CUPERTINO FACTS

Category: Housing & Development

  • Builder-Politician Complex in Cupertino

    Builder-Politician Complex in Cupertino

    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.

    The Builder-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 this Youtube 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.

  • Single Family Neighborhoods at Risk Throughout Cupertino

    Single Family Neighborhoods at Risk Throughout Cupertino

    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.

  • YIMBY Takeover of Cupertino City Council

    YIMBY Takeover of Cupertino City Council

    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:

    1. To not count pipeline projects towards meeting the housing unit requirements
    2. To increase the buffer of additional housing from 17% in the city’s draft proposal
    3. 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 requirements the 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. 

    1. About 1316 homes in the pipeline were removed and not counted against the 4588 required
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    YIMBY Lawsuit Settlement: Builder’s Remedy Plans Welcome

    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.

  • One & a Half Years of Builder’s Remedy: How We Got Here

    One & a Half Years of Builder’s Remedy: How We Got Here

    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

    HCD reviewed Cupertino’s Feb 2022 submission, and wrote back to the city on May 4, 2023 with the ruling that:

    “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.

  • Development In and Around Cupertino: Retail Land Replaced by Hotels and Housing

    Development In and Around Cupertino: Retail Land Replaced by Hotels and Housing

    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
    1000 S. De Anza Blvd.

    Sources:
    (1) Cupertino Online Permit Services  https://aca-prod.accela.com/CUPERTINO/Default.aspx Accessed March 5, 2024.
    (2)  ONE-HOUR DRY CLEANERS. Geotracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000021095 Accessed March 9, 2024.
    (3)   1655 S. DE ANZA BLVD., City of Cupertino. https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/1655s-de-anza-blvd. Accessed March 5, 2024.
    (4)  1510 S. DE ANZA BLVD., City of Cupertino. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/planning-building-code-enforcement/planning-division/environmental-planning/environmental-review/negative-declaration-initial-studies/1510-s-de-anza-hotel-project  & Site Development Permit. City of San Jose, 18 November 2020. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/66859/637406168452370000. Accessed March 5, 2024.
    (5)   Geha, Joseph. San Jose spurns developers, sparking possible legal fight. San Jose Spotlight, 6 February 2024. https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-spurns-developers-sparking-possible-legal-fight-lawsuit-builders-remedy/. Accessed March 5, 2024.

  • 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