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Rajiv Chamraj
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:Vivek Sagdeo; Sherman Wang; Stephanie Yang; Barbara Morrone
Subject:Proposed development on Stevens Creek Blvd -20840
Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:58:43 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 Members,
I live at 20791 Scofield Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014, and the proposed development on Stevens
Creek Blvd is on the north side of my property line. The C Street in the proposed
development almost touches my property line. The City should ensure that the street
terminates where Buildings 7 and 8 end.
This will be helpful for several residents who live on Scofield Drive to maintain a level of
privacy and be free from traffic noise.
Best
Rajiv Chamraj
From:Vivek Sagdeo
To:Rajiv Chamraj; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:Sherman Wang; Stephanie Yang; Barbara Morrone
Subject:Re: Proposed development on Stevens Creek Blvd -20840
Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 4:12:57 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 members,
I am also a resident right next to the proposed development. My address is 20821 Scofield
Drive. Fron one Fontanna's restaurant we all loved, to a very crowded 59 townhouse
community in this 129000 sq ft lot is very drastic transition. More setbacks and lesser
crowding will go a long way in keeping Cupertino livable and breathable city we all have come
here for..
Thinking about the new residents in these townhouses, they will need decent living too.
Planning commission should compare this to communities like De Anza oaks and spacings in
there.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Rajiv Chamraj <rajiv.chamraj@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:58 PM
To: planningcommission@cupertino.gov <planningcommission@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Vivek Sagdeo <sagdeos@hotmail.com>; Sherman Wang <sherman.wang@gmail.com>; Stephanie
Yang <stephanieyang2010@gmail.com>; Barbara Morrone <12bellabarb@gmail.com>
Subject: Proposed development on Stevens Creek Blvd -20840
Dear Members,
I live at 20791 Scofield Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014, and the proposed development on Stevens
Creek Blvd is on the north side of my property line. The C Street in the proposed
development almost touches my property line. The City should ensure that the street
terminates where Buildings 7 and 8 end.
This will be helpful for several residents who live on Scofield Drive to maintain a level of
privacy and be free from traffic noise.
Best
Rajiv Chamraj
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Council; City Clerk; Rachelle Sander; Alex Corbalis, CPRP; Tina Kapoor; Colleen Ferris
Subject:Fw: parks and rec facilities overrun by non-residents.
Date:Monday, June 16, 2025 5:37:21 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 City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the 06/17/25 city council meeting.
[Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident.]
Dear City Council,
While the below is addressed to parks and rec commission, via this email, I wish to draw your
attention to this matter of non-resident take over of our city’s sports infrastructure be it tennis
courts or the pickleball non-resident surge onto our tennis courts.
Please prioritize and put in place reservation policies for our parks and rec infrastructure that
prioritize residents over non-residents.
Please limit the number of non-residents allowed to join paid city parks and rec facilities or
events that are in-demand.
Please at the earliest enable reservations for our public park tennis courts with
locked gate and codes activated by reservation codes.
Please limit reservations only to residents.
It’s high time that the city enforced policies that ensured city parks and rec sports
infrastructure is usable for residents and that residents are not left on the sidelines due to a
non-resident takeover of our city sports and other parks and rec infrastructure-demand
offerings.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Begin forwarded message:
On Thursday, June 5, 2025, 12:58 PM, Santosh Rao <santo_a_rao@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Parks and Rec staff/clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming parks and
rec commission meeting.
[Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident and taxpayer]
Hi Parks and Rec Commission,
I ask you some fundamental questions below.
I urge you to agendaize these questions in a future agenda item. I implore
you to deliberate on these questions. Please make the deliberations actionable
such that coming out of your deliberations will be a resolution or a motion to give
explicit direction to parks and rec department leadership and staff based on the
outcome of your deliberations. Please turn the output into a resolution that shall
guide the priorities of parks and rec leadership and staff when future such
questions shall arise. If necessary please forward the approved motion or
resolution to a city council agenda item to further seek council approval and
memorialize a set of edicts on the core charter and purpose of parks and recs
facilities and offerings such as but not limited to tennis and pickleball courts.
What is the core purpose of parks and rec facilities such as city parks tennis
and pickleball courts?
Is it to exclusively or primarily serve Cupertino residents or non-residents or
if both to what ratio should it serve Cupertino residents?
Should our public park sports facilities like tennis courts and pickleball courts be
free, paid for annually, pay per use, or free for use but by reservations.
Should all public park tennis courts be for use by reservations with
enforcement via gate codes only obtained when a successful reservation is
made? Should court gates be lockable and unlocked only via a reservation
code ?
Should reservations be allowed for non-residents?
If pay per use, what significant premium should non-residents have to pay?
Should our city tennis and pickleball courts at CSC be open to league play
whereby a large number of teams consisting of over 80-90% non-residents use the
courts, take over these facilities courts during peak hours on weekday evenings?
Or should the city limit the number of league teams and apply regulations to limit
the uncontrolled growth of these league teams and the number of non-residents
they bring in?
As an example I have included screen shots of an upcoming season of USTA
league teams and their roosters with city of residence. As you can see ratios are
predominantly non-residents.
Should non-residents albeit paying members have input on city policy on the
priority and use of parks and rec city facilities? Keep in mind that a league team is
15 - 20 players and a set of 10 league teams can bring in 200 players of which 150
- 175 could be non-residents. If all input is equal as a sheer numbers game non-
residents will overwhelm the amount of input that parks and rec can receive and
act on.
Is the purpose of any fee charges to recover costs or to serve as profit centers?
Should costs be fully recovered or if partial what is the right % of cost recovery?
Should public works facility maintenance, operations and improvement costs be
charged to the parks and rec facility or handled independently under public works
budget?
Should cost recovery factor in the public works component. Which can be a
sizable factor.
Should any city contracts with vendors offering programs seek to create
competing vendors at the facility so as to improve services and increase revenues
to the city from the vendors by achieving competitive RFP bids and improving the
profit or revenue sharing split to the city?
Should parks and rec staff operate these facilities with the use of contractors so as
to wholly or largely retain the revenue and profits from the operations of any pay
for use facilities? Or should these be outsourced to vendors for convenience with
the city getting a 10% split in profits?
If you wonder why I raise these questions it is because our city offers superior
parks and recs infrastructure and offerings compared to neighboring cities and we
are inundated with non-residents taking over our facilities be it our free
courts in public parks or paid courts in city facilities or in-demand classes,
and events. Our public courts are almost unusable for residents. At 6am large
groups enter and take over public courts and set camp never to leave while
rotating amongst themselves. No resident stands a chance amidst such large
group coordinated takeovers.
I will be happy to raise these points and more in front of you at oral comments
and public comments but ask that you please agendaize a discussion on these
questions with intent to make the output actionable so as to direct staff or to send
your recommendation to council so as to have council direct staff.
While you may wonder if these are operational matters let me remind you that
the core and fundamental starting question is the matter of the policy setting
aspects of what should be the mission and purpose of our parks and rec city
facilities and offerings such as but not limited to tennis and pickleball courts.
(Using two heavily used examples but could apply to any in-demand parks and
rec facility, class, camp or program).
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident and taxpayer)
Screen shots of upcoming league season team rosters with city of residence by
player