Cupertino Matters
- Housing News / Council behavior
- RECAP – Planning Commission, Tues., May 27, 2025, 6:45 p.m.
- RECAP – City Council, Tues., May 20, 2025, 6:45 p.m.
Memorial Day is a time to reflect on the contributions of our veterans as well as the beginning of summer–hope you had an enjoyable holiday.
Housing continues to be challenging in Cupertino, as construction financing and rising costs remain a major barrier. Modifications to the Westport senior Assisted Living/Memory Care development, the vacant parcel on the old Oaks site, were finally approved by council a year after conversations started with the city, and five years after initial approval, all despite this site being a longstanding Housing Element pipeline project. One other project, Canyon Crossings on Foothill Boulevard is being foreclosed on, while another at the site of the Coach House Liquor store on De Anza Boulevard is up for sale for lack of financing. These two mixed use projects, though approved, are likely to be modified to meet today’s financing requirements. Construction costs keep rising and supply and price uncertainty created by the President’s tariffs complicate the economic landscape for building anything, housing included. The Vallco development is subject to the same cost issues, and is therefore also likely to be modified. Can Cupertino meet its housing goals of 4,588 new homes by 2031?
Cupertino simply doesn’t have enough housing to meet its evolving needs. While the Westport Assisted Living development will provide 136 additional senior units, there are more than 6,000 households with one or more persons 60+, with less than 1000 senior housing units available in the city and immediate area.
“Affordable” housing remains another shortfall. The Housing Commission approves distribution of Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which requires a Consolidated Plan every five years identifying the City’s priority housing and community development needs and goals. Based on previous years’ funding levels, the City expects to receive $387,000 annually in CDBG, or $1,935,000 over the five years covered by this plan. Entitlement community grantees are eligible to use CDBG funds for the provision of public services, public facility and infrastructure projects, housing rehabilitation, downpayment and tenant-based rental assistance, and job creation and retention activities.
Despite its obscure title, 2025-2030 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consolidated Plan (ConPlan) and 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan (AAP), this report is well worth perusing. An article in San Jose Spotlight highlights one of the statistics located on page 4, finding that despite the city’s high median annual income, 26% of Cupertino residents are low-income: Cupertino slow to build housing residents can afford. Cupertino continues to make poor progress in working with developers to actually get housing built.
One impediment to both new project applications and actual construction in Cupertino is the behavior of council. Little better underscores this problem than Councilmember Ray Wang’s wild and rambling diatribe against Related Cos. at the May 20 council meeting. on the dais during the consideration of the Westport project. Councilmember Wang’s tiny 63 vote margin is no mandate to be abusive to members of the community, including project applicants, who appear before city council. The same behavior was evident at the May 6 city council meeting regarding the Foothill-De Anza Community College District property acquisition for student housing:
From the print Mercury News, Letters to the Editor, May 22, 2025:
Cupertino council owes speakers an apology
At the May 6 Cupertino City Council meeting, public comment was heard regarding a proposed moratorium that would prevent the conversion of residential units to student housing within one-half mile of De Anza College.
Most commentators were Foothill-De Anza Community College District students in favor of housing. Later that evening, Councilman Ray Wang asked that the students recognize that they are “pawns of the (district) administration.” This was a gross lie and a great disrespect to the students, without whom there would have been zero movement on housing since 2020. Students manned the phones and went door-to-door in favor of Measure G, approved by district voters in 2020. When the bond was won, students attended board meetings and organized on the ground with faculty and staff to get district administrators to spend the funds in a timely, effective manner that reflects the bond language.
Wang’s callous comment shows how little he knows or cares to know our students. He should apologize.
– Daniel Solomon, Redwood City
For research, past issues back to January 2020 of Cupertino Matters are posted on the website. Encourage your friends who would like to become better informed about our community to subscribe to our email newsletter at CupertinoMatters.org.
UPCOMING – City Council, Wed., May 28, 6:15 p.m., Special Meeting (Teen Commission and Audit Committee Interviews); 5:30 p.m., Closed Session
UPCOMING – City Council, Thurs., May 29, 5:30 p.m., Special Meeting (Teen Commission Interviews)
RECAP – Planning Commission, Tues., May 27, 2025, 6:45 p.m., Regular meeting
YouTube: 34 min.
This was a brief meeting. The only action of substance was Item No. 2: R-1 Exception to allow a detached garage to be attached to the primary dwelling unit, creating a reduced side yard setback for a portion of the principal dwelling unit. (Application No(s).: EXC-2025-002; Applicant(s): Zhen Chen and Meng Wu; Location: 890 Brent Drive. This 1,200-square-foot home and a 444 square-foot detached garage home was built in 1958 in a subdivision governed by San Jose development regulations, and subsequently annexed into Cupertino. The owners want to expand the current home by 1,059 square feet to accommodate their multigenerational family, and to attach the garage to the house. The current garage setback of 7 feet and 4 inches is considered non-conforming and subject to a setback of 9 feet 8 inches on the northeast side. After brief presentations by staff and the homeowner, the Planning Commission approved unanimously.
RECAP – City Council, Tues., May 20, 2025, 6:45 p.m. Regular, 6:00 p.m., Closed Session
YouTube: 3 hr. 22 min.
The Consent Calendar contained fifteen routine items. Items 3-16 were approved unanimously. Vice-Mayor Moore highlighted Item No. 14 Acceptance of donation from the Houston Living Trust in the amount of $70,000 for the Cupertino Senior Center, requesting city appreciation. Councilmember Fruen requested a separate vote on Item 17 Accept Ad-Hoc LRC City Council Subcommittee recommendation regarding SB 753, SB 79, AB 650, AB 340, AB 648, and SB 501. He questioned the opposition to bills SB 79, which does not affect Cupertino, and AB 340 and AB 648, both of which are supported by our member of the Assembly, noting that such opposition contributes to Cupertino’s negative reputation at the state level and makes it harder to advance the city’s most meaningful legislative priorities. Item 17 passed 3-2.
Item No. 18: Modification to a previously approved Development Permit and Architectural & Site Approval for the Westport Development including, but not limited to, dwelling count and ground floor retail, Park Land Dedication Fees and minor changes to Building 1. (Application No(s): M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003; Applicant(s): Related California (Cascade Zak); Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN #326-27-048) (Continued from May 6, 2025). Council spent over two hours on this item, with the developer, Related, and operator, Oakmont, giving extensive presentations on the project modifications required to obtain financing for this project initially approved five years ago. Public comment was generally favorable, with widespread support for the Planning Commission’s effort to create more retail. The developer had resolved the parking within the constraints of the site and state law. The inclusion of a TDM (Traffic Demand Management) study was acceptable. The major sticking point was the Planning Commission’s proposal to consider swapping additional retail space for refund of the parkland fee as an alternative. After significant discussion and motion practice, it became clear that an amendment to the approval to allow the developer the option to build more retail in exchange for fee relief would not receive three votes. Council ultimately approved 4-1 with Mohan voting nay.
Item No. 19: Introduce an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 2.04.010 pertaining to Removal of Closed Session Start Time and Clarification that Meetings Rescheduled Due to Holidays or Elections Retain Regular Meeting Status (Continued from May 6, 2025). This housekeeping item changed the fixed start time for closed sessions to 5:30 p.m. from 6:00 p.m, in addition to other minor changes in language. Council approved unanimously.
(Moved up)Item No. 21: Study Session regarding possible reactivation of and appropriate scope for the Environmental Review Committee (“ERC”) and the Legislative Review Committee (“LRC”), and possibly amending the scope of the Audit Committee. This was a study session, so no immediate action was taken. The staff recommendation was approved to return each of the items to other commissions or committees for feedback first: (1) Planning Commission would review the function of ERC, with Fruen noting that an ERC meeting counts as one of maximum of five public meetings legally allowed on certain housing development projects, (2) The ad-hoc Legislative Review Committee would consider whether to convert to an ongoing Brown Act committee with inherent staff overhead, and (3) the Audit Committee would review its own scope. Council approved 4-1 with Fruen voting nay.
Councilmember Ray Wang exited the dais at this point.
Item No. 20: Accept the City Manager’s Third Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2024-25. Discussion on this item was brief. A financial report states the actual status, but there was some confusion with the upcoming budget reports, which can be modified. There were only minor adjustments. Council accepted the report 4-0-1 with Wang absent.
CUPERTINO COURIER: May 23, 2025
The front page and photo on page 5 is entitled Fostering further innovation: District aims to ‘ignite robotics programs’ at all five of its high schools in the Fremont Union High School District. Community briefs are (1) ‘Dreamscape’ winner and (2) Granting access to nature. Legal notices include (1) Public Hearing Final Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26, and (2) Public Hearing Municipal Amendments Fire Severity Hazard Zones.
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
Cupertino Matters
Publisher and Editor
