On Wednesday, April 2nd, residents gathered at Cupertino Community Hall to protest potential eviction from their homes. The Foothill-De Anza College District is entering a contract to purchase the 94-unit McClellan Terrace apartments on 7954 McClellan Rd. But this will displace the apartment’s existing residents and numerous families with school-age children, whose units will be provided to students attending the community college.
Residents are now upset at the prospect of being evicted not only from their homes, but also having to leave the CUSD/FUHSD school district and the City of Cupertino. Neighbors are worried that the loss of sixty-seven K-12 students will exacerbate the decline in public school enrollment, leading to more school closures.
In 2020, voters passed a Foothill-De Anza College District bond including projects to “plan, construct, acquire or contribute to affordable employee and student housing units.” The College District’s consultant recommended purchasing the off-campus McClellan Terrace apartments, but failed to disclose that the apartments are heavily populated by local K-12 school district families, and that these apartments are more affordable than others in our community. McClellan Terrace is one of very few apartments within a half-mile of Lincoln Elementary School, Kennedy Junior High, and Monta Vista High School.
Per county records, Prometheus purchased the property in 2022 and is assessed at $52M. The College District would purchase the property for $67M and make it ready for approximately 332 students for an additional $28M, for a total of $95M; the deal would not be finalized until at least July.
Via CBS news, McClellan Terrace resident Rachel Green said she did not receive any “official correspondence from the property management company.” The only information she and neighbors had was via news reporting. “All the communication we see online is that we have to be out by the summer,” said Green.
The new resident-focused Council majority acted with expedience to address the situation. During the April 2nd meeting, Mayor Chao proposed a special session to study the city’s position on the conversion of multifamily housing to student housing, evaluate existing bills on student housing, and compare with other jurisdictions. This motion was approved unanimously by the City Council. Vice Mayor Kitty Moore emphasized the time-sensitivity of the discussion, since the purchase is already under process. Councilmember Ray Wang added, “I think it’d be prudent to let the College District know that we’re heading in this direction so that whoever’s in escrow knows this could be an issue.”
Residents wishing to express feedback should attend the next College District Board Meeting, held at 6:00 P.M. on Monday, April 7, 2025 in the District Office Building (D700) at Foothill College, 12345 El Monte Road, Los Altos Hills. They can also email the College District Chancellor’s office and the District Board at Carla Maitland [email protected].
Additional information:
Fox 2 coverage of the April 2nd resident protest at Cupertino Community Hall:
KPIX CBS News Bay Area Coverage of the McClellan Terrace Purchase:
In the March 18th City Council meeting, Mayor Liang Chao, Vice Mayor Kitty Moore, and Councilmember Ray Wang voted to approve the 2025-27 Cupertino City Work Program, which seeks to improve economic growth, fiscal sustainability, and public health and quality of life in Cupertino. Councilmembers Fruen and Mohan voted against the 2025-27 City Work Program.
The new initiatives are summarized below (view the full list here):
Economic Development for Retail and Small Businesses: Streamline permitting for small businesses, explore options to retain and recruit businesses, explore themed events like restaurant weeks and festivals, explore creation of a small business council, restore the Economic Development Committee, and explore a Grants Analyst position.
Permit Streamlining and Simplification for Small Home Upgrades: This will be a suite of improvements to (1) improve access to, and (2) speed the processing of permits for small home upgrades to enhance compliance and improve efficiency. This includes setting SLA’s, customer service KPI’s, and internal staff expertise to reduce consulting expenses.
Financial, Investment, and Cashflow Policy Review: Review and assess the City’s investment policy and best practices. Establish a cashflow management policy with the goal to reduce the total percentage in cash from 20% to 2% and to reduce the total percentage in cash and cash-equivalent to at most 10%, on par with other cities.
Defensible Impact Fee Nexus Study for Traffic Impact Fee, Retail Impact Fee, BMR Impact Fee, and Parkland Impact Fee: Review impact fees and other means of offsetting conversion of commercial land uses to residential to ensure impact fees are defensible against legal challenges.
Enhance Senior Services: Utilizing survey results conducted in 2022 and 2023, consider consultant services similar to Palo Alto or Saratoga Senior Center to enhance services, while reducing cost to the city.
City Hall Retrofit and City Hall Annex Renovation including the EOC: Implement the previously approved 2022 Council plan with EOC migration funds
Planning for Optimal Use of City Properties: Future planning strategies for Stocklmeir house/ garages, Blech House, Blue Pheasant, McClellan Barn, and the house at the entrance of Blackberry Farm, with a goal of judicial use of city-owned properties. Investigate potential purchase of CUSD Finch/Phil property.
Emergency Operations Readiness: Review fire, earthquake tornado, active shooter, Tsunami, hazardous transport accident policies. Ensure EOC is active and functioning with a permanent position, not a consultant.
5G Ordinance: Prepare an ordinance to regulate small cellular facilities in the public right of way.
Unhoused Policies: Determine best practices for limited-budget smaller cities to manage the unhoused. Review RV practices in surrounding cities for impacts and potential adoption. Review transitional housing outcomes in surrounding cities. Policies to include nimble contingency plans.
Water Conservation Policies: Reduce irrigation while increasing pollinator-supporting vegetation (turf conversion). Optimize irrigation systems including CUSD use agreement sites.
Urban Forest Program: Create an Urban Forest Master Plan that includes an updated and expanded tree list which will increase the number of trees, enhance the City’ s tree canopy, and promote landscaping throughout the City
Add notifications for SB 330 and other projects during the application and approval process: Consider a community meeting requirement for any major project application, especially those requiring a general plan amendment, as some other cities have adopted. Consider increasing notification radius from 300 feet to 500 (or 1,000) feet for any project application, especially those requiring a general plan amendment. Improve notification methods for SB 330 preliminary applications, streamlined projects not requiring planning/council approval, and other projects
While many of the items reflect the fresh perspective of the new Council majority, the plan also continues several work program items from the prior council, including bicycle facilities, preserving and developing BMR housing, and the Vision Zero plan to reduce fatalities and severe injuries on roadways by 2040.
Once approved, staff determines the resources needed to accomplish each Work Program item, and requests them during the Budget Adoption process. Via the staff report, the 2025-27 Cupertino City Work Program “will officially launch in July at the start of the new fiscal year.” Projects in the City Work Program are expected to consume about 10% of City staff time. The remainder of their time is largely devoted to day-to-day operations.
In this post we cover two topics: 1. Valley Church of Cupertino land being included in the Housing Element Site without informing them 2. Rod Sinks’ campaign misleading residents about retail at Westport
Valley Church: Designated Housing Element Site Without their Permission
A resident made us aware of a situation where four parcels of land owned by the Valley Church of Cupertino were put on the Housing Element Priority Site List, without ever consulting the Church!
The church had to write to the city to ensure that their lands, which were being used to provide community resources like tennis courts, were not converted for private profit.
This is illustrative of the lack of transparency and notifications about the change in zoning proposed in the housing element development process carried out by the Builder’s Controlled council since the November 2022 election. Any open space in Cupertino was at the risk of being rezoned for builders to profit from.
Residents of Linda Vista drive have expressed similar concerns of the rezoning of Evulich Ct. site from R1 (1-5 units/acre) to R3 (20-35 units/acre), where they did not receive any notifications. In the case of the Valley Church, even the property owner was not notified or consulted about the city’s plan to add their land to the Housing Element
Rod Sinks’ Campaign: Misinformation About Westport
Rod Sinks’ campaign sent out text messages and email claiming that the Westport development (Oaks Redevelopment) only provides homes, but not retail. He is also claiming he can negotiate a better deal. As usual with the politicians aligned with builders, the facts do not justify the claims.
20,000 sq ft of Retail Space at Westport
The Westport development has approval for 20,000 sq ft of commercial retail space, 37,601 square feet of common open space and 2,400 square feet of common retail outdoor space. For context, a typical Starbucks store is between 1500-2000 sq. ft. So the Westport development has plans for about a dozen stores of the size of the typical Starbucks.
Westport has a combination of owner occupied townhomes, senior housing, and assisted care facilities, and the retail spaces will open as different segments are built and occupied.
And it is important to remember that the original plan for Westport was based around giant towers with more than 800K sq ft of buildout with bulk of it as office space which would have significantly worsened the traffic at the Stevens Creek/Hwy 85/Hwy 280 junction (see picture below)
The plan being built is traffic neutral with the previous Oaks Plaza, provides valuable senior housing which our aging population needs, and helps address the housing shortage by providing more choices at a price point lower than single family homes..
Rods Record of Negotiation
Rod Sinks has a record of conceding every demand of developers, especially Sandhill Properties, in spite of massive protests by residents impacted by them. Most residents in neighborhoods near Vallco have a deep mistrust of Rod Sinks based on their bitter experiences lasting almost a decade.
Any successful negotiation and agreement, requires an element of trust between the parties involved. Rod simply lacks the trust of the residents most impacted by future development at Vallco, and his claims of being able to negotiate are specious at best.
Earlier this evening, the coterie of ex-mayors resurfaced and sent out an email message spreading disinformation about how and why the Housing Element was delayed leading to Builder’s Remedy.
Stealing Design & Claiming Copyright
In their message, they included a picture taken from the “Save Our Neighborhoods” sign which some residents developed to highlight the risk of high density construction in single family lots. They not only did not give credit to the person who had created the sign, they even claimed copyright to it! Further while the signs were meant to support Kitty Moore and Ray Wang, the deceiving mayors used them to support their opponents.
We are including a video from the resident who created this sign, who shares his outrage at the theft of his intellectual property, and the unethical attempts by the ex-mayors to deceive Cupertino Residents.
The residents demand an immediate retraction from Richard Lowenthal, Dolly Sandoval, Kris Wang, JR Fruen, Hung Wei, and Sheila Mohan for stealing our intellectual property and attempting to falsely copyright it. This is emblematic of your unethical leadership and it is unacceptable .
Screenshot from email sent by the three ex-mayors
Disinformation Barrage Continues
A lot has already been written about how the builder’s took over the city council via their YIMBY proxy JR Fruen & Sheila Mohan) in November 2022.
Instead of adopting the existing Housing Element draft and submitting it for approval, they waited till after the deadline to even submit it. While evaluating that submission, HCD declared that it “addresses most statutory requirements. For context, Palo-Alto’s draft was judged to “address many statutory requirements”, a lower level of compliance.
HCD also noted that many YIMBY orgs including JR Fruen’s Cupertino For All shared comments about why the draft required revisions. Thereafter they delayed the housing element by 18 months exposing the city to Builder’s Remedy. In their legal settlement with JR’s buddies in other YIMBY orgs in early 2024 the City invited Builder’s Remedy projects. All Active Builder Remedy projects were filed after that settlement.
Please do not let these unethical people succeed in deceiving you.
In this post we focus on how the Builder-Political Complex uses a sophisticated disinformation network to achieve its goals. The disinformation network has been extremely successful in misleading the residents. Three years ago when CUSD shut down multiple school campuses, most residents believed it was because of a budget shortfall due to falling enrollment. The reality was that CUSD was projecting almost $39.5M of surplus over the next five years. The video by CUSD Trustee Jerry Liu sheds light on it
The modus-operandi of such campaigns is to get articles & editorials published in regional news outlets which support policies sponsored by builders, without providing the readers with a comprehensive or objective view. For example, articles were written blaming falling school enrollment to justify the need for a lot more new housing in Cupertino. However they failed to mention that prior to the drop the enrollment had increased every year for almost 15 years. Or that even after the drop CUSD schools were running way above planned capacity with almost 25% of classes in portable classrooms. Or that the year after the decision to close the schools to save $1.5M, CUSD was projecting the biggest surplus ever in its history, $16M in the next year.
In this article we will focus on the disinformation campaigns organized by JR Fruen’s Cupertino For All, especially those run by its Information Officer, Jean Bedord.
Disinformation: East Cupertino vs West Cupertino
One method employed by the builder’s lobby is to project residents’ concerns of builders’ influence over city council as a conflict between the East and West side of Cupertino. The controversial Sand Hill Properties proposals to redevelop the Vallco Mall disproportionately impact the residents of East Cupertino. It is reasonable that the residents of the neighborhoods around Vallco will be vocal in challenging the resident unfriendly behavior of the council.
However, campaigns are run by the builder’s lobby to frame that community leaders from the East side want to harm the West side, and hence the residents should vote for the builders’ candidates
The reality, however, is the opposite as residents of Linda Vista Drive are now realizing.
Recent Nextdoor Interaction
We wanted to highlight a recent Nextdoor conversation illustrating how Jean makes misleading statements to create confusion in the mind of fellow residents. Jean comments on a post saying:
“Kitty Moore and Ray Wang voted to bring high density housing to Western Half of the City, ignoring the Topography”
Fact Check: Statement is False
In 2019, the resident focused city council voted against development on the Vista Heights property. (details here)
On the contrary, Jean Bedord, spoke in favor of the project on the top of the cliff moving forward (video below), during the 2019 City Council Meeting, “ignoring the topography”
Kitty Moore voted NO, to the July 2024 Housing Element approval which legally up-zoned the Evulich Court site to R3.
The residents focussed council reduced the density for Westport (Oak’s Redevelopment) to just 30% of the original proposal and also put to end conversations of rezoning the Blackberry Farm Golf Course as a residential housing site.
West Cupertino Faces YIMBY Assault
The residents of Linda Vista Drive on West Cupertino are dealing with the impact of the decisions taken by the JR Fruen led council since November 2022 which has led to two new developments which will double the number of homes on their street.
One project on Evulich Ct is the result of rezoning of a series of R1 (single family) parcels to R3/TH (multifamily townhomes) which was approved in July 2024 as part of the Housing Element
The second project is a Builder’s Remedy project near Linda Vista Park, which is proposing an even more dense development than the earlier proposal rejected by the resident-focussed city council during November 5, 2019 meeting.
The city is forced to accept Builder’s Remedy projects because JR Fruen led council decided to completely redo the city’s housing element plan finalized in October 2022, and also agreed to accept Builder’s Remedy projects as part of a settlement of a lawsuit filed by YIMBY organizations.
An element of Jean’s style is to provide a lot of information, with omissions and misrepresentations, to mislead her readers. Since she is perceived as the local expert, people trust her words. Her recent September 10 newsletter highlights that.
In that post, Jean gives a timeline of the housing element but conveniently forgets to mention key details, the role played by YIMBY orgs like Cupertino For All, or highlights information which is irrelevant to the progress of the housing element
In the next section we are including the timeline she published in italics, interleaved with additional context being provided in regular font inblue. Some of Jean’s content is highlighted in RED to represent how Jean highlighted it.
Context
ABAG adopted the RHNA Allocations for the 2023-2032 planning cycle on Decemeber 16, 2021, asking Cupertino to have a plan to construct 4588 new homes. The city starts process in Q1-2022 with the first draft discussed with the city council in August 2022.
In August 2022, JR Fruen, writing as the Policy Officer of Cupertino For All, lists out demands from YIMBY groups, as the city is reviewing the Housing Element Draft demanding more buffer, more upzoning and not to count pipeline projects.
>Oct. 22, 2022, First Draft provided for Public Review After the approval of the HE sites in August, the City published the first draft
>Dec. 10, 2022: new councilmembers Sheila Mohan and JR Fruen sworn in, and Hung Hei(sic) chosen as mayor. As customary, city offices were closed between Christmas and New Year’s.
After JR Fruen’s election, Cupertino For All, wrote to the City Council again, demanding major changes and a redo of the Housing Element. The letter is endorsed by Jean Bedord, Connie Cunningham and Louise Saadati. This letter is in the records for the Dec 10 meeting.
>Feb 3, 2023: First Draft submitted to HCD as a placeholder to show progress.
The City waited more than three months after the 1st draft was available (October 22, 2022) to send the draft to HCD on February 3, 2022, missing the approval deadline by three days
>May 4, 2023: within the full 90 days allowed for review, HCD provided 14 pages of comment requiring the city to basically redo the First Draft.
The May 4, letter by the HCD reviewing the first draft: stated that the draft submitted by the city addresses most statutory requirements! It also states that several YIMBY organizations, including JR Fruen & Jean Bedord’s Cupertino For All, had written to demand changes in the Housing Element.
For context, the Housing Element draft submitted by Palo Alto in December 2022, was only found to address many statutory requirements, a lower level of compliance than Cupertino’s .
It should be evident that there was NO justification to completely redo the draft as claimed by Jean. The draft was deemed as mostly compliant and some edits would have fixed it. The changes made in the subsequent drafts were made to transform it to what was demanded by YIMBYs which JR Fruen had listed in his August 2022 letter
>July 25, 2023: Council Study Session on the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Council approved direction to staff to develop a Housing Element with additional sites and policies per HCD direction on a vote of 4-0-1 with Moore (inexplicably) abstaining.
The new housing element draft was submitted about a year after the first draft, This draft proposed that ALL Single Family Home Lots (R1) at corner lots or near mixed used areas, should be rezoned to R3 (Condos). During 2023, when the new draft was being prepared 18 out of 24 Planning Commission meetings were cancelled.
>Oct. 6, 2023: the Second Draft was submitted for public review under the guidance of a experienced replacement consultant
Note, that 2nd draft (October 2023) took almost a year to develop after the first draft (October 2022). But Jean blames the resident friendly council for the delay in the initial draft which was published within 10 months of the RHNA allocation being finalized in December 2021.
>Oct. 16,2023: the Second Draft was submitted to HCD, then revised on Oct. 30
The HCD downgraded Cupertino’s compliance with the law after reviewing the 2nd draft. It said the draft “addresses many statutory requirements”. This was less compliant than the first draft which was deemed to have “addresses most statutory requirements”. Cupertino perhaps is the only city whose second submission was judged to be less compliant than the first submission.
>Dec. 15, 2023: HCD provided 6 pages of comments for revision. (Just in time for holiday shutdown)
On January 1, 2024, the city settled a lawsuit filed by JR Fruen’s YIMBY buddies. In the agreement the city stated that it is open to accept Builder’s Remedy Projects. All active Builder’s Remedy Projects were filed after the settlement of the YIMBY lawsuit in 2024. Jean chose to omit that.
>Feb. 16, 2024: Third Draft submitted for Public Comment >Feb. 27, 2024: Third Draft submitted to HCD, then revised in March. >March 28, 2024: Final Third Draft submitted to HCD >April 10, 2024: HCD conditionally accepts the Third Draft, pending zoning revisions to ensure >May 14, 2024: Council adopted the Third Draft of the Housing Element on, on a 3-2 vote with Councilmembers Kitty Moore voting NO and Liang Chao abstaining. >July 16, 2024, associated zoning changes were approved by council on a 4-1 vote with Councilmember Kitty Moore voting NO.
This was the day the rezoning of sites like Evulich Ct. were approved. Kitty Moore opposed the motion and voted NO. This adopted Housing Element required the city to plan for 1800 more homes than the 1st draft, leading to widespread upzoning across Cupertino.
>Sept. 4, 2024 HCD officially certified the Housing Element, ending new Builder’s Remedy projects.
Jean’s description of the process, has zero references to the letters and actions taken by Cupertino For All (Demanding changes in August 2022, Asking for a redo in December 2022, writing to HCD to oppose the 1st draft, Q1-2023). She also fails to mention the attempt to upzone single family lots to condos (R3)
Do note that Jean highlights that Kitty Moore voted NO to motions when the draft was being redone to meet YIMBY’s demands. She is perhaps attempting to create the impression, that her NO votes led to the delay. The reality is that after November 2022 elections, the builders had control of the council (JR Fruen, Hung Wei, Sheila Mohan) and all the motions Kitty voted NO on, passed.
Kitty Moore’s NO votes were an expression of her disagreement of the process and the outcome; they did not hinder the progress of the HE in any way.
Chief Disinformation Office
We feel that instead of the title of Information Officer at Cupertino For All, the Builder-Politician Complex should recognize her impact and appoint her as their Chief Disinformation Officer.
Whether it is the facilitating the shutdown of schools while CUSD had a huge budget surplus, or the proliferation of Builder’s Remedy projects, Jean has succeeded in misleading a large segment of residents with her disinformation campaigns to drive the builder’s agenda of making billions on the back of our quality of life.
In this post we go into the details of the Builder-Politician Complex controlling Cupertino.
Investors from rapidly growing international economies want to invest globally. Our home, Cupertino, a city with global name recognition, has become a preferred destination of investors, big & small, who want real estate to be a part of their global portfolio
This has created an interesting dynamic where investors buy real estate in Cupertino, with the intent of getting the property rezoned. Their goal is to dramatically increase the built-up square footage to maximize the return on their investment. Without any roots in the city, they do not care about the impact of their actions on the city or its residents.
The most well-known of such entities is Sand Hill Properties (SHP), which includes Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi as an investor. SHP bought the Vallco Mall zoned for retail in 2014 for $320M, with the sovereign fund as an equity partner.
With recent changes related to rezoning of single family home lots to allow multi-family homes (condos/townhomes), home owners have also started receiving buyout offers from developers.
TheBuilder-Politician Complex
An industry has sprung up in Cupertino to guide investors on how to navigate the process: which we call the Builder-Politician Complex. Along with local politicians, the complex includes astro-turf YIMBY groups whose takeover of the Cupertino City Council we covered in this article.
The Builder-Politician Complex works to enrich the investors by facilitating high density infill construction, without regards to the impact on existing residents, many of whom spent their life-savings. In return politicians get favors including big campaign donations and PAC support to win elections.
SHP leveraged the politicians it supported to change the zoning to construct real estate which could be worth $6-7B, almost a 20x multiple to their original investment. Even though there was enormous opposition amongst residents, especially to new office space, the City Council (Rod Sinks, Gilbert Wong, Barry Chang) was too beholden to SHP to effectively represent the will of the people.
SHP Gets 2M Square Feet of Office Space
One of the most controversial decisions was to grant SHP the right to build 2M sq ft of office space at Vallco. To do that, the city council amended the city’s General Plan to create a new allocation of 2M sq ft of office, and then also decided to grant almost all of the new allocation to SHP’s Vallco project (December 2014). Communication between SHP and the City Council showed Peter Pau demanding 2M sq ft of office space from the city council, and the council lacking the spine to stand up to him.
During the City Council meeting on Dec 3, 2014, then Mayor Rod Sinks agreed to not discuss office space allocation in the General Plan amendment, but late at night Rod Sinks, Barry Chang and Gilbert Wong bring it up, and voted on it after most residents had left. You can watch key excerpts from the meeting in thisYoutube video
City Council Gives SHP More Density in Special Plan than they Asked for in Measure D
Between 2014 and 2017, SHP negotiated with the City to come up with a Vallco Specific Plan (VSP). While they were in the middle of the negotiations, they also tried to bypass the city by going directly to the voters in the 2016 election under Measure D, which did not pass.
After Measure D failed, the city negotiated a Vallco Special Plan (VSP) with SHP which was passed in 2018. The VSP negotiated by the politicians had even higher density than the Measure D plan originally proposed by SHP but rejected by the voters!
SB35: The Alternate Plan with NO Height Limits
In parallel, SHP also started work on an SB35 project which bypassed the city council, needing just ministerial staff approval. The city had removed height limits on Vallco in 2014.
In Fall of 2017, when SB35 was close to becoming law, City Council members Darcy Paul and Steven Scharf brought attention to a loop-hole which would allow SHP to have unlimited height under their SB35 proposal. Rod Sinks agreed that this was an area of concern and supported them stating that “I am personally OK with special meetings, extra meetings or whatever it takes” to ensure proper limits are put. Two weeks later, when the topic was being discussed in the next city council meeting, Rod Sinks decided not to support it along with Barry Chang and Savita Vaidyanathan.
As a result the city did not put any height limits on Vallco; in principle SHP can build a Burj Khalifa on that land.
You can watch a 7 minute video covering both the meetings below.
Builders Dominate in the Builder-Politician Complex
This event is illustrative of how local politicians’ relationship with the developers impacts their decision making. Rod Sinks served in the Cupertino City Council from 2012 to 2020, and is also running for Cupertino City Council election again in 2024.
Rod’s U-Turn to not put any height limits on Vallco illustrated how once our politicians are beholden to the developer, they lose their ability to act in residents’ interest. It was clear that Rod felt that having no height limits on a project not requiring a council approved plan, was not appropriate. However, the developer lobby pressured him, and he yielded to their pressure two weeks later.
Firing the City Attorney: Randy Hom
In 2018, when the SB35 plan was being reviewed by the city, the City Attorney Randy Hom stated that in his opinion, the plan submitted by SHP did not meet the criteria for ministerial approval by the City. Rod, Barry and Savita collectively acted to fire our city attorney, Randy Hom due to his opposition to the SB35 approval. SHP’s SB35 plan was approved ministerially after the City Attorney’s firing.
Rod Sinks: SHP’s Face to the Opposition of the Referendum
The city residents were so upset with the VSP negotiated by our city-council that they organized a petition to demand a referendum in the city to revisit the Vallco Special Plan. SHP used Rod’s pictures and statements on flyers to ask residents to not support the referendum to vote down the VSP.
The flyers being passed around stated that since the alternative SB35 plan had very high towers, opposing the VSP was against residents’ interests.
The irony is that the reason the SB35 plan had high towers was because Rod yielded to the developers to not put any height limits on Vallco! Further, the SB35 plan would not have received ministerial approval if Rod had not conspired to fire the City Attorney whose legal opinion was against approval.
Cupertino’s residents also organized a change.org petition to censure him, bringing up six years of Rod’s actions benefiting SHP.
Politician’s $77 Million Gift to SHP
Recently Cupertino City Council granted Vallco a $77 million waiver of impact fees they were supposed to pay to the city for their giant project. Cupertino’s finances are already in trouble since changes in sales tax law will reduce our income from Apple’s sales in California.
From Vallco to Single Family Lots
The Builder’s control over the city’s politicians is now impacting single family neighborhoods. The City Council led by builder-supported members (JR Fruen, Hung Wei and Sheila Mohan) tried to change the general plan to allow all corner lots in single family neighborhoods to be converted into R3 multi-family (condos/apartments) (Strategy HE-1.3.6). Earlier, their decision to not adopt a Housing Element, which was ready in October 2022, also led to the city accepting Builder’s Remedy projects in 2024.
More Office Imply RHNA Ask for More Homes
The number of new homes the city is expected to build in every 8-year RHNA planning cycle also depends on the number of workers in the city. The city is already reeling under the impact of the upzoning facilitated to build the 4588 homes required in the 2023-2031 cycle. With 2M more sq ft of office space, even more homes will be required in the next cycle, starting 2032.
Rod Sinks: Poster Boy of the Builder-Politician Complex
Rod Sink’s actions illustrate how politicians beholden to developers, are unable to effectively serve the interests of the residents of Cupertino. Rod not only facilitated a massive office allocation which Cupertino did not need, he also put a gun to our heads by lifting all height limits on the Vallco Property. The Builder, SHP, then used his picture and letter, in their failed attempt to abort the referendum
Cupertino deserves transparent decision making which considers the interests of all the stakeholders, especially the residents. We should not vote for those who have a record of striking back-room deals with developers.
Reclaim Cupertino from the Builder-Politician Complex
Rod Sinks, Barry Chang, and Gilbert Wong have a long, well documented track record of serving developer interests. They are a core part of the Builder-Politician Complex ignoring the residents’ quality of life. All three of them are standing for the two seats up for election in 2024. It is up to Cupertino voters to reclaim our beloved city from the Builder-Politician Complex by not voting Rod, Barry and Gilbert back to the City Council.
Over the years, there have been whisper campaigns on the mostly residential West side of Cupertino, suggesting the residents should support builder backed candidates for City Council. The reason given was that West Cupertino is already built out and will not be impacted by the denser developments desired by the builders, since it will be on the East side.
However, the reality is that once zoning laws are changed to allow higher density construction, they apply to the entire city, not just East Cupertino. West Cupertino, is dominated by single family homes, and is especially vulnerable to policies which allow existing single family lots to be rezoned to permit multi-story high-density construction
Linda Vista Drive Residents Wake Up to Plans for 87 New Homes
Linda Vista Drive is situated West of Bubb in North Monta Vista; it is in the subdivision which houses three schools: Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle and Monta Vista High. It is a neighborhood of single family homes, zoned as R1.
There are two projects under consideration which are going to dramatically alter the neighborhood by almost doubling the number of homes on the street.
The first project is a plan to build more than 50 townhomes on a site originally zoned for 11 single family homes. With the relaxed guidelines for setbacks, building height and floor area, the builder plans to have multi-story buildings less than 7 ft from the adjoining single family homes. Note that R1 zoning requires a 2nd story setback of at least 25f; and 40ft for larger lots.
The second project, Vista Heights, is a Builder’s Remedy project to convert an old quarry originally zoned for four homes with hillside zoning, to around 35 homes along with a commercial gymnasium. The entrance to the development will be via a steep road feeding into Linda Vista Park.
Former Mayors: Facilitating High Density Projects in West Side R1 Zones
We recently discovered an email sent by former City Mayor, Richard Lowenthal, to current city council members Hung Wei and Sheila Mohan. Leading up to the November 2022 elections, Richard Lowenthal ran a PAC from his home address, under the self-appointed moniker of “Council of Mayors”. This coterie of ex-mayors supported pro-builder candidates including the YIMBY JR Fruen and YIMBY endorsed Sheila Mohan. Two members of the coterie, Rod Sinks & Barry Chang are also running for the City Council, again in 2024
The email chain starts with Leon Chen, the builder who wants to develop Vista Heights, writing to Richard Lowenthal, with the subject line “help connect with majors (sic)”. In his email, Leon asks for an introduction to council members Hung Wei and Sheila Mohan about the Vista Heights project which he had discussed with Richard. Richard forwards that email to the council member, with a personal endorsement calling “He(Leon) and his wife as wonderful people”.
We do wonder why:
Leon Chen discussed the project with Richard Lowenthal who had not been on the city council for more than a decade
Leon Chen did not write directly to the City Council Members, but sought the introduction from the former mayor.
Leon Chen sought audience with only two of the five current members of the City Council
No Neighborhood is Safe from YIMBYs
It is not surprising that the people who won their elections, telling West Cupertino residents that they are protecting them for high density constructions, are facilitating higher density construction on Linda Vista Drive. They are beholden to the builders, not the residents of Cupertino.
State laws like SB10 facilitate higher density construction in single family zoned lots; all it needs is approval of the city council.
As part of the housing element, the YIMBY controlled Cupertino City Council also proposed making all corner lots in single family zoned areas to be rezoned to the R3, without any public input, allowing multi-family (apartment/condos) developments at every corner. They also wanted to make any single family lot near a big street to be eligible to be converted into an apartment.
The final draft changed the rezoning from R3 (multi-family apartments/condos) to R2 (duplex). With ADU laws, a lot zoned for R2 can have two main homes and up to three additional Accessory Dwelling Unit per primary home. In the future, the city council can go back to the proposal of R3 density in R1 zones, as they had originally planned.
Save our Home Values: End Builders Control
The builders’ lobby control of Cupertino’s local governments institutions has resulted in major negative changes in our quality of life.
They were successful in closing down multiple schools in CUSD right in the middle of the pandemic, even though CUSD schools are very crowded, and the school district was projecting a surplus of $39M over the next five years, when the schools were closed. (Read CUSD: Dispelling Disinfo with Data)
Going forward, they want to allow construction of multi-story buildings right in the middle of single family neighborhoods, with very low setback requirements. These will make existing single family homes in Cupertino be less attractive to future buyers, since they run the risk of having a five story condominium towering over their backyard, less then six feet away from their property.
It’s time residents of both East and West Cupertino unite to end builders’ control of our local governments, and preserve the character of our single family neighborhoods.
In this post we want to shed light on how YIMBY groups are dictating Cupertino’s future.
YIMBY is an acronym for “Yes in My Back Yard”. It refers to groups who support in-fill redevelopment in urban areas. Over the past decade they have gained a lot of prominence, as they leverage the housing affordability concerns in California, to drive their political agenda.
But who are the YIMBY? And who sponsors them? Are they truly focused towards improving the affordability of housing and housing justice? Or are they simply interested in helping developers maximize their profits by building bigger in existing high cost housing areas?
Housing Justice Advocates Views on YIMBYs
Housing Is A Human Right, is a housing justice group which is focused on ensuring basic housing access for all. They studied how the CA politicians are impacting the housing situation. In 2022, they published a book titled Selling Off California: The Untold Story which uncovers what key politicians (eg: Senator Scott Weiner), YIBMYs, and Big Real Estate are achieving by their policies.
In the 1st Chapter, the author, Patrick Range McDonald, writes:
When I joined Housing Is A Human Right as an advocacy journalist, I wrote extensively about Big Real Estate, Wiener, and YIMBYs, who also advance the real estate industry’s scheme to make billions, probably trillions, at the expense of hard-working people.I’ve learned many things about them all. Things they don’t want you to know.
The Progressive Elements of the Democratic Party have also expressed concern. Dean Preston, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and a member of the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) stated an interview that:
The so-called YIMBY folks have redefined a “NIMBY” to be anyone that doesn’t just jump when the real estate industry says jump, and they’ve become a very toxic force. They have been attacking me for years, attacking pretty much anyone who demands things that actually help a community as part of development—either investments in transit or investments in affordable housing. They have evolved over the years into what is now just a complete disinformation campaign.
Cupertino For All: Cupertino’s Hometown YIMBY Org
Cupertino For All (C4A), is a YIMBY group incubated by current Cupertino City Council Member, JR Fruen. JR Fruen’s relationship with the Real Estate Lobby is well documented.
In 2018, he ran a PAC which received tens of thousands of dollars from real-estate interests to support City Council candidates aligned with real-estate interests. His 2020 and 2022 campaigns for city council also received similar support (Read More). He has also served as a lawyer for a YIMBY orgs.
Other leaders of Cupertino For All include Jean Bedord and Connie Cunningham who act as Information Officers advocating for high density developments across all of Cupertino with reduced parking requirements .
Cupertino Housing Element: JR Fruen’s Letter to City Council (August 2022)
As regular readers may be aware, Cupertino’s Housing Element (HE) was delayed by the City Council elected in November 2022, with the final plan approved in September 2024.
After multiple quarters of effort, the City Staff had developed a HE plan. The plan was discussed at multiple Planning Commission & City Council meetings in 2022, with draft being ready by October 2022. JR Fruen, representing himself as the Policy Director for Cupertino For All, wrote to the City Council demanding:
To not count pipeline projects towards meeting the housing unit requirements
To increase the buffer of additional housing from 17% in the city’s draft proposal
To increase the size of the homes allowed in different zones (without attention to aesthetics or impact on neighbors), upzoning to increase the number of homes allowed, and eliminating parking requirements.
Council Behavior after Nov 2022 Elections
JR Fruen was elected to the Cupertino City Council in the Nov 2022 election, along with Sheila Mohan, replacing the incumbent Darcy Paul (term out) and John Willey (did not run).
For the December 20, 2022 City Council meeting, Cupertino For All submitted multiple communications (same form letter) expressing concern with Cupertino’s HE Plan draft (link here). The letter included endorsements from Jean Bedord, Connie Cunningham & Louise Saadatti, asking for a comprehensive redo of the Housing Element draft.
Delaying HE Filing Resulting in Automatic Default
The new city council did not submit the housing element created by the City Staff for almost three months after the election. The deadline for a compliant HE was Jan 31, 2023, and the City did not submit the draft approved on August 30, 2022 until February 3,2023. This put the city in automatic default, opening the flood-gates to Builder’s Remedy projects and YIMBY lawsuits.
Lobbying HCD to Not Approve Cupertino’s HE Draft
After delaying the draft to miss the Jan 31, 2023 deadline, Cupertino For All, and other YIMBY groups also wrote to the HCD asking for more changes in Cupertino’s draft submission. In response HCD wrote back to the city on May 4, 2023 noting that:
HCD considered comments from South Bay YIMBY,YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance, YIMBY Law, David Kellogg, Cupertino For All, and several residents pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c) The draft housing element addresses most statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).
Back to the Drawing Board
Even though the HCD letter clearly stated that the housing element addresses most statutory requirementsthe City Council decided to completely redo the housing element. The final draft was submitted more than a year after the original deadline, with approval coming in September 2024, more than two years after the August 2022 meeting where the city council discussed the original draft.
While redoing the HE, the elements asked for by YIMBY groups as exemplified by JR Fruen’s letter were incorporated in the HE.
About 1316 homes in the pipeline were removed and not counted against the 4588 required
The buffer to the 4588 requirement was increased substantially from 787 (17%) to 1293 (28%). This forced the city to identify locations to build approximately 1822 more homes than the original plan.
There were extensive modifications to the city ordinances and building guidelines to increase the size of the houses permitted, along with a reduction in parking requirements. This included change the zoning of around 1600 single family lots (R1) on corner lots or those close to retail or major arteries to R3-condo standards which would have allowed big bulk buildings with just 5 ft setbacks and height restrictions relaxed.
Downgrade in Compliance from “addresses most” to “addresses many”
The 2nd draft submitted by JR Fruen led council in October 2023, was judged by HCD as “addresses many statutory requirements”. This was a downgrade in compliance with how the first draft was evaluated by HCD, and led to the settlement of the YIMBY lawsuit.
In January 2024, the city decided to settle a lawsuit filed by YIMBY organizations, allowing Builder’s Remedy projects and also exempting Housing Element sites from CEQA (Environmental Review). Note that the settlement of this lawsuit gave a green light to Builder’s Remedy projects including the giant condominium on Scofied Drive on a single family lot.
Increasing Permitted Home Size: June 18, 2024 Letter from Cupertino For All
JR Fruen’s group, Cupertino For All, also wrote to the City asking for more changes in a letter dated June 18, 2024 (on agenda for July 2, 2024 City Council meeting (File # 24-13102). We are including key excerpts from the letter at the end of this post.
The City Council of Cupertino, decided to adopt most of the demands by Cupertino For All which impact how large buildings can be in different zones of the city (height limits, number of stories, floor area coverage, setbacks from property line) and also reduced parking requirements. Sheila Mohan and Hung Wei voted YES in support of JR Fruen’s proposals, while Liang Chao and Kitty Moore typically voted NO.
YIMBY Sponsored Council
Hung Wei and Sheila Mohan’s support for YIMBY sponsored changes to increase building size, is not surprising. Both of them have been endorsed by YIMBY groups (eg: Sheila in 2022) and Hung Wei in 2020.
Kitty Moore and Liang Chiao opposed the motions since these changes were not recommended by staff or public input, and bigger units are against the mandate for affordable housing. However, since the City Council majority is controlled by YIMBY sponsored candidates, their NO vote did not make a difference.
What does that mean for Builders?
Note that the latest demands by Cupertino For All, have little to do with the number of housing units, but are designed to allow buildings with bigger footprint. In Cupertino, where the average price per square feet (~ $1350) is almost 4X the cost of construction (~$350 sq/ft), every incremental sq. ft. a builder adds about $1000 to their profit.
The very group claiming to champion affordable housing is, in fact, contributing to the inflation of housing prices by changing building regulations to allow much bigger homes than before.
What does that mean for Existing Residents?
We will consider the Evulich Ct development on Linda Vista Drive, which is in the middle of a single family neighborhood, with one or two story homes. The site was up zoned from an R1 site with a maximum density of 5 homes/acre, to R3/TH requiring a minimum housing unit density of 20 homes/acre to a maximum of 35 homes/acre.
Though the R3 zone has a height limit of 30 ft, density bonus laws allow the builders to waive those requirements. Initial designs submitted by Summerhill, are asking for a density bonus waiver for various city requirements including the 30ft height limit.
Note that these exemptions are on top of the home-size enlarging changes demanded by Cupertino For All, many of which have been incorporated in the City’s Code.
Take our City Back from YIMBYs
It’s clear that YIMBY groups like Cupertino For All, are a front to enable builders to make huge profits, without any regard to the quality of life of existing residents. With the backing of the powerful Real Estate lobby, and lawmakers beholden to them (eg Scott Wiener), they misuse affordable housing as an excuse to bypass zoning guidelines in the most expensive neighborhoods in the country.
We have the choice to elect City Council members who are not beholden to these Real Estate interests, and will also consider the interests of the existing residents of the city in their decision framework.
Extracts from Cupertino For All Demands to allow Bigger Homes (June 2024)
Note: The article was updated to reflect new information we unovered about the city’s second HE draft submitted in October 2023. on October 25, 2024.
Last December we highlighted how the Cupertino City Council was making changes which would drastically alter the character of its Single Family Neighborhoods. Another risk to the single family neighborhoods is what is called Builder’s Remedy.
Builder’s Remedy is a new interpretation of a California Housing Accountability Law (1990) which allows developers to ignore the zoning requirements of the area. They can build whatever they want as long as 20% of the homes are reserved for low income housing or 100% for middle income housing. Builder’s Remedy comes into play if the City does not have an approved Housing Element (HE) plan with the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
October 2022 HE Plan
In spite of the challenges posed by the pandemic, the City of Cupertino had a draft of the Housing Element (HE documents available here) ready in October 2022 for public review. This was a quarter before the filing deadline of January 31, 2023. The plan had provisions for 117% of the requirement the city was expected to fulfill.
Default by Three Days
After the November 2022 elections, JR Fruen & Sheila Mohan replaced Darcy Paul & Jon Willey in the Cupertino City Council. Along with the incumbent Hung Wei, this led to shift in control of the council, with the resident-focussed leaders being in the minority. JR Fruen is the founder of Cupertino For All, a YIMBY lobbying group, and has received substantial funding from real-estate related interests both for his City Council Campaign, and for running a PAC (2018) supporting builders interests.
The new city council submitted the HE to the HDC on February 3, 2023, three days after the official deadline of Jan 31, 2023. Not having the plan on file, by the January 31st deadline, put Cupertino in automatic default of the HAA and opened the flood-gates for Builder’s Remedy projects and YIMBY lawsuits.
Delaying the Housing Element Plan by Nineteen Months
“The draft housing element addresses most statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code)
It also stated that:
“HCD considered comments from South Bay YIMBY, YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance, YIMBY Law, David Kellogg, Cupertino For All”.
Yes, you read it right. Cupertino For All, the organization incubated by JR Fruen, demanded changes in the HE submitted by Cupertino, where JR Fruen himself is a council member!
Earlier in August, 2022, JR Fruen, had written to the City, as the Policy Director for Cupertino For All, asking the council to not consider the pipeline projects at Vallco & Hamptons as part of the HE, asking for a larger buffer, and questioning why more sites were not being up-zoned. (Page 81-83 of communications for Aug 16 meeting)
After getting elected to the City Council, with the support of Mayor Hung Wei & Sheila Mohan, JR Fruen drove the process of redoing the HE with the final plan submitted in March 2024, more than an year after the Jan 31, 2023 deadline; it was accepted in September 2024. During the nineteen months period the HE was delayed, the council removed many pipeline projects from the HE, added more sites, upzoning them along the way without adequate community input.
The final HE is expected to increase the total number of housing units in Cupertino by 30%! Delaying the HE by nineteen months, to satisfy YIMBY organizations’ desire to upzone sites showed a complete disregard to the risk posed by Builder’s Remedy.
During these one and a half years, Cupertino had no defenses against Builder’s Remedy projects
Builder’s Remedy Proposals
There are two projects which we want to discuss in this post which give us a window for what is in store for us in the future.
20739 Scofield Drive
This proposal is to construct a FIVE story, 20 unit condominium to replace a single family home on Schofield Drive near Faria Elementary School.
Proposed five-story condominium complex in a single family neighborhood
The single family home which will be replaced by the five story condominium
Vista Heights(former McDonald Dorsa quarry)
This proposal is combining three parcels zoned for Residential Hill Side (RHS) and converting them to a development with 35 homes and a commercial gymnasium. The entry to the complex will be via a road which ends inside Linda Vista Park. The City RHS Ordinance is designed to preserve the natural setting of the hillside and protection from natural hazards like fire & landslides, but it will no longer be applicable since this is a Builder’s Remedy project.
A similar proposal on this site requesting a General Plan Amendment had been considered by the City Council in 2019 but did not receive a go-ahead due to the steepness of the land, and the amount of regrading needed to make the plan feasible.
Neighborhood Impact
Both these projects are fundamentally altering the nature of the neighborhoods. The Scoffield drive plan is putting a five-story building in the middle of a quiet tree-lined street in a single family neighborhood.
Street View of Scofield Drive: A quiet residential street
The Vista Heights project will require significant regrading to carve out building-pads for the 30+ homes, on a steep hill. This will impact the stability of the hill, possibly increasing the risk of landslides and putting neighboring homes at risk. It will also route commercial traffic through Linda Vista Park, coming down a steep sloping road, impacting the safety of the residents, especially children using the park.
This trend of building five story buildings on single family lots will drive existing homeowners out of Cupertino and also discourage future single family home buyers from Cupertino. Cupertino homes demand a premium pricing, and new buyers will be reluctant to pay that premium if the lot next door can be converted into a five story condominium.
What Can We Do?
These projects serve as a reminder of the risk to our quality of life when our city council does not represent the interests of existing residents, but prioritizes maximizing the profits of real estate developers.
For the time-being, the city will not be required to accept any new Builder’s Remedy projects since the Housing Element Plan has been accepted by the HCD. However, there are other laws which can lead to similar construction (eg: SB10 which allows 14 units on a single family lot). A new Housing Element plan will also be required in a few more years.
The residents of Linda Vista neighborhood are petitioning the City Council to review those decisions, and Scofield residents have actively pushed back against the developer. However, the best way to preserve our neighborhoods is to elect a city council which is not beholden to builders’ interests and will keep existing residents’ interests in mind when developing the city.
Two more housing development projects that expect to build 113 new homes are under review in Cupertino’s Planning Department. These have been submitted under the State Law SB330, which streamlines housing approvals.1
10065 E Estates Dr: 55 townhomes at the “United Furniture” site at, near Wolfe and Stevens Creek Blvd. There is PCE (tetrachloroethylene) contamination at the site from the One Hour Dry Cleaner that is currently above residential screening levels.2 PCE is heavier than water, sinks to the groundwater and spreads rapidly, and its vapors then rise through the soil and enter indoor air spaces.
10065 E. Estates Dr.
20840 Stevens Creek Blvd: 58 homes, 12 of which will serve the needs of people with “moderate” incomes at the old Fontana’s Restaurant, adjacent to Staples.
Two hotel projects, which have been on hold for years, have applied to renew their development agreements.
10801 N Wolfe Rd: The Cupertino Village Hotel project at the Duke of Edinburgh pub in the Cupertino Village shopping center at Homestead Road. The 185-room hotel application was initiated in 2017 and approved by City Council in 2019. More information is available here.
10931 N De Anza Blvd: The De Anza Hotel project at the Goodyear Auto Service, adjacent to the Cupertino Hotel at the 280 interchange. The 155-room hotel application was initiated in 2018 and approved by City Council in 2020. More information is available here.
In nearby San Jose on S De Anza between Hwy 85 and Prospect Road are plans for a hotel and multifamily housing. The City of Cupertino is behind and across the road from these properties.
1655 S. De Anza Blvd.
Separately, in June 2023, Cupertino City Council approved a 34-home mixed-use project just across the road on the nearly 8-acre shopping center with the Kikusushi Restaurant at 1655 S De Anza Blvd.3
1510 S De Anza Blvd: The 4-story 132-room hotel with a roof-top deck and underground parking on a 0.86 gross acre site was approved in 2020. It is located at the old Kelly-Moore Paints Store.4
1000 S De Anza Blvd: The seven-story 99-unit multifamily residential building on a 0.72-gross acre site is located at the closed Mori Restaurant. This project has been submitted under the “Builder’s Remedy,” which is a method by which developers can obtain ministerial project approval when a City has failed to obtain its Housing Element. It is unknown as to whether the City of San Jose has accepted this project under the provisions of the “Builder’s Remedy.”5
