The City of Cupertino has issued a formal response to a letter sent by state housing officials last month alleging the municipality violated state housing law when it rejected two housing proposals earlier this winter. In a press release, the City asserted that the California Department of Housing & Community Development’s (HCD) interpretation of the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) was incorrect because it “ignores the plain language of the statute.”
HCD had warned Cupertino officials in its letter that the rejection of two “Builders Remedy” projects violated the PSA’s provisions affording applicants 90-days to address deficiencies in proposals. Housing advocates YIMBY Law and the California Housing Defense Fund have filed two lawsuits against Cupertino on the same issue.
The Builders Remedy is a provision of state housing law that requires streamlined approval processing in jurisdictions with a noncompliant Housing Element. Cupertino had entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs of both lawsuits where it explicitly agreed to honor Builders Remedy projects.
HCD contends that, under the PSA, every determination of incompleteness by a local government reviewing a housing application triggers a 90-day timeframe for the applicant to respond to and address deficiencies. The City’s press release suggests Cupertino believes the law only affords applicants a single 90-day period, regardless of how many issues it finds or when it makes those determinations.
In the release, the City states that “…development applicants have a 90-day period to correct deficiencies” and that “if required information is not provided within that period, the development rights expire.”
YIMBY Law asserts that this interpretation affords cities “an unlimited number of updates and changes, all of which have to be submitted to the city within 90 days of the city’s first request for more information.”
In its July 2025 letter, HCD noted Cupertino’s interpretation had already been rejected by courts when the legal question was previously adjudicated by a Los Angeles Superior Court ruling. HCD also noted it had clarified this specific interpretation in a similar but unrelated dispute it had with the Town of Los Gatos earlier this year.