CC 1-21-2026
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu; Rachelle Sander; Public Comments
Subject: Cancel all discretionary spend on giveaways and commence review and halt of all discretionary spend on consultant projects.
Date: Thursday, January 15, 2026 11:15:01 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.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Dear Mayor Moore, Council Members, and CM Kapoor,
I urge you to cancel the items referenced below at the earliest opportunity. The City can no longer afford discretionary giveaways.
At a time when tax increases on residents are being contemplated, it is difficult to justify the continuation of such spending. This erodes public trust and undermines the credibility of both staff and Council.
Please immediately agendize a comprehensive review of discretionary expenditures. This should include constant projects, special projects, consultant engagements, and roles that could be eliminated or consolidated. Priority should be given to areas where staff capacity can replace consultants and where non-essential headcount can be reduced.
The City should not be paying healthcare and pension benefits for any staff whose primary role is supervising consultants and not doing the actual needed work in-house. If staff cannot perform the underlying work, those roles should be reconsidered. There is a substantial pool of qualified federal and other public agency professionals available due to federal layoffs. Please review available candidates for contract work without long-term healthcare and pension benefit obligations. Please close anll open reqs immediately.Engagements should be contingent on delivery of actual work, not primarily consultant oversight.
It is time for a rigorous performance review across staff. Expectations must be clear. Staff should execute work, not just supervise consultants. Any project needing consultants needs to be cancelled until we replace staff with those who can do the work in-house.
All discretionary giveaways should be cancelled without delay.
This is how households manage their budgets. They cannot raise their own paychecks at will.
Employers are laying people off. Revenues are slowing. Expecting residents to absorb higher taxes in this environment is disconnected from reality.
Many newer residents face severe financial strain. Property taxes are high. Mortgages are resetting from lower rates set five years ago. Utility, grocery, and education costs continue to rise. Paychecks are not keeping pace.
Now is the moment to review all staff spending, with urgency and a bias toward action. This will also clearly show residents who amongst council are in touch with the realities of residents affordability challenges and who amongst council are totally disconnected from resident realities. Let’s have agenda items and please vote so that council member track records are on record with actual votes on where they stand on issues. It’s time to replace tax and spend policies with frugality and judicious use of taxpayer dollars to serve residents not lobbyist special interest groups.
Thank you for your urgent and immediate attention to fiscal discipline.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) Begin forwarded message:
On Thursday, January 15, 2026, 10:35 AM, City of Cupertino <[email protected]> wrote:
Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.
City of Cupertino
Community Funding Grant Program - Accepting 2026-27 Applications Apply
Cupertino’s Community Funding Grant
Program is Accepting Applications
The City of Cupertino is proud to support local non-profits that strengthen our community with grants of up to $20,000. Applications are now open for the 2026–27 Community Funding Grant Program, which provides funding to organizations in social services, fine arts, and other public programs that benefit the Cupertino community.
The City is accepting applications now through Sunday, February 1.
Questions can be emailed to [email protected].
Cupertino
cupertino.gov/recreation
city of Cupertino
City of Cupertino, California
Website | 408.777.3200
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Manage Preferences | Help
This email was sent to [email protected] using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California · 10300 Torre Avenue · Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 From: J j
To: Melissa Robertson
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: RE: tonight"s oral--on written communication
Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 4:22:03 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 clerk,
As a reminder, please include the ones you said you would post to the next meeting if it is earlier than 1/21/26. Thanks. Huang family
Sent from my Device
-------- Original message --------
From: Melissa Robertson <[email protected]>
Date: 12/17/25 4:05 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: tonight's oral--on written communication
Good afternoon,
The below email you sent was included in the December 2, 2025 written communications. If you would like your written communication to be included in the next meeting on January 21, 2026 please send us an email after the agenda is posted for this meeting. We will include your email in the written communications if it is received by 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. If you send your email after that time, but before the end of the meeting, it will be added as a late communication.
Have a great day!
Melissa Robertson
Administrative Assistant
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-3148
From: J j <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 6:25 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: tonight's oral--on written communication
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.
Continue
I saw you put on Dec 2 revision on Dec 3 file, which didn't get see before the Dec 2 meeting. I thought the missed publication before the Dec 2 meeting will be on Dec 16 's meeting. Please publish it onto the next public meeting. Id tou have any question, please feel free to reach me. Thank you.
-------- Original message --------
From: J j <[email protected]>
Date: 12/16/25 5:52 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: tonight's oral--on written communication
Thanks. It's on today's, right?
Sent from my Device
-------- Original message --------
From: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Date: 12/2/25 7:33 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: J j <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: tonight's oral--on written communication
Yes, they will be posted. Thank you
Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: J j <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 7:04 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: tonight's oral--on written communication
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.
continue
Just sent again from yahoo jzwxx@yahoo email. two email titled 'Request to Prioritize Rebuilding Direct Communication Between City Leadership and Residents' and time sensitive! Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the 'political prisoner/hostage'/Fair Treatment from the City' --both from Huang family From: J j <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 9:49 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: tonight's oral
Dear city clerk Kirsten,
I don't see the email I sent before, which asked to be included in the written communication.
Please advise. 'Jenny' - Huang family
From: J j <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 12:15 AM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: tonight's oral
Subject: RE: tonight's oral
Please publish the email from Huang family. Thank you!
Sent from Device
-------- Original message --------
From: J j <[email protected]>
Date: 11/19/25 10:09 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: tonight's oral
Dear Kirsten,
At several point of times, the calls got disconnected without my notice. I didn't know my raised hands were dropped as well.
Sent from my phone
-------- Original message --------
From: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Date: 11/18/25 8:42 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: J j <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: tonight's oral
Good evening, unfortunately you raised your hand well after the cutoff.
These people had their hands raised
Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: J j <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 8:17 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: tonight's oral
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 Kirsten,
I submitted this request within nine minutes of the start of the 6:45 p.m. oral session 648p.
There was an emergency presentation at that time, and I tried to raise my hand immediately afterward and along the time since 648p. Could you please clarify what happened? Thank you.
Huang family
From: Randy Kim
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public comment - The CuperDoodle Program - 12-18-2025 Date: Thursday, December 18, 2025 2:30:30 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.
My child is scheduled to attend the CuperDoodle program at the start of the new year so any potential changes would be deeply felt.
I was just there today with my family to take a tour. My son was terribly excited to see the classrooms and his future classmates. News of potential consideration for closure is shocking.
I want to say that I’m no stranger to tough times but I and my childhood friends have already felt the effects of closures in the school system before. I went to Regnart Elementary and knowing it’s gone, hurts.
-Randy
CC 01-21-2026
#15 & 16
Dividend Homes I & II
Written Communications
From: Whitney McNair
To: Kitty Moore; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; Liang Chao; R "Ray" Wang; Public Comments Cc: Todd McNair
Subject: Items 15 & 16: Application #: DP-2025-002, ASA-2025-004, TM-2025-002, TR-2025-005, & U-2025-007 Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 9:46:35 AM
Attachments: Cupertino Development.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 Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and members of the City Council:
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 represent a number of longtime homeowners who reside along Wheaton Drive, Myer Place, and Carol Lee Drive, many of whom attended the December 9th Planning Commission hearing.
We 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 also being considered by the Council. I’ve attached a summary document showing the requested changes.
On December 9, 2025, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed projects and for comparison purposes, they referenced the success of the recently approved SummerHill Homes project at 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Although they are similar housing projects, SummerHill Homes, upon hearing neighbors' concerns, modified the design to increase the setback to the property line where the project abuts single-family homes from 10 feet to 33 feet, and added a dense row of screen trees along the property line (see attached). The project before you tonight proposes a 13-foot setback to the property line.
The applicant, Dividend Homes, has developed a project in Palo Alto on Acacia Avenue with the same unit design and neighborhood context as proposed for this project in Cupertino: https://www.dividendhomes.com/communities/acacia/. Here, the developer has a 20 foot setback and a row of screen trees planted every 15 feet along the shared property line with existing single-family homes (see attached).
We are asking for the same consideration.
After the Planning Commission hearing, several neighbors met with the developer to request a rear setback of at least 20 feet. A 20 foot setback would provide a setback similar to that between other residential properties and mirrors the project's setback in Palo Alto. This request is less than than the changes SummerHill Homes made for similar conditions. The setback can be increased with minimal impacts to the project design and site layout. The developer has declined to make this change, choosing to keep the setback at 13 feet. The Heart of the City Specific Plan requires that the rear setback be more than 60 feet. We are asking for a standard setback that any residential project would need to meet.
We are asking the Council to increase the rear setback to 20 feet.
With a two-story home 13 feet from the property line, privacy will be an issue.
We are requesting that windows along the rear elevation be minimized or placed high on the wall to avoid a direct view into the existing homes.
Alternatively, windows should be treated or opaque to minimize direct views.
At the Planning Commission hearing, the developer committed to reducing the height of the units facing the rear of the site from three stories to two, mirroring the design they have in Palo Alto (see attached photo). This was an appreciated project change and should be reflected in the project approval. However, the project is still only 13 feet from the rear property line.
The project, as proposed, doesn’t include any trees in the rear yard area of the homes facing the rear property line. Therefore, no screening is proposed where a building is only 13 feet from the property line. The developer’s project in Palo Alto successfully includes trees planted every 15 feet in the rear yard of the homes (see attached photos). SummerHill Homes planted a dense row of screen trees along the property line to screen their project. The developer has agreed to plant one tree in the yard. The Planning Commission suggested hedges.
We are asking that the Council require not just one tree, but trees to be planted every 15 feet along the rear property line.
Lastly, neighbors have asked that the wall along the rear property line be increased to 8 feet. The developer has agreed, and the homeowners support, adding a 2-foot trellis along the wall.
We are asking that the Council require the developer to add a 2-foot trellis to the existing wall.
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.
The developer has accepted and incorporated these same components in their project in Palo Alto. The Cupertino Council should take pride in the design of projects within its city, and hold the same, if not greater, regard for its citizens, and require the modest changes proposed in this letter. These changes would also better align with the recently approved SummerHill Homes project that has a similar condition of backing up to existing single family homes.
We thank you for considering these modest changes to the proposed project, which aim to ensure that all Cupertino residents enjoy well-intentioned, thoughtfully designed housing.
Whitney & Todd McNair
20074 Wheaton Drive
Sandy & Tom Siron
20064 Wheaton Drive
Jerry Yu
20094 Wheaton Drive
Ed Hsiao
20054 Wheaton Drive
William R. Lee, Jr. & Lisa Lee
20104 Wheaton Drive
Diana & Rich Lordan
10128 Meyer Place
Mary, Stephania & Susan Higdon & Julie Coy
10138 Meyer Place
Proposed Projects
● 13 foot setback to rear
property line shared with
existing single family homes
13’ setback to rear property line
Council approved project at 20770, 20830, 20840 SCB
● Comparison project
references as successful
by the Planning
Commission
● SummerHill Homes
● Original design had a 10
foot setback to the rear
property line
SummerHill revised their plans
● Developer revised the
project and increased the
setback from 10 feet to 33
feet
● Added row of screen trees
Increased
setback
Row of screen
trees
Dividend Homes project in Palo Alto
This is the same development in
Palo Alto
● 20-foot setback to existing
single family homes
● 2-story unit
● Stepping up to 3-story unit
20’
setback
2-story
3-story Existing single
family homes
Dividend Homes project in Palo Alto
● Screen trees
planted every 15
feet
Trees every 15’
20’ setback from fence to home
Request a 20 foot setback
Increase to 20’
Add trees in the yards to screen the building
Add
trees
here
Add
trees
here Rear
property
line
adjacent
to
existing
single
family
homes
From: James Lloyd
To: Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang Cc: Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Re: public comments re agenda items 15 and 16 for tonight"s Council meeting Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 11:32:33 AM
Attachments: Cupertino - 20045-20065 Stevens Creek Blvd Townhouses - HAA Letter - CC.pdf Cupertino - 20085-20111 Stevens Creek Blvd Townhouses - HAA Letter - CC.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.
There was an error with the date in one of the letters with our previous submission. Please refer to the attached public comments instead.
Apologies for the inconvenience.
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 11:20 AM James Lloyd <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Cupertino City Council,
Please see attached public comments from the California Housing Defense Fund regarding agenda items 15 and 16 for tonight's Council meeting.
the proposed 57-unit housing development project at 20085-20111 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes six median- and five moderate-income units; and the proposed 32-unit housing development project at 20045-20065 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes three median-income units and three moderate-income units.
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
Jan 21, 2026
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]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Dear Cupertino City Council,
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 Hill150 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 Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. 2 of 3
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3
Jan 21, 2026
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]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Dear Cupertino City Council,
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 Hill150 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 Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
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
20065/20045 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
CITY COUNCIL HEARING
1/21/2026
SITE CONTEXT
This section can be used to
include a short description
about the content shown.
1 – 2 short sentences will
deliver the highest impact.
SITE PLAN
Project Data:
Site: +/- 1.79 Ac
Units: 32 Units
(6 are BMR units)
1,553 to 2,158 Sf units
3 and 4 bedroom units
Parking: 2 spaces in garage
5 on-surface spaces
CIRCULATION
Concept:
• Minimize driveway cuts on to
Stevens Creek
• Centrally locate parking
• Garages off alleys and not
visible from street
• Defined pedestrian circulation
TYPICAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT
TYPICAL BUILDING ELEVATION
ELEVATION STYLE -1
ELEVATION STYLE -2
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
STREET VIEW
STREET VIEW
POST PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES
2 STORY UNIT ALONG NORTHERN EDGE
POST PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES
2 STORY UNIT ALONG NORTHERN EDGE
2 STORY UNIT ALONG NORTHERN EDGE
NEW 2 STORY UNIT NEW 3 STORY UNIT
2 STORY UNIT ALONG NORTHERN EDGE
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
NEW 2 STORY UNIT NEW 3 STORY UNIT
NEW 2 STORY UNIT
(NO ROOF DECK)
2 STORY UNIT ALONG NORTHERN EDGE
NEW 3 STORY UNIT
2 STORY UNIT ALONG NORTHERN EDGE
NEW 2 STORY UNIT NEW 3 STORY UNIT
QUESTIONS
SITE PLAN
20111/20085 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
CITY COUNCIL HEARING
1/21/2026
SITE CONTEXT
This section can be used to
include a short description
about the content shown.
1 – 2 short sentences will
deliver the highest impact.
SITE PLAN
Project Data:
Site: +/- 2.6 Ac
Units: 57 Units
(11 BMR units)
1,553 to 2,158 Sf units
3 and 4 bedroom units
Parking: 2 spaces in garage
12 on-surface spaces
CIRCULATION
Concept:
• Minimize driveway cuts on to
Stevens Creek
• Centrally locate parking
• Garages off alleys and not
visible from street
• Defined pedestrian circulation
TYPICAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT
TYPICAL BUILDING ELEVATION
ELEVATION STYLE -1
ELEVATION STYLE -2
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
STREET VIEW
STREET VIEW
POST PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES
2 STORY UNIT ALONG NORTHERN EDGE
POST PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES
2 STORY UNIT ALONG NORTHERN EDGE
2 STORY UNIT ALONG NORTHERN EDGE
NEW 2 STORY UNIT NEW 3 STORY UNIT
2 STORY UNIT ALONG NORTHERN EDGE
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
NEW 2 STORY UNIT NEW 3 STORY UNIT
2 STORY UNIT ALONG NORTHERN EDGE
NEW 2 STORY UNIT
(NO ROOF DECK)
NEW 3 STORY UNIT
2 STORY UNIT ALONG NORTHERN EDGE
NEW 2 STORY UNIT NEW 3 STORY UNIT
QUESTIONS
SITE PLAN
SITE PLAN
NEW UNITS
SITE PLAN
PRIOR PLAN PROPOSED PLAN
PRIOR SITE PLAN
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
From: Kitty Moore
To: Lauren Sapudar
Cc: Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk
Subject: Written Communications Items 15 and 16
Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 3:58:34 PM
Attachments: Cupertino Public Art KM .pdf
Dear City Clerk,
Please provide the attached Draft PDF as written communications for the Dividend Homes projects tonight.
Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
Cupertino Public Art – DRAFT compilation.
October 16, 2025
Picture of Art Artist Title/Description Location
1 “Little Trees”, Menlo
Equities
NE Corner
SCB/Wolfe Rd.
2 John
Augsberger
Morion
sculpture, 1971
(City Hall) SE
corner Torre and
Rodrigues
3 Peter Max Morion cover
Page of
Cupertino
Courier,
9/03/2003
Courier Article
This was part of a
promotion.
Guests were
invited to bring a
copy of the
Courier to his
book signing at
Borders Books at
Santana Row.
Location of
original painting
unknown.
4 Georgia
Gerber
“The Dancers” Civic Center Plaza
at City Hall
5 ? ? 19800 Wolfe Rd.
6 ? ? Sculpture of a
child reading
with a rabbit
looking on
Cupertino Library
courtyard
7 ? ? Quail Family South end of Don
Burnett Bridge
8 Stanley
Proctor
“The Guardians” Memorial Park
Veterans
Memorial
9 Ulrich Pakker “Glassflow” Oak Park Village,
10745 N. De Anza
Blvd.
10 “Magnificent
Tree” Whole
Foods Market
Whole Foods
11 James Moore “Stargazer” Hyatt
House
Hyatt House N.
Wolfe Rd.
12 Roger White
Stoller
“Natura” is the
working title
The Forum at
Rancho San
Antonio
13 Futureforms
(Jason Kelly
Johnson &
Nataly
Gattegno)
“Bloom” Alan Row (SW
Corner SCB and
Foothill)
14 Katie
Paterson and
Zeller & Moye
“Mirage”
Mirage website
Apple HQ Visitor’s
Center
15 Sarabjit Singh “Harmony”
Submittal to Arts
and Culture
Commission
Art in Unexpected
Places Blackberry
Farm Pool building
16 Roger Berry Cali Mill Plaza, SE
Corner SCB and
DA Blvd.
17 Reed Madden
Designs
“Emergence” Westport, Mary
Avenue
18-
19 Pair of Stone
Lanterns from
Toyokawa Sister
City
Memorial Park
20 This ornate
gazebo has
historic
relevance, saved
wood from the
Parrish home
formerly located
at the current
Senior Center
site.
21 Martin Web “Converge” Franco Park
22 “Biltmore
Family”
20030 Stevens
Creek Blvd.
The Following Collection is from the
Main Street Cupertino Art Master Program - some pieces may have been installed but are not shown, see the Main Street Art Master Program linked Murals:
Alexander
Lebron
Parking
Garage
sculptures:
Barbara
Grygutis
Apple core:
“Flight”
Sculpture”
Jason Paul
Bennett
Creek
Markers
Others show
up in the
Master
Program but
do not know if
they were
installed
Main Street Art
Master Program
Approved Feb.
29, 2016.
Main Street Art
Master Program