CC 05-06-2025 Item No. 9 Interim Urgency Ordinance_Written Communications (added 5-6-25)CC 05-06-2025
Item No. 9
Interim Urgency Ordinance
Imposing a Moratorium on
transition of Multi-Family Use
Housing to Student Housing
Written Communications
From:Liang Chao
To:Tina Kapoor; City Clerk
Subject:Fw: Agenda Item 9 - May 6, 2025 City Council Meeting
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 2:42:04 AM
Attachments:Agenda Item 9 - Letter re May 6, 2025 City Council Meeting.pdf
I see that this letter from Prometheus was not sent to the City Manager's office or the city
clerk.
So forwarding, just in case you didn't get it.
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
From: Vanessa Hernandez <VHernandez@prometheusreg.com>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 4:23 PM
To: Liang Chao <lchao@cupertino.gov>; Kitty Moore <kmoore@cupertino.gov>; Sheila Mohan
<smohan@cupertino.gov>; J.R. Fruen <jrfruen@cupertino.gov>; R "Ray" Wang
<rwang@cupertino.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>; City Attorney's Office
<CityAttorney@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Agenda Item 9 - May 6, 2025 City Council Meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers:
On behalf of Don Peterson , SVP of Prometheus Real Estate Group, please find the attached letter for
your review.
Thank you,
Vanessa Hernandez | Sr. Administrative Assistant-Legal & Finance
PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. | Est. 1965 | Certified B Corporation™
p: 650.931.3447 | Prometheusapartments.com | vhernandez@prometheusreg.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message, including attachments, is confidential and/or privileged and is intended only for
the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy,
From:Deanna Olsen
To:Public Comments
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:Public Comment | Agenda Item #9 | May 6, 2025
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 4:01:35 PM
Attachments:Joint LOS Ahrens Becker FDACCD 5.5.25 final.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please share the attached joint letter from California State Senater Josh Becker & 26th District
Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens with the Cupertino City Council and include in your written comment for
todays meeting.
Thank you,
Deanna Olsen
May 5, 2025
RE: Support for Affordable Student Housing
Dear Mayor Chao and Members of the City Council,
As representatives of California’s 26th Assembly District and 13th Senate District, we are pleased to see
Foothill-De Anza Community College District and the city of Cupertino’s interests in housing for our
residents and student population.
Our state’s community colleges are essential to California’s economic mobility, workforce development,
and long-term prosperity. Foothill and De Anza colleges serve as gateways to higher education for
thousands of students, many from right here in Cupertino. These students become our region’s nurses,
teachers, engineers, and small business owners. They are central to the vitality of Silicon Valley’s future.
We know that potential cannot be realized without stability. The South Bay Area remains one of the
most expensive housing markets in the country. For many students, the lack of affordable housing is a
defining barrier to enrolling and completing their education. In our work at the state level, we have
consistently prioritized affordable housing, access to education, and workforce training as pillars of
economic resilience. The District’s approach to student housing directly supports all three.
We respectfully urge the Council to refrain from rushing this process and to engage in good-faith
collaboration with our college district to find an equitable solution. More conversations are needed
before we rush to legislate without proper participation and discussion.
Thank you for your consideration and continued commitment to strengthening our communities.
Sincerely,
Josh Becker Patrick Ahrens
State Senator, 13th District Assemblymember, 26th District
From:Lopez, Deisy
To:Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang; City Council
Cc:Absher, Sean; Burns, Allison; Maestri, Gregory; Nelson, Lori; Elam, Alicia; Floy Andrews;
vshah@awattorneys.com; jfox@awattorneys.com; Tina Kapoor; Benjamin Fu; City Clerk
Subject:5-6-25 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item No. 9
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 3:20:18 PM
Attachments:image003.png
image004.png
05-06-2025 FHDA Opposition to Urgency Ordinance, 4937-3950-5215_1.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon,
On behalf of Sean Absher, please see the attached letter in opposition to Agenda Item No. 9 on
tonight’s City Council agenda. The letter with exhibits is available at the following link:
https://filecloud.sycr.com/url/7rghdipkivfxkwyi
password: 024#F38G#031
Please include the letter with exhibits as part of the public record for Agenda Item 9, “Approval
of an Interim Urgency Ordinance Imposing a Moratorium on the Transition of Multiple-Family
Use Housing to Student Housing.”
Thank you,
Deisy Lopez
Public Law Litigation Assistant
DLopez@stradlinglaw.com
Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth LLP
660 Newport Center Dr. Suite 1600
Newport Beach, CA 92660
D: 949 725 4113
stradlinglaw.com | LinkedIn
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately. Thank you.
Sean B. Absher
415 283 2242
sabsher@stradlinglaw.com
Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 4200
San Francisco, CA 94104
415 283 2240
stradlinglaw.com
4908-8520-8639v2/024031-0028
May 6, 2025
VIA EMAIL
City of Cupertino City Council
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Mayor Liang Chao
lchao@cupertino.gov
Vice Mayor Kitty Moore
kmoore@cupertino.gov
Councilmember Sheila Mohan
smohan@cupertino.gov
Councilmember J.R. Fruen
jrfruen@cupertino.gov
Councilmember R “Ray” Wang
rwang@cupertino.gov
citycouncil@cupertino.gov
Re: May 6, 2025 City Council Public Hearing and Meeting to Consider Approval of
Proposed Interim Urgency Ordinance
Dear Council Members and City Attorney:
We understand that on May 6, 2025 the City of Cupertino (“City”) City Council will conduct a public
hearing to consider “An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, California, Enacted
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 Establishing a 45-Day Temporary Moratorium
on the Transition of Multiple-Family Use Housing to Student Housing Within a One Half Mile Radius
of Foothill-De Anza Community College in the City of Cupertino During the Pendency of the City’s
Review and Adoption of Permanent Zoning Regulations for Such Uses” (the “Ordinance”). On behalf
of Foothill-DeAnza Community College District (the “District”), we submit the following opposition
and comments. Through this opposition letter, which fully incorporates by reference the opposition
letter filed by Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. (“Prometheus”) and McClellan Road, L.P.
(“MRLP”) dated May 5, 2025 (“Prometheus Letter”), the District intends to exhaust its administrative
City of Cupertino City Council
Page 2
4908-8520-8639v2/024031-0028
remedies in the event the City Council votes to adopt the Ordinance, which requires the affirmative
vote of a super majority of the City Council.
The clear intent of the Ordinance is to impair the right of the District to proceed with the lawful
purchase of the McClellan Terrace apartment building located at 7918 McClellan Road (aka 7964
McClellan Road) APN 362-12-001 and APN 362-12-015 (“Property”) from the owner, MRLP. The
Property is designated as Medium Density residential in the Cupertino General Plan (Community
Vision 2015-2040) and is zoned Planned Development, Multiple-Family Residential P(R3).1 The
District’s use of the Property for student housing is a permitted use in the R3 zone.2 Further, such use
does not require any entitlement, permit or approvals by the City.3 Equally clear is the fact that the
District’s use of the Property for student housing is not a “conversion” as defined in the Cupertino
Zoning Ordinance 4 subject to entitlements, permits, or approvals by the City. As set forth below, the
Ordinance fails to meet the standard for urgency legislation. Further, the Ordinance infringes on the
District’s statutory and constitutional rights and protections and interferes with the District’s
contractual rights to purchase the Property for its intended use for student housing. The Ordinance
should not be approved for the reasons stated in this letter.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Satisfying the Critical Need for Affordable Student Housing
The District’s mission statement is educational excellence and student success. Central to this mission
is to break down barriers that prevent students from achieving their goals. The District’s 2024-2031
Strategic Plan identified meeting the basic needs and mental health of students as a priority.5
Affordable student housing for community college students is a basic need and this need is not being
met. In 2023, the Community College League of California issued findings from a 2023 Basic Needs
Survey of over 66,000 students at 88 community colleges and found that 3 out of 5 students were
housing insecure and 1 in 4 students were homeless.6 In a 2024 report by the California Legislative
Analyst’s Office, more than half of California’s community college students faced housing insecurity
in 2023, and about a quarter of those nearly 2 million students have experienced homelessness.7
More than a decade ago the District understood that its students faced critical shortage of affordable
student housing. Student housing was a topic of conversation at the February 3, 2014 District Board of
Trustees meeting.8 When planning for the Measure G Bond projects list, the District Board of Trustees
approved the inclusion of affordable student and employee housing. The list of approved projects in
1https://www.cupertino.gov/files/assets/city/v/4/departments/documents/community-
development/planning/planning-maps-and-zoning-code/z-map-07-16-2024.pdf [Exhibit 3]
2 CMC sections 19.360.030 and 19.20.020.
3 Id.
4 CMC section 19.08.030 defining "Condominium conversion" or "Conversion" to mean “a change in the type of
ownership of a parcel (or parcels) of land, together with the existing attached structures, to that defined as a common
interest development, regardless of the present or prior use of such land and structures and whether substantial
improvements have been made or are to be made to such structure.” CMC section 19.08.030 defines “common
interest development” to mean “a condominium project, a community apartment project, a stock cooperative or a
planned development.”
5 See Foothill-DeAnza Community College District 2024-2031 Strategic Plan, p.26. [Exhibit 4]
6 https://www.ccleague.org/news/basic-needs-report-identifies-continued-lack-of-food-and-housing-security-among-
california-community-college-students/ [Exhibit 5]
7 https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2024/4898/Update-on-Student-Housing-Assistance-050724.pdf at p. 3. [Exhibit 6]
8 https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/fhda/Board.nsf/Public [Study Session Item SS1.] [Exhibit 7]
City of Cupertino City Council
Page 3
4908-8520-8639v2/024031-0028
Measure G Bond passed by the District voters on March 3, 2020 includes “plan, construct, acquire or
contribute to affordable employee and student housing units.”9 The inclusion serves as a testament to
the District’s commitment to support students, especially those that have basic needs challenges. The
need for the District to take immediate action became evident during the pandemic as many more
students faced affordable housing insecurities.
After a study conducted by the District, the Board of Trustees approved the location of student housing
off campus in its May 6, 2024 regular meeting.10 A housing taskforce composed of faculty, staff,
students, and administrators was formed to provide recommendations on housing. The taskforce
recommended in 2024 to locate student housing within one mile of De Anza College, which further
refines the Board’s approval of locating student housing in proximity to the De Anza College campus.
One of the obvious reasons for this recommendation is to promote walkability consistent with the
District’s Sustainability Action Plan that was adopted by the Board at their January 9, 2023 meeting.11
Approval of Purchase and Sale Agreement and Early Outreach to Tenants
On March 10, 2025, the Board of Trustees approved the purchase and sale agreement and the filing of
the Notice of Exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines to acquire the Property for affordable student
housing. The Property is designated as Medium Density residential in the Cupertino General Plan
(Community Vision 2015-2040) and is zoned Planned Development, Multiple-Family Residential
P(R3).12 The District’s use of the Property for Student Housing is a permitted use in the R3 zone and
such use does not require any City entitlement, permit or approvals. Prior to approving the acquisition,
the District confirmed the Property was not a part of the city’s affordable housing stock.
As part of the communication provided to the current residents through the current owner, two
messages were sent to all tenants on March 20, 2025, and on March 26, 2025. (See Exhibit Nos. 1 and
2). The messages to the current tenants clearly committed that tenants will be allowed to stay until June
30, 2026, should they choose. The notices further commit that relocation assistance will be provided
to displaced tenants in the form of assistance in finding comparable replacement property, covering
moving expenses and providing financial assistance, if applicable. These are all aspects of the
commitment of the District not just to comply with the California Relocation Assistance Law (Gov.
Code § 7260 et seq.) but to provide a human-centered approach in addressing the concerns of the
potentially displaced tenants. In early April, 2025 the District also created a website to post updates
and on acquisition of the Property and answers to frequently asked questions.13
May 5, 2025 Board of Trustees Action Approving Relocation Plan and Relocation Services
Consultant
9 https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/fhda/Board.nsf/files/BJ52PW03336F/$file/Resolution_No_2019-
36_Ordering_Election.pdf at p. B-3 [Exhibit 8];;
https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CA/Santa_Clara/101316/web.245375/#/summary?category=C_9 [Exhibit 9,
p. 7]
10 https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/fhda/Board.nsf/Public [Exhibit 10, Board Business Item 22.]
11 https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/fhda/Board.nsf/Public [Exhibit 11, Consent Calendar, Item No. 4, Plan at p. 28 (“The
district should strive to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for students and employees commuting to the campus
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and minimize the infrastructure costs related to parking.”)]
12https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/fhda/Board.nsf/files/DEEUBP7B4839/$file/Final_FHDA_StudentHousing_NOE_Me
mo.pdf [Exhibit 12.]
13 https://www.fhda.edu/_about-us/student-housing.html [Exhibit 13, accessed May 5, 2025, at 12:26 pm.]
City of Cupertino City Council
Page 4
4908-8520-8639v2/024031-0028
The District Board of Trustees at a duly noticed regular meeting on May 5, 2025 affirmed its strong
commitment to lessening the impacts to displaced residents by implementing a relocation plan that
will: (1) allow residents to remain in their units until June 30, 2026;14 (2) cover resident’s moving
expenses; (3) assist residents with finding comparable replacement housing; and (4) provide financial
assistance to qualified displaced residents. At the May 5th meeting, the Board of Trustees approved the
Proposal for Relocation Services, prepared by Overland, Pacific & Cutler (“OPC”), through its Bay
Area office, to prepare a Relocation Plan for consideration by the Board of Trustees at the August 4,
2025 meeting. Under the OPC proposal, OPC will perform the following tasks to inform the Relocation
Plan:
• Interview the Project households (up to one hour per household) to collect information on
household size and composition, number of bedrooms in dwelling, members with
disabilities and nature of the disability, preferred language, household income, current rent,
and special needs related to relocation.
• Research the marketplace for available permanent housing options and establish housing
costs.
• Analyze tenant data and market study results and incorporate research data into a written
Plan.
• Prepare a description of the project and relocation schedule, relocation advisory services
program, relocation payments to be made, the need for last resort housing, a cost estimate
for carrying out the Plan, and identification of the source of the necessary funds.
• Present the draft Relocation Plan to the District and revise as directed by the District.
• Prepare a general notice concerning the availability of the Plan for public review for
issuance by the District, as required, 30 days prior to its proposed approval (the Project
tenants will be provided an Advisory Notice regarding the comment period with access to
a copy of the Relocation Plan); and
• Include written or oral comments concerning the Plan as an attachment when it is
forwarded to the Board of Trustees for approval.
All current tenants will have approximately thirteen months (through June 30, 2026) to plan for
relocation to nearby housing in the same school district and utilize the relocation assistance that will
be provided. This is far beyond the minimum 90-day timeframe permitted by the Relocation Assistance
Law.15 The District Chancellor has reached out to the superintendents of the local K-12 school districts
to discuss strategies to minimize the disruption to affected children.
Availability of Cupertino Rental Units
With respect to the availability of Cupertino Rental Units, the Staff Report is incorrect for the reasons
stated in the Prometheus Letter at p. 2, Item, 2. Prometheus estimates there are 331 available rental
units in Cupertino per the California Department of Finance report cited in the Staff Report.
Prometheus has further stated in its opposition letter that it currently has approximately 90 available
units in its real estate portfolio alone. (Prometheus Letter, p. 2, Item 2.) It is important to note that
Prometheus has confirmed in its opposition letter that it has offered to accommodate current Property
residents looking to move to a nearby Prometheus Cupertino property after close of escrow on the
14 The May 6, 2025 City Council Staff Report (“Staff Report”) supporting the Urgency Ordinance contains the false
assertion that the District’s relocation plan will require residents be given a minimum of 120 days to vacate. (See
Staff Report at p. 2; but see Exhibit 14.)
15 Gov. Code § 7267.3.
City of Cupertino City Council
Page 5
4908-8520-8639v2/024031-0028
Property through June 30, 2026. For current Property residents, Prometheus has further stated it will
waive application fees, and upon conditions being met, reduce deposit amounts and offer to residents
of the Property all new lease concessions being offered at the time.16
WRIT CAUSES OF ACTION
For the reasons stated above, the Student Housing Project serves a critical need for the District’s
underserved students. The District Board of Trustees is firmly committed to making student housing a
reality for its students after a decade of planning and searching for a viable housing project. The District
Board has authorized the filing of a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief to judicially set aside the Ordinance, should it be adopted, and seek damages, relying
on the arguments set forth below.
The Ordinance Does Not Meet The Legal Standard For Urgency Legislation.
State law places strict requirements on the adoption of urgency ordinances under Government Code
section 65858. As some jurisdictions have misused this procedural tool, in 2023 the Attorney General
issued a letter to cities and counties statewide to provide guidance and “encourage[] local jurisdictions
to review their existing urgency ordinances for validity.”17 The letter further advised developers,
property owners and permit applicants “that jurisdictions with insufficiently supported urgency
ordinances are vulnerable to legal challenge under existing case law.”18
Government Code section 65858 (a) requires jurisdictions to make written legislative findings that
“there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare,” and that the approval
of entitlements for certain land uses “would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare.”
An urgency ordinance’s findings must document the nature of the threat to public health, safety, or
welfare with support from specific and demonstrable facts, not merely policy preferences or
speculative concerns. Courts have held that an urgency ordinance can only be justified by “situations
where an approval of an entitlement of use was imminent.”19 “[M]ere inquiries, requests, and
meetings…cannot possibly present [the required] threat.”20 Failure to make the required findings
renders an urgency ordinance invalid as a matter of law.21
Here, the Ordinance makes only conclusory findings unsupported by any evidence of any actual and
imminent threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Similarly, the staff report in support of the
Ordinance does not even purport to provide factual support for a finding that there exists an immediate
“threat to public health, safety, or welfare.”
Rather than the required current and immediate “threat to public health, safety, or welfare,” the record
here establishes that the City simply wishes to prevent the sale of the Property and thereby prevent the
reuse and renovation of older housing stock for a student housing project that will accommodate at
least 332 students within walking distance of De Anza College. This action runs counter to the public
16 Prometheus Letter p. 2
17 Attorney General of California, Letter Regarding Urgency Ordinances, dated July 17, 2023. [Exhibit 15.]
18 Id.
19 Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1418-19, as modified
on denial of reh'g (July 19, 1999); see also California Charter Schools Association v. City of Huntington Park
(2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 362, 370-71.
20 Id. at 371.
21 Id. at 365.
City of Cupertino City Council
Page 6
4908-8520-8639v2/024031-0028
health, safety, or welfare concerns associated with the well-documented City-and state-wide shortage
of student housing. The shortage is so dire that the State Assembly is currently considering an
emergency proposal to require colleges to allow students to sleep in their cars overnight.22 And the
District’s Chancellor reports that 4.4 out of 10 students in the College District attest to housing
insecurity.23
Further, there are no current and immediate threats to the public health, safety, or welfare regarding
current residents of the Property. Contrary to the unsupported assertions in the Ordinance, as explained
in the Background section above, the District has committed allowing all current residents to stay in
their residences at their current rent through June 2026. Moreover, the District will of course provide
residents with relocation assistance in compliance with California law, including moving expenses,
relocation advisory services, and rental assistance payments as applicable. As noted above, the District
is also working with local K-12 school districts to allow students remain in their local schools after
relocation to comparable housing and Prometheus has offered to accommodate current residents
looking to move to a nearby, comparable Prometheus Cupertino Neighborhood: (1) application fees
will be waived; (2) upon conditions being met, a reduced deposit of $99 (or if conditions not met, the
deposit is generally $500); and they would also be eligible for all new lease concessions being offered
at the time. 24
Finally, the ordinance purports to prevent the District from exercising its authority as an entity of state
government and public community college district to acquire the Property for a “public project” (i.e.,
student housing) and require residents to vacate subject to the requirement that the District provide
relocation services and benefits in accordance with the Relocation Assistance Law. Because no City
entitlement or permit is required for the Student Housing Project, the City is preempted by the
provisions of Education Code section 70902 and the Relocation Assistance Law from enacting an
ordinance that prohibits the District from exercising its lawful authority under the Education Code and
the Relocation Assistance Law.25 Here, the Ordinance conflicts with state law within the meaning of
Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, because the Ordinance contradicts and enters a
field which has been fully occupied by state law.26
The Ordinance Would Be Adjudicatory in Purpose and Effect.
Although local agency code amendments are considered legislative acts, there is no reasonable dispute
that the Ordinance is specifically designed to target the sale of the Property. The nature of a decision-
making body does not determine whether an act is adjudicatory or legislative, nor do the characteristics
of the decision-making process or the breadth of the body’s discretion. (See Pacifica Corp. v. City of
Camarillo (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 168, 176.) Given its targeted nature, the Ordinance is adjudicatory
in nature, and it must be supported by findings and evidence in the record. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5.)
22 See AB-90 Introduced by Assembly Member Jackson January 6, 2025; Politico from April 13, 2025,
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/13/ca-students-living-in-cars-00287409. [Exhibit 16.]
23 See Los Altos Town Crier from April 15, 2025, https://www.losaltosonline.com/schools/cupertino-residents-
disappointed-by-foothill-de-anza-s-housing-project/article_a599c241-a046-486d-b604-0a7b767bd029 [Exhibit 17.]
24 See Prometheus Letter at p. 2, Item 4.
25 See Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 7 (“A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary,
and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.”); Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40
Cal.3d 277, 290.
26 Bravo Vending v. City of Rancho Mirage (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 383, 396.
City of Cupertino City Council
Page 7
4908-8520-8639v2/024031-0028
Here the record contains evidence of the local and statewide student housing crisis, the District’s eleven
distinct characteristics of the Property that enable it to be appropriately retrofit as student housing,27
the infeasibility of the District constructing new student housing from the ground up,28 the rental
market research shown in the Prometheus letter, and the contract with the relocation consultant the
District approved at the May 5, 2025 Board of Trustees meeting to assist current residents.29
Even if Legislative, the Ordinance Would Be Arbitrary and Capricious.
A legislative action by a local agency will be overturned by a court if the action is arbitrary, capricious,
wholly lacking in evidentiary support, or fails to conform to the procedures required by law. (Fullerton
Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 779, 786.) There must be a legally
sufficient connection between the regulation in question and a legitimate governmental purpose.
(Loewenstein v. City of Lafayette (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 718, 731.)
The Ordinance cannot meet this standard. A ban on the creation of student housing through the reuse
and renovation of older housing stock is inherently arbitrary, supporting housing for one group of
people (existing residents) at the expense of another group (College District students) that is arguably
in greater need.
The Ordinance Requires Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality
Act (“CEQA”) Contrary to the Staff Report.
CEQA mandates environmental review prior to discretionary government decisions (termed
“projects”), including decisions to adopt an ordinance. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(a).) Action by a public
agency is a “project” subject to CEQA only if the action might result in a physical change in the
environment. (Pub. Res. Code § 21065.) The definition of the term “project” requires that the scope
of a proposed action be examined broadly to determine whether an activity meets this test. (14 Cal
Code Regs § 15378.) “Project” is defined to include the “whole of an action” undertaken, supported,
or authorized by a public agency that “has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in
the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (14 Cal
Code Regs § 15378(a).)
Here, the Property sits approximately 0.35 miles southwest of the College District’s De Anza College
campus and was selected for purchase due in large part to that proximity. If the Ordinance is not
adopted and the Property is converted to housing for students in the College District, it is likely that
there will be a substantial drop in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) associated with the Property due to
the intentionally short “commute” for 332 students to campus and the shuttle service the District
intends to provide students as part of the Student Housing program.30 Given that there are very limited
housing options near campus, those 332 students would need to live further away if the Ordinance is
27 See https://foothill.edu/gov/academic-senate/2024-25/apr7/2025-03-10%20FHDA%20Housing%20Update.pdf
[Exhibit 18.]
28 https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/fhda/Board.nsf/files/DENM9G5A260E/$file/2025-03-
10%20FHDA%20Housing%20Update.pdf [Exhibit 18, Slide 14.]
29 https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/fhda/Board.nsf/Public [See, Exhibit 14.]
30 https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/fhda/Board.nsf/files/DFJU2579E25A/$file/2025-04-07%20Housing%20Update.pdf
“The student rent will include all furnishings, utilities, internet access, and transportation shuttle service to/from
Foothill College, De Anza College, the Sunnyvale Center, and the Student Housing”. [See, Exhibit 19.]
City of Cupertino City Council
Page 8
4908-8520-8639v2/024031-0028
adopted. As such, the Ordinance will result in higher levels of VMT, which need to be examined
through the environmental review process.
The Ordinance is Inconsistent with the General Plan.
The Ordinance is void ab initio, based on its inconsistency with the City’s General Plan. The City is a
general law city; its subservient regulations must be consistent with the City's General Plan. “The tail
does not wag the dog. The general plan is the charter to which the ordinance must conform.” (Lesher
Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 541.) If a municipal ordinance
conflicts with the General Plan, it is “invalid at the time it is passed” and a “void statute or ordinance
cannot be given effect.” (Id. at 544.)
The Ordinance will effectively limit the District’s provision of student housing, which runs counter to
the Housing Element of the General Plan. Strategy HE-7.3.1 expressly calls out the importance of
partnering with organizations like De Anza College in “addressing local and regional housing issues.”
Similarly, Strategy HE-7.3.2 calls for coordination with local school districts, explicitly including
colleges, to identify housing needs and concerns. Finally, Strategy HE-1.3.10 includes pursuing
“innovative and alternative housing options that provide greater flexibility and affordability in the
housing stock that would address housing needs for,” inter alia, students and lower-income
households.
It would be hypocritical for the City to undermine the College District’s efforts to secure housing for
332 students given the General Plan’s emphasis on promoting collaboration with the College District
to find innovative housing solutions. Moreover, the Sale is to be funded with money allocated by City
taxpayers through 2020’s Measure G to increase opportunities for Community College students by
acquiring affordable student housing.
THE ORDINANCE VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION.
The Ordinance also violates the United States Constitution. The District is prepared to file a claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, among other constitutional claims detailed below. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the District
would be entitled to a damages award and attorneys' fees from the City.
Equal Protection
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment will impose liability on the
governmental agency responsible. (Village of Willowbrook v. Olech (2000) 528 U.S. 562.) U.S.
Supreme Court “cases have recognized successful equal protection claims brought by a “class of one,”
where the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly
situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” (Id.) A violation occurs
when a landowner is treated differently from other, similarly situated, landowners for example through
“intentional and arbitrary discrimination… occasioned by express terms of a statute.” (Id. at 564.)
Moreover, a decision based merely on negative attitudes of neighbors of a project is a violation of
equal protection. (City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985) 473 U.S. 432.) An “equal
protection claim contains the following essential elements: (1) plaintiff was treated differently from
other similarly situated [plaintiffs]; (2) the difference in treatment was intentional; and (3) there was
no rational basis for the difference in treatment. (Genesis Environmental Services v. San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 597, 605.)
City of Cupertino City Council
Page 9
4908-8520-8639v2/024031-0028
Here, the Property is in a class of one. The District selected the Property for student housing given
the following eleven criteria:
• Located within a one-mile radius of the De Anza campus.
• Site is not adjacent to any single-family residential areas on more than one side.
• Minimum size is one (1) acre.
• Site does not have any known environmental or geotechnical defects.
• Site is not abutting or adjacent to any known watersheds.
• If the site is improved, improvements have no known environmental conditions that
require remediation.
• Site does not have stands of mature trees and w/o protected flora or fauna.
• Site must have good vehicular access and existing curb cuts.
• Site must have good access to retail and transportation amenities.
• Site is one parcel or has contiguous ownership (one owner).
• Site has no deed restrictions or covenants that affect the district’s ability to utilize it
as intended.31
Although there is housing stock that Prometheus has available for all displaced residents, under the
requirements for comparable housing under the Relocation Assistance Law, there are at least 109
comparable properties within a 10-mile Radius of the Property where existing residents could relocate,
there is only one such Property within walking distance of the De Anza campus.
The City has manifestly designed the Ordinance to prevent the sale of the Property in particular, and
in response to complaints by a vocal minority of the residents. The Staff Report contains absolutely no
finding of the number of residents who believe they face “imminent harm” from the District’s purchase
of the Property. Nor does the Staff Report give any consideration to the number of residents who may
decide that the District’s relocation services (as summarized above) ameliorate any alleged “imminent
harm.” Both the Ordinance itself and the Staff Report acknowledge that the Ordinance is specifically
targeted at the Property. At the April 2, 2025 City Council meeting, with no related item on the agenda
and following public complaints regarding the sale of the Property, Mayor Chao and City
Councilmembers directed staff to prepare for a “study session” on ordinances that have elsewhere
prevented the conversion of multifamily housing to student housing and to contact the College District
to advise that “this could be an issue” with regard to the planned purchase of the Property. Given the
dire need for student housing, described above, the unique combination of the Property’s
characteristics that render it ideal for student housing, and the ample available replacement housing for
current residents, there is no rational basis for the Ordinance. Therefore, the City is treating the District
differently than other parties wishing to use multi-family residential property for permitted purposes
31 https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/fhda/Board.nsf/Public [Exhibit 20, Measure G Projects, Item No. 21.]
City of Cupertino City Council
Page 10
4908-8520-8639v2/024031-0028
in the City in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Indeed, the Ordinance expressly only applies to
units “that are owned, operated, or otherwise controlled by one or more accredited post-secondary
educational institutions.”
Substantive Due Process
Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments may impose liability for
undue interference with the use of land not merely because it deprives the land of all value but also
because the regulation itself is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. (Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
(2005) 544 U.S. 528 [failure to advance a legitimate state interest may violate the right to substantive
due process].) The “core of the concept [is] protection against arbitrary action” and applies to actions
by both the legislative and executive branches. (County of Sacramento v. Lewis (1998) 523 U.S. 833,
845.) Legislation must “have a real and substantial relation to the objective sought to be obtained.”
(PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) 447 U.S. 74, 84-85.)
“Legislatures may not, under the guise of the police power impose restrictions that are unnecessary
and unreasonable upon the use of private property or the pursuit of useful activities.” (State of
Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge (1928) 278 U.S. 116, 121.) For example, denying
or revoking a land use approval merely because neighbors object to a project is a violation of
substantive due process. (Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd v. City of Monterey (9th Cir. 1990) 920
F.2d 1496.) So too here, preventing the Sale of the Property because of unidentified and unquantified
“tenant objections” is similarly a violation of the District’s substantive due process rights.
Moreover, zoning regulations such as the Ordinance that result in “spot zoning” however, receive
heightened scrutiny. Spot zoning exists when a small area is given fewer (or greater) rights than the
surrounding property. This type of zoning has been described as subjecting an “island” of property to
restrictions different from those in the “sea” of property around it. (Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino
(1946) 29 Cal.2d 332, 340; see also Avenida San Juan P’ship v. City of San Clemente (2011) 201
Cal.App.4th 1256, 1268 (finding zoning invalid).)
The pointed nature of this Ordinance that on its face directly targets the Property is sufficiently
egregious and outrageous that it offends basic principles of decency and fairness. It is patently clear
that if adopted, the Ordinance would violate the District’s substantive due process rights.
Procedural Due Process
If government action depriving a person of property “survives substantive due process scrutiny, it must
still be implemented in a fair manner,” in accordance with the principles of procedural due process.
(Salerno, supra, 481 U.S. at 746.) Such “principles require reasonable notice and opportunity to be
heard before governmental deprivation of a significant property interest.” (Horn v. County of Ventura
(1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612.) Throughout the process, a landowner is entitled to notice and a hearing,
a decision based upon factual findings rather than speculation, and a right of review of the decision.”
(Id. at 1201.) Although due process requirements generally do not apply to legislative actions, they
may when the action has a particularized effect on a landowner, as here where the Ordinance is
expressly targeted at the Property. (Harris v. County of Riverside (9th Cir. 1990) 904 F.2d 497.)
Moreover, the Ordinance as written is constitutionally defective because it is so vague that people of
ordinary intelligence cannot understand what conduct is prohibited. The Ordinance purports to
“prohibit” “the conversion of multiple-family use to student housing within a one-half mile radius of
City of Cupertino City Council
Page 11
4908-8520-8639v2/024031-0028
Foothill-DeAnza Community College.” The Ordinance nowhere defines what is meant by
“conversion,” as used in the Ordinance.32
The Ordinance expressly and intentionally seeks to interfere with the District’s contract to purchase
the Property, exposing the City to liability for damages. As discussed above, the City proposes to enact
the Ordinance without lawful jurisdiction under Government Code section 65858, with the express
intent of interfering with the District’s contract to purchase the Property. If enacted, the Ordinance will
have cause significant economic loss to both the District and Prometheus and the City will seek
recovery of its damages.
Finally, the Ordinance would violate the United States Constitution as an unlawful impairment of
contract. The very foundation of the Ordinance as articulated in the staff report and Ordinance itself is
the District’s “contract to purchase the [Property]” and the need to prevent the District from doing so.
The United States Constitution (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) and California Constitution (Article I,
Section 9) each prevent the City from passing laws that substantially impair an existing contractual
relationship unless the City has a significant and legitimate purpose and the law is reasonable and
appropriate for the intended purpose. Here, the Ordinance would dramatically impact the District’s
contract to purchase the Property and, as discussed in detail above, the City has neither identified a
significant and legitimate purpose for that interference nor that the Ordinance is reasonable and
appropriate.
Impairment of Measure G Bonds to Acquire the Property
As discussed above, the Measure G project list includes “plan, construct, acquire or contribute to
affordable employee and student housing units.” The Board of Trustees at the May 5, 2025 meeting
adopted Resolution 2025-21 authorizing the issuance and sale of Measure G bonds to finance the
acquisition of the Property in accordance with the Purchase and Sale Agreement.33 The Ordinance if
adopted will manifestly impair the ability of the District to issue Measure G bonds to acquire the
Property.
CONCLUSION
As set forth above, the District has a number of statutory and constitutional arguments available to it
in contesting this unlawful Ordinance. We strongly urge the City Council not to adopt the Ordinance.
To use the words of the Attorney General, the City Council’s adoption of the urgency resolution is a
manifest misuse of this procedural tool.
Very truly yours,
SEAN B. ABSHER
Partner
Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth LLP
enc.
32 As noted above, the word “conversion” as used in the City’s Zoning Ordinance relates to changing the type of
ownership of a parcel of land to a “common interest development,” which the Staff Report concedes is not the case
here. (Staff Report at p. 2.)
33 https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/fhda/Board.nsf/Public [Exhibit 21, Board Business, Item No. 26.]
City of Cupertino City Council
Page 12
4908-8520-8639v2/024031-0028
cc: Floy Andrews
FloyA@cupertino.gov
Vrunda Shah
vshah@awattorneys.com
John Fox
jfox@awattorneys.com
Tina Kapoor, Acting City Manager
tinak@cupertino.gov
Ben Fu, Community Development Director
benjaminf@cupertino.gov
Kirsten Squarcia, MMC
CityClerk@Cupertino.gov
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:regarding Item #9, this is what I sent to the FHDA board yesterday
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 4:01:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
From: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 2:19 PM
To: 'Joel Cadiz' <cadizjoel@fhda.edu>; 'Lee Lambert' <lambertlee@fhda.edu>; 'Omar Torres'
<torresomar@fhda.edu>; 'Kristina Whalen' <whalenkristina@fhda.edu>; 'Christopher Dela Rosa'
<delarosachristopher@fhda.edu>; 'Laura Casas' <casaslaura@fhda.edu>; 'Peter Landsberger'
<landsbergerpeter@fhda.edu>; 'Pearl Cheng' <chengpearl@fhda.edu>; 'Terry Godfrey'
<godfreyterry@fhda.edu>; 'Alexander Gvatua' <gvatuaalexander@fhda.edu>
Subject: Closed Session Please PAUSE purchase of Apartment Complex
Dear Board Members,
Please PAUSE purchase of Apartment Complex. We have elected you to be
fiduciaries of our public money and this proposed project is a mis-use of our
public funds.
1. You are likely aware that the City of Cupertino is considering a
moratorium on converting multi-family housing to college-student
housing. If you sign off today, you might be stuck with an apartment
complex that FHDA will not be able to use for student housing.
2. The property is overpriced, this is a flagrant mis-use of public funds.
Where are the comps? The most recent comp is: $710K per unit vs $433K
per unit at The Villages in Cupertino. You are proposing to pay over
60% more than a comparable apartment complex – this is inexcusable.
The comparison is equally inexcusable at over 60% premium when
looking at the price per acre - $12.4M vs $7.6M ($67M/5.4 acres vs
$207M/27.1 acres).
https://www.siliconvalley.com/2025/04/03/cupertino-home-economy-
apple-property-real-estate-apartment-jobs-tech/ One thing that makes the
Terrace Apartments attractive is its proximity to K-12, a half a mile walk
to school – this is a feature that FHDA does not need and should not be
paying for.
3. FHDA has not done due diligence – looking at only 25% of the units is
not due diligence, particularly when we are looking at the public’s money.
There’s black mold. There’s cockroaches crawling out of electrical outlets.
And the property-owner has an active lawsuit against a roofing company
for shoddy work in 2016 that caused significant damage to the apartments,
before they purchased the property in 2022.
4. There has been zero substantive outreach to stakeholders, in contrast to
what has been reported at the board meetings. Meetings with CUSD were
scheduled and canceled. Another meeting has been scheduled today.
That’s a bit late, don’t you think? Meetings with the City of Cupertino
were also scheduled and canceled. When the Chancellor spoke during
public comment at the City Council, it was unfortunate that he walked out
while others were expressing their concerns. Had he stayed 7 more
minutes, it would have at least made it look like FHDA had a genuine
interest in the concerns of the community. : (
5. The information on how the apartments would be managed as to rent and
oversight and rental prices has not been worked out. This should have
happened first.
6. The apartments were built in 1971. There is no way that these apartments
will ever be as seismically safe as new construction, as energy-efficient, as
modern, or as manageable. How will the district handle security? Most
dorms have a managed point of entry. You can do better.
7. Buying something old for so much money will make the district look bad
and demonstrates a misuse of funds.
College of San Mateo is building new for less money!
https://www.smccd.edu/facilities/projects/dw/dwstudenthousing.php
Ohlone College is building new:
https://www.ohlone.edu/affordablestudenthousing
8. If FHDA can build new for staff in Los Altos Hills, then FHDA can build
new (or do something that is more modern) for students. I hope that you’re
reaching out to the Aloft Hotel, which was built in 2013 and is in default.
San Jose State did a retrofit of the Fairmont Hotel for student-housing, so
can FHDA.
9. FHDA is NOT being community-minded. The proposed $100M ($67M
for the purchase and $28M for the remodel) does not create housing. The
community is funding this project, but the project would permanently
evict K-12 students from residing in 94 homes that are just a half-mile
from K-12 schools. That is bad City Planning. The purchase of the
property would convert it to state property that would not be subject to
property tax or future city zoning. It is also disheartening that FHDA is
trying to avoid union labor on this project. Don’t our students deserve
skilled and trained labor? Just look at the recent County Dept. of
Environmental Health closure at Whole Foods, that’s what happens when
you don’t have union labor.
10. If FHDA pursues this purchase, the likelihood of being able to raise
money in the future will be diminished. The Colleges’ reputation will also
be damaged and unfortunately, most of it will land wrongly on De Anza’s
new president. Furthermore, to say that the property could generate future
value in the slides indicates that the district is getting into real-estate
speculation, which is not okay.
Please use our public funds wisely, that’s what we elected you to do.
Sincerely, Rhoda Fry, 40+ year resident
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:5/6/2025 Agenda #9 YES ON MORATORIUM
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 4:00:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
Please vote YES on Moratorium.
Regardless of whether you think FHDA should convert this apartment to student-housing or
not, please vote YES on the Moratorium.
We need to have an open dialog with the college district, which they have refused to do.
A moratorium will provide an opportunity for an open dialog.
I have been testifying at the board meetings for nearly 2 years where the college has been
focusing on more market rate housing and less affordable housing! They are already saying
how the complex could generate future value! They are also refusing to state the target rent.
See slide snip below:
FHDA has not made themselves available to meet with residents or the City and only met with
the CUSD Superintendent yesterday before the FHDA board meeting (the purchase was
announced as early as February 2!).
If someone else bought the complex, they would not be allowed to evict the tenants under
AB1482 (unless they tore it down or made it uninhabitable with remodeling). I have to wonder
whether this is also the case for this purchase. We must protect our residents.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1482
For the longer term, any City Planner would tell you that it is a bad idea to exclude K-12
students from higher-density housing that is under a half mile from K-12 schools. I asked the
board to let the residents with K-12 students to stay until they are ready to leave and replace
them with staff with children. They did not listen.
The college district is using our bond money that we are paying for on our tax bills to evict our
neighbors.
The district should be creating housing, not displacing residents.
And they won't be paying property tax on the $67M purchase!!! Other Bay Area community
colleges are building housing on their campuses for less money.
Please let's pause and have an open dialog.
Please vote YES on the Moratorium.
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Liang Chao
Subject:Please approve agenda item 9 to pass interim urgent ordinance for a moratorium on conversion of rental housing
to student housing in Cupertino.
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 3:56:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
[Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident]
Dear City Clerk,
Would you please include the below in written communications for the
upcoming city council.
Subject: Immediate Action Required: Prohibit the Conversion of
McClellan Terrace Rental Units into Student Housing
Dear Mayor Liang Chao and Members of the Cupertino City Council,
I write to you with urgency and resolve to pass agenda item 9 today on
the 05/06/25 city council meeting. Please implement a moratorium on
the conversion of existing affordable rental housing units to student
housing. Please follow this up with a request for a future agenda item at
the earliest to request immediate legislative action to prohibit the
permanent conversion of existing Cupertino rental housing into
other uses such as student housing in Cupertino. The proposed
conversion of 94 long-term rental units at McClellan Terrace into
student-specific housing is a direct threat to the stability of our
neighborhoods, the integrity of our housing stock, and the well-being of
our public school families.
McClellan Terrace is not a speculative parcel—it is home to 94
Cupertino families, including nearly 66 school-aged
children enrolled across four nearby schools in CUSD and FUHSD,
all within walking distance. It is where 54 cohorts of CUSD and
FUHSD alumni lived and studied at since 1971. It is where the next 100
cohorts of alumni must live and study until 2125 preserving rental
housing use at that location in its current or some future form but
without changing use to exclude rental housing for families.
Allowing its conversion into student housing would be nothing short
of mass displacement—pushing out established families in favor of
transient occupancy and undermining the foundational goals of our
city’s Housing Element and General Plan. Do not believe a FHDA offer
of assistance to one cohort. Future cohorts will be denied the use of
those 94 units for housing and access to our schools.
Cupertino currently lacks any ordinance to prevent this. In contrast, San
Francisco’s Municipal Code Section 317 provides a clear and
enforceable framework that protects existing rental housing from
demolition or conversion without stringent findings, including one-for-
one replacement and tenant protection. Section 317 explicitly curtails
conversions that result in the permanent loss of housing units used
for long-term tenancy, and requires discretionary review, public
hearings, and a full accounting of tenant and community impacts.
I urge Cupertino city council to pass the urgent ordinance today and
immediately thereafter to adopt protections without delay and to take
the following actions:
1. Enact an ordinance that prohibits the conversion of existing
rental housing—such as McClellan Terrace—into permanent
student housing or transient occupancy uses;
2. Implement a policy modeled after San Francisco’s Section 317,
requiring:
Full public hearings and discretionary review for any
proposed conversion or demolition of rental units;
One-for-one replacement of all lost rental units with deed-
restricted, permanently affordable housing;
Mandatory tenant impact and displacement analysis, including
effects on public schools;
The proposal at McClellan Terrace is not just a planning issue—it is
a moral and civic crisis. To stand by and allow the removal of 94
deeply rooted families from our community to make room for
speculative student housing is wholly unacceptable. Cupertino must act
swiftly to close this policy loophole and demonstrate its commitment to
preserving family housing, school stability, and neighborhood integrity.
I urge you to bring forward this ordinance at the next city council
meeting free you pass the urgent ordinance today. Please protect the
current and future residents of McClellan Terrace and all future
generations of Cupertino renters and families that rent to live in
Cupertino allowing them to send their kids to CUSD and FUHSD
schools like Lincoln Elementary, Faria Elementary, Kennedy Middle,
Monta Vista High.
Please do not succumb to any threats of litigation from FHDA that may
choose to use our taxpayer money to litigate against the city and its
residents. Likewise I urge collaboration with the owners of existing
rental housing to help them be successful in running operations or
transacting to other operators of identical rental housing without
seeking change of use that denies use of the rental housing for current
and future families.
Sincerely,
San Rao (Cupertino and FHDA resident and voter)
From:louise saadati
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Written Communication for Item 9
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 3:53:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please include the below in Written Communications for
5/6/25 City Council Meeting.
Dear Mayor Chaio, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmember
Mohan, Fruen and Wang:
Regarding Item 9, please Do Nothing on the McClellan
Terraces Apartment conversion into below market furnished
student housing.
This is being done through another jurisdiction and the
Cupertino City Council should not interfere and obstruct this
action by the Foothill DeAnza Community College
trustees.
Mayor Chiao’s detailed email has a lot of inaccuracies
to support obstruction of the conversion of the
McClellan Terraces Apartment. She has the
prerogative and usually speaks last but also usually
includes many inaccuracies and misstatements to
support her poor directing of the staff and city. She is
making unrealistic unfounded and unsupported
alternatives which if not outright impossible would
require a decade to untangle.
For the sake of increasing below market furnished
student housing, please do not do anything to obstruct this
immediate conversion.
Five years ago the voters approved Measure G to allow this
type of conversion. Do not block it.
Sincerely,
Louise Saadati
Sent from my iPhone
From:Xiangchen Xu
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Support Item 9 on tonight’s council agenda
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 3:50:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino Councilmembers,
I am a Cupertino resident. As a local taxpayer, I fully support the proposing moratorium on
converting existing rental units to student housing.
I believe it serves to protect our local interests. Please put my comments in public record.
Thanks a lot!
Best wishes,
Xiangchen Xu
From:Kun Li
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Agenda Item 9
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 3:48:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino Councilmembers,
I am a local resident living in Cupertino. I support the proposed moratorium on converting
existing rental units into student housing, listed as Item 9 on today's council meeting agenda. I
believe this ordinance will help protect our local residents' interests. As local taxpayers, we
stand united in backing it.
Thanks,
Kun
From:Anastasia Zorko
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Support Agenda Item #9: Vote YES on Moratorium
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 3:37:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
McClellan Terrace remains one of the few affordable housing options left in Cupertino.
Some of my friends lived in affordable housing in Cupertino and attended great schools such
as Kennedy Middle School and Monta Vista High School. The educational opportunities
available in this area are truly exceptional.
I wholeheartedly support De Anza’s vision for local student housing. It’s an outstanding
institution, and its students deserve the stability and focus that nearby housing can offer.
However, this progress shouldn’t come at the cost of existing or future residents—especially
those who rely on affordable housing to access Cupertino’s world-class public education.
My ask: Please vote YES on Agenda Item #9. Enact the moratorium—and in doing so, give us
the space to think bigger. I believe in Cupertino’s potential. We can provide student housing
for De Anza and preserve affordable housing for families. Let’s work toward solutions that
uplift everyone.
Sincerely,
Anastasia Zorko
From:Anne Ezzat
To:Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang; City Clerk
Subject:Please Approve Moratorium on the Conversion of Mulit-Famiily Housing to Student Housing
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 3:32:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Council Members Mohan, Fruen and Wang,
I am writing to request that the city impose a moratorium on the conversion of the McClellan
Terrace Apartments to student housing. It is bad public policy and bad financial policy. Overpaying
for this property and turning occupants out into the streets is an exercise in stupidity, particularly
when there are other options. To begin with:
1) DeAnza College has 112 acres to build any sort of housing they need for their students.
Why can’t housing be built there? Is the district trying to shift the cost of policing to the city?
2) There are a number of hotels in the area that are feeling the loss of traffic from reduced
business travel. Business that will likely never come back. This might be a good opportunity
for hotels to forge an alliance with the college. In effect, doing a test drive if you will since
we are faced with declining enrollment and do not know when that trend will reverse.
3) Why does the district want to kick occupants out of affordable housing? Based on the
fact there has been little or no discussion about whether the student housing will be
affordable or market rate, one can assume it will be market rate. So once again, truly
affordable housing is lost for the sake of greed. And this from a public entity.
4) Can these occupants even be evicted under AB 1482?
Please do not reward the bad behaviors of the district.
Thank you for your time. I hope this will be added to the public record.
Best regards,
Brooke Ezzat
From:anantha korrapati
To:City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:city council 5/6/2025 agenda item #9 vote yes on moratorium
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 3:02:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the 05/6/2025 agenda item #9 vote yes
on moratorium
The problem:
The McClellan Terrace Apartment complex is less than half of a mile from grades K-12
schools. The Foothill-De Anza Community College District wants to buy the apartment
complex for use by community college students. Not allowing families to live within a half
mile of our K-12 schools is bad for our city. Presently, over 60 K-12 students live in the 94
homes. There are hardly any comparable apartments available in the school district (rent, size,
2br/2ba) and the loss of those students also means losing teacher jobs.
K-12 students should be able to walk to school whenever possible. These 94 homes should not
be removed from our City for use by our K-12 students.
The college district should build on campus so that land in Cupertino can be used for all sorts
of housing.
If the college district buys the property, it won't be paying property taxes. Taxes raised by
other city residents will have to cover the cost of public safety for these 94 homes.
Other community colleges have built housing on campus.
Spending over $700K per unit and another $28M of our public money, raised from our
property tax bill, is too much money. Spending about $1M for each unit makes no sense,
especially when a comparable complex in Cupertino, The Villages, just sold for $430K per
unit.
Evicting Cupertino residents does not solve the housing-affordability problem. The college
district should create housing with our public money, not evict our residents.
There are many more reasons…. I’ve already raised an older kid in this neighborhood and can
see the changes around the place with college students moving in. I see a lot of age in
appropriate and disturbing incidents all along the path my middle schooler walks now, I no
longer feel safe. I strongly believe the elementary and middle schoolers need a healthier
environment to play, stroll, walk and bike safely.
Kind regards,
Anantha
From:Praneeth Kollareddy
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Council Meeting 5/6/25 item 9. Vote yes on moratorium
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 2:22:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council Members,
I am writing to urge the City Council to approve the moratorium to prevent the purchase of the
McClellan Terrace apartments.
Displacing current Cupertino residents and students is not a viable solution to provide more
housing for De Anza College students. De Anza College itself possesses significant land and
could explore more efficient space planning to accommodate student housing needs on its own
property.
Furthermore, the high cost of land in Cupertino makes the acquisition much more expensive
than new construction of housing units on De Anza property.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter.
Sincerely,
Praneeth Kollareddy
From:Purnima Banerjee
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fw: McClellan Apartments
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 1:54:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please put this into written communications.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Purnima Banerjee <purnima.banerjee8@yahoo.com>
To: lchao@cupertino.gov <lchao@cupertino.gov>; kmoore@cupertino.gov <kmoore@cupertino.gov>;
smohan@cupertino.gov <smohan@cupertino.gov>; jrfruen@cupertino.gov <jrfruen@cupertino.gov>;
rwang@cupertino.gov <rwang@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 at 01:41:14 PM PDT
Subject: McClellan Apartments
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, and Council-members Mohan, Fruen, and
Wang
In 2012, San Francisco voted to bar the conversion of rental housing to student-only
units. It was unacceptable for colleges to be buying up rental housing for out-of-area
students and evicting San Francisco residents. This ordinance was authored by then
San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener (now a State Senator).
It is outrageous that Foothill-De Anza is planning to evict Cupertino residents from a
very affordable apartment complex and rent the apartments to students from outside
the district, outside California, and outside the United States.
Please put aside all your differences between council members and enact an
Urgency Ordinance like what San Francisco did. We must protect Cupertino
residents, and public school students from losing their homes. Those residents will be
unable to locate comparable housing at a similar price point.
Thank You
Purnima Banerjee
Cupertino Resident
From:S B
To:City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; City Council; City Manager"s Office
Subject:Agenda item 9
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 1:22:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Council member Wang and the city Clerk
Please include the following email on gender item 9 as part of the written communications for
today.
To the Mayor, Vice Mayor and council members
I am writing to strongly urge you to approve both the interim urgency moratorium on the
conversion of multi-family housing to student housing within a half-mile radius of
Foothill-De Anza Community College, and adopt a citywide resolution discouraging such
conversions.
This is especially critical in the tri-school area, where the apartment complex under
discussion serves as one of the few remaining sources of affordable housing for families.
Allowing its conversion to student housing would directly result in the displacement of long-
term residents, including many families with children attending local elementary, middle, and
high schools. A vote against this moratorium would effectively enable this displacement. If
council members claim to support affordable housing, their actions must align with that
commitment.
The claim that 300 homeless students urgently require local housing is not only unverified,
but also unlikely to reflect a steady or accurate need. Moreover, with over 50% of De Anza
students enrolled in online classes, it is clear that the majority do not need to live in
Cupertino.
It is also increasingly evident—based on public comments and statements from members of
the Foothill-De Anza board—that the real intention behind the push for this project is to
provide market-rate housing for international students, rather than addressing the needs of
truly low-income or homeless students in the community college system. This raises serious
concerns about equity and the true priorities behind this housing proposal.
Additionally, there appears to be a troubling connection between real estate interests and
campaign contributions made to current and former board members. This pattern
strongly suggests that the pressure to acquire and convert this complex may be driven less by
student welfare and more by external development agendas.
Instead of enabling displacement, the Foothill-De Anza district must pursue more sustainable
and responsible strategies to support both students and teachers:
Use bond provisions to provide subsidized housing by partnering with apartment
complexes and hotels in Cupertino and neighboring cities, rather than building new
units—benefiting needy students, staff and teachers.
Develop on-campus housing at the Foothill campus in Los Altos for students, while
focusing off-campus partnerships in Cupertino and nearby areas specifically to support
affordable housing for needy staff and teachers.
Furthermore, clustering college students near K–12 schools is inappropriate. The presence of
older students near elementary, middle, and high school children may have detrimental social
and behavioral impacts on these younger students and the surrounding neighborhood.
Please act in the interest of preserving stable, affordable communities for working families. I
urge you to vote in favor of both the moratorium and a broader resolution discouraging the
conversion of multi-family housing to student housing throughout Cupertino.
Thank you for your service and for considering the voices of families in this community.
regards
Sashi
From:Connie Cunningham
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:2025-5-6 City Council Agenda Item 9, Urgent Moratorium
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 1:05:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please include this email in Written Communications for this meeting.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers,
Subject: 2025-5-6 City Council Agenda Item 9
2a. 45-Day Temporary Moratorium on the Transition of
Multiple-Family Use Housing to Student Housing Within One Half Mile Radius of
Foothill-De Anza Community College in the City of Cupertino During the Pendency of
the City’s Review and Adoption of Permanent Zoning Regulations for Such Uses”; or
2b. Adopt Resolution No. 25-025 Encouraging the Building of Newly Constructed
Student Housing and Preserving Multiple-Family Use Housing By Preventing the
Conversion of Multiple-Family Use Housing to Student Housing Within the City of
Cupertino
The ill-advised draft ordinance and equally ill-advised resolution are oddly specific to
one category of vulnerable people who need housing in Cupertino: Students at De
Anza College. Choice 2a. is oddly specific to an area within a half mile radius of De
Anza College. Choice 2b excludes conversions for students in the whole City. De
Anza College is a highly regarded community college. De Anza Students are a
priceless resource for the future.
1. Question: How is this issue urgent? The Housing Element (Plan), part of the
General Plan, was discussed for 2-3 years and was approved by the State on
September 4, 2024. This Housing Element (Plan) established sites to allow housing
within Cupertino from Below Market Rate to Market Rate. Renters are specifically
mentioned, as are other vulnerable residents. This type of Ordinance or Resolution
had ample time to be considered during the Housing Element (Plan) process.
2. Question: Is this landlord being denied the right to sell the property to anyone who
chooses to buy it? It appears not. Just one use is being denied. Students, a priceless
resource for the future.
3. Question: Wouldn't the current tenants who spoke on April 2, 2025, be equally
upset by being displaced by any other use of this property? Would they be happier if
more expensive homes replaced theirs? Or other vulnerable people?
Comment: Below Market Rate (BMR) homes and apartments are scarce in
Cupertino. Market rate rental houses and apartments are scarce in Cupertino. The
Housing Element (Plan) was written to encourage housing. This ill-advised regulation
is written to specifically deny housing to a particular vulnerable group of people:
Students, our priceless resource for the future.
I urge the Council to choose Option 4. Do Nothing. The focus of this ill-advised policy
on conversions focuses on only one vulnerable group. The current tenants would be
evicted if a conversion for any other vulnerable group were selected or if market rate
homes or apartments were built.
Sincerely,
Connie L Cunningham, Self Only
Chair, Housing Commission
From:Devendar Reddy
To:City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor
Subject:City council 5/6/2025 agenda item #9 vote yes on moratorium
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 11:09:46 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi City Council Members
Rather than investing public funds to purchase an aging apartment complex—which, like an
older vehicle, may require ongoing maintenance and renovation—we respectfully propose an
alternative, community-based solution. We kindly ask that apartment complexes throughout
Cupertino consider designating 3 to 4 units each for student housing on a temporary basis.
This collaborative, short-term approach would meet the immediate needs of De Anza College
students while preserving stable housing for existing families and protecting enrollment in our
K–12 schools. It would also provide the Foothill-De Anza Community College District the
necessary time to develop dedicated student housing on land already owned by the district.
We respectfully suggest a 15-month interim period for this arrangement, allowing for
thoughtful planning and responsible use of public resources.
Thanks
Devendar
From:Devendar Reddy
To:City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:Re: City council 5/6/2025 agenda item #9 vote yes on moratorium
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 10:58:14 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
We also respectfully request that all apartment complexes in Cupertino consider designating 3
to 4 units for student housing during this interim period—across the city—while De Anza
College works toward building its own on-campus student housing facility.
A cooperative, short-term solution like this would avoid displacing families and protect the
stability of our K–12 schools. It would also give the college district time to plan sustainable
housing on land it already owns.
We propose this temporary arrangement for a period of 15 months, until De Anza completes
or advances construction of its dedicated student housing complex.
On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 10:51 AM Devendar Reddy <mreddydev@gmail.com> wrote:
Please put this message in written comments for agenda #9
Hi City Clerk/ Council Members
The problem:
The McClellan Terrace Apartment complex is less than half of a mile from grades K-12
schools. The Foothill-De Anza Community College District wants to buy the apartment
complex for use by community college students. Not allowing families to live within a half
mile of our K-12 schools is bad for our city. Presently, over 60 K-12 students live in the 94
homes. There are hardly any comparable apartments available in the school district (rent,
size, 2br/2ba) and the loss of those students also means losing teacher jobs.
City should not allow conversion of this property to student housing.
Here are some reasons -
K-12 students should be able to walk to school whenever possible. These 94 homes should
not be removed from our City for use by our K-12 students.
The college district should build on campus so that land in Cupertino can be used for all
sorts of housing.
If the college district buys the property, it won't be paying property taxes. Taxes raised by
other city residents will have to cover the cost of public safety for these 94 homes.
Other community colleges have built housing on campus.
Spending over $700K per unit and another $28M of our public money, raised from our
property tax bill, is too much money. Spending about $1M for each unit makes no sense,
especially when a comparable complex in Cupertino, The Villages, just sold for $430K per
unit.
Evicting Cupertino residents does not solve the housing-affordability problem. The college
district should create housing with our public money, not evict our residents.
Thanks
Devendar
From:Devendar Reddy
To:City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:City council 5/6/2025 agenda item #9 vote yes on moratorium
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 10:51:48 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please put this message in written comments for agenda #9
Hi City Clerk/ Council Members
The problem:
The McClellan Terrace Apartment complex is less than half of a mile from grades K-12
schools. The Foothill-De Anza Community College District wants to buy the apartment
complex for use by community college students. Not allowing families to live within a half
mile of our K-12 schools is bad for our city. Presently, over 60 K-12 students live in the 94
homes. There are hardly any comparable apartments available in the school district (rent, size,
2br/2ba) and the loss of those students also means losing teacher jobs.
City should not allow conversion of this property to student housing.
Here are some reasons -
K-12 students should be able to walk to school whenever possible. These 94 homes should not
be removed from our City for use by our K-12 students.
The college district should build on campus so that land in Cupertino can be used for all sorts
of housing.
If the college district buys the property, it won't be paying property taxes. Taxes raised by
other city residents will have to cover the cost of public safety for these 94 homes.
Other community colleges have built housing on campus.
Spending over $700K per unit and another $28M of our public money, raised from our
property tax bill, is too much money. Spending about $1M for each unit makes no sense,
especially when a comparable complex in Cupertino, The Villages, just sold for $430K per
unit.
Evicting Cupertino residents does not solve the housing-affordability problem. The college
district should create housing with our public money, not evict our residents.
Thanks
Devendar
From:Avinash Padmanabhan
To:City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:Opposition to the Conversion of Rental Housing into Homeless Student Housing
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 10:23:14 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the 05/06/25 city council meeting.
Best Regards,
Avinash
————-
I write to you as a concerned member of our community to express my strong opposition to
the proposal to convert McClellan Terrace into homeless student housing. I believe that this
initiative will have several negative implications for both the existing student population that
will be displaced and the safety of our community.
Firstly, the displacement of the current students residing in the converted rental properties will
inevitably lead to a decline in enrollment. Many of these students rely on the current proximity
to Lincoln/Kennedy/Monta Vista.
Secondly, the integration of homeless students into housing located so close to existing
schools could pose serious safety concerns. While I understand and empathize with the need to
provide housing for homeless students, ensuring the safety and security of our school
environments is paramount. There is enough evidence that shows that having homeless
shelters will cause problems
1. Immediate area around the homeless shelter will become a no go zone
2. Homeless folk will gather around the shelter and create a sidewalk environment that will
feel unsafe to kids who are most likely to use them.
3. It will become impossible to keep it clean
The welfare of both the student population in rental housing and those in neighboring
educational institutions must be carefully considered before proceeding with this project. I
urge the city council to explore alternative solutions that can accommodate homeless students
without displacing current residents and compromising our community's safety.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
From:Mahesh Gurikar
To:City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:Moratorium on conversion on conversion of rental housing to student housing Agenda item 9
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 10:21:34 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the 0/06/25 City Council
Meeting:
I strongly support the council pass an Interim Emergency Ordinance for a moratorium
on conversion of current rental housing to student dorms/housing in Cupertino. This
issue needs to be studied further and obtain input from the residents.
Thank you, Council Members.
Mahesh Gurikar
From:Susan Chan
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:City council 5/6/2025 agenda item #9 vote YES on moratorium
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 9:25:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council Members,
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the impending eviction of families
residing in the McClellan Terrace Apartment complex due to the recent sale of the
property to Foothill-De Anza College. This situation will place over 60 K-12 students
at risk of being displaced from the CUSD and FUHSD, which could further exacerbate
the enrollment challenges faced by our local schools.
The residents of McClellan Terrace were only informed about the sale and
subsequent eviction in March 2025, providing them with an insufficient amount of time
to process this life-altering news, find alternative housing, and ensure a stable
educational environment for their children. The potential displacement not only
disrupts the lives of these families but could also have serious ramifications on our
community as a whole by impacting both the CUSD and FUHSD enrollments.
A decision of this magnitude requires thoughtful consideration and advocacy from our
city leaders. Therefore, I respectfully urge the Cupertino City Council to intervene in
this matter and consider voting against allowing the conversion of the property from
family housing to student housing. Moreover, I request that you vote in favor of a
moratorium to provide adequate time and resources to explore viable alternatives
that prioritize the well-being and stability of our community families.
The city council has a pivotal opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to
representing the best interests of our community members, prioritizing the needs of
local families over larger enterprises. I implore you to take action that supports our
community’s future, ensuring that the voices and needs of our families are heard and
addressed.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I hope to see you set an example
of unwavering dedication to our community by safeguarding the future of McClellan
Terrace residents. I am confident that, with your support, we can work together
towards a solution that benefits all stakeholders involved.
Warm regards,
Susan Chan
1401 Aster Lane, Cupertino
From:Deepa Shah
To:City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:city council 5/6/2025 agenda item #9 vote yes on moratorium
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 9:10:50 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City clerk,
Please put this message in written comments for agenda #9
Dear City council.
The problem:
The McClellan Terrace Apartment complex is less than half of a mile from grades K-12 schools.
The
Foothill-De Anza Community College District wants to buy the apartment complex for use by
community
college students. Not allowing families to live within a half mile of our K-12 schools is bad for
our city.
Presently, over 60 K-12 students live in the 94 homes. There are hardly any comparable
apartments
available in the school district (rent, size, 2br/2ba) and the loss of those students also means
losing
teacher jobs.
The Solution:
On Tuesday, City Council will be considering a moratorium on multi-family conversions. It
requires a 4
out of 5 vote. I urge you to vote yes on moratorium for Agenda #9
K-12 students should be able to walk to school whenever possible. These 94 homes
should not be removed from our City for use by our K-12 students.
The college district should build on campus so that land in Cupertino can be used for all
sorts of housing.
If the college district buys the property, it won't be paying property taxes. Taxes raised
by other city residents will have to cover the cost of public safety for these 94 homes.
Other community colleges have built housing on campus. Spending over $700K per unit
and another $28M of our public money, raised from our property tax bill, is too much
money. Spending about $1M for each unit makes no sense, especially when a
comparable complex in Cupertino, The Villages, just sold for $430K per unit. Evicting
Cupertino residents does not solve the housing-affordability problem. The college
district should create housing with our public money, not evict our residents.
The McClellan Terrace Apartment complex is less than half of a mile from grades K-12 schools.
The
Foothill-De Anza Community College District wants to buy the apartment complex for use by
community
college students. Not allowing families to live within a half mile of our K-12 schools is bad for
our city. This will reduce school funding and eventually schools will close and teachers will lose
their jobs.
Please vote YES for the moratorium.
Best,
Deepa S
Cupertino Resident and homeowner
From:Helene Davis
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:McClellan Road Housing for De Anza Students
Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 9:06:04 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino Council members,
I am writing to express my opposition to Item 9 on the agenda for Tuesday, May
6: “Approval of an Interim Urgency Ordinance Imposing a Moratorium on the
Transition of Multiple-Family Use Housing to Student Housing within a One Half Mile
Radius of Foothill-De Anza Community College.”
I am in support of Foothill-De Anza purchasing this property for student housing. It will
be run as a non-profit and provide affordable housing for a subset of students that are
housing insecure or who commute from far away. A bonus is that they would be able
to walk or bike to school and this would cut down on traffic in that area.
De Anza has been an integral part of our community for years. We should support
them and look to the future - these students could become our nurses, teachers,
engineers, etc.
I am sympathetic to the situation of the current tenants but Foothill-De Anza will give
the residents ample time and support to relocate. De Anza students are not just
young single people. Many will be parents of school aged children and many will be
veterans.
Thank you for your consideration.
Helene Davis
Cupertino Resident
Former De Anza Student
From:Mandy Jones
To:City Clerk; Liang Chao
Cc:gilbertswong@gmail.com; J.R. Fruen; Sheila Mohan; R "Ray" Wang; Kitty Moore; Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment - Agenda Item #9 - 5/6/2025
Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 6:48:28 PM
Attachments:image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please include the following in the written communications for the City Council Meeting on
5/6/25. Along with the attached email correspondence that is below & highlighted. Thank
you.
_______________________________________
Mayor Chao,
Under your leadership, the press clippings have drawn me in as a curious local
spectator.
I can't turn away.
Especially entertaining was the public comment vis-á-vis yourself, Pamela Wu,
and Gilbert Wong ahead of the 5/2 Closed session meeting & your agendized
attack on the City Manager.
Again, I'm captivated...it's like watching Michelle Yeoh & Constance Wu
battling during an intense game of Mahjong!
Who will win, while Cupertino loses?!
Anyone who has worked in Silicon Valley Corporate America can analyze the
situation from the emails & news reporting. Passive aggressiveness may come
naturally, but your email trail (Everything Everywhere All At Once) allows
public comment & public records to paint a pretty stark picture and spotlight
your politicized dance perfectly.
To the City Council:
We are very disappointed in you. Your housing philosophy sucks as evidenced
by the lawsuit with HCD/YINBY, and Vallco delays.
Next on your agenda seems to be interfering with private sales to unjustly
demonize younger tenants & De Anza students.
Game theory 101:
"Our brains so hate the idea of losing....that we abandon all rational thought,
and we make some really poor decisions."
~ Crazy Rich Asians
The quote fits, as the question truly remains, whom will sue the City of
Cupertino next due their poor decision making?
(I'd definitely urge Pamela Wu to do so if not reinstated.)
Whatever happens...Bok-bok bishes...I'mma have popcorn for the show.
#Swerve
In the meantime, I'd advise a few items:
Focus on listening to your constituents, hire more lawyers, focus on servant
leadership, pay more legal fees, humble thyselves, save money on legal fees by
avoiding lawsuits, be active in the community, and 4 of you could consider
going back to law school to help cut down future legal costs....and/or allow
competent city managers to continue to run Cupertino well, instead of into the
ground.
Sincerely,
M. Jones
Ps. I also would like to request a formal public records request of all
email correspondence between Cupertino Mayor Liang Chao and Cupertino
City Manager Pamela Wu regarding the lead up and aftermath of Cupertino's
"2025 State of the City Address" for the period covering the last 12 months.
Electronic record (no photocopies please) will be sufficient. I will expect your
response by Monday, May 19th.
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
From: Gilbert Wong
<giIbertswong@gmaiI.com>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 2:01 AM
To: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>; Gilbert Wong <gilbertswong@gmaiI.com>
Cc: Pamela Wu <PameIaW@cupertino.gov>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; Samantha
LoCurto <SamanthaL@cupertino.gov>; Tracy Kosolcharoen <TKosoIcharoen@cupertino.gov>;
Serena Tu <SerenaT@cupertino.gov>; Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.gov>; Kirsten Squarcia
<KirstenS@cupertino.gov>; Kitty Moore <kmoore@cupertino.org>; J.R. Fruen
<jrfruen@cupertino.gov>; R "Ray" Wang <rwang@cupertino.org>; Sheila Mohan
<smohan@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Re: State of the City Address
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you
Hello Mayor Liang Fang Chao,
Thank you for responding to my comment during Oral Communications on April 29
at6pm in regards to the review of the Clty Manager Performance Review. There were
members of the public that probably are affiliated with you and Better Cupertino who
alleged the City Manager, Pamela Wu did not attend your State of the City addresses.
When the oral communication was finished and closed, you responded directed at me,
Gilbert Wong, that you , Liang Fang Chao, had no idea why? If so then why did you
respond back to me in the Conference Room? Why did you yesterday go out of your
way to email in writing to state that Liang Chao does not know why and you CC the City
Manager Pamela Wu that you do not know why? Do you feel guilty that you did not
something wrong?
Why did the city hire a Private Investigator to investigate the Clty Manager Pameala Wu
as I stated in my Oral Communication speech on April 29th? Why are we having another
Closed Session on today Friday May 2nd at 12:15pm at Clty Hall for another Closed
Session on performance review/ discipline?
On April 2, 2025 Council Meeting item #6 you put on the agenda Cupertino Sister City
Committee to review the policy on Travel for Staff members. I stated in the public
meeting that you were on a public hunt on the Cupertino Clty Manager Pamela Wu. I
ask you NOT to involve our four Cupertno sister cities in your personal vendetta against
the CityManger. If you have a personal problem or a performance issue with the Clty
Nlanager, first you need to talk to her and if you are not satisfied, then talk to your
colleagues in Closed Session and get
consensus from your four colleagues. You tried to talk to me about your concerns with
Pamela Wu in regards to her performance as a City Manager and I had to stop you and I
said you need to talk to your council colleagues or Pamala. As one of her immediate
supervisors, I felt you were defaming her to a public member and I did not feel it was
appropriate to tell me . I stated as a former Mayor what avenue to address your
concern.
Pamela Wu is an exceptional Clty Manager for the past two years plus. She has skillfully and
professionally help the Clty of Cupertino get through an approved Housing Element,
bringing back morale after going through 7 city managers at City Hall staff and help
negotiated successful deal with Sand Hlll Properties that save us millions and guide us
through the clawback by the State of California with Apple sales tax.
I feel that the Mayor and her majority has created an unbearable relationship and
hostile environment that the City Council should let her go and pay her the 12 months
severance for no cause. The Mayor friends and BC have written letters and come to
council public hearings with unfounded accusations and allegations that are not
grounds to remove Pamela Wu from Clty Manager. The Clty of Cupertino already
has two open lawsuits in 2025. I can predict the Clty Nlanager getting fired soon
with a cause that has not been announced. The City has hired a Private Investigator
as I have talked to one of the witnesses that was interviewed. We may never know
what is in the report as it is a closed session but we need the Press to start asking
questions.
I hope the Disciplinary closed session later today at 12:15pm will be fair to our Clty Manager
Pamela Wu. I hope the FIVE Cupertino Council Members will be fair and transparent in their
decision. In the City I Manager contract, which is a public document, there is a five day grace
period before final action is taken so I hoee the public reads the allegations carefully. I know
Mayor Liang Chao is a good person and is trying to do her job to the best of her capacity. I ask the
city council to NOT fire Pamela Wu and if you do fire her with NO cause, pay her the 12 months
servarnc and avoid a long lawsuit. As Vice Mayor Kitty Moore said she ran on fiscal responsibility.
When she sued the Clty and Loss, she said in a public meeting that it was a huge financial burden
on her. Please think about our taxpaners!
SPECIAL MEETING ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION 1. Subject: Public employee
performance evaluation/discipline; Title: City Nlanager; California Government Code
Sections 54954.5(e) and 54957(b). OPEN SESSION REPORT REGARDING CLOSED
SESSION ADJOURNMENT
Also there is some background info at
https://cupertinotoday.com/2025/05/01/city-council-targets-city-manager-pamela-wu-with-
unprecedented-series-of-closed-door-performance-evaluations/
Also do a Public Record Request of correspondence email between me and Mayor Liang
Chao.
Regards,
Gilbert Wong
Former Mayor and Coucnilmember (2007 to 2016)
***P.S. City Clerk office, please enter this email to written communications for the May 2,
2025 Closed Session 12:15pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 2:51 PM Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.g wrote:
Pamela,
Thank you for your message.
What I recall from the planning meeting was a discussion about the format or
program of the event. I had mentioned that I didn't think an MC was necessary this
year, since there wouldn't be other groups—such as Rotary or the Chamber—making
presentations. So, any reference I may have made about not needing you there was
strictly in the context of the event program and your role as MC.
If I did make a statement such as “I do not see a need to have you there” (which I do
not specifically recall saying), I believe it would have been in reference to the role of
MC or other role in the program, not attendance as an audience member. To my
knowledge, we never had a conversation about whether you should attend the event
as a member of the audience or not.
As I've shared previously, I truly did not know why the City Manager was not present
at the State of the City Address, and I was never informed in advance that you would
not be attending. That's why I was surprised by Gilbert's public comment, which
implied that I knew your whereabouts—when in fact, I did not.
I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding. As leaders of an organization, I believe it's important
that we assume positive intent and take the initiative to clarify miscommunications before they
result in incorrect assumptions that could affect working relationships.
Sincerely,
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-
3192
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.g
Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2025 2:26 PM
To: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.g
Tina Kapoor naK@cupertino.g
Samantha LoCurto amanthaL@cupertino.g
Tracy Kosolcharoen Kosolcharoen@cupertino.g
Cc: Gilbert Wong <giIbertswong@gmaiI.com>;
Serena Tu renaT@cupertino.g Subject: RE: State of the City Address
Dear Mayor Chao,
Thank you for your email. I've taken the liberty of including Tina, Sam, and Tracy in thisresponse, as they were part of the initial Zoom meetings planning for the State of the City. Duringthese meetings, my attendance at the event was specifically mentioned and discussed.
During our first planning meeting in January, Tina shared that, traditionally, the City Managerserves as the MC for this event. However, understanding that you intended to introduce adifferent format this year, you clearly stated that you did not wish for me to serve as MC. I thenasked if you envisioned any other role for me during the event, to which you replied, “I do notsee a need to have you there.” I repeated your statement for confirmation at least twice, whileTina, Sam, and Tracy were present, and concluded by asking one final time if my absence wouldbe acceptable.You raised no objection.
Based on this clear direction, I made other commitments for that evening. However, I want toemphasize that I was present for the full duration of the rehearsal earlier that day—until at least5:00 p.m.—to support the success of the event in every way I could.
If needed, I am happy to verify with IT whether the Zoom meeting was recorded to confirm thisdiscussion.
That said, had I known that my attendance was expected from you, I would, without hesitation,have been there to support you fully.
Sincerely,Pamela
Pamela Wu
City Manager
City Manager's OfficePame aW@cupertino.gov
(408) 777-1322
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Liang Chao<LChao@cupertino.g
Sent: Thursday, May 1, 202510:36 AM
To: Pamela Wu<PameIaW@cupertino.gCc: Gilbert Wong<giIbertswong@gmaiI.com> Subject: State of the City Address
Pamela,
At the public comment period, a few members of the public commented that the citymanager was not present for the State of the City Address. In response, Gilbert Wang(copied here) commented that the Mayor knows where the City Manager was duringthe State of the City address. (I have no idea why Gilbert seems to think I shouldknow)
After all of the public comments, following my policy of correcting any inaccuratecomments right away to avoid confusion, I commented that the city manager didattend the rehearsal, but I really didn't know (and still don't know) why the citymanager did not attend the State of the City Address.
To this date, I still don't know why the city manager was not able to attend the Stateof the City Address, even though that's announced as a special council meeting. And Iwas not notified beforehand that the city manager won't be present. (<----This is what
Passive Agressive behavior looks like/sounds like)
I never asked either since I didn't think it's a big deal. Since I didn't know, I cannotoffer anything to defend the city manager either., when the public brought up the issue.((( Mayor is clearing lying here)))
So, I thought that I should ask you directly so I can clarify it when this comes upagain. In case it's a personal matter and you would rather not disclose yourwhereabouts, that's fine and I understand.
At least I have asked the question to give you an opportunity to clarify any confusion.
Maybe the reason is something simple and totally reasonable. (<----This is what Passive
Agressive behavior looks like/sounds like)
Thank you.
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192
From:Patricia Dowd
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:5/6/25 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item #9
Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 4:23:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I urge you to do everything you can to protect the residents of the McClellan Terrace Apartments. I am shocked by
the actions of the Foothill/DeAnza College District. Evicting Cupertino residents from their homes is not the way for
them to solve their housing issues. And speaking of their housing issues I have a question for them about where
Flint Center used to be. I admit I do not know if this is true but I was told some type of health center will be built
there. Why they are not using this property for housing is a true mystery to me. It would be the perfect location and
certainly a much better one than evicting our residents. For that matter the District could lease a hotel/motel much
like San Jose State did and it too would be a good housing option. Furthermore it wouldn’t have to be within blocks
of the school. There is public transportation.
I appreciate your discussing this matter at your 5/6/25 meeting and I hope that a positive outcome with be reached
for the residents of the McClellan Terrace Apartments.
Please include this message in the written comments for Agenda Item #9.
Thank you.
Patricia Dowd
10641 Madera Drive
Cupertino, California