Cupertino Facts

Category: City Council

  • Cupertino’s Disinformation Network

    Cupertino’s Disinformation Network

    In this post we focus on how the Builder-Political Complex uses a sophisticated disinformation network to achieve its goals. The disinformation network has been extremely successful in misleading the residents. Three years ago when CUSD shut down multiple school campuses, most residents believed it was because of a budget shortfall due to falling enrollment. The reality was that CUSD was projecting almost $39.5M of surplus over the next five years. The video by CUSD Trustee Jerry Liu sheds light on it 
    The modus-operandi of such campaigns is to get articles & editorials published in regional news outlets which support policies sponsored by builders, without providing the readers with a comprehensive or objective view. For example, articles were written blaming falling school enrollment to justify the need for a lot more new housing in Cupertino.  However they failed to mention that prior to the drop the enrollment had increased every year for almost 15 years. Or that even after the drop CUSD schools were running way above planned capacity with almost 25% of classes in portable classrooms. Or that the year after the decision to close the schools to save $1.5M, CUSD was projecting the biggest surplus ever in its history, $16M in the next year.

    In this article we will focus on the disinformation campaigns organized by JR Fruen’s Cupertino For All, especially those run by its Information Officer, Jean Bedord.

    Disinformation: East Cupertino vs West Cupertino

    One method employed by the builder’s lobby is to project residents’ concerns of builders’ influence over city council as a conflict  between the East and West side of Cupertino. The controversial Sand Hill Properties proposals to redevelop the Vallco Mall disproportionately impact the residents of East Cupertino. It is reasonable that the residents of the neighborhoods around Vallco will be vocal in challenging the resident unfriendly behavior of the council.

    However, campaigns are run by the builder’s lobby to frame that community leaders from the East side want to harm the West side, and hence the residents should vote for the builders’ candidates

    The reality, however, is the opposite as residents of Linda Vista Drive are now realizing.

    Recent Nextdoor Interaction

    We wanted to highlight a recent Nextdoor conversation illustrating how Jean makes misleading statements to create confusion in the mind of fellow residents. Jean comments on a post saying:

    “Kitty Moore and Ray Wang voted to bring high density housing to Western Half of the City, ignoring the Topography”   

    Fact Check: Statement is False

    1. In 2019, the resident focused city council voted against development on the Vista Heights property. (details here)
    2. On the contrary, Jean Bedord, spoke in favor of the project on the top of the cliff moving forward (video below), during the 2019 City Council Meeting, “ignoring the topography”
    3. Kitty Moore voted NO, to the July 2024 Housing Element approval which legally up-zoned the Evulich Court site to R3.
    4. The residents focussed council reduced the density for Westport (Oak’s Redevelopment) to just 30% of the original proposal and also put to end conversations of rezoning the Blackberry Farm Golf Course as a residential housing site.

    West Cupertino Faces YIMBY Assault

    The residents of Linda Vista Drive on West Cupertino are dealing with the impact of the decisions taken by the JR Fruen led council since November 2022 which has led to two new developments which will double the  number of homes on their street. 

    One project on Evulich Ct is the result of rezoning of a series of R1 (single family) parcels to R3/TH (multifamily townhomes) which was approved in July 2024 as part of the Housing Element

    The second project is a Builder’s Remedy project near Linda Vista Park, which is proposing an even more dense development than the earlier proposal rejected by the resident-focussed city council during November 5, 2019 meeting.

    The city is forced to accept Builder’s Remedy projects because JR Fruen led council decided to completely redo the city’s housing element plan finalized in October 2022, and also agreed to accept Builder’s Remedy projects as part of a settlement of a lawsuit filed by YIMBY organizations.

    Further, the JR Fruen led council attempted to rezone all corner lots in single family neighborhoods to enable construction of condos, (Strategy HE-1.3.6 of the 2nd HE draft). The proposal would have allowed all corner lots to have buildings similar to the Builder’s Remedy project at Scofield Drive

    How to Mislead Neighbors: Jean’s Master Class.

    An element of Jean’s style is to provide a lot of information, with omissions and misrepresentations, to mislead her readers. Since she is perceived as the local expert, people trust her words. Her recent September 10 newsletter  highlights that.

    In that post, Jean gives a timeline of the housing element but conveniently forgets to mention key details, the role played by YIMBY orgs like Cupertino For All, or highlights information which is irrelevant to the progress of the housing element

    In the next section we are including the timeline she published in italics, interleaved with  additional context being provided in regular font in blue. Some of Jean’s content is highlighted in RED to represent how Jean highlighted it.

    Context

    ABAG adopted the RHNA Allocations for the 2023-2032 planning cycle on Decemeber 16, 2021, asking Cupertino  to have a plan to construct 4588 new homes. The city starts process in Q1-2022 with the first draft discussed with the city council in August 2022.

    In August 2022, JR Fruen, writing as the Policy Officer of Cupertino For All, lists out demands from YIMBY groups, as the city is reviewing the Housing Element Draft demanding more buffer, more upzoning and not to count pipeline projects.

    >Oct. 22, 2022, First Draft provided for Public Review
    After the approval of the HE sites in August, the City published the first draft

    >Dec. 10, 2022: new councilmembers Sheila Mohan and JR Fruen sworn in, and Hung Hei(sic) chosen as mayor. As customary, city offices were closed between Christmas and New Year’s.

    After JR Fruen’s election,  Cupertino For All, wrote to the City Council again, demanding major changes and a redo of the Housing Element. The letter is endorsed by Jean Bedord, Connie Cunningham and Louise Saadati. This letter is in the records for the Dec 10 meeting.
     

    >Feb 3, 2023: First Draft submitted to HCD as a placeholder to show progress.

    The City waited more than three months after the 1st draft was available (October 22, 2022) to send the draft to HCD on February 3, 2022, missing the approval deadline by three days

    >May 4, 2023: within the full 90 days allowed for review, HCD provided 14 pages of comment requiring the city to basically redo the First Draft.

    The May 4, letter by the HCD reviewing the first draft: stated that the draft submitted by the city addresses most statutory requirements! It also states that several YIMBY organizations, including JR Fruen & Jean Bedord’s Cupertino For All, had written to demand changes in the Housing Element.

    For context, the Housing Element draft submitted by Palo Alto in December 2022, was only found to address many statutory requirements, a lower level of compliance than Cupertino’s . 

    It should be evident that there was NO justification to completely redo the draft as claimed by Jean. The draft was deemed as mostly compliant and some edits would have fixed it. The changes made in the subsequent drafts were made to transform it to what was demanded by YIMBYs which JR Fruen had listed in his August 2022 letter


    >July 25, 2023: Council Study Session on the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Council approved direction to staff to develop a Housing Element with additional sites and policies per HCD direction on a vote of 4-0-1 with Moore (inexplicably) abstaining.

    The new housing element draft was submitted about a year after the first draft, This draft proposed that ALL Single Family Home Lots (R1) at corner lots or near mixed used areas, should be rezoned to R3 (Condos).  During 2023, when the new draft was being prepared 18 out of 24 Planning Commission meetings were cancelled.
     
    >Oct. 6, 2023: the Second Draft was submitted for public review under the guidance of a experienced replacement consultant

    Note, that 2nd draft (October 2023) took almost a year to develop after the first draft (October 2022). But Jean blames the resident friendly council for the delay in the initial draft which was published within 10 months of the RHNA allocation being finalized in December 2021.


    >Oct. 16,2023: the Second Draft was submitted to HCD, then revised on Oct. 30

    The HCD downgraded Cupertino’s compliance with the law after reviewing the 2nd draft. It said the draft “addresses many statutory requirements”. This was less compliant than the first draft which was deemed to have “addresses most statutory requirements”. Cupertino perhaps is the only city whose second submission was judged to be less compliant than the first submission.


    >Dec. 15, 2023: HCD provided 6 pages of comments for revision. (Just in time for holiday shutdown)

    On January 1, 2024, the city settled a lawsuit filed by JR Fruen’s YIMBY buddies. In the agreement the city stated that it is open to accept Builder’s Remedy Projects. All active Builder’s Remedy Projects were filed after the settlement of the YIMBY lawsuit in 2024. Jean chose to omit that.

    >Feb. 16, 2024: Third Draft submitted for Public Comment
    >Feb. 27, 2024: Third Draft submitted to HCD, then revised in March.
    >March 28, 2024: Final Third Draft submitted to HCD
    >April 10, 2024: HCD conditionally accepts the Third Draft, pending zoning revisions to ensure
    >May 14, 2024: Council adopted the Third Draft of the Housing Element on, on a 3-2 vote with Councilmembers Kitty Moore voting NO and Liang Chao abstaining.
    >July 16, 2024, associated zoning changes were approved by council on a 4-1 vote with Councilmember Kitty Moore voting NO.

    This was the day the rezoning of sites like Evulich Ct. were approved. Kitty Moore opposed the motion and voted NO. This adopted Housing Element required the city to plan for 1800 more homes than the 1st draft, leading to widespread upzoning across Cupertino.


    >Sept. 4, 2024 HCD officially certified the Housing Element, ending new Builder’s Remedy projects.

    Jean’s description of the process, has zero references to the letters and actions taken by Cupertino For All (Demanding changes in August 2022, Asking for a redo in December 2022, writing to HCD to oppose the 1st draft, Q1-2023). She also fails to mention the attempt to upzone single family lots to condos (R3)

    Do note that Jean highlights that Kitty Moore voted NO to motions when the draft was being redone to meet YIMBY’s demands. She is perhaps attempting to create the impression, that her NO votes led to the delay. The reality is that after November 2022 elections, the builders had control of the council (JR Fruen, Hung Wei, Sheila Mohan) and all the motions Kitty voted NO on, passed.

    Kitty Moore’s NO votes were an expression of her disagreement of the process and the outcome; they did not hinder the progress of the HE in any way.

    Chief Disinformation Office

    We feel that instead of the title of Information Officer at Cupertino For All, the Builder-Politician Complex should recognize her impact and appoint her as their Chief Disinformation Officer.

    Whether it is the facilitating the shutdown of schools while CUSD had a huge budget surplus, or the proliferation of Builder’s Remedy projects, Jean has succeeded in misleading a large segment of residents with her disinformation campaigns to drive the builder’s agenda of making billions on the back of our quality of life.

  • Single Family Neighborhoods at Risk Throughout Cupertino

    Single Family Neighborhoods at Risk Throughout Cupertino

    Over the years, there have been whisper campaigns on the mostly residential West side of Cupertino, suggesting the residents should support builder backed candidates for City Council. The reason given was that West Cupertino is already built out and will not be impacted by the denser developments desired by the builders, since it will be on the East side.

    However, the reality is that once zoning laws are changed to allow higher density construction, they apply to the entire city, not just East Cupertino. West Cupertino, is dominated by single family homes, and is especially vulnerable to policies which allow existing single family lots to be rezoned to permit multi-story high-density construction

    Linda Vista Drive Residents Wake Up to Plans for 87 New Homes

    Linda Vista Drive is situated  West of Bubb in North Monta Vista; it is in the subdivision which houses three schools: Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle and Monta Vista High. It is a neighborhood of single family homes, zoned as R1.

    There are two projects under consideration which are going to dramatically alter the neighborhood by almost doubling the number of homes on the street.

    The first project is a plan to build more than 50 townhomes on a site originally zoned for 11 single family homes. With the relaxed guidelines for setbacks, building height and floor area, the builder plans to have multi-story buildings less than 7 ft from the adjoining single family homes. Note that R1 zoning requires a 2nd story setback of at least 25f; and 40ft for larger lots. 

    The second project, Vista Heights, is a Builder’s Remedy project to convert an old quarry originally zoned for four homes with hillside zoning, to around 35 homes along with a commercial gymnasium. The entrance to the development will be via a steep road feeding into Linda Vista Park.

    Former  Mayors: Facilitating High Density Projects in West Side R1 Zones

    We recently discovered an email sent by former City Mayor, Richard Lowenthal, to current city council members Hung Wei and Sheila Mohan. Leading up to the November 2022 elections, Richard Lowenthal ran a PAC from his home address, under the self-appointed moniker of  “Council of Mayors”. This coterie of ex-mayors supported pro-builder candidates including the YIMBY JR Fruen and YIMBY endorsed Sheila Mohan. Two members of the coterie, Rod Sinks & Barry Chang are also running for the City Council, again in 2024

    The email chain starts with Leon Chen, the builder who wants to develop Vista Heights, writing to Richard Lowenthal, with the subject line “help connect with majors (sic)”. In his email, Leon asks for an introduction to council members Hung Wei and Sheila Mohan about the Vista Heights project which he had discussed with Richard. Richard forwards that email to the council member, with a personal endorsement calling “He(Leon) and his wife as wonderful people”.

    We do wonder why:

    • Leon Chen discussed the project with Richard Lowenthal who had not been on the city council for more than a decade
    • Leon Chen did not write directly to the City Council Members, but sought the introduction from the former mayor.
    • Leon Chen sought audience with only two of the five current members of the City Council

    No Neighborhood is Safe from YIMBYs

    It is not surprising that the people who won their elections, telling West Cupertino residents that they are protecting them for high density constructions, are facilitating higher density construction on Linda Vista Drive. They are beholden to the builders, not the residents of Cupertino.

    State laws like SB10 facilitate higher density construction in single family zoned lots; all it needs is approval of the city council.

    As part of the housing element, the YIMBY controlled Cupertino City Council also proposed making all corner lots in single family zoned areas to be rezoned to the R3, without any public input, allowing multi-family (apartment/condos) developments at every corner. They also wanted to make any single family lot near a big street to be eligible to be converted into an apartment.

    The final draft changed the rezoning from R3 (multi-family apartments/condos) to R2 (duplex). With ADU laws, a lot zoned for R2 can have two main homes and up to three additional Accessory Dwelling Unit per primary home. In the future, the city council can go back to the proposal of R3 density in R1 zones, as they had originally planned.

    Save our Home Values: End Builders Control


    The builders’ lobby control of Cupertino’s local governments institutions has resulted in major negative changes in our quality of life.

    They were successful in closing down multiple schools in CUSD right in the middle of the pandemic, even though CUSD schools are very crowded, and the school district was projecting a surplus of $39M over the next five years, when the schools were closed. (Read CUSD: Dispelling Disinfo with Data)

    Going forward, they want to allow construction of multi-story buildings right in the middle of single family neighborhoods, with very low setback requirements. These will make existing single family homes in Cupertino be less attractive to future buyers, since they run the risk of having a five story condominium towering over their backyard, less then six feet away from their property.

    It’s time residents of both East and West Cupertino unite to end builders’ control of our local governments, and preserve the character of our single family neighborhoods.

  • YIMBY Takeover of Cupertino City Council

    YIMBY Takeover of Cupertino City Council

    In this post we want to shed light on how YIMBY groups are dictating Cupertino’s future.


    YIMBY is an acronym for “Yes in My Back Yard”. It refers to groups who support in-fill redevelopment in urban areas. Over the past decade they have gained a lot of prominence, as they leverage the housing affordability concerns in California, to drive their political agenda.

    But who are the YIMBY? And who sponsors them? Are they truly focused towards improving the affordability of housing and housing justice? Or are they simply interested in helping developers maximize their profits by building bigger in existing high cost housing areas?

    Housing Justice Advocates Views on YIMBYs

    Housing Is A Human Right, is a housing justice group which is focused on ensuring basic housing access for all. They studied how the CA politicians are impacting the housing situation. In 2022, they published a book titled Selling Off California: The Untold Story which uncovers what key politicians (eg: Senator Scott Weiner), YIBMYs, and Big Real Estate are achieving by their policies.

    In the 1st Chapter, the author, Patrick Range McDonald,  writes:

    When I joined Housing Is A Human Right as an advocacy journalist, I wrote extensively about Big Real Estate, Wiener, and YIMBYs, who also advance the real estate industry’s scheme to make billions, probably trillions, at the expense of hard-working people.I’ve learned many things about them all. Things they don’t want you to know.

    The Progressive Elements of the Democratic Party have also expressed concern. Dean Preston, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and a member of the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) stated an interview that:

    The so-called YIMBY folks have redefined a “NIMBY” to be anyone that doesn’t just jump when the real estate industry says jump, and they’ve become a very toxic force. They have been attacking me for years, attacking pretty much anyone who demands things that actually help a community as part of development—either investments in transit or investments in affordable housing. They have evolved over the years into what is now just a complete disinformation campaign.

    Cupertino For All: Cupertino’s Hometown YIMBY Org

    Cupertino For All (C4A), is a YIMBY group incubated by current Cupertino City Council Member, JR Fruen. JR Fruen’s relationship with the Real Estate Lobby is well documented.

    In 2018, he ran a PAC which received tens of thousands of dollars from real-estate interests to support City Council candidates aligned with real-estate interests. His 2020 and 2022 campaigns for city council also received similar support (Read More). He has also served as a lawyer for a YIMBY orgs.

    Other leaders of Cupertino For All include Jean Bedord and Connie Cunningham who act as Information Officers advocating for high density developments across all of Cupertino with reduced parking requirements .

    Cupertino Housing Element: JR Fruen’s Letter to City Council (August 2022)

    As regular readers may be aware, Cupertino’s Housing Element (HE) was delayed by the City Council elected in November 2022, with the final plan approved in September 2024.

    After multiple quarters of effort, the City Staff had developed a HE plan. The plan was discussed at multiple Planning Commission & City Council meetings in 2022, with draft being ready by October 2022. JR Fruen, representing himself as the Policy Director for Cupertino For All, wrote to the City Council demanding:

    1. To not count pipeline projects towards meeting the housing unit requirements
    2. To increase the buffer of additional housing from 17% in the city’s draft proposal
    3. To increase the size of the homes allowed in different zones (without attention to aesthetics or impact on neighbors), upzoning to increase the number of homes allowed, and eliminating parking requirements.

    Council Behavior after Nov 2022 Elections

    JR Fruen was elected to the Cupertino City Council in the Nov 2022 election, along with Sheila Mohan, replacing the incumbent Darcy Paul (term out) and John Willey (did not run).

    For the December 20, 2022 City Council meeting, Cupertino For All submitted multiple communications (same form letter) expressing concern with Cupertino’s HE Plan draft (link here). The letter included endorsements from Jean Bedord, Connie Cunningham & Louise Saadatti, asking for a comprehensive redo of the Housing Element draft.

    Delaying HE Filing Resulting in Automatic Default

    The new city council did not submit the housing element created by the City Staff for almost three months after the election. The deadline for a compliant HE was Jan 31, 2023, and the City did not submit the draft approved on August 30, 2022 until February 3,2023. This put the city in automatic default, opening the flood-gates to Builder’s Remedy projects and YIMBY lawsuits.

    Lobbying HCD to Not Approve Cupertino’s HE Draft

    After delaying the draft to miss the Jan 31, 2023 deadline, Cupertino For All, and other YIMBY groups also wrote to the HCD asking for more changes in Cupertino’s draft submission. In response HCD  wrote back to the city on May 4, 2023 noting that:

    HCD considered comments from South Bay YIMBY,YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance, YIMBY Law, David Kellogg, Cupertino For All, and several residents pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c) The draft housing element addresses most statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).

    Back to the Drawing Board

    Even though the HCD letter clearly stated that the housing element addresses most statutory requirements the City Council decided to completely redo the housing element. The final draft was submitted more than a year after the original deadline, with approval coming in September 2024, more than two years after the August 2022 meeting where the city council discussed the original draft.

    While redoing the HE, the elements asked for by YIMBY groups as exemplified by JR Fruen’s letter were incorporated in the HE. 

    1. About 1316 homes in the pipeline were removed and not counted against the 4588 required
    2. The buffer to the 4588 requirement was increased substantially from 787 (17%) to 1293 (28%). This forced the city  to identify locations to build approximately 1822 more homes than the original plan.
    3. There were extensive modifications to the city ordinances and building guidelines to increase the size of the houses permitted, along with a reduction in parking requirements. This included change the zoning of around 1600 single family lots (R1) on corner lots or those close to retail or major arteries to R3-condo standards which would have allowed big bulk buildings with just 5 ft setbacks and height restrictions relaxed.

    Downgrade in Compliance from “addresses most” to “addresses many”

    The 2nd draft submitted by JR Fruen led council in October 2023, was judged by HCD as “addresses many statutory requirements”. This was a downgrade in compliance with how the first draft was evaluated by HCD, and led to the settlement of the YIMBY lawsuit.

    YIMBY Lawsuit Settlement: Builder’s Remedy Plans Welcome

    In January 2024, the city decided to settle a lawsuit filed by YIMBY organizations, allowing Builder’s Remedy projects and also exempting Housing Element sites from CEQA (Environmental Review). Note that the settlement of this lawsuit gave a green light to Builder’s Remedy projects including the giant condominium on Scofied Drive on a single family lot.

    Increasing Permitted Home Size: June 18, 2024 Letter from Cupertino For All


    JR Fruen’s group, Cupertino For All, also wrote to the City asking for more changes in a letter dated June 18, 2024 (on agenda for July 2, 2024 City Council meeting (File # 24-13102). We are including key excerpts from the letter at the end of this post.

    The City Council of Cupertino, decided to adopt most of the demands by Cupertino For All which impact how large buildings can be in different zones of the city (height limits, number of stories, floor area coverage, setbacks from property line) and also reduced parking requirements. Sheila Mohan and Hung Wei voted YES in support of JR Fruen’s proposals, while Liang Chao and Kitty Moore typically voted NO.

    YIMBY Sponsored Council

    Hung Wei and Sheila Mohan’s support for YIMBY sponsored changes to increase building size, is not surprising. Both of them have been endorsed by YIMBY groups (eg: Sheila in 2022) and Hung Wei in 2020.

    Kitty Moore and Liang Chiao opposed the motions since these changes were not recommended by staff or public input, and bigger units are against the mandate for affordable housing. However, since the City Council majority is controlled by YIMBY sponsored candidates, their NO vote did not make a difference.

    What does that mean for Builders?

    Note that the latest demands by Cupertino For All, have little to do with the number of housing units, but are designed to allow buildings with bigger footprint. In Cupertino, where the average price per square feet (~ $1350) is almost 4X the cost of construction (~$350 sq/ft), every incremental sq. ft. a builder adds about $1000 to their profit.

    The very group claiming to champion affordable housing is, in fact, contributing to the inflation of housing prices by changing building regulations to allow much bigger homes than before.

    What does that mean for Existing Residents?

    We will consider the Evulich Ct development on Linda Vista Drive, which is in the middle of a single family neighborhood, with one or two story homes. The site was up zoned from an R1 site with a maximum density of 5 homes/acre, to R3/TH requiring a minimum housing unit density of 20 homes/acre to a maximum of 35 homes/acre.

    Though the R3 zone has a height limit of 30 ft, density bonus laws allow the builders to waive those requirements. Initial designs submitted by Summerhill, are asking for a density bonus waiver for various city requirements including the 30ft height limit.

    Note that these exemptions are on top of the home-size enlarging changes demanded by Cupertino For All, many of which have been incorporated in the City’s Code.


    Take our City Back from YIMBYs

    It’s clear that YIMBY groups like Cupertino For All, are a front to enable builders to make huge profits, without any regard to the quality of life of existing residents. With the backing of the powerful Real Estate lobby, and lawmakers beholden to them (eg Scott Wiener), they misuse affordable housing as an excuse to bypass zoning guidelines in the most expensive neighborhoods in the country.

    We have the choice to elect City Council members who are not beholden to these Real Estate interests, and will also consider the interests of the existing residents of the city in their decision framework.


    Extracts from Cupertino For All Demands to allow Bigger Homes (June 2024)

    Note: The article was updated to reflect new information we unovered about the city’s second HE draft submitted in October 2023. on October 25, 2024.

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

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

    Last December we highlighted how the Cupertino City Council was making changes which would drastically alter the character of its Single Family Neighborhoods. Another risk to the single family neighborhoods is what is called Builder’s Remedy.

    Builder’s Remedy is a new interpretation of a California Housing Accountability Law (1990) which allows developers to ignore the zoning requirements of the area. They can build whatever they want as long as 20% of the homes are reserved for low income housing or 100% for middle income housing. Builder’s Remedy comes into play if the City does not have an approved Housing Element (HE) plan with the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)

    October 2022 HE Plan

    In spite of the challenges posed by the pandemic, the City of Cupertino had a draft of the Housing Element (HE documents available here) ready in October 2022 for public review. This was a quarter before the filing deadline of January 31, 2023. The plan had provisions for 117% of the requirement the city was expected to fulfill.

    Default by Three Days

    After the November 2022 elections, JR Fruen & Sheila Mohan replaced Darcy Paul & Jon Willey in the Cupertino City Council. Along with the incumbent Hung Wei, this led to shift in control of the council, with the resident-focussed leaders being in the minority. JR Fruen is the founder of Cupertino For All, a YIMBY lobbying group, and has received substantial funding from real-estate related interests both for his City Council Campaign, and for running a PAC (2018) supporting builders interests.


    The new city council submitted the HE to the HDC on February 3, 2023,  three days after the official deadline of Jan 31, 2023. Not having the plan on file, by the January 31st deadline, put Cupertino in automatic default of the HAA and opened the flood-gates for Builder’s Remedy projects and YIMBY lawsuits.

    Delaying the Housing Element Plan by Nineteen Months

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

    “The draft housing element addresses most statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code)

    It also stated that:  

    “HCD considered comments from South Bay YIMBY, YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance, YIMBY Law, David Kellogg, Cupertino For All”. 

    Yes, you read it right. Cupertino For All, the organization incubated by JR Fruen, demanded changes in the HE submitted by Cupertino, where JR Fruen himself is a council member! 

    Earlier in August, 2022, JR Fruen, had written to the City, as the Policy Director for Cupertino For All, asking the council to not consider the pipeline projects at Vallco & Hamptons as part of the HE, asking for a larger buffer, and questioning why more sites were not being up-zoned. (Page 81-83 of communications for Aug 16 meeting)


    After getting elected to the City Council, with the support of Mayor Hung Wei & Sheila Mohan, JR Fruen drove the process of redoing the HE with the final plan submitted in March 2024, more than an year after the Jan 31, 2023 deadline; it was accepted in September 2024. During the nineteen months period the HE was delayed, the council removed many pipeline projects from the HE, added more sites, upzoning them along the way without adequate community input. 

    The final HE is expected to increase the total number of housing units in Cupertino by 30%! Delaying the HE by nineteen months, to satisfy YIMBY organizations’ desire to upzone sites showed a complete disregard to the risk posed by Builder’s Remedy.

    During these one and a half years, Cupertino had no defenses against Builder’s Remedy projects

    Builder’s Remedy Proposals

    There are two projects which we want to discuss in this post which give us a window for what is in store for us in the future. 

    20739 Scofield Drive

    This proposal is to construct a FIVE story, 20 unit condominium to replace a single family home on Schofield Drive near Faria Elementary School.

    Proposed five-story condominium complex in a single family neighborhood

    The single family home which will be replaced by the five story condominium


    Vista Heights (former McDonald Dorsa quarry)

    This proposal is combining three parcels zoned for Residential Hill Side (RHS) and converting them to a development with 35 homes and a commercial gymnasium. The entry to the complex will be via a road which ends inside Linda Vista Park. The City RHS Ordinance is designed to preserve the natural setting of the hillside and protection from natural hazards like fire & landslides, but it will no longer be applicable since this is a Builder’s Remedy project.

    A similar proposal on this site requesting a General Plan Amendment  had been considered by the City Council in 2019 but did not receive a go-ahead due to the steepness of the land, and the amount of regrading needed to make the plan feasible.

    Neighborhood Impact

    Both these projects are fundamentally altering the nature of the neighborhoods. The Scoffield drive plan is putting a five-story building in the middle of a quiet tree-lined street in a single family neighborhood.

    Street View of Scofield Drive: A quiet residential street

    The Vista Heights project will require significant regrading to carve out building-pads for the 30+ homes, on a steep hill. This will impact the stability of the hill, possibly increasing the risk of landslides and putting neighboring homes at risk. It will also route commercial traffic through Linda Vista Park, coming down a steep sloping road, impacting the safety of the residents, especially children using the park.

    This trend of building five story buildings on single family lots will drive existing homeowners out of Cupertino and also discourage future single family  home buyers from Cupertino. Cupertino homes demand a premium pricing, and new buyers will be reluctant to pay that premium if the lot next door can be converted into a five story condominium.

    What Can We Do?

    These projects serve as a reminder of the risk to our quality of life when our city council does not represent the interests of existing residents, but prioritizes maximizing the profits of real estate developers.

    For the time-being, the city will not be required to accept any new Builder’s Remedy projects since the Housing Element Plan has been accepted by the HCD. However, there are other laws which can lead to similar construction (eg: SB10 which allows 14 units on a single family lot). A new Housing Element plan will also be required in a few more years.

    The residents of Linda Vista neighborhood are petitioning the City Council to review those decisions, and Scofield residents have actively pushed back against the developer. However, the best way to preserve our neighborhoods is to elect a city council which is not beholden to builders’ interests and will keep existing residents’ interests in mind when developing the city.

  • YIMBY Lawsuit Costs Cupertino

    YIMBY Lawsuit Costs Cupertino

    On January 10, 2024, Cupertino settled a lawsuit filed by California Housing Defense Fund and Yes In My Back Yard (YIMBY) for missing its state-mandated Housing Element deadline. According to YIMBY Law, whose slogan includes “Sue the Suburbs,” about a dozen Bay Area jurisdictions have been sued for missing their housing-element deadlines, including Palo Alto, Burlingame, and the County of Santa Clara.

    YIMBY Law claims that nearly half of Bay Area cities remain out of compliance. Their complaint against Palo Alto drew the ire of residents who commented that the lawsuit is a scam used to raise money by organizations that are “backed by investment firms, developers and real estate lobbies.”

    Total Cost Unknown

    To settle the lawsuit, Cupertino paid YIMBY Law and California Housing Defense Fund, $6,000 and $9,000 respectively. The cities of Cupertino, Palo Alto and Burlingame also hired the law firm Goldfarb & Lipman for their defense. Cupertino has paid its contract attorney tens of thousands of dollars in 2023, but it is unknown as to how much was spent on this lawsuit because the City uses the firm for other housing-related issues. Santa Clara County appears to have used its in-house counsel to defend itself from a similar lawsuit filed by Californians for Homeownership, an organization that is “financed and controlled by the California Association of Realtors.”1

    Environmental Consequences

    As part of the settlement with YIMBY Law and CalHDF, Cupertino agreed to exempt its entire Housing Element from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). This saves time and expedites development projects, but silences the public’s environmental concerns. 

    In spite of the financial and environmental costs to the City, Vice Mayor J.R. Fruen, who has been endorsed by YIMBY organizations and represented them in legal cases, was positive about the lawsuit. Via the Mercury News, Fruen stated, “the city is right to welcome the result.” 

    Via San José Spotlight, Councilmember Kitty Moore countered “CEQA involves the public with public disclosure of environmental impacts to mitigate those impacts as possible, and to ultimately keep workers and residents informed and safe.” According to the New York Times, due to semiconductor manufacturing, “Santa Clara County is riddled with 23 toxic Superfund sites, more than any county in the country.” Notably, Councilmember Moore, who uncovered toxic waste at the former Vallco site, championed to have the site remediated in order to protect human health. Her actions spurred the County Department of Environmental Health to force a cleanup. 

    Moore emphasized, “This exemption from CEQA is not a win for anyone.”

    Sources:

  • Cupertino, We Can Do Better: Register to Vote and Vote Regularly

    Cupertino, We Can Do Better: Register to Vote and Vote Regularly

    In a recent article published in The.Ink, Anand Giridharadas interviews Daniel Ziblatt, a scholar and co-author (with Steven Levitsky) How Democracies Die (2018) and Tyranny of the Minority (2023). The interview is thoughtful and worth the read, but the salient point is addressed in the headline, “Want to Save Democracy? Watch Less Cable News; Attend More Town Meetings”. 1

    One to add to the Strengthen Democracy To Do list: vote regularly.

    Why should Cupertino residents vote?

    In Cupertino, approximately 73% of all adult residents are registered to vote. Of the 73% registered to vote, only 60% cast ballots in the November 2022 General Election. Cupertino had a better showing for the November 2020 Presidential Election, with 88% of registered voters returning ballots. However, relative to several nearby communities, Cupertino residents are registered to vote at much lower rates. Residents of Campbell, Gilroy, Palo Alto, Los Altos, Morgan Hill, Saratoga, and others have better voter registration rates than Cupertino.

    When we choose not to vote, we lose our voices. In 2024, the rest of Cupertino joins the small sliver of the city that is part of California Senate District 13. CA SD-13 is centered in San Mateo County, where 84% of eligible adults were registered to vote for the November 2022 General Election.2 As Cupertino joins CA SD-13, we participate at a reduced capacity when our residents cannot be counted on to deliver votes or other campaign support for candidates on par with other CA SD-13 communities.3

    Your vote makes a difference!

    In 2018, 45 votes separated two candidates in Cupertino with very different political platforms and bases of support: one was elected to Council and the other was not. In 2022, the race for the Sunnyvale District 3 Council Member seat was decided by a draw by the County Registrar of Voters after two recounts confirmed a tie between the two candidates.

    When we vote, we support democracy by ensuring that the winning candidates or measures are the ones with the broadest possible support. When voters sit out an election, we risk the total number of “non-voting” registered voters will be greater than the actual votes received by winning candidates, especially for local elections that do not have a primary.

    March 5, 2024 Primary Presidential Election

    The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters commits to sending vote-by-mail ballots for the March 5, 2024 Presidential Primary Election to all county voters no later than Monday, February 5.

    The March 5, 2024 election includes:4

    Proposition 1, added by the Legislature, that if passed would “[Authorize] $6.38 Billion in bonds to build mental health treatment facilities for those with mental health and substance abuse challenges, [provide] housing for the homeless”

    Primary voting for:

    • US President
    • US Senator
    • US Congressional Representative
    • State Senator (odd numbered districts)
    • Member of the Assembly, including AD-26
    • Judgeships and County Central Committees

    If you or someone close to you are eligible to vote, but not yet registered to vote, the last day to register to vote in the March 5, 2024 election is Tuesday, February 20, 2024 (postmarked registration or electronic submission). You may also register on election day by completing a form at a polling location; however, your vote will not be counted until your information is verified.

    Find voter registration information here.

    Not sure if you are registered to vote? Check your registration status, including the name you are registered under, here. You can also sign up to receive notifications from the Registrar of Voters when your completed ballot is returned.

    Take steps in 2024 to strengthen democracy in our community. Step away from the screen and step forward to in-person, community meetings whenever possible. Register to vote or investigate options to become eligible for US citizenship. If already registered to vote, learn about candidates and ballot measures and take time to vote!

    References

    1 – “Want to Save Democracy? Watch Less Cable News; Attend More Town Meetings,” by Anand Giridharadas, The.Ink, 1/11/2024: https://the.ink/p/want-to-save-democracy-watch-less

    2 – “Report of Registration as of October 24, 2022, Registration by County,” Office of the California Secretary of State, accessed 1/24/2024: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/report-registration/15day-general-2022

    3 – “Final Maps Report,” We Draw the Lines, 12/26/2021: https://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/final-maps/final-maps-report/

    4 – “March 5, 2024 Presidential Primary Election, List of Offices.” County of Santa Clara, accessed 1/24/2024: https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/2023-10/list-of-offices-03.05.pdf

  • Cupertino Council Majority Moves to Reduce Transparency into Lobbyist Activity

    At the July 6, 2023 City Council meeting, three Councilmembers (Wei, Fruen, and Mohan) approved first round changes weakening Cupertino’s lobbyist registration ordinance. The changes include a provision that allows lobbyists who are paid less than $5,000/quarter to avoid publicly disclosing their activity. Councilmembers Moore and Chao opposed the changes.

    Cupertino’s Lobbyist Ordinance: A Brief History

    In February 2021, the Cupertino Council enacted an ordinance that requires lobbyists to publicly disclose their activities. The term “lobbyist” included individuals, media, businesses, and select organizations that attempt to influence the government in exchange for paid compensation. This ordinance provides transparency to Cupertino residents around lobbying activity, and helps ensure that our city’s democratic processes are not unduly influenced by conflicts of interest. 

    In July 2022, the League of Women Voters Cupertino Sunnyvale (LWVCS) filed a lawsuit challenging Cupertino’s Lobbyist Registration Ordinance. “When this ordinance was passed, there was no dispute from the League of Women Voters regarding this,” stated Councilmember Kitty Moore during the July 6th, 2023 City Council meeting. “Instead, a lawsuit was filed sometime around July 2022. We’ve now spent over $47K on outside attorney fees, and that is not including the work in the city attorney’s office. In the future, when we have an ordinance, and it’s approved… it would be my preference that an organization/individuals come to the city attorney and council and make the case for why the ordinance needs to be changed.”

    In May 2023, the United States District Court – Northern District of California granted the City’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. However, by 2023, two new council members that oppose the lobbyist ordinance (Sheila Mohan and JR Fruen) had replaced the former Councilmembers who helped create it (Darcy Paul and Jon Willey). Mayor Wei, a LWVCS officer until just before the League filed its lawsuit against the City, also pivoted her position to oppose the lobbyist ordinance.

    New Council Moves to Limit Lobbyist Ordinance

    The new Council approved first round changes that reduce transparency around lobbyist activity. (Wei, Mohan, and Fruen voted YES; Chao and Moore voted NO) This means:

    • Expenditure Lobbyists will no longer be required to publicly disclose their activity (Expenditure lobbyists are defined as entities who pay others to lobby the City or elected officials on behalf of a position).

    • Media will no longer be required to disclose lobbying activity, regardless of who funds the media activity (Media includes newspapers, newsletters, a radio or television, and Internet publications)

    • Nonprofit and member benefit organizations will no longer be required to disclose their lobbying activity, regardless of who funds the nonprofit organizations.

    • Any lobbyist paid less than $5,000 per calendar quarter will not be required to register as such with the City of Cupertino.

    A Comparison of Local Lobbyist Ordinances

    One justification that staff made for the changes was to bring Cupertino’s lobbying ordinance in line with other local cities, counties, or the state. However, the lobbying ordinances in cities and counties closest to us are actually consistent with Cupertino’s current ordinance. For example, both Santa Clara County’s and San Jose’s lobbyist payment thresholds are $1,000 per consecutive three month period or $5,000 per year for expenditure lobbyists. In-house lobbyists who lobby for 10 hours or more in a consecutive 12-month period must also register.

    During the July 6th meeting, Councilmember Chao disagreed with the usage of the State of California, with its population of 39 million people (via 2022 U.S. Census Bureau estimates), as a benchmark for the City of Cupertino. “For the entire state of California, the limit is $5,000 per quarter. For a tiny city of Cupertino, if the limit is $5,000 per period, I don’t think anyone would ever qualify,” stated Chao. 

    A Loss of Transparency in Cupertino

    The U.S. District Court upholds the 2021 lobbyist registration ordinance, dismissing a lawsuit filed against it by the League of Women Voters Cupertino Sunnyvale. However, the City chooses to disregard the Court’s ruling, and dismantle the ordinance by adding exemptions and raising threshold reporting amounts. 

    From 2021 to 2023, the Cupertino City Council has shifted in sentiment from favoring transparency to shielding lobbyists more than the rest of the county. Failure to provide real accountability, and instead focusing only on partisan political mediocrity, further sacrifices quality governance at the expense of undisclosed pandering.

    To note, Cupertino Facts does not pay any writers, and is driven 100% by the volunteer efforts of Cupertino residents.

    The lobbyist registration ordinance will be discussed by Council again in September 2023.


  • Santa Clara District Attorney Finds No Evidence of Council Member Interference with Staffing Decisions

    Santa Clara District Attorney Finds No Evidence of Council Member Interference with Staffing Decisions

    The Santa Clara Office of the District Attorney has found no evidence for a referral accusing current and former Cupertino City Council Members of interfering with staff hiring and firing decisions. 

    Council Members Kitty Moore and Liang Chao prepare for council meetings by reading the materials and asking questions. They have been accused by the new Council majority of exercising improper conduct in their interactions with current and previous Cupertino City Managers. The DA’s letter confirms that the accusations of criminal conduct are baseless, and it similarly affirms that the insinuations against former Mayor Darcy Paul have “no evidence, documentary or otherwise” to support them.

    The District Attorney refutes Hung Wei’s accusations against her fellow Council Members Kitty Moore and Liang Chao, sent via email to the public on May 21st, 2023.

    “There is no evidence, documentary or otherwise, that any former or current Council Member attempted to influence any of the City Managers in their hiring or firing decisions,” states Deputy District Attorney John Chase in a letter to Cupertino City Attorney Chris Jensen.


    Below is the full letter:


  • Civil Grand Jury Case Consumes Public Resources Scrutinizing Prior Council’s Actions

    From 2018-2022, resident-focused Council Members held a 4-1 majority in Cupertino, ensuring that our local government served the needs and interests of residents first. These Council Members pushed back against those who came to Cupertino intent on maximizing profit with little regard for how their actions impact the people who live here.

    During 2018-2022, the Council worked with City staff to accomplish significant achievements for the benefit of Cupertino residents, including:

    Despite efforts to elect 3 resident-focused Council Members in 2022, campaigns backing financial interest candidates were significantly better funded. Council Member Liang Chao was re-elected, but financial interest candidates prevailed in 2022 and, for now, hold a 3-2 Council majority in Cupertino.

    Resident-focused Council Members Liang Chao and Kitty Moore continue to work hard to advocate for fiscal accountability, transparency, environmental protection, sensible development, and improved transit and City services for residents. They continue these efforts in spite of a work environment made hostile by a Mayor and majority Council who resent sharing the dais with Council members whose legislative priorities and base of support differ from their own. Unlike today’s Council majority, Council Members Chao and Moore neither sought nor received campaign support from financial interests: not from real estate interests, corporations, nor labor unions.

    In 2022, an anonymous individual submitted a complaint to the Civil Grand Jury, Santa Clara County alleging that resident-focused Council Members asked too many questions, wrote too many email messages to staff, made certain staff members “feel threatened”–not to be confused with  threatening staff, which they did not do–, and filed public records requests (a right that is protected by State Law for all persons, including elected officials, under Government Code § 7921).

    Here is the timeline of events that have followed since the complaint was filed, as summarized in the City Attorney’s presentation delivered to Council on 5/9/2023:

    Dec. 19 – Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report released

    Feb. 21 – City Council approves response to Grand Jury Report and directs [the Office of the City Attorney] to conduct investigation

    May 2 – City Council votes to waive privilege over independent investigation report

    May 9 – Public discussion of investigation report

    On 5/9/2023, Council Members Moore and Chao read statements and recused themselves before Council deliberations began, identifying in their comments why they would not participate in a process that exposed them to possible financial and legal consequences. Under the Civil Grand Jury procedure, those accused can neither face their accusers nor review the evidence that the Civil Grand Jury considered to render its decision.

    Council Member Chao also questioned the attorneys present about which Cupertino Municipal Codes specifically that she allegedly violated, as none were cited by section number in either the Civil Grand Jury Report nor in the City-funded investigation summary, the Fact Finding Report. The City Attorney either could not or chose not to answer Council Member Chao’s question directly. Instead, he asserted that the problem rested with the accused Council Members’ perceived “volume and tone of voice,” presumably when asking questions or engaging with staff.

    Council Member Chao cited specific Municipal Code sections which did appear to codify the right of Council Members to ask questions of staff. The Municipal Code also appears to protect staff from overtly burdensome requests from individual Council Members, directing staff to refer the Council Member to the City Manager if questions were to require significant research or communication time. Regrettably, the exchange with the City Attorney resolved with the City Attorney accusing Council Member Chao of “distorting the Municipal Code,” and Council Member Chao asserting that she still does not know which sections of the Municipal Code she is alleged to have violated as none are cited by number in the reports.

    Then, the special interest council majority led by Council Member Fruen voted to remove Council Members Moore and Chao from their committee assignments. 

    It is questionable whether 3 Council Members will adequately represent Cupertino residents on the many City, district, County, and regional boards and committees without assistance from Council Members Moore and Chao. 

    In 4 or 5 months, Council will again revisit the Civil Grand Jury report and reconsider the political consequences the Council majority has imposed on their colleagues. What will have changed?

    For further detail:

  • Public comment, 5/9 meeting: former Cupertino Mayor Darcy Paul

    Public comment, 5/9 meeting: former Cupertino Mayor Darcy Paul