Cupertino Facts

Category: Housing & Development

  • YIMBY Lawsuit Costs Cupertino

    YIMBY Lawsuit Costs Cupertino

    On January 10, 2024, Cupertino settled a lawsuit filed by California Housing Defense Fund and Yes In My Back Yard (YIMBY) for missing its state-mandated Housing Element deadline. According to YIMBY Law, whose slogan includes “Sue the Suburbs,” about a dozen Bay Area jurisdictions have been sued for missing their housing-element deadlines, including Palo Alto, Burlingame, and the County of Santa Clara.

    YIMBY Law claims that nearly half of Bay Area cities remain out of compliance. Their complaint against Palo Alto drew the ire of residents who commented that the lawsuit is a scam used to raise money by organizations that are “backed by investment firms, developers and real estate lobbies.”

    Total Cost Unknown

    To settle the lawsuit, Cupertino paid YIMBY Law and California Housing Defense Fund, $6,000 and $9,000 respectively. The cities of Cupertino, Palo Alto and Burlingame also hired the law firm Goldfarb & Lipman for their defense. Cupertino has paid its contract attorney tens of thousands of dollars in 2023, but it is unknown as to how much was spent on this lawsuit because the City uses the firm for other housing-related issues. Santa Clara County appears to have used its in-house counsel to defend itself from a similar lawsuit filed by Californians for Homeownership, an organization that is “financed and controlled by the California Association of Realtors.”1

    Environmental Consequences

    As part of the settlement with YIMBY Law and CalHDF, Cupertino agreed to exempt its entire Housing Element from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). This saves time and expedites development projects, but silences the public’s environmental concerns. 

    In spite of the financial and environmental costs to the City, Vice Mayor J.R. Fruen, who has been endorsed by YIMBY organizations and represented them in legal cases, was positive about the lawsuit. Via the Mercury News, Fruen stated, “the city is right to welcome the result.” 

    Via San José Spotlight, Councilmember Kitty Moore countered “CEQA involves the public with public disclosure of environmental impacts to mitigate those impacts as possible, and to ultimately keep workers and residents informed and safe.” According to the New York Times, due to semiconductor manufacturing, “Santa Clara County is riddled with 23 toxic Superfund sites, more than any county in the country.” Notably, Councilmember Moore, who uncovered toxic waste at the former Vallco site, championed to have the site remediated in order to protect human health. Her actions spurred the County Department of Environmental Health to force a cleanup. 

    Moore emphasized, “This exemption from CEQA is not a win for anyone.”

    Sources:

  • Are Cupertino’s Single Family Homes At Risk of Becoming Apartments?

    Are Cupertino’s Single Family Homes At Risk of Becoming Apartments?

    As in many other cities across California, Cupertino is trying to complete its Housing Element (HE), a document that describes how the city will meet its housing obligation for the period 2023-2031.  Cupertino is required to supply a minimum of 4,588 housing units, with 41% of these units being low to very low income (affordable) plus extra just in case some sites do not develop as expected.

    This long process involves identifying the properties, developing “Goals, Policies and Strategies” to guide the City in all its development then re-zoning the properties to match the densities and goals, policies and strategies selected.  All this has to be approved by the California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD).

    On November 30, 2023 Cupertino submitted its “Second Draft” (3rd submittal) of its Housing Element (HE) to HCD for approval.  There has been no public discussion of goals, policies and strategies at any Housing Commission, Planning Commission or City Council meeting where people would have the opportunity to ask questions, discuss or provide input.

    We encourage the public to read the Housing Element Goals, Policies and Strategies section because it specifies what development will be allowed in various neighborhoods.

    Strategies to Turn Cupertino Home Sites into Apartment Buildings

    Two strategies that impact homes across Cupertino are buried within two bulleted items under HE-1.3.6:

    • “Allowing corner lots in R1 zoning districts to develop as multi-family rental housing using R3 zoning regulations to encourage missing middle developments.” This means that every Single-Family Home located on a corner lot can turn into an apartment.
    • “Allowing lots zoned for single family residential uses that abut (either shares a property line or is directly across the street from) property that fronts an arterial or major collector, and is zoned and used for commercial or mixed-use development, to develop with multi-family housing using R3 zoning regulations to encourage missing middle housing.” This means that every Single-Family Home located behind or around a shopping center on specific roads can turn into an apartment building.  Note that “arterials” are Homestead Rd, Stevens Creek Blvd, De Anza Blvd, Wolfe Rd and “major collectors” are N. Tantau, Miller Ave, N. Stelling, Bubb Rd, N. Foothill Expressway.

    These two strategies not only impact the homes specified but their neighbors, the look and feel of their neighborhoods and create uncertainty for current and prospective homeowners. Furthermore, if a developer uses Density Bonus, the height, setback and parking requirements can and will be removed (waived) without the ability to stop it. 

    Next Steps

    The City has identified and is prepared to rezone far more Housing Element sites than is required to meet its obligation to the State. The additional sites identified (buffer) do not include the ADU units expected to be built across the city during this same 8-year cycle.  These future ADUs will generate even more housing units without the need for these two strategies.

    If these strategies are included in this 8-year cycle, what will the city give away next time? Sometime in January-February 2024, there will be a joint session of the Housing and Planning Commissions to discuss the HE Goals, Policies and Strategies followed by a City Council meeting sometime in April to approve the final Housing Element document.

    Is your home impacted? Here is a list of streets potentially subject to this new change.

    Reach out to your representatives now to provide your input.  The City Council has the final say.  Here is their contact information:

    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]

    Individual City Council member emails can be found here.

    ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

    Single Family Homes – on corner lots that may be impacted

    The current Cupertino Zoning Map shows R1 (single family homes) in CREAM COLOR.  Any R1-x home on a corner lot all across Cupertino can be redeveloped as an apartment (R3) and can invoke the Density Bonus Law to remove the height, setback and parking restrictions.

    Source: cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/13535/637279090319370000

    Single Family Homes sharing a property line with a commercial or multi-use property on any of the roads below can be redeveloped as an apartment (R3) and can invoke the Density Bonus Law to remove the height, setback and parking restrictions.

    NOTE:  Arterials and collectors are specific roads.

    • Arterials are Homestead Rd, Stevens Creek Blvd, De Anza Blvd, Wolfe Rd
    • Major collectors are N. Tantau, Miller Ave, N. Stelling, Bubb Rd, N. Foothill Expressway

    Homes on these streets can be impacted.  This list may not be complete:

    • Near Homestead
      • Shady Oak Ln
      • Firethorn Dr
      • Northpoint area-(possibly)
    • Near Stevens Creek Blvd
      • Norwich Ave-all of east side
      • Amherst Dr-east end
      • Denison Ave-south end
      • Wheaton Dr-all of south side
      • Stern Ave-north end
      • Bret Ave-north end
      • Judy Ave-north end
      • S Tantau Ave-north end
      • E. Estates Dr-north end
      • Richwood Dr-north end
      • Bixby Dr-all of north side
      • Brenda Ct-north and east end
      • Mello Place-north end
      • Deeprose Pl-north end (possibly)
      • Randy Lane-south end close to Stevens Creek Blvd
      • Miner Place-north end, south end
      • Partlett Place-north end, south end and by Donut Wheel
      • Scofield Dr – all of it
      • Alves Dr-between Sachi Way and Stelling
      • Peninsula Ave-south end
      • Santa Clara Ave-south end
      • Adrian Ave-south end
      • Eaton Place-east end
      • Ramona Ct-north end
      • Northeast side of Stevens Creek Blvd near N. Foothill Expressway
      • Cupertino Rd-west end
    • De Anza Blvd
      • Sunrise Dr-east end (possibly)
      • Rodrigues Ave-behind XLB Kitchen shopping center
      • Terry Way-east side
      • Paradise Dr-east side
      • McClellan Rd-northeast and southeast end
      • Felton Way-east side
      • Blossom Ln-east end
      • Kirwin Ln-east end 
      • Westlynn Way- east side (possibly)
      • Jamestown Dr-east side
      • Clifden Way – west end
      • Clay St – west end
      • Silverado Ave – west end
      • Larry Way – west side
      • Virginia Swan Place – north end
    • Wolfe Rd
      • None
    • Miller Ave
      • None
    • N Tantau
      • None
    • Bollinger
      • Clifden Way-west side
      • La Roda Dr-south end
      • S Blaney Ave-southwest end
    • N. Stelling
      • None
    • Bubb Rd
      • None
    • N. Foothill Expressway
      • None

    LINKS:

    Current Cupertino Zoning Map: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/13535/637279090319370000

    Current Heart of the City Zoning Map

    PDF Page 8 of 32 has the HOC Zoning Map: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/415/636280426123030000

    Current Cupertino Land Use Map: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/13148/637045848489430000

    Current Cupertino General Plan, Chapter 5 Mobility, PDF Page 11 of 26 shows Arterials (Boulevards) and Collectors (Avenues): https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/12735/636317560222370000

    2023-2031 Housing Element – Revised November 2023
    PDF Pages 13-63 Goals, Policies, and Strategies:
    https://engagecupertino.org/17233/widgets/53810/documents/49287

    2023-2031 Housing Element Appendices: https://engagecupertino.org/public-documents

  • New Plans Revealed for Former Vallco Site

    New Plans Revealed for Former Vallco Site

    On December 5, 2023, the property owner of the former Vallco shopping mall, which is located at N. Wolfe Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd., submitted a new development plan to the City of Cupertino. The plan, called “The Rise,” is posted on the City website. The old shopping site is replaced by a mix of housing, offices, shopping areas, and open spaces, similar to previous plans that have been submitted over the last decade.

    “The Rise” Shrinks by 1M Square Feet as Compared with its Previous Application

    When completed, the new project will provide:

    • 4.38M sq. ft. of housing: 2,669 for-rent and for-sale homes. 890 homes are “affordable.” 2,603 parking spaces allocated for the homes and the entire project has approximately 9,570 parking spaces, above- and below-ground and along internal roads.
    • 1.95M sq. ft. of office space: Note that current market demand for office space has plummeted, and the developer recently defaulted on a loan on an office building at 590 E. Middlefield Rd., Mountain View1. 
    • 226K sq. ft. of retail space: This is less than half of what was previously planned.

    A Revised Design with a New Architect

    The developer recently switched to a different architectural design firm, Kohn Pedersen Fox (KPF). Via the developer’s announcement, “KPF is a world-renowned design firm known for their innovative and community-driven approach to urban design.” The firm has a formidable portfolio, including the headquarters of its major investor, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority2.

    Will Cupertino Agree to the Modification?

    The developer is requesting modifications from its existing application in four key areas:

    • Major development permit
    • Tentative subdivision map
    • Major architecture and site permit
    • Tree removal (714 trees would be removed and 715 trees would be added).

    In spite of the significant changes from the previous plan, the developer claims that this project is a modification of the previous SB35 applications. SB35 is a housing law that allows the developer to streamline residential building applications. If the City agrees that the modifications are minor, then the new buildings can use antiquated building codes from 2016, even if the development is built years from now. This also makes the new buildings less energy-efficient and avoids the City’s 2019 bird-safe development guidelines.

    The press release stated that some buildings had been reduced to 85 feet in response to community input. It is possible that financial considerations also contributed to some of the lower heights. A new State law SB423 requires skilled and trained labor for SB35 projects that exceed 85-feet. Nevertheless, the project still contains housing that is up to 200-feet tall and even higher office space that is up to nearly 230-feet tall.

    Soil Contamination

    The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) will need clarification from the developer as to whether the clean-up of contaminated soil* dictated by a Site Management Plan (SMP) complies with the new plan. The DEH cautioned that it may rescind approval of the SMP and require additional site assessment, risk evaluations, and mitigation measures.

    Next Steps

    The City has 60 days to respond to the developer as to whether the project is compliant with SB35 or whether it can be considered a modification to a previously-approved SB35 project. Since the developer intends to subdivide the project and build it in phases, it is unknown when it will be completed, if ever.

    References

    1. Avalos, George. “Big Mountain View office building at choice site faces loan default.” The Mercury News, 25 Sep. 2023. https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/25/mountain-view-real-estate-office-develop-build-loan-tech-economy-covid/. Accessed December 20, 2023.
    2. Li, Roland. “A dying mall near Apple’s headquarters is turning into a fight over Silicon Valley’s soul.” San Francisco Chronicle, 25 Nov. 2018, https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/A-dying-mall-near-Apple-s-headquarters-is-13417634.php. Accessed December 20, 2023.

    Moulds, Reed. The Rise Reveals New Design, Vision Forward. Sand Hill Property Company, 6 December 2023, https://therisecalifornia.com/news/the-rise-reveals-new-design-vision-forward. Accessed December 19, 2023.

    City of Cupertino. Vallco Town Center SB35 Project. https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/vallco/vallco-sb-35-project. Accessed December 19, 2023.

    *Potential contaminants of concern apparently detected in the soil at the N Wolfe Rd/Stevens Creek Blvd location and recorded by the State Water Resources Control Board website include: benzene, diesel, lead, other chlorinated hydrocarbons, other insecticides/pesticides/fumigants/herbicides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE).[12]
    [12] GeoTracker, “Summary” tab. State Water Resources Control Board. 11 November 2022. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T10000017167

  • Cupertino Receives First Builder’s Remedy Project Application

    Cupertino Receives First Builder’s Remedy Project Application

    Cupertino has been vulnerable to the “Builder’s Remedy” since it missed its January 2023 deadline for an approved Housing Element from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).  The “Builder’s Remedy” is a State law that allows developers to bypass local zoning laws for projects that offer affordable housing.

    Menlo Park developer Acclaim Properties has submitted plans for a 70-foot-tall, 141 home, apartment complex on 1.63 acres, at the corner of Stevens Creek Blvd and N. Blaney Avenue.1 If the project proceeds, the development will force businesses like Vidyarambh Preschool and Daycare Center and Be Natural Music to vacate the site. The new complex would loom over adjacent single-family homes. 

    The site is zoned for commercial use with a maximum height of 45 feet. However, the developer’s application uses the “Builder’s Remedy” to circumvent these zoning rules, raising its building height to 70 feet and not providing space for commercial businesses that bring in sales-tax revenue. The “Builder’s Remedy” is further explained in the article in Cal Matters, “‘Godzilla next door’: How California developers gained new leverage to build more homes.”2 Below are our City’s specific requirements for this area.3 

    Heart of the City Specific Plan Central Stevens Creek Boulevard
    – Primary Use: Commercial/Commercial Office
    – Secondary Use: Office above ground level
    – Supporting Use: Residential/Residential Mixed Uses

    (SOURCE – https://cupertino.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=18&clip_id=1251&meta_id=67811)

    Mayor Wei appears either unaware of or indifferent to existing height limits. Via the Mercury News, Wei stated that “five-stories on one of the city’s busiest thoroughfares isn’t unusual,” even though there currently are no other buildings of that height nearby. Wei also said that “there will be more in the next eight years.”4

    Lack of Visibility into Cupertino Housing Element

    Cupertino’s Housing Element was due on January 31, 2023. Updates, public participation, and oversight have been curtailed since the new City Council took over in 2023. Sadly, the Housing Commission (which met only 4 times this year) and Planning Commission (which met only 6 times this year) were denied the opportunity to provide any input on policies and procedures in this Housing Element. By comparison, these commissions met three times as often in 2022.

    A Need for Increased & Diversified Revenue

    Cupertino must diversify its income sources due to an anticipated 73% decline in sales tax income (from the State’s expected termination of a lucrative sales tax sharing agreement with Apple).5 While it is nearly impossible to recoup this revenue loss, the City can grow sales tax revenue by increasing retail. One percent of sales tax ($1 out of every $100 spent on taxable goods) purchased in Cupertino goes straight back to the City. 

    This project, like Vallco using the SB 35 law to tear down our mall, or Westport using the Density Bonus law and decreasing the Oaks Shopping Center area, lowers Cupertino’s retail base at a time when the CDTFA audit is expected to reduce our sales tax revenue by $30M annually, plus back payments.

    Cupertino has already allowed commercial properties to be rezoned for residential. One example is the new development on Stevens Creek and Foothill (22690 Stevens Creek Blvd). Others are identified in the Housing Element. On the other end, one planned project where Marina Foods is currently located (10145 N De Anza Blvd) retains nearly all of its retail space, while adding 206 condominiums.

    Real estate taxes are another large source of income for Cupertino. But because commercial property owners often use legal loopholes to transfer property ownership without triggering property tax reassessment, taxes on apartment developments will likely not rise through reassessment during anyone’s lifetime. Projects with all-retail or ground-level retail with for-sale housing would raise more sales- and real-estate taxes than the proposed project.

    Our city faces difficult fiscal decisions ahead. But the lack of local control to be able to retain retail is having a dire effect with regards to healthy economic planning. Most importantly, these laws will not help lower housing costs. It is unknown many more “Builder’s Remedy” projects will be proposed while we wait for Cupertino to get an approved Housing Element.

    References:

    Photo credit: City of Cupertino Builder’s Remedy Project Proposals, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/builder-s-remedy-project-proposals, Accessed 11/28/2023.

    1. Builder’s Remedy Project Proposals, City of Cupertino, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/builder-s-remedy-project-proposals, Accessed 11/28/2023.

    2. Christopher, Ben. (2023, June 5). “Godzilla next door”: How California developers gained new leverage to build more homes. CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/06/california-builders-remedy/, Accessed 11/28/2023.

    3. Redlined Text Changes to the Heart of the City Specific Plan (see Central Stevens Creek Boulevard), City of Cupertino, https://cupertino.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=18&clip_id=1251&meta_id=67811)

    4. Hase, Grace. (2023, November 28). Cupertino sees its first “builder’s remedy” project. The Mercury News. https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/11/27/cupertino-sees-its-first-builders-remedy-project/, Accessed 11/28/2023.

    5. FAQ, City of Cupertino. https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/advanced-components/faq/-seldept-6?NavID=412#:~:text=The%20reduction%20in%20sales%20tax,to%20provide%20a%20soft%20landing. Accessed 11/29/2023.

  • The Latest Updates on Vallco – September 2023

    The Latest Updates on Vallco – September 2023

    Five years have passed since Cupertino employees approved the 2018 Vallco Town Center SB 35 project (Vallco SB 35 project, located on Stevens Creek Blvd and N. Wolfe Rd) under ministerial approval provisions of the 2017 SB 35 bill. The last project updates published on the City of Cupertino’s website and on the property owner’s “The Rise” website are dated May 2023.

    Vallco Cupertino

    Empty Vallco Site, as of September 2023

    Background

    Several areas of Vallco land were found to be contaminated by toxic waste. In April 2021, the supervision of the soil contamination cleanup was transferred to Santa Clara County’s Department of Environmental Health and Safety (DEH). After significant testing and reporting, a site cleanup plan was approved in December 2022.  Cleanup efforts began around May/June 2023 with the hauling away of some contaminated soil, but since then activity at the site appears to have stalled.

    In 2018, Kitty Moore unearthed the contamination at Vallco via her thorough analysis of EIR and Geotracker reports from California’s State Water Board. Since becoming elected, Councilmember Moore has worked to ensure the developer remains accountable and does not build atop contaminated ground.

    Proposed building blocks with their uses and soil/vapor probing areas.  Each color designates a different investigation.  Not all the dots indicate areas of concern.  The areas of particular concern are indicated within the dashed blocks.  In some probes, the deeper they went, the more they found. Source: Geotracker

    New Changes to Plan

    Based on information inferred from a 8/22/2023 DEH letter to the property owner, representatives for the property owner met with DEH representatives sometime after the May/June 2023 cleanup effort began.  From the letter, the property owner considers “significant deviations from the development plan” associated with the Site Management Plan (SMP) to clean up the site.  The changes discussed in the letter include:

    1. “Site development and occupancy in phases. (The approved SMP does not consider phasing the Site development and occupancy).“
    2. “Construction of 6 additional buildings…for a total of 12 buildings to be located west of Wolfe Road.  (The approved SMP considers construction of only 6 buildings in this location, referred to as Blocks 1 through 6).” It is unclear where these 6 new buildings would go.

    To note: With its submission of the Vallco SB 35 project, the property owner bypassed Cupertino’s parkland requirement for new developments (3 acres of parkland for every 1,000 new residents) by ignoring the “land” in parkland and designing a sloped, contiguous rooftop canopy it labeled a park. However, it has never been made clear how public access to the rooftop amenity would be maintained and enforced.Will there be well-lighted and adequately ventilated spaces below the canopy safe for gathering and strolling?With 6 additional buildings considered for the west parcel of the Vallco property, it remains to be seen how the canopy and the environmental conditions below it will change.

    1. “Elimination of subterranean parking garages beneath some or all of the buildings. (The approved SMP includes mechanically ventilated parking garages beneath every building).” Would there be sufficient parking for residents, employees, and visitors if underground parking were eliminated from the site?


    The elimination of the underground parking likely means the property owner abandons plans to excavate the contaminated soil, which would leave the contamination on the site. Upside, nearby neighborhoods would be spared the particulate pollution from the contaminated dust and vehicle exhaust from truckloads that would not be removed from the site, and another community would not be burdened with dumped hazardous waste it did not create.

    Screening levels for contamination vary depending on the proposed use of the buildings.  Commercial buildings are allowed higher levels of contamination because less time is spent in commercial buildings.  Whereas, residential areas, daycares, and schools have stricter guidelines.  This is very important because prolonged exposure to various contaminants can impact children’s development and public health and wellbeing. Once these contaminants enter our water supply, they can spread, impacting a greater number of people.

    While the Court dismissed the 2018 petition filed by Friends of Better Cupertino to challenge what residents perceived as an unlawful approval of the Vallco SB 35 project, the Court’s decision could not disappear the substantive problems identified in the petition that persist with the project to this day. These include but are not limited to the continued presence of hazardous waste and disregard for the Cupertino General Plan requirement that residential developments shall include 3 acres of parkland for each 1,000 new residents forecast from each new residential development. Lost ground level parkland surrendered by the City to the property owner at the Vallco SB 35 project site is estimated to be 12.96 acres.

    What’s Next

    If the developer decides to go ahead with these changes, they will be required to notify the DEH in writing.  The DEH would then decide if a whole new SMP is required along with possible additional reports.  If contamination is left on the site, the DEH may put a permanent use restriction on the property along with long-term monitoring and inspections.  As a result of these possible changes, the construction may be delayed.

     

    References

    Friends of Better Cupertino’s First Amended Petition, October 16, 2018:

    https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/24187/636921307628070000

    GeoTracker – Vallco Town Center – Staff Letter – Potential Development Plan changes Letter 8.22.203

    https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable_documents/2614820182/Potential%20Development%20Plan%20Changes%20Letter%208.22.2023.pdf

    GeoTracker – Vallco Town Center – all documents

    https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T10000017167

    GeoTracker – Vallco Town Center – Conceptual Site Model (CSM) Revised February 2022

    Page 29/142, Figure 2B – Boring locations in Relation to Proposed Development Building Footprints

    Page 43/142, Figure D1 – Project Blocks & Basement Extent

    https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/9535237014/T10000017167.PDF

    City of Cupertino – The Rise – Status Updates (as of May 2023)

    https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/vallco-status-updates/

    The Rise Construction Update – May 24, 2023

    https://therisecalifornia.com/news/the-rise-construction-update-may-2023

  • 2023-2031 Cupertino Housing Element Update

    2023-2031 Cupertino Housing Element Update

    On July 25, 2023, the Cupertino City Council received an update on the 6th Cycle Housing Element, 2023-2031. The Housing Element (HE) is one of 8 required elements of every California city or town’s General Plan. Whereas, the General Plan is a kind of long-term roadmap for all kinds of development in a jurisdiction, the Housing Element is  the roadmap strictly for housing development, and it is revised and updated multiple times within a single General Plan cycle.

    Possible Revisions to the Submitted Housing Element that Might Incline HCD to Approve It
    The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews the HE for compliance with current State laws and conducts its own analysis as to whether each jurisdiction has identified sufficient suitable new housing locations. As Cupertino learned from HCD’s comments to the HE Cupertino submitted in February 2023, certain revisions to the draft HE submission may increase the likelihood that HCD would view the HE favorably and grant approval. Hints included:
    • Rely less on pipeline (approved but not constructed) projects to satisfy to RHNA obligations
    • Choose sites that allow for maximum housing density due to the passage of recent State laws, for example 2022 AB 2011 “Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022” and recent revisions affecting 2006 AB 32/2008 SB 375 (both focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions)
    • Lean into redevelopment of developed sites that are between 0.5 and 10 acres
    According to Cupertino Assistant Director of Community Development Luke Connolly, most of Cupertino is recognized by the State as an area of “Highest Resource with Access to Opportunity” because of its proximity to high paying jobs and high performing public schools. As a high opportunity community, the State assigns the City a greater share of the region’s housing development obligation than communities perceived to offer less economic and educational opportunity.

    For the 2023-2031 HE Cycle, Cupertino is required to identify 4,588 potential housing locations to accommodate its Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) assignment. Additionally, 2017 SB 166 “No Net Loss” law mandates that jurisdictions must maintain adequate site inventory to accommodate their remaining unmet RHNA by each income category (very low, low, moderate, market rate) at all times. HCD recommends that each city allocate a “RHNA buffer” of an additional 25-30% of the total RHNA obligation, especially for homes for people with low or moderate incomes to ensure that the City would not be required to update its site inventory before the next HE cycle commences. 
    Cupertino, then, is expected to identify sites for the construction of 5,735 – 5,964 new homes (4,588 RHNA + 25-30% buffer). This equates to approximately 30% of its entire existing housing inventory, to be identified by 2024 and constructed within 8 years. 

    To note, the World Population Review reports Cupertino has a 2023 population of 55,326, a decline rate of -2.85% annually and -8.31% since the most recent census (60,343 in 2020). 

    Challenges with Cupertino’s Housing Requirements
    Like most high opportunity communities in the region, Cupertino is challenged to identify so many housing sites where most lots are already developed. What sites are vacant/available, close to transit (within 0.5 mile of a bus stop), and sized between 0.5 and 10 acres?

    HCD’s comments from the 7/25/2023 Council meeting point to opening up all eligible retail and commercial locations as sites for future housing. Cupertino’s current and dwindling retail and commercial corridors will most likely become candidate sites: Homestead Rd, Stevens Creek Blvd, De Anza Blvd, and to a lesser extent Foothill Blvd, Bubb Rd, Stelling Rd, and Bollinger Rd.


    Current retail & commercial along Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino


    Cupertino must add 2,635 homes for individuals and families with very low, low, and moderate incomes. However, while the political pressure shifts to cities to approve more housing development, the State and federal government have removed themselves as providers and administrators for most affordable housing. Is it reasonable to expect that the private sector will build and maintain affordable housing, which is not lucrative, when current density bonus laws require developers set aside no more than 10-20% of new multi-family dwellings for people with incomes <50-120% of the area median?

    Under current development provisions, would Cupertino need to approve between 13,175 – 26,350 new homes to assure the construction of the 2,635 below market rate homes necessary for the community and to satisfy HCD’s requirements? What if a private property owner were to accept a housing entitlement, but then decide not to build? How does Cupertino satisfy its RHNA requirements when owners of entitled properties decide not to build, or decide to build later?

    There is Another Way

    Cities are often frustrated when they rely on the private sector and non-profit organizations to build and maintain a public good. Some cities are turning to land banks and community land trusts to meet the RHNA requirements to build the homes that people need today.

    The National Housing Policy Guide describes land banks and community land trusts:

    Land Banks
    “Land banks are created by local jurisdictions – usually as a public entity but occasionally as an independent nonprofit –to hold abandoned, vacant, and tax-delinquent properties for future development. Not only does this provide local jurisdictions with land for future development, it also reduces the number of “problem properties” in a community by creating a process for management and disposition. Land banks are a powerful tool for jurisdictions faced with problems from both the hot and cold ends of the housing market spectrum. In hot markets, land banks allow jurisdictions to make development decisions with less concern about the cost of land because they already have a portfolio of parcels ready for development. In cold markets, land banks reduce blight by acquiring abandoned and/or delinquent properties, clearing title, and then putting the properties back into productive use….”

    Community Land Trusts
    “Community land trusts (CLTs) are organizations that own land and develop it through an inclusive, community-based process. CLTs develop land according to the community’s needs, which can include anything from open space to a multifamily rental project. Most often, however, CLTs are created to provide affordable homeownership opportunities to low- and moderate-income households. The United States has around 200 community land trusts, and the model has become popular in the UK, as well.

    The CLT model is structured around a ground lease. The CLT owns land which is leased to households who purchase the homes that sit on CLT land. Removing the cost of land from the cost of purchasing the home provides a significant subsidy to the households. The ground lease limits the price at which the home can be resold, passing the subsidy on from one homeowner to the next. CLTs also often retain the right to repurchase the home in the case of foreclosure. CLTs are one form of shared equity homeownership.”

    Should Cupertino wait on for-profit developers, property owners, and investors to decide what and when to build, when the community needs safe, sustainable, and affordable housing today? Why not support local funding for the development of a Cupertino land bank for the specific purpose of public investment and retention of residential land for the sole purpose of providing long-term affordable for rent and for sale homes for people who need them?

    What’s Next
    Next steps for Cupertino’s HE include the publication of a revised Draft HE and public outreach for possible zoning changes. Sign-up to receive Housing Element updates from the City of Cupertino here: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/housing/housing-element



    Note*: The 5 Santa Clara County cities with higher RHNA numbers than Cupertino also report declining populations since 2020:

    Milpitas, 2023-2031 RHNA 6,713 new homes, has a 2023 population of 76,535, a decline rate of -1.61% annually and -4.76% since the most recent census (80,363 in 2020).

    Mountain View, 2023-2031 RHNA 11,135 new homes, has a 2023 population of 79,670, a decline rate of -1.14% annually and -3.38% since the most recent census (82,455 in 2020).

    Palo Alto, 2023-2031 RHNA 6,086 new homes, has a 2023 population of 63,210, a decline rate of -2.64% annually and -7.7% since the most recent census (68,486 in 2020).

    San Jose, 2023-2031 RHNA 62,200 new homes, has a 2023 population of 930,862, a decline rate of -2.71% annually and -7.92% since the most recent census (1,010,908 in 2020).

    Sunnyvale, 2023-2031 RHNA 11,966 new homes, has a 2023 population of 145,302, a decline rate of -2.31% annually and -6.77% since the most recent census (155,860 in 2020).


    References
    City of Cupertino. Video Recording of the 7/25/2023 Special Meeting of Council, Agenda Item 1: Study Session and Staff Presentation on the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update: https://cupertino.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=18&clip_id=3271. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    City of Cupertino. Slides, Staff Presentation on the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, 7/25/2023: https://cupertino.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=ca20968a-4c57-4836-8958-19d88309d090.pdf. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    City of Cupertino. Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/general-plan. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    World Population Review, Cupertino, CA: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/cupertino-ca-population. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    California Legislative Information. 2017 SB 166, “Residential density and affordability”: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB166. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    California Legislative Information. 2022 AB 2011, “Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022”: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2011. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    Institute for Local Government. 2022 AB 32/SB 375, “Understanding AB 32 and SB 375: A Legal Analysis for Local Government Officials”: https://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/resources__Sept_8_AB32-SB375_Webinar_Slides.pdf?1442270849. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    California Legislative Information. 2006 AB 32, Amended 2022, “Energy: general plan: building decarbonization requirements”: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB32. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    California Legislative Information. 2008 SB 375, “Transportation planning: travel demand models: sustainable communities strategy: environmental review”: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=200720080SB375. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    United States Census. “Urban vs Rural”: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural.html. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    National Housing Conference. Land Banks and Community Land Trusts: https://nhc.org/policy-guide/land-based-solutions/land-banks-and-community-land-trusts/. Accessed August 25, 2023.

  • Simple Explanation of RHNA and Housing Mandates

    By Amy Kalish
    Marin Post & Citizen Marin

    https://marinpost.org/blog/2023/6/10/rhna-and-housing-mandates-made-easy

    WHAT IS RHNA?

    RHNA is the Regional Housing Needs Assessment — the number of housing units (a place for at least one person to live) assigned to an area by the state. This happens in eight-year housing cycles, and the allocation numbers are determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

    WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?

    The total number is supposed to represent California’s current and projected housing needs over the next eight years. This is the 6th RHNA cycle, covering 2023-2031. The HCD says California is short 2.5 million housing units. (Walked back from Governor Newsom’s unsubstantiated campaign assertion of 3.5 million). The numbers have been questioned. 

    Note from Cupertino Facts: In the 6th Cycle Housing Element update (2023-2031), Cupertino must plan for 4,588 new housing units.

    DID RHNA FAIL AN AUDIT?

    Yes. The 2.5-million-unit requirement was not in line with projected population growth even before the pandemic. An emergency state audit was requested. The result of the audit: The California State Auditor found that the numbers were not reliable or reproducible, and the methodology was opaque. All documentation is available at citizenmarin.org on the AUDIT page. The audit result was ignored by HCD, and the 2.5 million wasn’t adjusted. It was chunked out into regions. Ours — the Bay Area — was assigned 441,000 new units to be distributed over each city and the unincorporated area.

    IS THIS HOUSING CYCLE DIFFERENT?

    Yes. The 6th cycle is NOT like other cycles. The numbers are huge. For example, Marin County’s total RHNA went from 2,298 (5th Cycle) to 14,405 (6th Cycle). 

    DID CITIES APPEAL?

    Yes. Cities were shocked by the huge rise in their RHNA, and many across the state appealed based on “changed conditions” including drought, fire, lack of evacuation access, flood zones and other hazards, infrastructure issues, lack of buildable land, environmental concerns, etc. All appeals were denied without comment. 

    WHAT IS A HOUSING ELEMENT?

    Each locality, by law, must create a Housing Element plan and document showing where the RHNA units can be accommodated and submit it to the state for approval. In the past, these reports were not too difficult to create and were done by in-house staff. This cycle, the numbers were so overwhelming, and the Housing Element added so many new required reports, that cities had to hire consultants to write them. This has been taking time and energy away from our city governments for a couple of years now.

    WHO BUILDS THE HOUSING?

    Except for a few affordable projects that are built on donated city/county land with a small amount of grant money made available, the state expects private, for-profit developers to build the housing. Market-rate (luxury) housing has greater profit margins, so developers’ interests are focused there, and not on affordable housing. They add the fewest number of below market rate units as possible to each project. This creates an explosion in expensive units, not the affordable housing that is actually needed.

    WHY SO MANY NEW HOUSING LAWS?

    The state declared a housing crisis in 2018. Cities were blamed for lack of affordable housing and for not producing enough housing, even though cities do not build. The state ended its redevelopment agency programs in 2012. So, the legislature passed new laws to speed up approvals for multi-family developments by forcing local authorities to rezone for greater density, and approve projects swiftly, often without public input or environmental review.

    The three things that are literally demonized by the state as holding up construction are zoning, CEQA, and public input. (Those are also called city planning, the environment, and local voice/democracy.) Some of these have sometimes slowed the process, but more often produce community/developer/city compromise.

    ARE THERE PENALTIES FOR CITIES?

    New laws speed up approvals for multi-family developments by forcing local authorities to rezone for density, and approve projects swiftly, without CEQA or public input. Attorney General Bonta’s office has a special housing Strike Force to strictly enforce new laws and policies. Besides fines, most punishments are designed to give developers more power, and cities less. Fines can bankrupt cities, put them into receivership, and require cities to cede all zoning control to the state.

    The state can then decide which public lands will be donated or sold for housing projects. Private lawsuits have been brought against cities “not complying fast enough.” the Housing Accountability Act, Builder’s Remedy, and by-right development are all looming punishments based on annual HCD reviews.

    DOES THIS CREATE LOW INCOME HOUSING?

    The laws are sold that way, but what they mostly do is create luxury and market-rate housing along with a very few less expensive units for low-income households. Since developers typically lose money on the low-income units, many of these new laws offer density bonuses and other incentives to developers to add 10-20% of “affordable” units in their projects. This is supposed to “trickle down” and result in lower rents and housing costs.

    DOESN’T THAT JUST RESULT IN MORE EXPENSIVE HOMES?

    Yes. RHNA is broken into categories, each of which needs to be fulfilled exactly, or the locality is declared out of compliance and is subject to streamlining and ministerially approved projects, which further restricts any ability to regulate development.

    IS THE CITY DONE WHEN THE RHNA NUMBER IS BUILT?

    No. In a better system it might be, but RHNA is divided into four major income categories, and each must be met exactly. The laws make it advantageous to developers to add the minimum (10-20%) affordable units, no matter how large the project is. Making RHNA requires many more units.

    DOES THE CITY GET CREDIT ONCE THEY APPROVE THE UNITS?

    No. The state doesn’t measure success by entitlement (approval) of projects, but by the numbers of permits pulled and housing units completed. Once they’ve entitled a project, the city has done its job and rest is out of their control. They cannot compel development. Cities do not build, developers build, but the penalties to cities are based on developer performance.

    There are many reasons approved projects never begin — or start and stall: High costs and scarcity of labor and supplies, high interest rates, and inability to get fire insurance are among them. The state has not let these or any other factors reduce or excuse the RHNA. California’s largest property insurers have halted new home policies due to wildfire risk, rising costs. There has been no acknowledgement that this will affect RHNA.

    IN SUMMARY:

    The state has shifted power away from local governments and given it to for-profit developers who are incentivized to prioritize multi-family developments that are 80-90% market rate, regardless of the effects on communities. Because state laws encourage a low percentage of affordable units per project, not in line with RHNA percentages, much more market-rate housing is built than moderate, low, or extra-low units.

    Working from an incorrect assumption about need and growth creates problems. There are shortages of “affordable” housing throughout the state, but there is no crisis regarding luxury homes, and until the state decouples housing mandates from private, for-profit development, we’re going to see a surge in production in the wrong direction.

    Note: This is an excerpt from the full article published to Marin Post. Please visit their site for additional resources and information regarding RHNA.


  • Cupertino: It is a Lot More Than Vallco!

     

     

    This is going to be our last email before the elections.

    1. The Vallco Obsession

    2. Opt-In Email List

     

    The Vallco Obsession


    The coterie of ex-mayors sent out another email showing the Vallco lot. We wanted to set the record straight.

     

    Vallco SB35 Plan: Stuck due to Toxic Contamination


    The SB35 plan approved by the previous city council (Rod Sinks, Barry Chang and Savita Vaidhyanathan) after firing the City Attorney is still valid. 


    However, the Vallco site is contaminated, and the County of Santa Clara Department of Environment Health (SCC-DEH) is supervising the cleanup. The City of Cupertino or the City Council is not involved. The city will issue the permits after SCC-DEH gives clearance.

     

    The developer knew of the contamination as far as 2016, but neither they, nor the previous City Councils listened to the residents who expressed concern about the potential impact on the workers who are working on the  contaminated site, and nearby residents, without adequate mitigation efforts.

     

    No Height Limits: The Empire State Building


    We also wanted to reiterate that the previous councils removed height limits at Vallco in 2014 and refused to put them back in 2017 when Steven Scharf and Darcy Paul requested them, due to the upcoming  SB35 legislation. In principle, the developer could have built something as high as the Empire State Building at that development since there were no restrictions in place. 

    The resident focused city council, in place after the 2018 election, put reasonable limitson the development for any future plans which come up.


    Cupertino Top Issues:

     

    We feel that the top issues facing Cupertino are the CUSD school closures and the potential of 14 units being permitted on a single lot in our single family neighborhoods under SB10.

     

    While we would all like to see Vallco developed, it is up to the developer to clean up the site, and start construction on the SB35 plan or discuss an alternative with the City if they prefer.

    VOTE WISELY

     

    To save our schools and preserve home values, please VOTE for Govind Tatachari, Liang Chao, and Steven Scharf for Cupertino City Council, and Darcy Paul, Satheesh Madhathil & Jerry Liu for CUSD Board. They have taken a public stand to keep school closure off the table and roll back past mistakes. These city council candidates are opposed to SB10 becoming a law in Cupertino.  They are not funded by external special-interests and will keep the interests of residents foremost.

     

     

    Please do NOT vote for JR Fruen, Sheila Mohan for Cupertino City Council, and Ava Chiao (CUSD).  They have been supportive of school closure and giving the land to developers, and have strong endorsements from the three CUSD trustees who closed the schools.  They have also received extensive funding from construction interests, who covet the land our schools stand on, and have not signed the City of Cupertino voluntary spending limit on election expenses.

    .

    Sign up for our Email List


    With the election season coming to an end, we are going to move to an opt-in subscription list. Our goal would be to send quarterly or as needed (without exceeding once a month) updates on issues of importance to our fellow residents, and also dispel any new FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) being shared by vested interests.

     

    You can also contribute to help us inform our residents. The financial declaration about us is available here

     

    We end with a video showing how the previous council gave the Vallco owner a carte-blanche to build as high as they want at Vallco; a reminder of what can happen if the investors backed candidates take control again.

  • Balanced vs Unbalanced Development: Contrasting Visions

     

    Article was updated in September 2024 to add more pictures of the original proposal for Westport which was negotiated down by the resident oriented council to have one third square footage of the original proposals. Many of the concerns expressed in the article have unfortunately come true after JR Fruen's election in 2022. The city is dealing with many plans for large multi-story condo/townhome complexes in the middle of single family neighborhoods.

    This email is about two different visions about new development in Cupertino


    – The balanced approach which considers the impact on the residents, the city infrastructure especially traffic & schools, and the viability of the project.

    – The unbalanced approach which focuses on maximizing investors’ profits without regards to impact on the quality of life of residents.


    What Balanced Development Looks Like

    Westport is the name of the redevelopment of the Oaks Plaza on the corner of Hwy 85 and Stevens Creek Blvd opposite De Anza College. The project had been in the pipeline since 2016, and the original proposal was to build a mixed-use gateway with office, hotels and some homes or a large mixed use residential.


    The two drawing below are visualizations of the two proposals which were under consideration.


     


    The resident oriented city-council elected in November in 2018, collaborated with the developer to redo the project to a combination of market rate homes, senior care, affordable homes and retail. You can see renderings of the project on the developer, KT Urban’s website.



    The density of the approved project is less than one third of the original proposal, and it is traffic neutral. 


    Another mixed-use redevelopment project is Canyon Crossing on the corner of McClellan Rd and Foothill Blvd which is a mixture of housing and much needed retail.  The developments approved by the resident oriented council elected in 2018, balance various competing goals and many are in the process of being constructed..You can read more about the new developments approved by the city here. 

    What Unbalanced Development Looks like


    The contrast with the coterie of ex-mayors approach could not be more stark. Lets consider the the Vallco project which they often refer to while denigrating the resident oriented city-council the voters chose.

    What the coterie of ex-mayors fails to mention is that the Vallco SB35 plan was approved when the coterie (or their proteges) were a majority in the city-council (2018) over the objections of the City Attorney whom they fired.


    Or how they scuttled efforts by councilmen Paul & Scharf to add some height limits (November 2017) right before SB35 became law. 

    Or how they amended the City General Plan to add 2M sq. ft of office space, right after SHP bought the mall, while removing height limit (2014) in spite of overwhelming resident opposition.

    The Vallco project needs site-cleanup to remove toxic waste and contaminants which is being supervised by the County of Santa Clara. The builder sponsored council (Rod Sinks, Barry Chang, Savita Vaidyanathan) ignored residents’ pleas on this topic even though the developer was aware of the contamination as early as 2016, two years before the approval of the plans (2018)



    Hopefully, you now have a better idea of what balanced vs unbalanced development looks like.


    Unbalanced Development: 14 unit buildings on Single Family Lots (SB10)


    A new state law, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (real-estate industry favorite), SB10 gives local city councils the authority to permit the building of 14 housing units (10 + 2ADU/2JADU) on a single family lot, as long as the home is in a transit priority area, 


    A transit priority area is defined as the region within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned. In the map below, the blue circles represent the current areas in Cupertino which would become eligible for 14 unit buildings on single family lots under SB10. In the future, more areas can be included due to a change in the route of the existing VTA bus-lines or a new route being added (even if it is just planned). 

    For example, Rainbow/De Anza, Stelling/McClellan, Stelling/De Anza or Foothill/Stevens Creek can be the centers of new half a mile circular zones (red circles) which will then permit 14 unit homes on single family lots if an eligible service is planned connecting De Anza College to Los Gatos via 85/Prospect or De Anza College to Foothill College via Foothill Expressway/280.



    The silver lining is that local city councils can decide whether to allow such construction under SB10. Unlike other state laws like SB35 or SB9 (lot-split) the law is not mandatory for cities.
    JR Fruen: Endorsed by SB10 Author, Sen. Scott Wiener


    One of the candidates for Cupertino City Council, who has the strong financial and endorsement support of the coterie of ex-mayors, endorsements by the three CUSD trustees who shut down CUSD schools, and a long association with construction related interests is JR Fruen. JR has been endorsed by Sen. Scott Wiener, the author of SB10, on his twitter feed.

    For residents who are interested in preserving the character of their single family homes, a vote for JR Fruen would be a step in the wrong direction, increasing the chances of SB10 approval.



    Vote SmartTo preserve home values and our suburban life, please VOTE for Govind Tatachari, Liang Chao, and Steven Scharf for Cupertino City Council, and Darcy Paul, Satheesh Madhathil & Jerry Liu for CUSD Board. They have taken a public stand to keep school closure off the table and roll back the past decisions. They are not funded by special-interests and will keep the interests of residents foremost, supporting balanced growth.


    Please do NOT vote for JR Fruen, Sheila Mohan for Cupertino City Council, and Ava Chiao (CUSD).  They have been supportive of school closure and giving the land to developers, and have strong endorsements from the three CUSD trustees who closed the schools.  They also receive extensive funding from construction interests, who covet the land our schools stand on. 


  • Whose Interests does JR Fruen Represent?

     JR Fruen is running again as a candidate for Cupertino City Council. The questions for voters to ask is:

    Whose Interests does JR Fruen Represent?

    This election is primarily a battle between

    • Those who want to preserve their neighborhood, and vote out those who support school closures
    • Those who want to serve investor’s interests which include closing schools to free up land for construction.

    Who Funds JR’s Campaign?

    JR has had close ties with the investor community. In 2018 he ran a PAC which received tens of thousands of dollars from investors and construction related entities:
    • Vallco owners $29,000.00
    • Plumbers / Steamfitters Union $10,250.00
    • Electrical Union $10,250.00
    • Sheetmetal Union $10,000.00
    • Sprinklers Union $10,700.00
    His 2022 campaign contributors include:
    Construction Related Entities:
    CREPAC (California Real Estate PAC) $2500
    IFTPE 21 (Worker’s Union PAC) $2000
    Plumbers Steamfitters & Refrigeration Fitters (Worker’s Union PAC) $1000
    Real Estate Broker (Milpitas) $1000
    People who advocated for School Closures:

    Richard Lowenthal who sponsors and nurtures a lot of the anti-resident candidates  ($4900)

    Hung Wei the Cupertino Council Member who opposed the City Council writing to CUSD to reconsider school closure ($4900)
    Rod Sinks who made a U-Turn to not put height limits on Vallco ($1000)
    Lorien Cunningham the CUSD Trustee who spearheaded the campaign to close schools
    Sheila Mohan who is standing for the Cupertino City Council because others asked her to un

    Ava Chiao the CUSD candidate who wants to shut down more schools and construct over the land

    Who is Endorsing JR’s Campaign?

    JR is endorsed by all the three CUSD trustees who voted to close CUSD schools in spite of strong opposition by the residents.

    SB10: Scott Wiener endorses JR!

    Senator Scott Wiener who authored SB10 which gives cities the choice to allow up to 14 units on a single family lot, has endorsed JR Fruen. JR is much more likely to to support SB10 than resident oriented candidates. Learn more about SB10 here.

    What is JR’s Past Record?

    As part of the Citizens’s Advisory Committee he was supportive of closing schools (and hence endorsed by all the three CUSD trustees who led the campaign to close schools)
    He runs an organization called Cupertino For All, which endorsed Prop-16, the proposition which was soundly defeated by the voters of California, and would have led to more discriminatory practices against Asian students.

    Please do not vote for JR Fruen if you do not want more schools to be shut down
    Please do not vote for JR Fruen if you do not want investors to control your city and SB10 construction permitted


    Please vote for Govind Tatachari, Steven Scharf & Liang Chao for Cupertino City Council


    Please vote for Darcy Paul, Satheesh Madhathil & Jerry Liu for CUSD Board.