We have two exciting events coming up on Saturday, April 27. Go to both, or whichever one fits your calendar best!

☀️In the morning — 10 AM to 1 PM ☀️

Transit Tour down Stevens Creek Corridor. Help us decide the future of our MOST important street.

🕛In the afternoon — 12 PM to 3 PM🕛

South Bay Housing Advocates Social with Cupertino for All, Livable Sunnyvale, South Bay YIMBY, Peninsula for Everyone, CA YIMBY, Seamless Bay Area, Catalyze SV, SV@home, and Housing Action Coalition.

Reimagining Stevens Creek Corridor: Community Transit Tour - 10 AM to 1 PM

REGISTER HERE

Meet at De Anza College Parking Lot A → 21250 Stevens Creek Blvd 

Put those public transit advocate hats on because it’s time to reimagine the Stevens Creek Corridor! Join us Saturday, April 27 for a guided bus tour and scavenger hunt, with free lunch included! Your feedback about how to improve Stevens Creek will directly impact the decision-making process as the cities of San Jose, Cupertino, and Santa Clara work together to re-envision how the corridor could better promote transit, walking, and biking, while also stimulating more housing, retail, and community. 

Tentative Schedule

10 AM — Meet in front of the Student Services building (by Parking Lot A).

10:30 AM — Take Line 23 (10:31 departure) going East—toward Alum Rock.
10:40-11 AM — Pit stop at Main Street Cupertino (10:37 stop). Get back on @ Stevens Creek/Finch Ave at 11:05.
11:30 AM — Arrive at Santana Row for lunch + hangout. Informational session on corridor and community feedback time.
12:50 PM — Take the 523 Rapid (12:53 departure) and return to De Anza College at 1:13pm.

Please contact us at 408-660-6869 if you have trouble finding us at any point in time!

South Bay & Peninsula Housing Advocates Meet Up - 12 PM to 3 PM

Off The Rails Brewing Co → 111 S Murphy Ave

Want to get involved in the pro-housing movement in Santa Clara County or San Mateo County? Appetizers are on us! Come meet and chat with leaders in the region's housing movement and learn how you can get involved. 

The following orgs are co-sponsoring the event:

South Bay YIMBY

Livable Sunnyvale

Housing Action Coalition

Peninsula for Everyone

Catalyze Silicon Valley

California YIMBY

Seamless Bay Area

Silicon Valley @ Home

Cupertino For All

Tell Cupertino: We must pass an ambitious housing element

LINK TO PETITION

The cost to live in Cupertino is just too high: at nearly $2.5 million, the median home price more than doubled in just the last decade, and rents are typically above 3,000 a month; meaning that even a household making over $100,000 annually would be cost-burdened to rent a typical apartment in Cupertino! 50% of our De Anza College students are housing insecure, and only 4% of the campus lives in Cupertino. Why? Our policies and programs make it nearly impossible to build and sustain affordable housing. In the last decade, the number of homes built in Cupertino increased by just 0.1%. But RIGHT NOW, we can change course by supporting the Cupertino City Council in passing an ambitious “Housing Element”—to retain our families, students, teachers, and workers. Join us in making sure our next generation can continue to call Cupertino home.

This is an important moment for the future of Cupertino. Every city in California is currently updating their city’s Housing Element (for 2023-2031) that must ultimately be approved by the State of California. This means that we—as a community—get to decide if and how Cupertino becomes more inclusive and affordable! But we need your help to make this a reality by urging our city leaders to pass an ambitious Housing Element.

An ambitious Housing Element will influence who can live in our city, what our communities look like, whether our schools have stable enrollment through new families, and if we can adequately provide homes for diverse young families and aging seniors alike. But the City needs your help - the prior Council passed a Housing Element that the State has deemed noncompliant with the law. Failure to fix the non-compliant policies could result in significant consequences, like losing state funding and loss of local control. Cupertino has become so used to saying no, that we have forgotten how to pass policies that say “yes” to much needed changes, especially on building new homes.

Cupertino For All has outlined broad goals for what an ambitious Housing Element would do:

Affordability: Pass new rules to legalize building affordable homes to increase opportunities for teachers, healthcare workers, community college students, and workers to live in Cupertino.

Renter Protections: Establish reasonable protections for renters, who make up nearly half of Cupertino, as rents continue to skyrocket and families are displaced.

Preservation: Safeguard existing affordable homes, where lower income families may be at risk from new developments or expiring below market rate deeds.

Smart Climate-Friendly Projects: Promote the development of various types of homes, with new projects that increase access to transit corridors (walking, biking, public transit) and promote community gathering and green space.

Homelessness: Create opportunities for transitional housing, safe shelters, and resources for unhoused populations. These requirements are already required under state law, and Cupertino is not in compliance.

We have the opportunity of a lifetime to support the City Staff and Council in developing a compliant housing element that serves the needs of all of our community—teachers, firefighters, retirees, low wage workers, students, and immigrant families. Sign this petition to say that City Council and Staff must revise the Housing Element to be ambitious and legally compliant, so we can confidently plan for increased access to affordable homes.

Please sign to show your support!

March 7: Show Up to Remove Commissioner Ray Wang

Community voices needed to remove Planning Commissioner Ray “R” Wang

The new City Council has begun to undo the damage of the Better Cupertino-dominated Council with a powerful governance reform package and a response to the Civil Grand Jury Report which reprimanded the last Council. For Cupertino & its democracy to truly move forward–where all voices feel valued and respected–we must now also hold our appointed officials accountable for their past actions. That is why Cupertino voices demand the removal of Planning Commissioner R. Wang, who has repeatedly abused his position of power to harass residents and leaders in the community. City Council has agendized his removal for the March 7 City Council meeting.

Sign up to attend the meeting (virtually or in person) and give comment. We will need many voices present to successfully remove him from office!

Send a 1-click email now

The removal of Commissioner Wang is long overdue, and the City Council should take action NOW–residents have called for his removal for over 3 years! He has not once apologized for his actions, but the prior City Council nonetheless refused to reprimand him as their core political supporter and donor. The repeated behaviors of Commissioner Wang exhibit an inability to work with others in a leadership capacity–he aggressively lashes out at others who disagree with him and seeks to damage others’ livelihood when he does not get what he wants.

Our officials should ethically represent the people of Cupertino, but Commissioner Wang has repeatedly shown concerning past behavior that is not what is expected of our leaders. He sexually harassed* a City Councilmember in Redwood City (he was a planning commissioner there) by signing her up for porn. Instead of admitting the truth, he claims that developer interests hacked his computer. From a Spotlight article: “Wang countered that he believes Foust was signed up for pornography websites by “developer interests,” which he alleges hacked into his computer network in an attempt to frame him due to his pushback at the time against using recycled water in development projects.” He avoided trial on felony identity theft charges and pled no contest to a cyberstalking misdemeanor for which he was originally given a custodial sentence.

While a sitting Planning Commissioner City official, he urged fellow residents to call the employers of pro-housing activists to try to get them fired from their jobs. He said for verbatim (“Next time you get harassed by a YIMBY track down their employer and send their HR, Legal, and CEO a letter outlining their YIMBY stance, and all their tweets, their digital and social comms to show their lack of civility. It goes a long way to getting them reprimanded and in some cases a dose of reality.”)

This pattern of behavior is unacceptable from any community member, much less an appointed official.

— Notes —

*while he pled not guilty, the charges were only dismissed by a negotiated a plea deal)

State Housing Laws: AB 2011 - Housing Along Commercial Corridors

We hear a lot about “state housing laws”, but what are they and how do they actually affect Cupertino? We will be doing an on-going series of posts on state laws and actions that are relevant to housing and community development in Cupertino.

---

Assembly Bill 2011 - The Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act

Authored by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks

Summary:

Assembly Bill 2011 (AB 2011) provides a simplified approval process for specific types of housing projects built in areas primarily zoned for office, retail, or parking uses. Called the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act, it creates more opportunities to address the affordable housing crisis, while simultaneously furthering labor standards and climate change mitigation measures.

Details:
AB 2011 allows projects to go through a simplified approval process with permit-processing time requirements, but have different, required characteristics depending on the percentage of affordable housing units in the project:

For mixed-income housing projects:

• Primarily zoned for office, retail, or parking

• Next to a “commercial corridor” and has a minimum of 50 feet of frontage along a commercial corridor

• Commercial corridor = highway, 70-150 ft. right of way.

• 20 acres or less

• Doesn’t require demolition of certain types of housing, historical structures, or structures with prior residential use within the last 10 years

• Not located in a site zoned for housing, unless it is multi-family housing

For 100% affordable housing projects:

• Primarily zoned for office, retail, or parking

• Additional site requirements

In addition, projects are also subject to further additional site requirements, regardless of the amount of affordable housing (see a full list in the technical document linked at the end of the post).

To simplify development and in recognition of the environmental benefits of denser housing along commercial corridors, all AB 2011 projects are CEQA exempt, meaning that they are not subject to lawsuits filed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 

Finally, all AB 2011 projects must adhere to the following labor standards:

• Prevailing wages required

• For projects with 50 or more units, there are contracting apprenticeship, and healthcare contribution requirements

• Standards must be in all contracts, and compliance with these requirements must be certified with the applicable local government and agencies responsible for enforcement

From CA YIMBY

While AB 2011 may be specifically tailored, it is a good step forwards in creating more affordable housing opportunities.  Analysts find that while AB 2011 may only apply to 1.2% of parcels statewide, they also highlight significant, potential benefits: increased capacity for 1.6 to 2.4 million homes, increased property values, lower GHG emissions, and reduced housing costs.

In Cupertino, the parcel (#35908028) at 20690 Stevens Creek Blvd is one site that could support an AB 2011 project. It has an empty commercial building that used to be Pizza Hut, and a minimally used parking lot between Staples and the Party City store. Currently, the site has significant restrictions that might require conditional use permits from the planning commission. An AB 2011 project would replace this lengthy process with a simplified approval process and permitting timeline, provided the project meets all other site, unit-mix, and labor criteria.

Another area that could support an AB 2011 project is the South De Anza special area, specifically parcels south of Wildflower Way and west of S. De Anza Blvd. While current site occupancy might represent a hurdle for development, demolition of existing housing is not allowed, and while there are several small businesses in these parcels that have been active for decades, other parcels are less stable. Parcels at addresses 1451 (Jack in the Box) or 1505 (Kelly-Moore) on S De Anza Blvd could support potential projects. While business owners might need to be convinced to move, AB 2011’s streamlined permitting process will help make a more economically convincing case for proposed projects.

---

Ultimately AB 2011 directly addresses key challenges of our time: housing affordability, labor rights,  and climate change. The spaces along our main roads, like Stevens Creek and De Anza, are ideal areas for further development because of their proximity to transit (existing bus routes), educational facilities (De Anza College), as well as employment centers. AB 2011 projects would require specific labor standards, and provide opportunities for union work.

Finally, we know that denser, more walkable and transit-oriented urban development represents one of the most effective actions cities can take toward climate mitigation and adaptation (by reducing transportation emissions and reducing the need for further urban sprawl, among other effects). With its specific scope and measured approach, AB 2011 is a limited but important tool to use for smarter and impactful development in the right places.

Resources

ABAG Technical Document

CA YIMBY Overview

Legislature Factsheet

Urban Footprint Analysis

Notes

“Primarily Used” - is stated as “Principally permitted use", which means a use that may occupy more than one-third of the square footage of designated use on the site and does not require a conditional use permit. The same definition is used in both AB 2011 and SB 6.

“Abuts a commercial corridor…” - A “‘Commercial corridor’ means a highway, as defined in Vehicle Code Section 360, that is not a freeway, as defined in Vehicle Code Section 332, and that has a right-of-way, as defined in Vehicle Code Section 525, of at least 70 feet but not greater than 150 feet.” Abut, within the context of an area of land or a building, means to “be next to or have a common boundary with, ex: ‘gardens abutting Prescott Street’”

”Urbanized Area” - Defined by the US Census Bureau, this is any area with at least 2,000 housing units or 5,000 people. All of Cupertino, and the south bay, is within an “urbanized area”

Tell Cupertino--Housing Element Draft needs an overhaul!

Cupertino released its housing element draft, a massive document required by state law that determines the next 8 years of all things housing in the city. This first round of public feedback is due by Dec. 23, so we are asking all community members to get in feedback by the Dec. 20 council meeting.

The draft is incomplete, lacking in detail, and overall a complete failure. Why does this matter? We will not be able to meet the extreme housing needs of low-income families, unhoused people, young people, workers, teachers, De Anza students, etc. unless we can produce a solid draft. Cupertino for All has a lengthy list of recommendations for the City to achieve this outcome.

Cupertino is massively behind in its housing element process, ranking dead last in Santa Clara County to release a draft. There is no way around it–Cupertino will be subject to the builder’s remedy, meaning that developers will be able to build anything they want without local input, due to the failures of the last city council. This will last until the City has a compliant housing element with the state of California. With a brand new city council, we have a unique opportunity as advocates to make sure this happens.

But it will require the voice of people in the community, as numerous issues are clearly obvious with this draft.

For example, here you can see that Cupertino’s draft references Larkspur, California instead of Cupertino in its fair housing analysis. This is likely because its consultant team also wrote Larkspur’s draft as well and forgot to change the city when copy-pasting.

Entire sections of the document are also red-lined, indicating that the document is heavily incomplete–an unacceptable state when this will be submitted to California Housing and Community development (HCD).

The organization’s requested changes are as follows:

1. Site Inventory: Reduce reliance on pipeline projects, expand the number of planned units in the “heart of the city,” and avoid planning homes that are unlikely to be built. Nearly ⅔ of the planned inventory is pipeline projects, with roughly 80% of those projects being Vallco and the Hamptons. The Hamptons in particular is unlikely to actually be built out as 600 units, given no recent developer interest and recent renovations from Irvine Company. Meanwhile, less than 5% of the inventory is composed of the heart of the city, the main portion of Cupertino, where most development should be slated.

2. Programs and Policies: Urge staff and consultants to focus on new policies and programs modeled after other cities’ housing elements–with a framework of the 3 Ps in mind: production of homes, preservation of existing homes, and protection of renters. Cities like Emeryville and Mountain View have robust policies for all three of these planks. Cupertino’s current draft introduces few new policies, instead relying almost entirely on our existing ones, which have obviously failed to meet our housing needs. Additionally, the draft unnecessarily restricts proposed policies, such as only limiting parking requirements for SROs and studios, instead of applying a reduction in parking to all new homes.

3. Needs Analysis: The needs analysis is woefully inadequate for the unique housing context of Cupertino, with no references to the extreme unmet housing needs of our daytime residents–instead choosing to focus on those who already can afford to live here. In particular, we see tremendous housing struggles among De Anza college students, adjunct faculty, teachers, low-wage workers, non-profit workers, young adults, and seniors. For example, Cupertino severely lacks in apartments and smaller units that would be ideal for a young professional or community college student. Additionally, with regard to AFFH, our draft does not provide a realistic assessment of segregation in our region; we know that Cupertino has one of the lowest Latino/Latinx populations of surrounding cities–of just 3-4% compared to San Jose’s 30%. As such, one of our intended outcomes should be to bridge this gap and greatly increase housing opportunities for Latino, Black, and Southeast Asian communities of color.

4. Constraints Analysis: Several constraints appear to be missing, including but not limited to (1) local control and neighborhood opposition, (2) underutilized land such as dying strip malls, (3) relatively low surface area for development, (4) state law evasion/loopholes, (5) permit processing times Additionally, several other state laws are missing that are in need of compliance like AB 2097 and AB 2011.

5. Community Outreach: While Cupertino has done some community outreach with regard to the housing element, it does not seem to have actually translated into actual policies or programs. The purpose of community outreach is to hear from traditionally underserved communities, so new ideas emerge for how to meet these specific housing needs. Instead, there are dozens of pages of outreach, with no actual effect on the resulting sites, programs, or policies. Additionally, much of the feedback critical of Cupertino’s approach to the inventory appears to be missing. The City must also be honest about its failures in approaching community outreach, such as the last City Council dismantling the stakeholder engagement group, or the anti-housing bias within the housing survey.

6. Transit-Oriented Development & mixed use: Cupertino’s housing element draft does not seem to contain a vision for the built-environment, as it isolates the thousands of planned homes from a much needed coinciding growth of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, reduced car use, and vibrant, mixed-use spaces. Instead, it makes few references to transit-oriented development and even unnecessarily restricts mixed-use. We should be planning our housing future around the reduction of car reliance and the promotion of our Climate Action Plan 2.0.

7. Timeline: Cupertino is last in the entire county and will no doubt lose local control under the builder’s remedy. Council should direct its staff and consultant team to focus entirely on more-or-less redoing the housing element draft as quickly as possible. The community would like to see an actual timeline and plan of action for achieving an ambitious housing element in a short period of time.

Cupertino Election Results: All CFA-endorsed candidates win

After waiting several weeks to confirm the results of the most recent election (yay democracy), we are extremely proud to announce that every single Cupertino for All endorsed candidate won their races! Cupertino’s future is bright, and we are grateful to voters of the city and school districts.

Onward! See the full results at https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CA/Santa_Clara/115971/web.307039/#/summary

Nov 1--Tell Cupertino City Council to fix our housing element!

This coming Tuesday, Nov 1, the Cupertino City Council will be having its next regularly scheduled biweekly session at 6:45pm. They may act as if this is just a normal council meeting, but our current circumstances in Cupertino are all but normal. 

Come February 1, Cupertino will likely lose all local land use control under a policy known as the builder’s remedy—which will dramatically reshape everything about Cupertino. The builder’s remedy is designed to hold cities accountable that do not have a compliant housing element come 2023. Cupertino is extremely likely to have an uncertified housing element because (1) we are incredibly behind in the process, currently clocking it at dead last in the county and (2) our current draft fails to adequately address Cupertino’s role in mitigating the housing crisis. 

Housing Element 101

Every City in California has a general plan (GP). You can think of this like the City’s constitution, or a comprehensive vision for the city. Within the GP, there are numerous chapters or “elements” that give teeth to said vision. The housing chapter of the GP is fittingly referred to as the Housing Element. Every 8 years, The State of California requires all the cities to update their housing element to meet their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)—the # of homes that a city is assigned to build at every income level. Cupertino has to build at least 5,000 homes realistically—at various income levels, equivalent to 4 times our last assignment. 

For the past year, cities have been updating their housing elements through a lengthy process meant to explain how they will go about building those 5,000 homes, as well as how they will modernize their housing laws to meet the extreme needs we are seeing up and down the state. 

This is the first housing element update that is truly consequential, with specific guidance on how to properly draft your element, including plans to “affirmatively further fair housing”—i.e. dismantle segregation. You also must do your homework to show how you plan for the housing to actually feasibly get built in the next 8 years. Failure to do so results in heavy fines or loss of local control of how your land is used.

Why does this matter? 

California has the worst housing crisis in the country. Rents in Cupertino easily exceed $3,500/month and homes at $2-3M in purchase price. Our best shot at creating a more stable housing market, so all of us have the homes we need to thrive, is right now through the housing element process. If we can view the housing element update as an opportunity, rather than an obligation to avoid, we can feasibly create the affordable, inclusive city that we all deserve. If we do this process wrong (which is looking to be the case), the consequences may hurt us all. 

Just how behind is Cupertino? 

Cupertino is dead last in Santa Clara County, and likely one of the most behind cities in the entire state. It’s almost November and everything must be done by January 2023. Let’s do some math!

What can we do about it? 

Cupertino is already in a situation where we are unlikely to submit a compliant housing element on time. There are only 2 remedies at this point:

• This current city council makes dramatic changes to their site inventory and listens to community feedback on how to best meet housing needs with the remaining stages of the housing element. They work in good faith with the State to make the required changes to reduce how long the builder’s remedy is active. 

  • Revive the/a diverse stakeholder group—include voices that are not just older homeowners that align with Better Cupertino.

  • Reduce reliance on pipeline projects or add an even larger buffer to compensate—The current site inventory is going to get us dinged by HCD because 77% of the homes planned to account for Cupertino's 6th Cycle RHNA come from pipeline projects. Two pipeline projects in particular account for the bulk of that figure: 2402 homes at Vallco/The Rise, and 600 net new homes at The Hamptons. Combined, these two projects constitute some 84% of all pipeline project homes. Both have been approved for a number of years (2018 and 2016, respectively), but, to date, neither has built a single new home.

  • Admit failure; collaborate with the state moving forward—follow state guidance closely and work to put together a foot-faith, ambitious housing element that meets all of our housing needs. 

• Elect a new city council that will take this process more seriously and more or less redo significant portions of the housing element to make sure it is compliant. 

Cupertino Leadership—don't legally endanger Cupertino; let's build more homes

The Cupertino City Council is trying to avoid state legal requirements by planning for fewer homes at all income levels through its housing element update process! (specifically the sites inventory—ie planning where housing will get built) This update will dictates housing programs and policies and how much housing gets built from 2023-2031—nearly a decade!! We need an ambitious, thoughtful housing element that promotes affordable housing to the extent possible.

We need your voice to make sure they obey the law. Recently, San Francisco got a letter from the state of CA saying they must prove how certain "pipeline" affordable housing projects will get built. Cupertino is on track to repeat the same mistakes as San Francisco, meaning we will plan for FEWER affordable homes and also put ourselves in legal trouble with the state of California.

The Council is also planning around displacement of existing renters. The Hamptons is a current apartment complex that houses hundreds of residents—they claim that this site is likely to be redeveloped into more homes, without any proof that this will happen. Any new project would displace numerous renters in Cupertino. Instead, they could simply plan for more homes on existing underutilized lots in Cupertino, but they are opposed to the changes that would make affordable housing feasible on many of these sites, including height and density limitations.

The Council also does not want to plan around transit corridors and instead wants to further promote our complete reliance on personal automobiles, increasing emissions and reducing our quality of life. The City should focus its efforts on building homes in the Heart of the City. By building more homes along transit corridors and near places people work, play, and shop, the City can encourage more people to take transit and reduce traffic congestion. There are several Heart of the City Specific Plan areas that have 0 (zero) sites on the proposed site inventory.

Full statement on sudden resignation of City Manager Jim Throop after just 5 months

After Tuesday night’s City Council meeting–chaired from beginning-to-end for the first time by Vice-Mayor Liang Chao–Jim Throop, our City Manager, announced his resignation after only 5 months on the job. This resignation is an immense loss for the City of Cupertino. Our city now confronts the dysfunctional repercussions of having had 6 different chief executives (3 permanent, 3 interim), and numerous high-level staff departures in just 4 years. This record represents a sharp break with decades of historical stability in Cupertino.

Throop’s exit is a scathing indictment of the current City Council leadership, and marks the third city manager to leave during Mayor Darcy Paul’s tenure and the second during Vice-Mayor Liang Chao’s. Cupertino residents should replace these current “Better Cupertino” affiliated council members with individuals who understand basic governance, the role of the city council in our manager-council form of government, and the importance of working with staff in a cooperative, productive, and respectful manner. 

Why do these city manager and staff resignations matter? With fewer staff and no city manager, fewer services will be available to Cupertino residents, permits will take longer to process, and we will face greater challenges in merely conducting the day-to-day activities of a typical city. High turnover also makes substantive change nearly impossible, such as building more affordable housing in Cupertino.

Just last year, we unfortunately had to write the following “it is with heavy hearts that we observe the resignation of Cupertino City Manager Deb Feng … Unfortunately, Deb’s resignation is just one part of a greater pattern of rapid staff burnout and turnover in Cupertino’s government. Deb is Cupertino’s 4th City Manager in the last 3 years, and the second to resign during the tenure of Mayor Darcy Paul …”

Despite our limited exchanges with Mr. Throop, we appreciate his patience and contributions to the City of Cupertino–contributions made with enormous grace. He uprooted his life on the Central Coast after decades of public service to work for our City, a clear demonstration of his optimism and commitment to our Cupertino.

In City Manager Throop’s resignation letter, he notes his high praise for city staff: “I also want to recognize the fact that the City of Cupertino has some of the best employees I have ever had the honor and privilege of working alongside. They are a well-educated, experienced, and dedicated team that continually strives to make Cupertino a better place for its residents.” 

Based on numerous interactions with members of Cupertino city staff, we believe the Cupertino community should be concerned by the Mayor and Council’s treatment of staff. It is not a coincidence that City Manager Throop focused his laudatory remarks on the staff, who have been quitting our City left and right.

This poor dynamic between Better Cupertino-affiliated council members and staff is further evidenced by an independent city internal enterprise audit conducted last year by Moss Adams, which identified Governance as Cupertino’s second highest risk factor. Risk in this assessment was defined as “a level of uncertainty that could impair functions and processes, in the absence of any actions taken to alter either the risk’s likelihood or impact.”

Luckily, it appears that the City Council has already found a replacement City Manager–the other applicant from the original search that yielded Mr. Throop. Still, mere months later, with fewer staff and a highly dysfunctional City Council–as strongly evidenced by the very meeting after which Mr. Throop resigned–we are concerned that this new city manager may not stay long as well, and that this ongoing turnover will continue to damage city service levels. Our city must be able to maintain a reputation as a great place to work in order to continue to attract high-quality staff. 

With November 2022 around the corner, we suggest that voters choose wisely and reflect on the competency of our current City Council. We can and must do better as a city.

Demand Cupertino Planning Commission support realistic affordable housing options in Cupertino

Tonight, the Cupertino Planning Commission will be reviewing a draft of the Sites Inventory for the Housing Element; this is a determination of where the city thinks more than 5k homes will be built in Cupertino from 2023-2031. This includes low-income housing and very low-income housing options as well.

Unfortunately, the Sites Inventory is extremely problematic with several key issues we would like to see the City rectify before moving forward. We are asking community members to submit a letter of support, and/or sign up to give public comment.

Public Comment Instructions

See instructions here

Letter Instructions:

see Letter Template here

Apply to Cupertino for All's Leadership Steering Committee!

We will be holding elections during our next meeting on March 30. Please fill out the interest form by 3/26.

To apply, use our interest form HERE. Or fill out the embedded form

Steering Committee (generally):

Attends fortnightly Sunday steering committee meetings

Provides feedback/authorizes general meeting agenda

Coordinates strategy for advocacy/educational campaigns

Suggests new campaigns, events, and opportunities for CFA

Treasurer

Maintains accurate records of CFA’s revenue and expenses

Maintains the public facing financial spreadsheet for CFA

Oversees corporate bank account.

Authorizes and performs spending on behalf of the organization

Prepares and submits tax documents for FTB and IRS

Inform the Secretary of recent donations so an official thank you can be sent to donors.

Secretary

Records minutes of CFA general meetings

Records minutes of CFA steering meetings

Provides internal communications to members about upcoming events, meetings, and recent minutes via email and in internal facing social media (slack, CFA community Facebook, etc.)

Manages the internal CFA Calendar

Sends personalized messages to donors or other members for excellent work in the community

Chair

Oversees the steering committee election process

Represents or delegates responsibility for representing CFA’s members in inter-organizational meetings, conversations with elected officials, and with other high importance contacts.

Handles or delegates external outreach to other organizations, elected officials, and important community members.

Negotiates and manages strategic partnerships with other organizations in line with CFA’s mission statement.

Vice-Chair

Manages the Steering and General meeting Agenda process

Runs Steering Committee and General membership Meetings, including welcoming new members, introducing guests, and stopping discussions that have overrun their allotted time.

Operates, creates, and distributes any slide decks or handouts for virtual or in person meetings

Enforces community rules during meetings and ensures the bylaws are followed

Conducts votes during general and steering committee meetings using Coda or in person procedures

Social Secretary

Organizes quarterly social events dedicated to promoting community within CFA and expand membership

Conducts personal outreach to new members or infrequent attendees to see how we can encourage them to stay involved with the organization.

During Campaign season helps solicit and organize volunteers for phone banks and precinct walking for CFA supported Candidates

Policy and Education Director

Organizes events dedicated to educating CFA members and the general public about pressing issues facing the community.

Creates and publishes educational content to the CFA website

Invites experts and speakers to CFA events and general meetings

During Campaign season, leads the creation of official Cupertino for All election material including flyers, posters, and any voter guides for members.

Social Media Director

Creates or delegates responsibility for creating all posts for external facing CFA affiliated social media including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Nextdoor.

Responsible for authorizing all CFA targeted advertising using any social media platform.

Ensures all external facing documents are in line with the professional and aesthetic standards of the Cupertino for All brand.

Coordinates Social media cross promotion with other organizations in line with CFA’s mission statement.

The ABCs of ADUs - A Virtual Tour of "Backyard Homes"

You'll get to see video tours of homes - & hear more about - some of the entities building in-law units in our community

About this event

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), sometimes known as in-law units or casitas, are a growing part of the housing landscape in Silicon Valley.

Whether you're considering building one in your backyard or simply curious to learn more, we'd like to give you an inside peek into some of the products on the market in our community right now.

Presented by San Jose Conservation Corps + Charter School, Kaiser Permanente, Meriwest Credit Union, the ¡Sí Se Puede! Collective & Catalyze SV, we invite you to see 5 ADU/modular housing providers give 10-20 min virtual/video tours of their products. Presenters include:

• Abodu

• Soup

• Acton ADU

• Symbihom

• Mayberry Workshop

Schedule:

• 5:30 - 5:35 pm: Panelists & participants call into Zoom; as participants enter the meeting, music plays

• 5:35 - 5:45 pm: Catalyze SV's Executive Director offers welcome, requests questions in the “Chat” function & shares guidelines for discussion

• 5:45 - 6:55 pm: Providers consecutively share their products

• 6:55 - 7:00 pm: Wrap up & next steps

Closed-captioning will be provided for those with challenges hearing.

This event will be broadcast live on Catalyze SV's Facebook page. It will also be available thereafter on YouTube. By attending this event, you authorize Catalyze SV to use video of you.

Want your organization to be a co-sponsor? We'd love that! Email alex@catalyzesv.org.

Presenting Sponsors: Meriwest Credit Union, San Jose Conservation Corps + Charter School, Kaiser Permanente, & the ¡Sí Se Puede! Collective

Supporting Sponsors: Greenbelt Alliance, South Bay YIMBY, TechEquity Collaborative, Cupertino for All, & SPUR

Attend the 12/9 Housing Element Workshop! Voice your support for an ambitious Housing Element

This Thursday, the City of Cupertino will host a public Workshop for the Housing Element. Your voice is needed to make sure Cupertino becomes friendly diverse, affordable types of homes.

The RHNA / Housing Element process is the most important California administrative process that you’ve never heard of. It represents our best chance to build dramatically more homes statewide — but only if you get involved.

In 1969, California passed a law that calls on each California city to regularly plan for the housing their community will need at all income levels. This legislation was a success of the civil rights movement: it was designed to prevent local communities from perpetuating racial segregation by zoning out affordable housing. The law requires that every city must include a Housing Element.

in its comprehensive plan (it’s “GeneralPlan”). Thus the RHNA / Housing Element process was born: a complicated interplay between the state government, regional associations called councils of governments (COGs), and local governments (cities and counties), designed to make California an integrated state with enough homes for everyone.

Cupertino has failed to build its fair share of Housing, but now we have an opportunity to build a more inclusive city and region for generations to come.

Persuasive Points for an Ambitious Housing Element

When making these points, it’s good to explain how they advance the bigger society goals of reducing displacement, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, etc.

“I think a repeal of the multifamily housing ban is important because…”

“I think we should legalize fourplexes everywhere because…”

“I think it’s important to build more homes because…”

Some research + more talking points

Sustainability & Quality of Life 

• Less Car Reliance/Emissions: Relatively dense, thoughtful design is conducive of a sustainable City. With allowed density on key corridors, we are more likely to see mixed-use developments emerge, such as Main St. Cupertino. These developments are essential for reducing car dependency because it means that we can build abundant housing, while also promoting important business in close proximity to each other—such as grocery stores, restaurants, social spaces, or work space. 

• Saving the Bus: VTA has long-sought to have a Bus-Rapid Transit corridor running along Stevens Creek. We know that bus lines are more likely to be used, and will receive more public approval, if we provide plentiful destinations along its route! We can achieve this with an ambitious Housing Element that allows us to promote such vibrancy.

• Heart of the City: Even with our current Heart of the City Plan, which loosens land use restrictions along Stevens Creek and the surrounding area, we still cannot build to scale the amount of homes that we need for this cycle. As part of this Housing Element Update, we should amend the heart of the city plan to be more ambitious and to allow for more types of sustainable development than what is currently possible. An ambitious housing element goes hand-in-hand with the intent of the Heart of the City Plan. 

• Returning to our original design: Cupertino was originally planned to be a mixed-income community, with an abundant amount of medium-density projects. This is backed by the historic records for the City. Over time, we have increasingly moved toward more of an anti-growth mindset. Much of our older housing stock is plexes and apartments on the East side of Cupertino. 

• Study: Increased housing density helps combat climate change
  “A 2017 study of LA showed that residents living in infill areas would drive 18 fewer miles per weekday and a total of 90 fewer miles per week. That would result in an annual reduction of 1.79 million metric tons in greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of removing 378,000 cars off the road.”
  
  

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

• Under CA State Law, every Housing Element Update must have an AFFH analysis—Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

• Our analysis should thoughtfully approach standards of fair housing, by just not just comparing neighborhoods within Cupertino to each other, but also comparing Cupertino to surrounding cities.

• Around 3% of Cupertino identifies as Latino, compared to roughly ⅓ of San Jose, which is just next door. Santa Clara has a similar percentage of Latino residents as well. Our lack of diverse housing options in the city, makes it difficult and sometimes impossible for many Latino and Black families to move into Cupertino. Our analysis should recognize this gap, and actively think of ways to bridge the gap. 

• The Berkeley Center for others and Belonging has identified Cupertino as one of the most segregated cities in California. While we welcome our unique diversity of Asian Americans, we severely lack families from more working class backgrounds. They are unable to live in Cupertino. 

• Cupertino has a sizable amount of older rental stock—especially on the East side of Cupertino. Our AFFH analysis should include these homes as well.

• Why Bay Area neighborhoods are still racially segregated
  “As the proportion of single-family zoning increases in a city, so does its white population, while Black and Latinx populations decrease.” 

• I think an important part of an equitable recovery is allowing more housing. Both affordable housing and missing middle housing will ensure people who work in our city can live in our city. People should be able to enjoy the opportunities found here, without having soul-crushing commutes.

 Maximizing Affordable Housing+Ensuring Things get Built

• The Association of Bay Area Government has tasked Cupertino with building its fair share of housing at all income levels; a total of 4,588 units—more than four times the amount we were assigned last time. Of those, about 1,200 will have to be for Very Low Income homes, about 700 low-income, and 750 moderate income—for a total of 2650 below market rate homes—the equivalent of multiple Vallco SB-35 projects. The only way these goals will be possible to meet is by changing the rules through the Housing Element update.

• 91% of Cupertino residential land is zoned for Single Family-ONLY zoning. This means multifamily housing (the only option for scalable affordable housing) is ILLEGAL in 91% of residential land. We cannot meet our targets unless we loosen restrictions on what types of diverse housing can be built. SB9 alone is insufficient

Advocating for specific groups 

• Young People: I think it’s important to build housing in every neighborhood so that people don’t get pushed out by high prices. People who grew up here should be able to stay and find jobs here, and their kids should be able to grow up here too.

• Seniors: 584 TOTAL units (Chateau Cupertino, Sunnyview, Forum, Veranda), Stock is extremely limited, even though Cupertino is an aging city. 

  • Households with one or more persons 60+:          6,585

  • Households with 2 or more persons 60+                      4,689

  • 1 person households                                                    1,896

  • Households with owner/renter 75 +                             2,221              

  • Households with owner/renter 60 – 74                         3,125

• Students: An independent study done by Foothill-De Anza found that over half of the De Anza student body was housing insecure! Currently, De Anza is mostly made up of working class students commuting long distances to get to a city that they can’t afford to live in. De Anza students deserve to go to school where they work. An ambitious housing element will adequately address De Anza students and faculty as a community greatly in need.

Envisioning an Inclusive Cupertino: a Housing Element Town Hall

Thank you to everyone who attended our Town Hall on how we can create a more inclusive city through an ambitious Housing Element!

We had over 80 attendees, and were able to change some hearts and minds, as well as hear from all of you! Event details below for those who missed it! 😊

Event Title: Envisioning an Inclusive Cupertino—Housing Element Town Hall

Date: 10/13; 6-7:30pm

Topics: Affordable Housing, the Housing Element, Zoning & Land Use Reform

Speakers:

Assemblymember Evan Low

Abdullah Memon (Monta Vista Student and Affordable Housing Resident)

Bianca L. Neumann (EAH Housing)--Affordable Housing Developer

Matthew Reed (Silicon Valley at Home)

Nadia Aziz (SV Law Foundation)

Mair Dundon--Affordable Housing Resident and Community Advocate

Description: The Housing Element gives Cupertino the opportunity to change our community for the better—to open doors for new neighbors, while also promoting sustainability and affordability. This statewide process is currently ongoing to require Cupertino to plan for thousands of new homes, and your voice is crucial to ensuring that we craft a Housing Element that promotes homes for all! Our new Housing Element will shape housing policy for decades to come!

Join numerous Cupertino residents for a Community Visioning conversation about Cupertino’s future—we will be joined by affordable housing developers, experts in housing policy, community leaders, and city residents.

Cupertino is a highly desirable place to be—for its excellent schools, high-paying job opportunities, and proximity to the rest of the Bay Area, which has grown tremendously. In many ways, we have become a victim of our own success because we have failed to build the necessary housing at all income levels to support a growing community.

Cupertino has added 14 times as many low wage jobs relative to the number of affordable homes—the worst jobs-housing ratio in Santa Clara County and easily one of the worst in the Bay Area region. Cupertino Union School District is dealing with an enrollment decline crisis, now faced with likely closures of several schools—attributed in large part to a shortage of new families moving into the district. Hard-working students and workers can’t afford to become our neighbors, despite stimulating our economy and brightening our community.

We can change this! And it starts with difficult but meaningful conversations like this one.

Demand Cupertino City Council Stop Delaying Affordable Housing At Vallco

The movement for more housing in Cupertino needs your help Tuesday, Sept 7 night (probably around 9 PM) for Cupertino City Council's regular meeting via ZOOM. The City is setting us up to get sued over Vallco, and greatly delaying the production of affordable homes.

If you can, either send in a quick letter using our template below, or give a public comment Tuesday night using the below instructions/links.

Agenda LINK: https://cupertino.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811063&GUID=EB135D7A-E460-482C-9A55-777E42811D39&Search= (last item)

ZOOM LINK to Give Public Comment: https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_CFzjR-TfShWh2t-lNQ7FRA

-Raise your virtual hand to give public comment when the item comes up

LINK TO QUICK LETTER: 

https://actionnetwork.org/letters/demand-cupertino-city-council-stop-delaying-affordable-housing-at-vallco?source=direct_link&

TALKING POINTS LINK:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Q8I6ie_wCdMpB4lpfEQLINe4p4mFwcNh72sM91eCew/edit

Demand Cupertino City Council Stop Delaying Affordable Housing At Vallco

The SB-35 Vallco Project, which will include 2,400 UNITS OF HOUSING! (1,200 of which are affordable/BMR), was approved nearly 3 years ago, yet the City has not permitted ANY construction yet—greatly delaying the prospect of affordable housing in Cupertino. Now, the City Council seems willing to put us in legal jeopardy in the name of stopping the project. It claims that the original SB-35 permit will expire in September (this month), meaning that the whole process would have start over AGAIN.

Let's call it what it is—BS. We need you to write in letters and give public comment Tuesday 9/7 night (it's the last item on the agenda.) It should not take our city this long to take action on housing! This is unacceptable

Membership—Vote NO on the Recall

The membership of Cupertino for All has unanimously recommended voting NO on the Recall of Governor Gavin Newsom, with no recommendation on who should replace Newsom if recalled.

Tuesday, September 14 is the last day to vote in this Special Election—make sure your voice is heard! 

While we believe that many have valid criticisms of the Governor, we disagree that California’s recall process is the mechanism that should be used. California’s Recall system requires that a replacement only receive a plurality of the vote share, while disqualifying the incumbent from the ballot entirely. This means that a candidate could theoretically receive less than 15% of the vote and still be voted in as a replacement Governor. 

Additionally, Cupertino for All is greatly concerned by the lack of clarity on housing expressed by the alternative choices. For these reasons, we are recommending a NO on the Recall vote.

Make sure you turn in your ballot before September 14, 2021.

Take the City's Housing Survey—see our recommended responses

The City of Cupertino has put out an anti-housing housing survey; you should still take it

In order to better inform how Cupertino should go about building 4,500+ new homes, as mandated by the state, the City has put out a housing survey that closes at the end of the month. The problem? It mentions all the supposed drawbacks of new, diverse housing, without any of the extremely beneficial elements—such as increased affordability, diversity, walkability/bikeability, community amenities, and community vibrancy

Still, we recommend you take the survey because this City Council is going to use their biased survey as a justification for bad land use policies. Here are the answers we suggest:

---

What is the ZIP code where you currently live?

Likely 95014 (unless you don’t live in Cupertino)

Which of the following best describes you? (Select all that apply)

Check the box marking your status in relationship to the City

What best describes your current housing situation?

Check whichever box best applies to you.

What elements should a new housing development include? (Select all that apply) Intent: To identify greatest desired elements for future housing development projects.

YES Mixed used element (retail space with housing)

YES Bike/pedestrian pathways and facilities

Park/Open space (up to you. The City already has a required parkland ratio for adding new development, so this is not as high of a priority for us)

NO Sufficient spacing and landscaping (setback from right of way) (in terms of priorities, this would rank lower in our opinion. Cupertino already has very large setbacks, and large spacing between homes and structures)

NO Ample on street/off street parking (Cupertino already has a lot of parking; new housing should encourage less driving. Parking has been shown in studies to increase driving. Additionally, parking requirements greatly increase the cost of affordable housing.)

Cupertino currently has a target of 2.93 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As we continue to have more housing development in the City, what do you think Cupertino needs in terms of park/open space?

Has adequate existing park/open spaces in the City to accommodate future housing development.

Cupertino already mandates a ratio of 2.93 acres of parkland per 1k residents. Therefore, the City will likely add more parkland regardless. As an organization, we also believe that while green space is terrific, Cupertino ultimately suffers from a lack of COMMUNITY space, which includes open and urban spaces, such as Main St Cupertino. If there are parkland issues, it is an issue of distribution of parkland, not a shortage—with most parks being concentrated on the west side.

The state currently mandates Cupertino to plan for 4,588 units in the upcoming 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle. Were you aware of this?

Mark whichever answer best applies to you.

Referring to the pictures below, and realizing that economic pressures are pushing for higher density, what is your preferred density of housing? Please rank in order of preference. Intent: To identify what level of density is most desired for future housing development projects.

YES 35 units per acre (35 DU/acre) is reasonably dense. We already have an exorbitant amount of low density housing). Cupertino has much larger projects, such as the Hamptons which is 76 units/acre . We find it odd that the city would not use photos of existing projects in the city; suggesting that they are looking for specific outcomes.

In residential mixed-use development, how much retail space do you think would be desirable? Note: Retail space means an establishment that is primarily engaged in the rental or sale of goods, merchandise, or services to the general public and not to wholesale clients or accounts.

Don’t know--retail is unlikely to do particularly well in Cupertino (and in general). It’s difficult to quantify how much retail a project should have. This would have to be on a case-by-case basis. This is not a particularly well-thought out question.

What impacts of higher-density housing developments concern you? (Select all that apply) Intent: To identify greatest concerns of residents for future housing development projects.

NO Increased traffic (plenty of studies have shown that low density, spread out housing creates traffic, rather than high density. We need to put the people where the jobs, schools, and amenities are, to reduce overall driving)

NO Increased enrollment in local schools (Our schools have chronic enrollment decline. We NEED more students) See--https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NXo4R8dJ3ZRpHQ7VcCI5u7UtXICwZIdF/view

NO Increased need for parks/open space (see above)

YES Increased need for bike lanes

Viewing the examples of building heights above, please choose which height do you feel is most in keeping with the overall character of the City? Intent: To identify the desired building height in each area to maintain the character of those neighborhoods.

Between 6-11; we shouldn’t be afraid of tall buildings. Projects occur on a case-by-case basis. It’s inappropriate to preemptively ban certain heights, when we know that height is essential for housing diversity and affordability. The character of a city is defined by its people, not how many stories the buildings are. Additionally, the only way to realistically meet our housing targets (for both market and affordable housing) is to build UP. Cupertino does not have enough land to build 4.5k+ homes through low density)

In general, are there areas in Cupertino where increased heights would be acceptable? (Select all that apply) Intent: To identify potential locations for future housing development projects with increased heights

All of the above (Plenty of single family neighborhoods in Cupertino are near apartments or diverse forms of housing. There is no harm in having neighborhoods with multiple types of housing)

What size of housing units are most needed in the City? (Select at least two choices) Intent: To identify which kind(s) of floorplans residents believe are most needed in the City. Note: Floorplans are for example only.

All of them (Cupertino needs all forms of housing, with various floor plans)

Accessory dwelling units (ADUs), are allowed in all residential zoning districts where single family residences are allowed to promote the goal of affordable housing within the City. The City has developed ADU Programs & Resources to help residents. Are you aware of these types of allowable units?

Mark the response that best characterizes you.

Do you support these types of units?

Yes; it is simply building a small unit of housing on one’s OWN property.

Do you have concerns regarding these types of housing?

No

What type of housing units do you think the City needs more? (Select all that apply) Intent: To identify which kind(s) of housing units residents believe are most needed in the City.

NO Detached single-family units (91% of Cupertino’s residential land is zoned for single family homes)

YES Below Market-Rate units (we have a severe shortage of affordable housing)

YESMulti-family/Apartment units (we need density to allow projects to pencil out better, allowing for more affordable homes on less land)

YESMixed-Use complexes (housing and commercial/retail) (We deserve more vibrancy and community spaces)

YESTownhome/Condominium units (we need all types of housing)

YESHousing units for those with disabilities (equity)

YESSenior housing units (many seniors are aging in place in Cupertino. They would like to downsize but cannot)

YESSupportive housing units Note: Supportive housing assists homeless persons in the transition from homelessness, and to promote the provision of supportive housing to homeless persons to enable them to live as independently as possible. (we support housing houseless individuals, including in our city)

What factors are most important to you when choosing your home or apartment? (Select all that apply) Intent: To identify which kind(s) of amenities or services residents believe are most desirable when looking for housing.

YES Cost 

YES Near bus/transit stops

YES Close to services (commercial/retail/public facilities/health care facilities)

YES Close to work

YES Close to schools

Up to youLow crime rate

YES Disability-friendly

Do you have any additional thoughts, ideas, or comments?

Though well intentioned, this survey is incredibly biased. It phrases housing as a burden, rather than as a benefit. 

Would you like to be further involved with the community engagement that will occur with the housing development likely to result from mandate mentioned earlier?

Yes

Our Statement on the Sudden Resignation of City Manager Deb Feng

 ORGANIZATIONAL STATEMENT: 

Resignation of Cupertino City Manager Deb Feng

It is with heavy hearts that we observe the resignation of Cupertino City Manager Deb Feng. 

Though only appointed to her role in 2019, she has quickly become an influential leader and voice of reason in Cupertino civic life. Between increasing municipal transparency, overseeing the expansion of Cupertino’s Library, and orchestrating the City’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Deb has worked tirelessly to improve the City for every Cupertino resident. She has even recently begun to receive greater regional recognition for her talent and dedication, being named one of Silicon Valley Business Journal’s 2021 Women of Influence.  We were most impressed by Deb’s ability to successfully relocate the houseless individuals by Vallco into more stable transitional housing. On behalf of our membership and the greater Cupertino community, thank you.

Unfortunately, Deb’s resignation is just one part of a greater pattern of rapid staff burnout and turnover in Cupertino’s government. Deb is Cupertino’s 4th City Manager in the last 3 years, and the second to resign during the tenure of Mayor Darcy Paul. These staffing difficulties don’t stop with the City Manager either as during the same period the City Council chose to change City Attorneys--a role it still has not filled--and the City remains without an Economic Development Manager. Numerous other, especially senior, positions have seen turnover since 2018, including the heads of the Planning Department and the Public Works Department to name just two.

The constant appears to be a new culture among Cupertino’s elected leadership, with several city councilors developing a reputation for distrusting and repudiating staff, instead of respecting and working alongside them. They have put their political desire for anti-growth measures above the needs of a well-functioning city that cares for all its people and that respects the professionalism of its staff.

This is unacceptable, both as a matter of ensuring that Cupertino’s elected leaders live up to the community’s standards of professionalism and decency, and also because our city cannot function with these staff shortages.

The City is set to face many challenges this year, from navigating the highly technical and once-in-a-decade Housing Element development process to the renewed threat of Vallco litigation—due to the obstructionism of Better Cupertino-aligned Councilmembers. Facing such challenges without the expertise and leadership of senior staff is regrettable at best, indicative of gross dysfunction at worst.

As the City and its leadership consider who the next City Manager will be, we urge them to simultaneously work towards building a better culture that promotes greater professionalism and respect between Council and staff. Doing so will not only help build a more honest, capable government, but also ensure we do not lose hardworking, homegrown civil servants like Deb Feng.

Sincerely,

Concerned members of the Cupertino community

[Watch Recording] Professor Willow Lung-Amam: Trespassers? Asian Americans and the Battle for Suburbia

Edit: Event Recording Added

Where: Click here to register for the Meeting link

This event is part of SV@Home’s Affordable Housing Month 

About the Talk: Trespassers? Asian Americans and the Battle for Suburbia
The book, Trespasser? takes an intimate look at the everyday life and politics inside Silicon Valley against a backdrop of dramatic demographic shifts.  It follows one community over several decades as it transforms from a sleepy rural town to a global gateway and one of the nation’s largest Asian American-majority cities.  There, it highlights the passionate efforts of Asian Americans to make Silicon Valley their home by investing in local schools, neighborhoods, and shopping centers.  It also provides a textured tale of the tensions that emerge over this suburb’s changing environment.  With vivid storytelling, Trespassers? demonstrates that suburbia is an increasingly important place for immigrants and minorities to register their claims for equality and inclusion, while also raising questions about the rights of diverse populations to their own suburban American Dream.

About the Speaker:
Professor Willow Lung-Amam is an associate professor in the Urban Studies and Planning Program and director of community development at the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. 

Recordings of Past Speaking Events: 

• Professor Michael Lens – What Works in Making Housing More Affordable

  • More About Professor Lens

• Professor Jessica Trounstine discusses the themes of her awarding winning book, Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities

  • More About Professor Trounstine

• Don Weden – Urbanism After the Pandemic, What futures should we be preparing for?

Cupertino Special Election - Yes on Measure A!

In the last few weeks, Cupertino residents received mail-in ballots for a special election on Measure A. This Measure is an important step for our community to prevent school closures and maintain the delivery of high-quality educational services. Measure A replaces the current parcel tax with new parcel tax for eight years to raise additional funds for the school district. In addition to preventing imminent school closures, Measure A will help with the retention of teachers, and support student programs. For more details, please see the Yes on Measure A FAQ page here.

Cupertino for All is in support of Measure A, and will be supporting canvassing efforts with Yes on Measure A. To get involved or volunteer, visit Yes on Measure A’s volunteer page here.