Cupertino Facts

Blog

  • April 7, 2023 Email Newsletter: Shakespeare in the Park – To Be or Not To Be? – City Hall Renovation, and More

    April 7, 2023 Email Newsletter: Shakespeare in the Park – To Be or Not To Be? – City Hall Renovation, and More

    April 7, 2023 — Welcome to the Cupertino Facts newsletter! This resident-led publication is dedicated to ensuring that we have a safe, vibrant, honest and effective community. We stand for win-win situations.

    In this issue, we explore the following issues:

    1. Cupertino Shakespeare in the Park – To Be or Not To Be?

    2. Should Cupertino Spend $72M on a New City Hall?

    3. Cupertino’s Payments to a Politically-Driven Organization Raise Questions

    We have seen the rhetoric of doing good and doing well. Yet far too often, problems have accumulated, requiring much greater efforts to solve, following ever-increasing harms. These include financial accountability and the addressing of social problems. As well, we are at a point in time when public discourse is unfortunately dominated by the politics of attack. We are not interested in contributing to this problem. 

    What is the remedy? Communication is essential. We will dedicate both to setting forth good work, and communicating regarding this work. If we disagree, it must be on honest, principled differences.

    We must start with the commonly-accepted premises that the facts matter, and that we can address concerns while improving endeavors for all. We believe in the politics of efficacy, not the politics of accusation. We are there for you, and we will keep engaging and supporting the values of thoughtful, honest discussion.


    Cupertino Shakespeare in the Park – To Be or Not To Be?


    THE FACTS: Cupertino residents have enjoyed free Shakespeare in Memorial Park every summer since 1995. But at the April 4, 2023 City Council meeting, Toby Leavitt, Executive Director of the San Francisco Shakespeare Festival, made the dramatic announcement that Shakespeare in Memorial Park is at risk of being canceled this summer by the Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department. 


    Staff stated that they were experiencing “unexpected financial constraints affecting both staffing levels and their ability to host free Shakespeare in the Park this summer.” Leavitt asked for help in finding solutions to retain this program along with the many other beloved Cupertino community summer events.

    WHY THIS MATTERS: As resident Rhoda Fry explained at the Council meeting, Cupertino’s Q4 2022 and Q1 2023 sales and use tax revenue is significantly down from prior years. She is concerned that the City faces a “double whammy” with the decline in revenue, plus potential fallout from an impending tax audit of one of Cupertino’s largest sales-tax revenue sources. Meanwhile, our Council and Commissions are being asked to allocate funds for new projects.

    We won’t sugarcoat things – less tax revenue eventually impacts all residents, whether it’s cuts to community programs or capital improvements. Yet while the City looks to cut Shakespeare in the Park, Mayor Hung Wei and City Manager Pamela Wu will spend 10 days in Taiwan visiting sister cities. Wu confirmed that the expenses for this international trip will be paid for by Cupertino. It is customary for the Mayor to go on taxpayer-funded sister-city trips, and our students will certainly benefit from her insights. However, there is no record of a City Manager ever going on a sister-city trip. The cost of the trip has yet to be approved by the City Council.


    WHAT CAN WE DO? Residents believe it is important to find responsible solutions to address Cupertino’s financial situation. While official conversations are still underway, resident-proposed solutions include:

    • Increasing fiscal transparency in order to better evaluate Cupertino’s expenditures
    • Identifying opportunities to reduce city expenses.  For example, at the meeting Peggy Griffin recommended capping fee waivers, limiting trips to sister cities, and prioritizing community events that bring people together. 
    • In Griffin’s own words, “Let’s live within our means and reduce the impact to the City.”


    (more…)

  • Cupertino Shakespeare in the Park – To Be or Not To Be?

    At the April 4, 2023 City Council meeting, Toby Leavitt, Executive Director of the San Francisco Shakespeare Festival, made the dramatic announcement that Shakespeare in Memorial Park is at risk of being canceled this summer by the Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department. On Thursday March 30, Parks staff let her know that they were experiencing “unexpected financial constraints that were affecting both their staffing levels and their ability to host free Shakespeare in the Park this summer.” Cupertino residents have enjoyed free Shakespeare in Memorial Park every summer since 1995. Leavitt asked for help in finding solutions to retain this program along with the many other beloved Cupertino community summer events. Her plea confirms the grave concerns that resident Peggy Griffin expressed at the City Council meeting on March 21: our City had received no sales tax deposits from the State in February.Resident Rhoda Fry followed Leavitt during Oral Communications and talked about the sales-tax shortfall, “zeroes just don’t happen.” Fry explained that Cupertino averaged $8M in the three previous Februarys. She was worried that the City is facing a “double whammy” with a catastrophic decline in sales-tax revenue along with the fallout from an impending tax audit of one of Cupertino’s largest sales-tax revenue sources. Although the City knew on February 21 that we had no money coming in, there was no notification in the intervening five Council meetings or two Audit Committee meetings. Meanwhile, our Council and Commissions have been asked to allocate funds for new projects.

    Peggy Griffin joined in via Zoom and said, “it is disappointing that the Audit Committee and the City Council were not told about this as soon as possible.” She recommended limiting fee waivers, suspending trips to sister cities, and prioritizing community events that bring people together. She concluded with, “Let’s live within our means and reduce the impact to the City.”

    Mayor Hung Wei and City Manager Wu have scheduled a sister-city trip to their native country of Taiwan that is to be paid with City funds. Cupertino has four sister and friendship cities in Taiwan, two in China, and one each in Japan, India, and Italy. It is customary for the Mayor to go on taxpayer-funded sister-city trips, and our students will certainly benefit from her insights. However, there is no record of a City Manager ever going on a sister-city trip. The cost of the trip has yet to be approved by the City Council.

    By the end of May, we will have the income numbers from the State for the second quarter. It is unknown as to when the City Council or the public will be apprised of the new economic situation and who will make the decisions about cutting programs.

    You can watch these speakers on YouTube below starting at 7:56:


  • Cupertino City Hall: Renovate for $28M or Build New for $72M?

    Structural Analysis Reports for our city hall confirm that the nearly 60-year-old structure does not meet current building standards; it needs to be retrofitted for seismic safety. City hall’s current configuration–with its main floor dominated by a room that hosted city council meetings before community hall was completed in the early 2000s–and outdated HVAC and IT infrastructure does not meet the needs of today’s mobile workforce that requires both collaborative and quiet workspaces, but can be anticipated to work remotely at least some of the time. Additionally, Cupertino’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) must satisfy more stringent seismic safety requirements than those that apply to city hall. The City, understandably, prefers to locate the EOC in close proximity to city hall.


    Prior to 2/21/2023, Cupertino had acquired the property at 10455 Torre Ave (“City Hall Annex”), located across the street from city hall, with an eye to renovating the existing office building to accommodate the EOC and its robust seismic safety requirements. The plan for city hall and the EOC was to retrofit and renovate existing City-owned properties for an estimated cost of $28M.

    On 2/21/2023, a new Council majority of Mayor Hung Wei, Vice Mayor Sheila Mohan, and Council Member JR Fruen overruled Council Members Liang Chao and Kitty Moore and voted in favor of suspending all work on the City Hall Renovation plan, except the City Hall Annex project. Instead, the Council majority directed staff to prepare options for a new city hall building of approximately 80,000 square feet to include a flexible event space with hosting capacity of up to 500 people. ($72M estimated new construction cost as reported in the FY 23-24 Capital Improvement Program 5 Year Plan.)

    Does Cupertino need its own 500-person capacity event space? In 2022, Cupertino and the Santa Clara County Library District added 2-floors of programming space at the Cupertino Library (100-person event capacity). Cupertino Community Hall can accommodate 170 people. A mile from City Hall, De Anza College has the 400-person Visual and Performing Arts Center and a college district board that considers re-build options for its now closed 2,400-person Flint Center Theater. Across the street from De Anza College at Quinlan Center, the Cupertino Room seats up to 280 people. Additionally, there are numerous 400+ seating capacity venues located throughout the South Bay and Peninsula.

    Cupertino forecasts revenue of $130M for FY 2023, operating expenditures of $127M, and capital expenditures of approximately $4M, for a projected deficit of $343,000. Where would funds for a multi-year city hall renovation or build new project come from? We could look to Sunnyvale as a guide. Earlier this year, Sunnyvale announced the near completion of Phase I of its multi-phase civic center renovation. According to San José Spotlight, the first phase will cost $315M and will be funded by over $130M in bonds—bonds that will incur interest of $100M that will be paid by the City of Sunnyvale (its residents) until 2052. Remaining sources of funding include the sale of surplus property, city development fees, and unnamed “other sources.” How much money and debt obligation do we, Cupertino voters and taxpayers, want to dedicate to a city hall development project? What projects wait or will not get built if the City moves forward with a new $72M city hall, especially when a renovation project costing less than half of new construction brings the safe and modern facilities that the City needs?

    Finally, we must consider the environmental benefits of renovating the existing city hall over building new. Blueprint for Better, a climate action campaign supported by the American Institute of Architects offers this support for renovation of existing buildings whenever possible: 

    “… Renovating buildings dramatically reduces embodied carbon, which is the carbon emitted during new construction by the manufacture, transport, and assembly of materials. As a result, architects can renovate existing buildings to reduce their operational carbon to zero, lessening their contribution to climate change.

    ‘If you renovate and reuse the biggest parts of existing buildings—typically the structure and foundation—you can save 50 percent of your carbon on a project right off the bat,’ says Larry Strain, FAIA, a principal at Siegel & Strain Architects in Emeryville, California. ‘It’s the first thing all architects and owners should try to do.’”


    Learn More

    City of Cupertino, Capital Improvement Program Dashboard: https://gis.cupertino.org/webmap/cip/

    City of Cupertino, City Hall Project: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/capital-improvement-program-projects/city-hall-project

    “Budget at a Glance: Fiscal Year 2022-2023”, Cupertino Scene, October 2022: https://www.cupertino.org/visitors/cupertino-scene

    Santa Clara County Library District Meeting Rooms: https://sccld.org/book-a-room/

     “Sunnyvale Gets Sleek New City Hall” by Joseph Geha, San José Spotlight, 1/23/2023: https://sanjosespotlight.com/sunnyvale-gets-sleek-new-city-hall/

    American Institute of Architects, Blueprint for Better campaign, “Renovating Buildings to Protect the Climate and Rejuvenate Communities”: https://blueprintforbetter.org/articles/renovating-buildings-to-protect-the-climate-and-rejuvenate-communities/

    “To Build or Not to Build? Architects Struggle with the Future of Their Craft in a Warming World” by Frances Anderton, Sierra: the Magazine of the Sierra Club, 12/16/2021: https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2021-6-winter/feature/build-or-not-build

  • Non Profits: Not All are Charities

     

    As we get to the end of the year, we wish all of you a happy and relaxing holiday season. It is also the season of giving, where we contribute to our favorite causes, often represented by charities we donate to. We often use the words non-profit organizations and charities interchangeably. However they are NOT the same. 


    Did you know that the National Football League (NFL) was classified as a non-profit organization for almost five decades?


    While most charities are non-profits, not all non-profits are charities. Organizations become non-profits when they are classified by the IRS as exempt from paying taxes on the contributions and investment income they receive. 


     In fact many tax-exempt nonprofits are organized for the explicit purpose of advocating for the interests of the members, and NOT for social causes and the greater good which we associate charities with.

     

    In this post we go into the differences between nonprofits and also focus on a nonprofit (not charities) whose dealing with the City of Cupertino, and the use of our tax dollars raises serious questions.


    Different Kinds of Non-Profit Organizations 

     

    The IRS has published guidelines describing the tax treatment for various kinds of nonprofits. 


    Charities or 501 (c)(3) exempt organizations are typically what comes to mind when we think of nonprofits. 501 (c)(3) exempt organizations can be large organizations like the American Red Cross or local organizations like the West Valley Community Services who assist those in need in our neighborhood.


    Another class of non-profit are business and trade leagues whose tax exemption is covered under IRS Section 501 (c)(6). These organizations are organized to advocate for the interests of their members. The National Football League (NFL) was a 501 (c)(6) exempt non-profit for about five decades before giving up its non-profit status in 2015!


    Locally, the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce is a 501(c)(6) exempt non-profit, which advocates for its members. Out of the about 2400 registered businesses in Cupertino, less than 10% are dues-paying members of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce.

     

    Cupertino Chamber of Commerce & the $16,000/year Ghost Contract

     

    For as far as anyone in the City Offices can remember, the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce has been sending a bi-annual invoice for $8000 ($16,000 per year) to the City of Cupertino. Under normal business practices the invoices are paid by the City for services delivered under a contract agreed upon prior to the delivery of the services.

     

    However, the City staff is unable to locate any such agreement or contract against which the Chamber of Commerce was invoicing the city and getting paid for many years! After further investigation, the City Council was informed that the payments were made under a verbal agreement which no-one can reproduce. 

     

    To summarize, there is:

    • NO Definition of the service the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce performs for the city
    • NO Criteria to determine whether the Chamber is fulfilling the terms of the contract for their invoices to be paid
    • However the City has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to this organization whose charter is to lobby for its dues-paying members, without any contract in place.


    Councilperson Kitty Moore ‘s scrutiny of a  line-item during the review of the City’s spending led to the discovery of these payments. These annual payments are in addition to the membership dues which the City pays to the Chamber, or the more than $60,000 paid by the City to the Chamber to run the ILoveCupertino website, or other concession the city provides like the free use of City facilities. 

    City Elections & the Chamber of Commerce PAC


    As an organization created to lobby for the interests of its members, the Chamber of Commerce sponsors PACs during elections. During the 2016 election cycle, the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce PAC committed campaign finance violations and was fined by the FPCC.


    During the 2018 election the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce sponsored a PAC, to influence the results of local city council elections in the favor of certain candidates sponsored by the coterie of ex-mayors, The PAC used the name and the logo of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce to solicit votes.

    For many years, the city was paying $16,000 of our tax dollars, annually, without a locatable contract, to an organization which ran a PAC in support of city council candidates backed by the coterie of ex-mayors.

     

    The Coterie of Mayors & Their Web of Influence

     

    One challenge the residents face is that the coterie of ex-mayors have a well entrenched web of influence among local organizations which they have cultivated over the decades.

     

    These networks have been built over the years via both soft favors like memberships in committees, endorsements & awards, and hard benefits, like the annual transfer of our tax-payer dollars to the Chamber of Commerce which then runs PACs to favor the coterie.


    Whether it was shutting down already overcrowded CUSD schools in the middle of a 100 year pandemic or granting their favorite developer the unheard of privilege to build without any height limits, or sending our tax dollars to lobbying organizations which then advocate to get them get elected, the coterie of mayors does not have the residents’ best interests in mind.

     

    Please stay alert and continue acting as a watchdog to keep them in check.

  • Stay Engaged to Preserve Your Interests

    A few years ago no one would have thought that CUSD would close schools even though: 

     

    • CUSD has the most crowded schools in the area
    • 30% of primary school classrooms are non-permanent portable structures
    • The district is projecting a $39M surplus over the next five years
    • And the savings from school closure are minimal

     

    Why do our elected leaders take such decisions?

    Part of the reason is that they do not face repercussions for their decisions.

    And that happens because they have well-oiled machinery to misdirect residents.

     

    One leg of that machinery is media outlets which spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) among residents; and the other leg of that is suppression of dialogue among residents which challenges that FUD.


    In this email, we focus on the second aspect: the suppression of free dialogue by the coterie of ex-mayors to harm residents’ interests. 

    Kent Vincent and Censorship on Nextdoor

     

    Kent Vincent has been living in Cupertino for more than 40 years. He worked at HP Labs where he (co)authored more than 50 patents before his “retirement”. For the past 15 years, he has been organizing large travel groups to destinations all over the world.

     

    Earlier this month, Kent wrote a post on Nextdoor challenging the premise of the editorial published by San Jose Mercury News about the Cupertino elections.


    Kent’s post was marked as disrespectful, and deleted, twice, from the platform by Nextdoor lead. 

     

    Not surprisingly, the six leads who deleted Kent’s post, are vocal cheer-leaders of investor interests on various forums and curtail any discussion which challenges the investor’s narrative.

     

    We are sharing the screenshots of those who voted to delete Kent’s post to suppress discussion, and also the content of the original post below.

    Kent Vincent’ Post

    Jollyman/Faria • 3 Nov

     

    There is a dynamic in the Cupertino Council race that bothers me. As in recent past elections, our six candidates are marketed by two PACs, three candidates supported by a pro-development PAC of past Cupertino mayors predominantly residing on the west end of Cupertino and three candidates supported by a “sensible growth” development PAC of individuals predominantly residing on the east side of Cupertino. 


    Virtually all of the high rise, high density, high traffic generating “big city” development that has been built or planned for Cupertino in recent years has been approved exclusively for the east of Hwy 85 east side and its residents by the Councils of the west end PAC mayors. This includes the ill-fated amendment of a Vallco General Plan in 2014 having no building height limitation that now allows the build of multiple 20-story skyscrapers on that site via SB35.


     What bothers me is that most of those pro-development PAC leaders personally live in neighborhoods isolated from the impact of their development decisions, areas of low traffic where significant development has not occurred for 40 years nor is planned. It is very easy to be pro-development altruistic when development you approve always occurs in someone else’s neighborhood and doesn’t negatively impact you personally. 


    I have good fortune to know most of the leaders of both PACs and view all as very decent, well-meaning leaders and residents that I respect and applaud for their commitment to our community. I am bothered, however, that the west end PAC and its influenced San Jose Mercury News editorials have labeled the east side PAC and its slate of current Council members and candidates as “nimbies” (not in my back yard) on development. 


    That’s “calling the kettle black” in my opinion. Always approving “yes in your backyard” development is just a different form of “not in my back yard” (NIMBY). Fact is, virtually no one wants high rise, high density, traffic impacting development in their neighborhood. We’re all NIMBYs in that sense. In my view, any candidate running on a platform of pro-development (altruistic or otherwise) should state willingness to bear the negative impact of their approvals in the part of the city where they live.  


    I know the PAC leaders read Nextdoor and I look forward to their comments. Do I have a valid concern?

    The Coterie of ex-Mayors and their “Ethics”
    One of the foundations of the democratic system we cherish, is our freedom of expression. That expression takes various forms, with yard signs being a convenient method for residents to express their preferences during election season. 

     

    The security video below shows how those rights are infringed upon by these power-brokers who have no qualms in stealing their opponent’s yard signs. The resemblance to one of the most prominent members of the coterie of ex-mayors is not accidental. While this sign-stealing video is from the 2020 election cycle  the behavior continued this cycle also.

    Video

    Please Stay Engaged and Involved

     

    They have no qualms in shutting down our already overcrowded schools in the middle of a 100 year pandemic, they have no problem trespassing and stealing our yard signs, they have no problem suppressing discussion among residents, but they do have a problem in registering as paid lobbyists.

     

    Whether it is unbalanced editorials in newspapers, or a constant barrage of half truths, vested  interests will force the city in a direction which enriches their backers substantially, at the cost of our quality of life.

     

    The only bulwark we have against these vested interests, is an engaged community.. So please stay engaged and come together to preserve your interests. One way to help is to share our content with your neighbors and friends.

    A reminder of how desperate the coterie of ex-mayors was to label our Harvard and Princeton educated resident focused council members as “bums” and “scoundrels” since they resisted the deep-pocketed investors.

  • Cupertino: It is a Lot More Than Vallco!

     

     

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

    1. The Vallco Obsession

    2. Opt-In Email List

     

    The Vallco Obsession


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

     

    Vallco SB35 Plan: Stuck due to Toxic Contamination


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


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

     

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

     

    No Height Limits: The Empire State Building


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

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


    Cupertino Top Issues:

     

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

     

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

    VOTE WISELY

     

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

     

     

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

    .

    Sign up for our Email List


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

     

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

     

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

  • Debunking more Misinformation

    In this email, we cover the following topics:


    1. The financial condition of the City

    2. Debunking the “redevelopment needs office space to break even” myth

    3. An update on the campaign spending by various candidates

    4. A note from a fellow resident about the Bullying of our Treasurer Minna Xu

    That is the line of a mailer sent by the coterie of ex-mayors claiming financial ruin in the city.


    We would like to reassure the residents that the city is doing great financially, and your Harvard & Princeton educated councilperson (aka “bums”) are strengthening its governance.


    The city has also instituted an internal audit function, instituted better financial processes & controls as recommended by Moss-Adams, and has created a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Program to allow whistle-blowers to report concerns anonymously to prevent embezzlement like the multi-year scam (2000-2014) which cost the city $800K. The City Manager has the following to say in his introduction to the city budget for 2022-2023

    “The City is on solid financial footing in FY 2022-23 with a balanced budget. The budget is balanced with ongoing revenues meeting or exceeding expenditures, and fund balance is being used to fund one-time projects”


    “Redevelopment Need Office Space to Break Even”: Not True


    Another myth propagated by the investors’ proxies is that redevelopment needs a huge amount of office space to break even. This was the reason given to grant up to 2M sq ft of office space allocation at Vallco, in spite of intense multi-year opposition by the residents. Residents oppose it since it increases traffic, and does not improve the jobs to housing ratio.

    The Westport development (Oaks) has zero office space. Later this month, the Marina Plaza redevelopment project is coming for review with the City’s Planning Commission, including commissioners Steven Scharf, Muni Madhdhipatla, and Ray Wang. It’s a 5.1 acre development with 206 condos and 41K sq ft of commercial space.

    These two projects clearly establish that redevelopment does NOT need millions of sq ft of office space to be viable, just a City Council which considers the wishes of the residents and the needs of the city, while working with property owners to revitalize our city.


    Campaign Spending Update (10/31/2022)

    The resident focused candidates for the Cupertino City Council, Govind Tatchari, Liang Chao and Steven Scharf  have raised/spent under $25,000 honoring the voluntary limit they agreed to for the election.


    JR Fruen and Sheila Mohan have breached the $80,000 mark and are racing towards the $100,000 milestone with investor backed elements and unions pouring money into their campaigns. Claudio Bono is in the middle, near $50,000 (his campaign has a large loan amount)

    From Cupertino.org

    Bullying of our Treasurer Minna Xu: A note from a fellow resident


    Minna is a long time Cupertino resident who is warm-hearted and volunteers a lot in our local community. She has helped with school Yosemite trip fundraising, with boy scouts’ activities, and coordinating several Chinese and Asian events in the past. Whenever friends’ ask for help, if she can, she will help. 


    Why is she suddenly famous this campaign season? It’s because her friends asked her to help with their accounting. This organization’s name is Cupertino Facts. She read their article drafts and believed they were doing the right thing. They work to deliver the truth. So, she helped just like she did, so many times in the past. 

    But this time her simple act has resulted in this kind and innocent Asian lady being attacked by an old boys network with a Big Title: the Council of Mayors. 


    It’s because what Cupertino Facts provides is not something this group of ex-Mayors want the residents to hear. They pick on the weak one, intimidate and threaten, and hope the weak person would back off and never dare to do anything they don’t like. Do you feel disturbed by seeing this? Can you imagine such things happening in Cupertino nowadays? 


    Our beautiful city belongs to all the residents who love it. Our city belongs to all the people like Minna who believe in kindness, caring, selfless contribution with no return. If you believe that everyone in Cupertino has the right to speak the truth, unite and stand up, protect our fellow residents. Don’t let any of our residents be bullied by those snobbish old-boys network of Mayors.

    VOTE WISELY


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

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

    .

    Your fellow neighbors from Cupertino

    We became aware of another group of CUSD residents who have formed a group called “Voice of CUSD Residents for Better Education”.  You can learn more about them here.

    We finish with a video with Mayor Darcy Paul who is now running to help fix CUSD.

  • CUSD: Dispelling Disinfo with Data

    This email will debunk disinformation about CUSD with data. We also include video clips from Jerry Liu, a CUSD trustee who opposed school closure, who shares his experience and goes into more details.

    Disnfo #1: CUSD Budget Shortfall? No we have surplus!


    The big reason cited for the shutdown of schools was a projected budget shortfall. CUSD’s own projections show that it will end up with a surplus (revenue less expenditure in the table below) of $39.5 Million over the next five years.


    Please listen to current board member Jerry Liu who voted against school closure, who tells us that even this year CUSD will have a surplus of $16M!


    Savings from closing school campuses? It is like saving 50 cents while we have a $200 budget,, a reminder that the projected savings from closing a school campus was minimal

    Then why close schools during a once-in-a lifetime pandemic?
    Video

    This table is from Page 18 of CUSD Budget Adoption Report 

    Disnfo #2: Collapsing Child Population? No Its Stable!

    For the past decade, we have been repeatedly being told that CUSD enrollment is declining because the population of children in CUSD is declining.

    That is incorrect.


    The children population in CUSD has been fairly stable, fluctuating in a narrow band. The overall population is at the same point as it was about a decade ago.

    From kidsdata.org

    CUSD enrollment though is declining since parents are preferring private schools due to mismanagement by the CUSD board including the deeply unpopular decision to shut down school campuses.

    From kidsdata.org

    For those interested in more granular analysis, the date from the ACS Survey is available here including age-wise breakdown within the under-18 age-group

    The Future is in Your Hands


    To reiterate, a lot of disinformation which has been spread in the community, is debunked by data.


    Disinfo #1:  CUSD shut Schools because of lack of money

    => No. CUSD is projected to have a $39M surplus over next 5 years


    Disinfo #2:. CUSD enrollment is falling because number of Children in CUSD is dropping

    => No. Children population in CUSD is around the same level it was a decade ago

    We can only speculate why the coterie of ex-mayors and their protege who they get sponsor via endorsement and campaign finance support misled us. We do know CUSD has hired professional real-estate consultants to evaluate the desirability of CUSD land for investors. 

     



    In order to save our schools, and preserve our home values, it is critical that the City Council of Cupertino opposes any rezoning of school land  and preserves it for public usage. 

    VOTE WISELY

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

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

     

    Your fellow neighbors from Cupertino

    (Some more videos with Jerry speaking are attached below)

     

    Video
    Video

  • Balanced vs Unbalanced Development: Contrasting Visions

     

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

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


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

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


    What Balanced Development Looks Like

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


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


     


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



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


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

    What Unbalanced Development Looks like


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

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


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

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

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



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


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


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


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

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



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


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

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



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


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


  • How Regnart Elementary School was Shut Down

     

    In this mail, we go through two items: 

    (a) The painful journey to the closure of Regnart Elementary School

    (b) A note about who we are


    The Regnart Story:

    CUSD schools have one of the highest per-school enrollment in the region. A rational person would expect that the school board would prefer to distribute students evenly across different campuses. However, what happened at Regnart was exactly the reverse. 


    Regnart was one of the less crowded schools in the district. Instead of enabling open enrollment students to join Regnart, or open new programs there, the policy of the board was to do the reverse; i.e. to find opportunities to reduce the enrollment even further.

    1. The existing Transitional Kindergarten was shut down and relocated to another school.
    2. Open enrollment students who had applied to Regnart as their preferred school,were waitlisted and not allowed to enroll there..

    Regnart had a healthy enrollment of 426 in 2019. Meanwhile, neighboring Blue Hills had 361 students, and nearby Montclaire had about 445. However, those schools which also happened to be the home schools of two trustees (Lori-Montclaire & Phyllis-Blue Hills), received students during open enrollment who were channeled away from Regnart.

    This drop in enrollment, which was manufactured by CUSD by closing down the transitional kindergarten and not allowing open enrollment to Regnart was then used to justify the closure of Regnart!


    The Regnart community organized itself and offered CUSD many ideas. That included ideas for transforming Regnart into a magnet school, providing stop-gap funding to tide over the pandemic and even raising more than $100,000. However the Board Members refused to consider alternatives.

     

    Deception from the Board


    The primary reason given by CUSD to close school campuses was that they did not have enough funds. However, whenever parents dug into the data, they realized that the projections did not justify closing schools. There were two reasons:


    1. The expected savings from closing a campus was minimal because most of the expense goes to staff pay; and class sizes in CUSD were already near state mandated maxima, so staff cuts were minimal.


    2. CUSD itself was unlikely to face the funding shortage which would have justified cost cuts in the first place. CUSD had an ending fund balance of $45M at the time of closure. This has now risen to $53M and is projected to grow!

    Lack of Transparency

    A question to ask is why was CUSD in such a rush to close schools during a once in a 100 year pandemic?


    While CUSD was shutting down Regnart they were simultaneously expanding the CLIP program to a new site. That goes against their claim of funding gap leading to program closures. 

     

    PRA requests have also revealed that the CUSD board has been communicating withReal Estate Development consultants to evaluate the ‘attractiveness’ of various sites to investors. 


    Regnart is nestled in a quiet neighborhood in Monta Vista with multi-million dollar homes, and is prime land for development of expensive homes. 

     

    Choice For Voters?

    Is this the way you want your school districts to be run? Why were the lives of children and families disrupted during the pandemic, when there was no compelling reason to close already crowded campuses?

     

    Whose interests is CUSD serving: real estate investors or our children?

     

    If, like us, you feel the need for change, please do NOT vote for candidates sponsored by the coterie of ex-mayors for the Cupertino City Council (JR Fruen, Sheila Mohan) or CUSD (Ava Chiao) who also been endorsed by the three CUSD trustees who spearheaded the effort..

     

    Please vote for Govind Tatachari, Liang Chao, and Steven Scharf for Cupertino City Council, and Darcy Paul, Satheesh Madhathil & Jerry Liu for CUSD Board. They will  work to roll-back school closure, and ensure that the local agencies work for the betterment of the residents.


    A note about who we are


    Cupertino Facts is an effort is by a group of long-term residents of  Cupertino, who have come together to inform our neighbors about the misinformation which the special-interests spread in our city. Most of us hold mid to senior level professional roles in the Tech Industry, and are united by our desire to preserve the wonderful city we call home. 

    We do not have any big donors, and would love to get your contribution to help fight the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) spread in our city by special interests. We would also like to hear from you about other topics you would like to learn more about.

    .

    JR Fruen’s Campaign Finance Violations

    In closing, we would like to inform our readers that one of the candidates sponsored by the coterie of ex-mayors, JR Fruen, was issued a warning letter by the FPCC due to campaign finance reporting errors in 2020. In the 2022 cycle, there are two other violations by JR Fruen which have been reported to the FPCC under COM-08232022-02558 including Laundering Campaign Contributions.