From: Whitney McNair
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Santosh Rao; Tracy Kosolcharoen; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Steven Scharf
Cc: Gian Martire; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: December 9, 2025, Planning Commission Hearing for 20045 & 20065 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 10:57:32 AM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Chair Rao, Vice-Chair Kosolcharoen, and Commissioners Fung, Lindskog, and Scharf:
RE: Application #: DP-2025-002, ASA-2025-004, TM-2025-002, TR-2025-005, & U-2025-007 Location: 20045 & 20065 Stevens Creek Blvd. (APN: 316-23-095, -096)
We are long-standing homeowners, having resided at 20074 Wheaton Drive for nearly 25 years. We are writing to urge you to consider changes to the proposed 32-unit project, which is located directly behind our home. Although this letter focuses on the 32-unit project, the comments can be applied to the project at 20085 & 20111 Stevens Creek Blvd.
The two projects directly abut my neighbors along Wheaton Drive, all of whom are longtime residents.
I have been a city planner for 30 years and have a long history of supporting context-based designed housing projects throughout Cupertino and the region. However, the proposed project does not take into consideration standard planning principles, and more specifically, the residential site planning considerations outlined in the Heart of the City Specific Plan, which aim to address the relationship between commercial properties and existing single-family homes. The changes we are requesting help ensure the project is sensitive to the existing residential uses, meets the intention of the Specific Plan, without impacting unit density or the developer's ability to develop the property.
The Heart of the City Specific Plan requires a use permit for housing projects that are not part of the City’s Housing Element. This site is not a Housing Element site and, therefore, is subject to a use permit and conditions of approval. That is to say, this is not a by-right development, and the City may impose conditions.
Heart of the City Specific
Plan
Proposed
Project
Requested Changes
Building forms shall be
such that buildings
adjacent to residentially
developed parcels shall be
stepped back or terraced
or have adequate setback
so that privacy is
maintained. Buildings
requiring terracing shall
have a 1.5:1 setback-to-
height ratio.
A vertical
43’, 3-story,
4-bedroom
unit plus a
roof deck,
13’ from the
property
line.
There is no
terracing,
sensitivity to
privacy, or
an adequate
setback-to-
height ratio.
Require the units along the rear property line
(units 26 and 27) to be reduced to 2 stories,
providing the required terracing for privacy.
Additionally, prohibit a roof deck.
The minimum rear setback
shall be equal to one and
one-half (1.5) times the
height of the building with
a minimum setback of 20’.
Based on the design, the
project should be setback
approximately 60’.
The project
proposes a
rear setback
of only 13.4’
The proposed project utilizes a combination
of narrower units with a tandem two-car
garage (14’) and wider units with a standard
two-car garage (21’). We request that
buildings 4 & 5 be redesigned with the
narrower tandem garages, reducing the
building footprint by approximately 21’. This
would allow for a rear setback of
approximately 34’ (13’ + 21’).
Adjacent to developed
residential properties,
attractive screen fencing
or walls shall be provided
along the side or rear
property lines to screen
buildings; a minimum of 5’
planting area shall be
established within and
adjacent to the fence or
wall with evergreen trees
planted at a minimum
spacing of 25’ on center.
Only two 24”
box Laurus
Saratoga
(Saratoga
Laurel) will
be planted
to screen
building 4,
unit 26.
A double row of evergreen screen trees
should be planted across the entire rear
property line to provide maximum screening,
at a minimum spacing of 25’ on center, even
in the areas designated “private yard.” Trees
should be required to be maintained for the
life of the project, even if they are located in
a private yard. Only the homes on the end
facing the rear property line have private
yards. Consider making the landscape
setback at the rear of the site common
property to be maintained by the HOA.
Where a commercial and
residential property share
a common property line,
the sound wall separating
the uses shall have a
minimum height of 8’. The
sound wall may be taller
than 8’.
The project
proposes to
keep the
existing 6’
soundwall
across the
rear property
line, but
build a new
8’ soundwall
on the
interior
property
line.
For
reference,
the mixed-
use project
at the corner
of Blaney
and Stevens
Creek
installed an
8’ soundwall
along the
rear property
line as a
condition of
the project.
Build a new 8’ soundwall to match the
proposed soundwall along the interior
property line. Require the developer to
replace any landscaping damaged on the
adjacent properties as a result of the
construction.
Clear
windows
facing the
existing
single-family
homes
Require windows facing the rear property
line to be opaque.
Proposed Section
The proposed section provides a sense of the project's scale in relation to the adjacent single-story, single-family homes. We’ve personally invested in solar panels on our south- facing roof that will be directly impacted by the proposed development should the proposed changes not be implemented. Impacts to our solar installation and the ability to generate solar power have a direct financial impact on us.
We request a solar analysis to show the impact of the proposed housing on our ability to generate solar energy.
We request that the Commission impose the requested changes as conditions of approval to the building design noted above.
It is worth noting that Dividend Homes has a similar development with similar site characteristics in Palo Alto, called Acacia:
https://www.dividendhomes.com/communities/acacia/
. In this case, the developer chose
to design a more context-sensitive project - something they chose not to do here. The project is located near El Camino Real with adjacent single-family homes along one property line. Here, Dividend Homes increased the setback and built two-story units along the property line shared with single-family homes (designated as units with a “2”). Below is a copy of the site plan for that project. We are requesting that they have the same respect for the adjacent homeowners here in Cupertino.
Homes in the North Blaney neighborhood are designed with privacy in mind. The main living space, kitchen, living room, and primary bedroom all face the rear yard, minimizing the impact on adjacent neighbors. The proposed project - 43’ in height, 13’ from the rear property line with its primary living space on the second and third stories, with an added roof deck - will directly impact our primary living space.
It is vital to provide housing throughout the region to a wide range of prospective owners and renters. The residents will be part of an existing community, one that we’ve been proud to be part of for nearly 25 years. However, the project should be designed in a manner that is sensitive to all adjacent properties. Maximizing the financial benefit to the developer should not outweigh the concerns of longtime residents who have vested financial interests of their own. The project's design doesn’t take into account the sensitivities of the adjacent properties, nor does it comply with the site planning standards outlined in the existing Specific Plan.
The requested changes fall within the purview of the Planning Commission and should be requirements of the use permit.
We thank you for considering these modest changes to the proposed project, which aim to ensure that all Cupertino residents enjoy well-intentioned and thoughtfully designed housing.
Whitney & Todd McNair
20074 Wheaton Drive
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: SB 330 Projects on Stevens Creek Blvd. (Agenda Items 2 & 3) Planning Commission Meeting on Dec. 9, 2025 Date: Friday, December 5, 2025 1:51:49 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:
There are two SB 330 projects on Stevens Creek Blvd. being considered for the Planning Commission meeting on December 9, 2025. These are Agenda Item # 2 (10085 Stevens Creek Blvd. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fet.al&c=E,1,MtrnVTKbPXWwB66AgdY8GrcMbwzhbKyQUgR_Nh4q8Yl1p0jDuleY7A94AaitTzd9vL0mZ_qS5_gbm2Y0g5hyP6Lm5j9nwa13rEu2n_6GQy94qbBCLcsCZj6n&typo=1) and Agenda Item # 3 (10045 Stevens Creek Blvd. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fet.al&c=E,1,- F7aAZ_Ni_EU9BLBEKE4pY3K60mOcVpyFJZ5CLPbS7hzgLkAN06kM7tBKCHfayfn5ddTEjNhSbw-PHhi9ZgaKAspBr2BfSK95GG5ElcFUSs,&typo=1 ).
I have some questions about these two projects. Both of these projects are in the Heart of the City area.
1. How many street trees are being considered for removal from these two projects? The Heart of the City stipulates a 35 foot setback from Stevens Creek Blvd. with street trees. Is this being honored?
2. Is the building massing consistent with the Heart of the City concept idea of stepping the Second and third storeys back to have a pleasant, unimposing presence in the tree-lined Avenue effect of Heart of the City?
3. Are the projects providing enough setbacks from adjacent neighbors that the buildings Will not intrude on the neighbors? There have been problems in previous SB 330 projects where the back of the proposed projects were mere feet from surrounding neighbors, causing Privacy and noise issues for neighbors. This has precipitated the potential need to close adjacent Streets due to privacy concerns.
4. Will there be disruption to traffic on Stevens Creek Blvd. by the projects being planned on These sites? How is the traffic flow from these two sites being handled as it exits and enters From Stevens Creek Blvd? If bike barriers are installed along Stevens Creek Blvd. in front of These two projects, will this affect the traffic flow exiting these complexes onto Stevens Creek Blvd. and traffic entering the complexes from Stevens Creek Blvd.? There has been significant Traffic issues at the Shane Company store across Stevens Creek Blvd. from these two projects.
5. How many students will be generated by these two projects and what schools will they attend?
6. How many active retail businesses will be impacted by these projects and can these businesses be relocated in Cupertino?
7. Can the retail stay on-site at the projects until the projects are built? This will help the retailers To remain longer and it can help the city keep its businesses taxes. The retailers will have time to look for new retail sites in Cupertino. The city should require the businesses to not be evicted until The projects are ready to be built. This way the retail stays at the location, even if the projects are never built.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
Dear City Planner
I am a residence on Wheaton Dr. and got the said project design plan from the developer and have concerns about it because it would affect our life quality seriously. My main concerns are:
1. Privacy: the buildings look too tall, 40+ feet, and too close to our backyard fence, (by the plan picture, it looks like barely about 1/3 of the distance of my house to the fence). The tenants from the higher units would be easily looking through our house window.
2. Life quality: It would block sunshine, especially in winter, and the wind flow, especially in summer. And we just signed a contract with Tesla to install solar panel on our roof and worried that it may be affected.
3. Security: not like backyard fence shared with a single house or a business, this project would have so many units and tenants. And our fence is kind of low; one could easily get over it even without a ladder. Depends on the tenant’s quality it could be a security concern.
I have heard from my neighbors who all have all the same concerns, and some have more. I don't know how much our opinion could do. But for your consideration, below are my thoughts that may be help in solving the problem.
1. Instead to make all building the same height make the buildings that face Stevens Creek Blvd taller, and the buildings next to our backyard lower. I noticed there is a newly developed residential community on Stevens Creek close to freeway 85 where there is a Five story building face Stevens Creek and all the other behind only Three stories.
I think the same idea could be used in this project as well, for example, to build Four or more story buildings in front and Two stories behind.
2. By the current plan the most north buildings are too close to the fence, it should require a much bigger setback distance between the building and our backyard fence.
3. All the windows, if any, facing our backyard should be designed taller enough so that the tenant would not be able to look down and view easily inside of our house. The best would be no window at all on the higher floors like my current neighbor's 2 story house where no windows on the side facing our house.
Thank you very much in advance if you could take our concerns into your kind consideration and help keeping our normal life would not be affected too much and so badly.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the senderand know the content is safe.
From: J. Su <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2025 1:42 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <[email protected]> Subject: comments on project of 20085 project
Jerry Su
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: [email protected]; City Council
Subject: Cumulative Impacts of Successive SB 330 Projects on Stevens Creek Blvd.
Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 10:37:47 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Planning Commission:
(Please consider the following input as public input for Agenda Item Number 2 (10085 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Et al.) and Agenda Item Number 3 (10045 Stevens Creek Blvd. Et al.) on the Planning Commission Agenda for the 12/9/25 Planning Commission meeting).
There are already two SB 330 projects in progress for Stevens Creek Blvd, the Staples SB 330 Project and the United Furniture SB 330 Project. Now we have two more SB 330 Housing Projects being proposed, 10085 Plus Stevens Creek Blvd. and 10045 Plus Stevens Creek Blvd. All of these housing projects are being proposed In a fairly short sequence of distance on Stevens Creek Blvd.
There is a concept called Cumulative Impact which can be a very serious consequence of this many projects Being proposed for such a short distance of roadway. One project (Staples) might disrupt local traffic patterns etc. This could be mitigated by studying adjacent traffic patterns and taking appropriate action By adding traffic signals or adding crosswalks etc. to help reduce the impacts on adjacent roadways or intersections.
This type of mitigation gets more complicated when you have another project introduced (United Furniture) That can potentially not only affect its local traffic patterns, but also the traffic patterns of the first project (Staples). The impact to traffic grows cumulatively. Then you add a third project (10085 Plus) and a fourth Project (10045 Plus) and now you have many levels of cumulative impact. The ability to mitigate the Effects of these projects on traffic become more and more difficult.
It is of utmost importance that adequate traffic studies on Stevens Creek Blvd. be calculated and analyzed before any more SB 330 projects are built along Stevens Creek Blvd. There is another proposed SB 330 Project for Stevens Creek Blvd. which would be a fifth large housing project proposed on less than a mile Of Stevens Creek Blvd. frontage in the busy Historic Cupertino Downtown Shopping Corridor. This Corridor is heavily used by much of the population of Cupertino and other cities. It has been called The Cross Roads for over one hundred years. There are many streets that cross Stevens Creek Blvd. and their traffic loads could be affected by too much cumulative impacts of too many SB 330 Housing Projects on Stevens Creek Blvd. in just one mile.
The SB 330 bill says housing projects are subject to CEQA review and CEQA review involves traffic impacts.
This type of potential cumulative impact from so many SB 330 housing projects does not lend itself To ministerial review of these projects from CEQA.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: ED HSIAO
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Concerns Regarding 20045 & 20065 Stevens Creek Blvd Proposal Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 10:41:03 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,
My name is Ed Hsiao, and I am a homeowner at 20054 Wheaton Drive, where my family and I have lived for 35 years. Our home sits directly behind the proposed Dividend Homes development on Stevens Creek Boulevard, and I am writing to share concerns about the current site plan—particularly the height of Buildings 4 and 5 at 20045 & 20065 Steven Creek Blvd., and the limited setback distance between these buildings and the Wheaton Drive property line.
After reviewing the project documents, I am concerned that these two buildings are positioned far too close to the backyards of the existing homes on Wheaton Drive. As currently designed, they would stand approximately 43 feet tall and three stories high, which would significantly impact the privacy and daily living environment of residents whose yards would be directly overlooked.
I respectfully request that the Planning Commission consider requiring a greater setback from the Wheaton Drive properties—ideally a minimum of 40 feet, which is approximately where the existing building on the site is currently situated, and a reduction in height to two stories, consistent with the height of the existing buildings.
These adjustments would help the project better integrate with the established neighborhood and preserve the privacy that current homeowners have relied on for decades.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ed Hsiao
Homeowner, 20054 Wheaton Drive
Cupertino, CA
Dec 9, 2025 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Proposed Housing Development at 20045-20065 Stevens Creek Blvd. By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dear Cupertino Planning Commission, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation
to
abide
by
all
relevant
state
laws
when
evaluating
the
proposed
32-unit
housing
development
project
at
20045-20065
Stevens
Creek
Blvd,
which
includes
three
median-income
units
and
three
moderate-income
units.
These
laws
include
the
Housing
Accountability
Act
(“HAA”),
the
Density
Bonus
Law
(“DBL”),
Housing
Element
Law,
AB
130,
and
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(“CEQA”)
guidelines.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan
compliant
housing
development
projects
unless
findings
can
be
made
regarding
specific,
objective,
written
health
and
safety
hazards.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subd.
(j).)
The
HAA
also
bars
cities
from
imposing
conditions
on
the
approval
of
such
projects
that
would
reduce
the
project’s
density
unless,
again,
such
written
findings
are
made.
(
Ibid
.)
As
a
development
with
at
least
two-thirds
of
its
area
devoted
to
residential
uses,
the
project
falls
within
the
HAA’s
ambit,
and
it
complies
with
local
zoning
code
and
the
City’s
general
plan.
Increased
density,
concessions,
and
waivers
that
a
project
is
entitled
to
under
the
DBL
(Gov.
Code,
§
65915)
do
not
render
the
project
noncompliant
with
the
zoning
code
or
general
plan,
for
purposes
of
the
HAA
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subd.
(j)(3)).
The
HAA’s
protections
therefore
apply,
and
the
City
may
not
reject
the
project
except
based
on
health
and
safety
standards,
as
outlined
above.
Furthermore,
if
the
City
rejects
the
project
or
impairs
its
feasibility,
it
must
conduct
“a
thorough
analysis
of
the
economic,
social,
and
environmental
effects
of
the
action.”
(
Id.
at
subd.
(b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections.
The
City
must
respect
these
protections.
In
addition
to
granting
the
increase
in
residential
units
allowed
by
the
DBL,
the
City
must
not
deny
the
project
the
proposed
waivers
and
concessions
with
respect
to
building
bulk;
front,
side,
and
rear
setbacks;
building
forms;
lot
coverage;
parking
requirements;
mixed-use
retail
requirements;
and
common
open
space
requirements.
If
the
City
wishes
to
deny
requested
waivers,
Government
Code
section
65915,
subdivision
(e)(1)
requires
findings
that
the
waivers
would
have
a
specific,
adverse
impact
upon
health
or
safety,
and
for
which
there
is
no
feasible
method
to
satisfactorily
mitigate
or
avoid
the
specific
adverse
impact.
If
the
City
wishes
to
deny
requested
concessions,
Government
Code
section
65915,
subdivision
(d)(1)
requires
findings
that
the
concessions
would
not
result
in
identifiable
and
actual
cost
reductions,
that
the
concessions
would
have
a
specific,
adverse
impact
on
public
health
or
safety,
or
that
the
concessions
are
contrary
to
state
or
federal
law.
The
City,
if
it
makes
any
such
findings,
bears
the
burden
of
proof.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65915,
subd.
(d)(4).)
Of
note,
the
DBL
specifically
allows
for
a
reduction
in
required
accessory
parking
in
addition
to
the
allowable
waivers
and
concessions.
(
Id
.
at
subd.
(p).)
Additionally,
the
California
Court
of
Appeal
has
ruled
that
when
an
applicant
has
requested
one
or
more
waivers
and/or
concessions
pursuant
to
the
DBL,
the
City
“may
not
apply
any
development
standard
that
would
physically
preclude
construction
of
that
project
as
designed,
even
if
the
building
includes
‘amenities’
beyond
the
bare
minimum
of
building
components.”
(
Bankers
Hill
150
v.
City
of
San
Diego
(2022)
74 Cal.App.5th
755,
775.)
Finally, the project is exempt from state environmental review pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res.
Code,
§
21080.66),
which
was
signed
into
law
on
June
30,
2025
and
effective
immediately
(Assembly Bill No. 130, 2025-2026 Regular Session, Sec. 74, available here). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly
refuse
to
grant
a
project
a
CEQA
exemption
or
streamlined
CEQA
review
to
which
it
is
entitled.
(
Hilltop
Group,
Inc.
v.
County
of
San
Dieg
o
(2024)
99 Cal.App.5th
890,
911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage.
New
housing
such
as
this
is
a
public
benefit:
by
providing
affordable
housing,
it
will
mitigate
the
state’s
homelessness
crisis;
it
will
increase
the
city’s
tax
base;
it
will
bring
new
customers
to
local
businesses;
and
it
will
reduce
displacement
of
existing
residents
by
reducing
competition
for
existing
housing.
It
will
also
help
cut
down
on
transportation-related
greenhouse
gas
emissions
by
providing
housing
in
denser,
more
urban
areas,
as
opposed
to
farther-flung
regions
in
the
state
(and
out
of
state).
While
no
one
project
will
solve
the
statewide
housing
crisis,
the
proposed
development
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
CalHDF
urges
the
City
to
approve
it,
consistent
with
its
obligations
under
state
law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased
access
to
housing
for
Californians
at
all
income
levels,
including
low-income
households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. 2 of 3
Dec 9, 2025 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Proposed Housing Development at 20085-20111 Stevens Creek Blvd. By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dear Cupertino Planning Commission, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation
to
abide
by
all
relevant
state
laws
when
evaluating
the
proposed
57-unit
housing
development
project
at
20085-20111
Stevens
Creek
Blvd,
which
includes
six
median-
and
five
moderate-income
units.
These
laws
include
the
Housing
Accountability
Act
(“HAA”),
the
Density
Bonus
Law
(“DBL”),
Housing
Element
Law,
AB
130,
and
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(“CEQA”)
guidelines.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan
compliant
housing
development
projects
unless
findings
can
be
made
regarding
specific,
objective,
written
health
and
safety
hazards.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subd.
(j).)
The
HAA
also
bars
cities
from
imposing
conditions
on
the
approval
of
such
projects
that
would
reduce
the
project’s
density
unless,
again,
such
written
findings
are
made.
(
Ibid
.)
As
a
development
with
at
least
two-thirds
of
its
area
devoted
to
residential
uses,
the
project
falls
within
the
HAA’s
ambit,
and
it
complies
with
local
zoning
code
and
the
City’s
general
plan.
Increased
density,
concessions,
and
waivers
that
a
project
is
entitled
to
under
the
DBL
(Gov.
Code,
§
65915)
do
not
render
the
project
noncompliant
with
the
zoning
code
or
general
plan,
for
purposes
of
the
HAA
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subd.
(j)(3)).
The
HAA’s
protections
therefore
apply,
and
the
City
may
not
reject
the
project
except
based
on
health
and
safety
standards,
as
outlined
above.
Furthermore,
if
the
City
rejects
the
project
or
impairs
its
feasibility,
it
must
conduct
“a
thorough
analysis
of
the
economic,
social,
and
environmental
effects
of
the
action.”
(
Id.
at
subd.
(b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections.
The
City
must
respect
these
protections.
In
addition
to
granting
the
increase
in
residential
units
allowed
by
the
DBL,
the
City
must
not
deny
the
project
the
proposed
waivers
and
concessions
with
respect
to
height
limits,
front,
side,
and
rear
setbacks,
building
form,
building
bulk,
lot
coverage,
parking
requirements,
mixed-use
retail
requirements,
and
common
open
space
requirements.
If
the
City
wishes
to
deny
requested
waivers,
Government
Code
section
65915,
subdivision
(e)(1)
requires
findings
that
the
waivers
would
have
a
specific,
adverse
impact
upon
health
or
safety,
and
for
which
there
is
no
feasible
method
to
satisfactorily
mitigate
or
avoid
the
specific
adverse
impact.
If
the
City
wishes
to
deny
requested
concessions,
Government
Code
section
65915,
subdivision
(d)(1)
requires
findings
that
the
concessions
would
not
result
in
identifiable
and
actual
cost
reductions,
that
the
concessions
would
have
a
specific,
adverse
impact
on
public
health
or
safety,
or
that
the
concessions
are
contrary
to
state
or
federal
law.
The
City,
if
it
makes
any
such
findings,
bears
the
burden
of
proof.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65915,
subd.
(d)(4).)
Of
note,
the
DBL
specifically
allows
for
a
reduction
in
required
accessory
parking
in
addition
to
the
allowable
waivers
and
concessions.
(
Id
.
at
subd.
(p).)
Additionally,
the
California
Court
of
Appeal
has
ruled
that
when
an
applicant
has
requested
one
or
more
waivers
and/or
concessions
pursuant
to
the
DBL,
the
City
“may
not
apply
any
development
standard
that
would
physically
preclude
construction
of
that
project
as
designed,
even
if
the
building
includes
‘amenities’
beyond
the
bare
minimum
of
building
components.”
(
Bankers
Hill
150
v.
City
of
San
Diego
(2022)
74 Cal.App.5th
755,
775.)
Finally, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 (Pub.
Res.
Code,
§
21080.66),
which
was
signed
into
law
on
June
30,
2025
and
effective
immediately
(Assembly Bill No. 130, 2025-2026 Regular Session, Sec. 74, available here). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly
refuse
to
grant
a
project
a
CEQA
exemption
or
streamlined
CEQA
review
to
which
it
is
entitled.
(
Hilltop
Group,
Inc.
v.
County
of
San
Dieg
o
(2024)
99 Cal.App.5th
890,
911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage.
New
housing
such
as
this
is
a
public
benefit:
by
providing
affordable
housing,
it
will
mitigate
the
state’s
homelessness
crisis;
it
will
increase
the
city’s
tax
base;
it
will
bring
new
customers
to
local
businesses;
and
it
will
reduce
displacement
of
existing
residents
by
reducing
competition
for
existing
housing.
It
will
also
help
cut
down
on
transportation-related
greenhouse
gas
emissions
by
providing
housing
in
denser,
more
urban
areas,
as
opposed
to
farther-flung
regions
in
the
state
(and
out
of
state).
While
no
one
project
will
solve
the
statewide
housing
crisis,
the
proposed
development
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
CalHDF
urges
the
City
to
approve
it,
consistent
with
its
obligations
under
state
law.
2 of 3
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased
access
to
housing
for
Californians
at
all
income
levels,
including
low-income
households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3
Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: SB 330 Moratorium because of Traffic Load Problems on Stevens Creek Blvd.
Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 11:53:04 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: SB 330 Moratorium because of Traffic Load Problems on Stevens Creek Blvd.
From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2025, 11:46 AM
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected],[email protected]
Dear City Council:
(Please include the following as public input for the Cupertino City Council meeting on Dec. 16,
2025.)
There are an every expanding proliferation of SB 330 Housing Projects on a one mile section of Stevens Creek Blvd. in the Historic Cross Roads Shopping Area of Stevens Creek Blvd.
It has escalated to five large housing projects. SB 330 does not take into account the implications
Of large amounts of its successive projects, especially in one area.
This type of future disaster is teetering on the brink in Cupertino in this one busy section Of Stevens Creek Blvd. There are so many housing projects planned along this corridor that the
City must think very carefully about the implications to traffic movement on Stevens Creek Blvd.
as a whole. We could potentially be shutting down all movement on this section of roadway.
It is becoming apparent that there needs to be some sort of moratorium on any more SB 330 Projects on Stevens Creek Blvd. in Cupertino until adequate traffic studies can be performed to
Study this situation. The city cannot afford to adversely affect traffic flow on Stevens Creek Blvd
Any more than it already is.
SB 330 is a bill that tries to expedite housing construction, but it has potentially been causing a disaster when it allows too many housing projects to be streamlined in one area.
The city needs to be able to adequately study the ramifications of so many housing projects at one
time on one heavily utilized section of roadway in the city.
A moratorium on SB 330 projects should be called until the Stevens Creek Blvd. roadway impacts
from these SB 330 projects can be studied and the city can decide the best course of action for everyone
Involved.
The city should have town halls and study sessions on the traffic impacts from so many SB 330 projects
On Stevens Creek Blvd. in the near future to help mitigate and analyze and remedy the ever- expanding
situation.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Pam Hershey
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda 2 and 3
Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 4:01:41 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 Chair and Commissioners,
A moratorium on SB 330 projects should be called on Stevens Creek Blvd. because the impacts all the projects will have on main road Stevens Creek Blvd at the same time.
Was there a traffic or school studies done on the Town House Projects on Agenda Item #2 and #3?
10045 Stevens Creek and 10085 Stevens Creek
How many students will be attending the already impacted schools near these two projects? My neighbor has to drive their daughter to Eaton School as Collins does not have any room for her. This will cause more traffic along SCB as the parents will be driving their children to a school that can accommodate them.
Please consider the consequences of the two proposed projects With he impact of the neighbors that live within half of a mile from many building projects at this time.
Regards,
Pamela Hershey
Wheaton Dr.