From: Piu Ghosh (she/her)
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Fwd: Support New Family Housing at 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Blvd! Date: Friday, March 20, 2026 6:51:58 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.
Planning Manager Piu Ghosh,
Dear Cupertino Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to strongly urge you to recommend approval for the proposed residential project at 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard. This development represents a rare and vital opportunity to create 122 for-sale townhomes in our city, providing the high-quality, family-sized housing that Cupertino desperately needs.
By building 100% three- and four-bedroom units and including a significant 20% on-site affordable component, this project ensures that both growing families and our local workforce have a path to homeownership. This is a smart, logical conversion of an underutilized commercial site that will actually benefit the surrounding neighborhood by reducing net daily traffic by 40%.
Furthermore, the project team’s commitment to preserving the historic pear trees and creating a new public linear park shows a clear dedication to enhancing our community’s character and green space.
Cupertino must approve thoughtful infill projects like this to meet our housing goals and remain a welcoming city for families of all income levels. I respectfully ask that you vote yes and move this project forward to the City Council.
Jeffrey Herdman
[email protected]
San Jose, California 95129
From: Cathy Helgerson
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; J.R. Fruen; Sheila Mohan; R "Ray" Wang
Subject: Public Hearing File# 26-14967 Housing Proposal Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 6:58:05 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.
Addressing: The Cupertino Planning Commission & the Cupertino City Council Planning Commissions Members: Tracy Kosolcharoen - Chair, Steven Scharf, Vice -Chair, David Fung, Seema Lindskog, Santosh Rao and Staff Liaison - Piu Ghosh and City Council Members - Kitty Moore, Mayor, Liang Chao, J.R. Fruen, Sheila Mohan and Ray Wang.
Regarding: Public Hearing File # 26-14967 - Meeting date: Tuesday -3/24/2026 at 6:45 PM.
Public Hearing Subject: Consider a Use Permit, Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval,
and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit for the construction of a 122 -unit residential development, consisting
of 66 small-lot single family homes and 56 townhomes
located at the Stevens Creek Office Centersite, which includes a multi-tenant retail building (Voyager
Coffee and Panera Bread). The Project utilizes Senate Bill 330 and provisions of State Density Bonus law, (Application No(s): U-2024-008, TM-2024-006, ASA-2024-011, TR-2024-003;
Applicant: Kevin Choy, Harvest Properties, Location: 20807, 20813, 20823 & 20883 Stevens Creek Blvd; APN: 326-32-050, 051, 052 and - 053.
From: Cathy Helgerson - Phone No: 408-253-0490 - Address: 20697 Dunbar Drive The Planning Commission and the Cupertino City Council turn down this Use Permit.
Senate Bill 330 and its extensions are performing havoc and widespread destruction on our city and the cities all over California. This bill needs to be brought back into the Senate for review by the Senate and the Legislature.
This project and the requested permit for this project will destroy and demolish the Voyager Coffee Shop, Panera Bread, Stevens Creek Office Center, Daycare Center and more needs to be disapproved and the public's disapproval needs to be seriously considered. Many of these stores, coffee shops and restaurants employ workers that continually lose their jobs to these developments. No considerations are ever considered for what this does to our loyal employees who need these jobs. This total injustice must end. What is replacing these stores, office center and daycare center nothing they are gone forever? Where will these new residents shop and enjoy the camaraderie of their fellow man. Oh and women. We need places to congregate.
The City of Cupertino has continually over decades lost many restaurants, retail stores of all kinds, department stores and there is a long list of what has taken place too long to mention here. One specifically just recently was the Stapes Store that many of us use for office supplies
that has closed due to the build that will take place. There truly has been no effort to consider what the closures of these much needed commercial properties mean to the people of Cupertino. How can this continue?
We must go long distances to buy our office supplies. The public is not asked to vote for these properties; the city has not considered a voting process of mailing to our homes to vote for them or against them. Why has no voting system been implemented so that all citizens of Cupertino's votes can be recognised and so the vote can be counted for and against?
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 is not to be taken lightly so they think and pass a bill like the Senate Bill 330 without even really working to understand how this really is going to affect our cities and communities. What will the traffic be like and how will the city handle the grid lock on our street and highways? I am gravely disappointed with those who make our laws on all levels but especially with the City Council in Cupertino who should be protecting the public from this Senate Bill. Instead it looks as if no one will oppose this bill. This is terribly wrong. They need to bring this bill back for review and have it voted upon by the public. A lawsuit if necessary should be started. The City of Cupertino and other cities should join together and issue such a suit.
The City of Cupertino is turning into a Mega Highrise Housing Community void of commercial properties that provide a service to the community. This is not what the citizens in Cupertino want. It is important that the public is included in the decision making of our city.
I ask that the City of Cupertino Planning take back their approval of this project and reconsider going forward with its approval to the City Council. Project Locations application No.(s) U-2024-008, TM2024-006, ASA-2024-001, & TR-2024-033. There is and could be the possibility of another site being selected and I propose this to the Planning Commission and to the City of Cupertino's City Council. The Library Field area next to City of Cupertino's City Hall and City Library is open and should be available for such a project and even more the building of a new City Hall and office building should be considered and looked at. It seems that in the past people in our City have opposed such a build but there was never a city vote taken by the people as a whole. The field has been used for a soccer field for kids and just a few people, coaches and parents opposed using the field for the City Hall build and so it sits there. The other citizens in Cupertino were not allowed to vote on this use of the field and I think this is very wrong. Note: The City of Cupertino has not retrofitted its City Hall and office building to fit the earthquake regulations seismic stability must be instigated to protect the public and the workers. This Library Field project, if implemented, would take care of this problem.
I am against this proposed project that will kill and destroy living trees and property. The cost of the demolition of the buildings and the dust and pollution that it would cause is money being wasted. Using the Library Field will be the better way to go. There is no doubt in my mind that this field will someday be used. How could it not be used? It needs to be used for a City Hall and City offices and so much more. The time is and should be now! Why not? Save our commercial and retail properties.
Please do not approve this build permit!
Thanks you,
Cathy Helgeson - 408-253-0490
From: Witt Turner
To: Tracy Kosolcharoen; Steven Scharf; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Santosh Rao; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: Piu Ghosh (she/her); City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Formal Letter of Support - Harvest Properties | Housing Action Coalition Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 4:48:26 PM
Attachments: Stevens Creek Cupertino - HAC Letter of Endorsement.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 Members of the Cupertino Planning Commission and Staff, I am writing on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition (HAC) to formally present our letter of support for Harvest Properties' proposed residential redevelopment at 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard.
HAC is a statewide member-supported organization. We advocate for building more homes at all income levels to alleviate California’s housing crisis which directly impacts Cupertino.
This project transforms aging commercial buildings into 122 much-needed for-sale homes, addressing a critical gap in "missing middle" housing.
All proposed units feature three or four bedrooms, providing essential homeownership opportunities for local families. Furthermore, the development meets Cupertino’s 20% inclusionary requirement by delivering 24 below-market-rate homes onsite.
The project is a logical infill strategy that aligns with the General Plan and utilizes state streamlining and density bonus laws. Beyond providing housing, it includes beneficial community features such as a central linear park and a projected 40% net decrease in trip generation compared to the current office use.
Our formal letter of support is attached. We respectfully urge the Planning Commission to support this project and allow it to move forward through the entitlement process.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Witt Turner
Housing Action Coalition
--
Witt Turner
He/Him/His
Office: (415)-300-0967
Cell: 510-421-9401
Advocacy and Operations Associate | Housing Action Coalition 555 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111
housingactioncoalition.org
March 23, 2026 Cupertino Planning Commission Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Staff, The Housing Action Coalition (HAC) is a member-supported nonprofit that advocates for creating more housing
for
residents
of
all
income
levels
to
help
alleviate
California’s
housing
shortage,
displacement,
and
affordability
crisis.
The Housing Action Coalition is pleased to endorse Harvest Properties’ proposed residential redevelopment
at
20807–20883
Stevens
Creek
Boulevard
in
Cupertino
.
Following
review
by
the
HAC
Project
Review
Committee,
we
find
that
the
project
represents
a
thoughtful
conversion
of
aging
commercial
buildings
into
much-needed
for-sale
housing,
aligned
with
Cupertino’s
General
Plan
and
inclusionary
housing
requirements.
Land Use. The project will redevelop six one- and two-story commercial structures totaling approximately
117,500
square
feet,
including
roughly
7,000
square
feet
of
retail,
into
a
100%
residential
community.
The
site
fronts
Stevens
Creek
Boulevard,
a
commercial
corridor,
and
Alves
Drive,
a
single-family
neighborhood.
Transitioning
this
aging
office
site
into
housing
is
a
logical
infill
strategy
that
responds
to
changing
market
conditions
and
community
needs.
Density. The project proposes 122 for-sale homes, all consisting of three- and four-bedroom units. The net
density
of
approximately
17.84 dwelling
units
per
acre
is
within
the
base
zoning
allowance
of
25 dwelling
units
per
acre.
Heights
are
generally
around
40 feet
from
proposed
grade,
with
certain
homes
requiring
waivers
due
to
Cupertino’s
measurement
methodology.
The
project
utilizes
State
Density
Bonus
Law,
SB
330
streamlining,
and
AB
130.
Affordability. The development meets Cupertino’s 20% inclusionary requirement, delivering 24 below-market-rate
homes
onsite.
Of
these,
12 units
are
at
the
Moderate
AMI
level
(120%)
and
12 at
the
Median
AMI
level
(100%).
By
providing
ownership
opportunities
for
moderate-
and
median-income
households
in
a
city
where
entry-level
homeownership
is
often
out
of
reach,
the
project
addresses
a
critical
gap
in
missing
middle
housing
supply.
Transportation and Parking. The project includes 244 covered resident parking spaces (two per unit) plus
27 guest
spaces,
consistent
with
State
Density
Bonus
parking
standards
and
below
what
would
otherwise
be
required
under
Cupertino
Municipal
Code.
Bicycle
parking
is
provided
within
each
garage,
along
with
additional
publicly
available
racks.
A
completed
traffic
study
demonstrates
a
net
decrease
of
approximately
40%
in
trip
generation
compared
to
the
existing
office
use.
Urban Design and Open Space. The project incorporates a network of small paseos and a central linear park
designed
to
foster
neighborhood
interaction
and
community
life.
The
internal
park
includes
seating
areas,
shade
structures,
lawn
areas,
and
pedestrian
pathways.
Each
unit
includes
a
private
deck,
and
select
homes include rooftop decks. Memorial Park and William Faria Elementary School are located within a half-mile
of
the
site,
further
supporting
livability
for
families.
Environmental Features. The project will meet California Building Code and Title 24 sustainability requirements,
including
rooftop
solar
installation
and
EV
charging
infrastructure.
While
not
pursuing
third-party
certification,
the
development
complies
fully
with
current
state
and
municipal
environmental
standards.
Community Engagement. Although not legally required to host outreach meetings, the project team conducted
two
in-person
neighborhood
meetings
and
engaged
Planning
Commissioners,
City
Councilmembers,
and
surrounding
residents.
In
response
to
feedback,
the
project
team
preserved
the
pear
trees
along
Stevens
Creek
Boulevard
and
evaluated
retail
retention
before
determining
that
preserving
retail
would
require
significant
resubmission
and
delay.
Overall, this proposal converts underperforming commercial buildings into 122 new for-sale homes—including
24 affordable
units—in
a
city
facing
severe
housing
constraints.
We
support
this
project
and
encourage
the
City
of
Cupertino
to
continue
advancing
it
through
the
entitlement
process.
Sincerely, Corey Smith , Executive Director
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Loss of Retail at Panera/Voyager Coffee SB 330 Site Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 9:59:32 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 as public comment for Item 2 on the Planning Commission meeting On 3/24/26.)
The SB 330 Project of Voyager Coffee and Panera Bread is going to result in the loss of 110,000 square feet of prime, traditional Cupertino shopping space along Stevens Creek Blvd. The very popular Good Earth Restaurant was located on this site for many years. The loss of retail to the city is unfathomable.
There have now been seven of these SB 330 projects, all along Stevens Creek Blvd. The city is having Prime retail sites wiped out from West to East in the city. If each site contains 100,000 square feet Of retail that means the city is losing over 700,000 square feet of retail in just under one year, all along Stevens Creek Blvd.
The city requires retail to be included in developments along Stevens Creek Blvd., but yet none Of these projects provide retail. SB 330 is a rather lopsided, unwise housing law thrust upon the population Of the state of California without the public being able to weigh in or vote on.
It is obvious now the law has some overwhelming problems and one of them is the destruction of Retail in our city. The law has caused so much loss of retail that it can truly be called the "Retail Crisis" bill.
I think it would be much better if this current project retained its nice active retail of popular Voyager Coffee and the very successful Panera Bread. We love the very nice shopping center on Scott and El Camino in Santa Clara where another Panera Bread is located. This shopping center is very successful and has multiple active restaurants and shopping opportunities. Why can't we have such Nice retail in Cupertino? We have the dining and shopping population.
I think all the SB 330 sites in Cupertino should retain retail. Really, SB 330 is short-changing our city.
We are losing 700,000 square feet of prime retail and current tenants are in danger of being kicked Out or abandoned by the city.
Please make sure Voyager and Panera have homes in our city if their current locations are lost. We really do not want to lose anymore retail. We are becoming a bedroom community for Sunnyvale which has much active retail.
I think we need to have a Study Session on SB 330 and its impacts on Cupertino. What have other cities done about this burgeoning problem?
I am also concerned about the traffic complications of having one active SB 330 at Staples directly across The street (Stevens Creek Blvd.) from this new Voyager/Panera SB 330. Have the traffic patterns been studied? The traffic signal at Saich and Stevens Creek Blvd. is going to get clogged up and impassable.
I really think we need to think carefully about what the multitude of SB 330s are doing to our City and the overall burgeoning pattern of retail loss. Once retail is lost along the Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor of Cupertino, we the shoppers of Cupertino never get it back.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: James Lloyd
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Santosh Rao; Tracy Kosolcharoen; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Steven Scharf
Cc: Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: public comment re item 2 for tonight"s Planning Commission meeting Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 12:02:27 PM
Attachments: Cupertino - 20807-20883 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 tonight's Planning Commission meeting, the proposed 122-unit housing development project at 20807, 20813, 20823 & 20883 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes 24 median- and 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/
Mar 24, 2026 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 20807, 20813, 20823 & 20883 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
122-unit
housing
development
project
at
20807,
20813,
20823
&
20883
Stevens
Creek
Blvd,
which
includes
24 median-
and
moderate-income
units.
These
laws
include
the
Housing
Accountability
Act
(“HAA”),
the
Density
Bonus
Law
(“DBL”),
Housing
Element
Law,
and
AB
130.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan
compliant
housing
development
projects
unless
findings
can
be
made
regarding
specific,
objective,
written
health
and
safety
hazards.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subd.
(j).)
The
HAA
also
bars
cities
from
imposing
conditions
on
the
approval
of
such
projects
that
would
reduce
the
project’s
density
unless,
again,
such
written
findings
are
made.
(
Ibid
.)
As
a
development
with
at
least
two-thirds
of
its
area
devoted
to
residential
uses,
the
project
falls
within
the
HAA’s
ambit,
and
it
complies
with
local
zoning
code
and
the
City’s
general
plan.
Increased
density,
concessions,
and
waivers
that
a
project
is
entitled
to
under
the
DBL
(Gov.
Code,
§
65915)
do
not
render
the
project
noncompliant
with
the
zoning
code
or
general
plan,
for
purposes
of
the
HAA
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subd.
(j)(3)).
The
HAA’s
protections
therefore
apply,
and
the
City
may
not
reject
the
project
except
based
on
health
and
safety
standards,
as
outlined
above.
Furthermore,
if
the
City
rejects
the
project
or
impairs
its
feasibility,
it
must
conduct
“a
thorough
analysis
of
the
economic,
social,
and
environmental
effects
of
the
action.”
(
Id.
at
subd.
(b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org
Of note, the City has planned for housing development on the site by including it in its current
Housing
Element
site
inventory.
Specifically,
the
City
has
planned
for
51 units
on
the
site
including
21 lower-income
units.
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,
front
setbacks,
side
setbacks,
rear
setbacks,
building
forms,
roof
plans,
lot
coverage,
number
of
stories,
minimum
lot
width,
landscape
easement,
parking
space
size,
tandem
parking,
parking
setback,
and
affordable
unit
size.
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).
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:
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
From: Patrick Bumb
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: Blair Volckmann; Kevin Choy
Subject: 3.24.26 Planning Commission Hearing – 20807–20883 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 2:40:33 PM
Attachments: Letter to Planning Commission_3.24.26.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.
To Whom It May Concern,
Please find the attached letter regarding the proposed 122-unit residential development at 20807– 20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino. This letter is intended for discussion in connection with tonight’s Planning Commission hearing.
Sincerely,
Patrick Bumb
Vice President
Borelli Investment Company
2051 Junction Avenue, Suite 100
San Jose, CA 95131
Cell: (408) 499-9815
DRE# 01913911
From: Shelby Maples
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Public Comment on Item 2: Stevens Creek Office Center Development Project Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 3:24:24 PM
om: David Susman <[email protected]>
Date:
March 24, 2026 at 3:18:39 PM PDT
To: "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <[email protected]> Cc: Tracy Kosolcharoen <[email protected]>, Steven Scharf <[email protected]>, David Fung <[email protected]>, Seema Lindskog <[email protected]>, Santosh Rao <[email protected]>, "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment on Item 2: Stevens Creek Office Center Development Project
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 Kosolcharoen, Vice-Chair Scharf, and the rest of the Cupertino Planning Commission:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed development at 20807- 20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard. This project destroys essential community spaces, damages a vibrant small business, and leaves seniors and young people in Cupertino with hardly anywhere left to go.
Back in 2021-2022, the owners of Voyager Craft Coffee poured their time, energy, money, creativity, heart, and belief into a total renovation of the former Peet's Coffee space. What resulted was a fabulously successful small business where lines for coffee famously stretch out the door and sometimes around the building on weekends. The owners of Voyager thoughtfully created a huge outdoor patio for people to enjoy and connect -- and, in doing so, helped provide a vital third space for people in Cupertino to share a sense of community.
This proposed development project would wipe out Voyager's investment, do great harm to their small business -- a true South Bay success story that started with a single coffee cart -- and leave Cupertino without one of its signature spaces for people to come together. Voyager is exactly the kind of business Cupertino needs, and should be trying to attract, support, and sustain. This is not the type of business we want to eliminate!
While I am merely a customer of Voyager, I am not even certain that Voyager was ever contacted by anyone at the city about this project. They should be right in the middle of this discussion, not excluded from it while their livelihood -- and the place they've poured themselves into -- sits in danger of closing.
This isn't just about Voyager or Panera. It's about the seniors, students, and young people of Cupertino. Where else do groups of seniors have to meet for coffee in the morning? Where do high school and De Anza students meet to study or work on group projects? Just do a quick search for meetups in Cupertino -- political activism groups, interest groups (whether it be knitting, startups, or book clubs), etc. all congregate at this location, especially at Panera. Not only is retail in Cupertino dying, but vital "third spaces" that support community are dying as well. This development project eliminates vital community space for people who can't easily invite others into their homes. In addition, it eliminates the natural connections and community that emerge when people come together in a central gathering place.
In this time where the prices of everything are skyrocketing, where housing is generally unaffordable to young people and seniors, where the future of Cupertino looks like a nearly silent wall of townhomes and a few scattered offices -- it's more important than ever to protect and provide spaces to gather, connect, and meet. I urge the Planning Commission and City Council not to participate in destroying one the few places remaining where true community has the ability to take root.
Thank you for taking the time to hear my thoughts.
David Susman
Outlook
FW: 3.24.26 Planning Commission Hearing – 20807–20883 Stevens Creek Blvd.
FromPiu Ghosh (she/her) <[email protected]>
Date Wed 3/25/2026 2:20 PM
To Shelby Maples <[email protected]>
Cc Eva Momoki <[email protected]>
2 attachments (1 MB)
Easement Agreement.pdf; Letter to Planning Commission_3.24.26 (1).pdf; Late comment
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
From: Patrick Bumb <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 5:53 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: C. Jang <[email protected]>; Crystal Jang <[email protected]>; Patrick Bumb <[email protected]> Subject: 3.24.26 Planning Commission Hearing – 20807–20883 Stevens Creek Blvd.
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,
On behalf of our client, Saich Way LLC, we respectfully request that the Commission continue the hearing scheduled for this evening to a future date. This will allow the parties additional time to coordinate and address outstanding issues in a thoughtful and productive manner.
Our client was made aware of the proposed development within the past 48 hours and has not had sufficient time to fully evaluate the potential impacts. Given the shared infrastructure and interrelated considerations between the properties, additional time is warranted to ensure a well-coordinated outcome.
Additionally, the existing Reciprocal Easement Agreement (attached) reflects extensive coordination between the parties and the City, particularly with respect to traffic circulation and shared site improvements. The requirement for City Manager approval under Section 23 further underscores that these matters extend beyond a private agreement and are integral to the City’s original project approvals. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the considerations outlined in the attached "Letter to Planning Commission_3.24.26" be carefully evaluated and incorporated into any project conditions of approval.
Sincerely,
Patrick Bumb
Vice President
Borelli Investment Company
2051 Junction Avenue, Suite 100
San Jose, CA 95131
Office: (408) 560-1519
DRE# 01913911
From: Patrick Bumb <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 2:39 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Blair Volckmann <[email protected]>; Kevin Choy <[email protected]> Subject: 3.24.26 Planning Commission Hearing – 20807–20883 Stevens Creek Blvd.
To Whom It May Concern,
Please find the attached letter regarding the proposed 122-unit residential development at 20807–20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino. This letter is intended for discussion in connection with tonight’s Planning Commission hearing.
Sincerely,
Patrick Bumb
Vice President
Borelli Investment Company
2051 Junction Avenue, Suite 100
San Jose, CA 95131
Cell: (408) 499-9815
DRE# 01913911