Earlier this evening, the coterie of ex-mayors resurfaced and sent out an email message spreading disinformation about how and why the Housing Element was delayed leading to Builder’s Remedy.
Stealing Design & Claiming Copyright
In their message, they included a picture taken from the “Save Our Neighborhoods” sign which some residents developed to highlight the risk of high density construction in single family lots. They not only did not give credit to the person who had created the sign, they even claimed copyright to it! Further while the signs were meant to support Kitty Moore and Ray Wang, the deceiving mayors used them to support their opponents.
We are including a video from the resident who created this sign, who shares his outrage at the theft of his intellectual property, and the unethical attempts by the ex-mayors to deceive Cupertino Residents.
The residents demand an immediate retraction from Richard Lowenthal, Dolly Sandoval, Kris Wang, JR Fruen, Hung Wei, and Sheila Mohan for stealing our intellectual property and attempting to falsely copyright it. This is emblematic of your unethical leadership and it is unacceptable .
Screenshot from email sent by the three ex-mayors
Disinformation Barrage Continues
A lot has already been written about how the builder’s took over the city council via their YIMBY proxy JR Fruen & Sheila Mohan) in November 2022.
Instead of adopting the existing Housing Element draft and submitting it for approval, they waited till after the deadline to even submit it. While evaluating that submission, HCD declared that it “addresses most statutory requirements. For context, Palo-Alto’s draft was judged to “address many statutory requirements”, a lower level of compliance.
HCD also noted that many YIMBY orgs including JR Fruen’s Cupertino For All shared comments about why the draft required revisions. Thereafter they delayed the housing element by 18 months exposing the city to Builder’s Remedy. In their legal settlement with JR’s buddies in other YIMBY orgs in early 2024 the City invited Builder’s Remedy projects. All Active Builder Remedy projects were filed after that settlement.
Please do not let these unethical people succeed in deceiving you.
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
In 2019, the resident focused city council voted against development on the Vista Heights property. (details here)
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”
Kitty Moore voted NO, to the July 2024 Housing Element approval which legally up-zoned the Evulich Court site to R3.
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.
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 inblue. 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.
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:
To not count pipeline projects towards meeting the housing unit requirements
To increase the buffer of additional housing from 17% in the city’s draft proposal
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 requirementsthe 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.
About 1316 homes in the pipeline were removed and not counted against the 4588 required
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.
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.
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.
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
“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.
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 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.
(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.
The existing Transitional Kindergarten was shut down and relocated to another school.
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.
Do you know that an employee swindled nearly $800,000 from the City of Cupertino, running an embezzlement scamwhich lasted from 2000-2014, and was finally addressed in 2018.
What is surprising is that a coterie of ex-Mayors of Cupertino, who were in the council prior till 2018, have been sending extremely inflammatory mails about the resident focussed council, which was elected for the first time in November 2018. This is the coterie which presided over this period of embezzlements and weak financial controls!
In order to avoid such scams, the residents focussed Cupertino City Council, instituted an external audit (via Moss-Adams) of the financial operations of the City. The audit identified serious gaps in the City’s Processes, and a plan to fix them has been put in place. You can read the report here
As the Moss-Adams report shows, the coterie of ex-Mayors presided over serious gaps, including what the auditors called a Full Gap in the most critical portions: the Accounts Payable, Revenue and Accounts Receivable, and Payroll & Timekeeping.
Please continue to support your resident oriented city leaders who are working hard to steady the ship in Cupertino since being elected in 2018, after many years of mismanagement. They are putting in financial controls to ensure transparency and prevent scams. (Learn more here).
Please vote for Govind Tatachari, Liang Chao, and Steven Scharf for Cupertino City Council
Restoring School System (CUSD) Vitality
Our school system, CUSD is being run into the ground with 33% of all eligible studentsnow choosing to attend non-CUSD schools. The recent closing of three campuses has accelerated this flight. This coterie of mayors also exerted a lot of influence in the board of the CUSD with cross endorsements and campaign finance support.
Please vote for Darcy Paul, Satheesh Madhathil & Jerry Liu for CUSD Board. They have taken a public stance against school closures, and will work towards rolling them back.
Coterie of ex-Mayors backed Candidates
Please do NOT vote for the candidates backed by this coterie, who are also endorsed and supported by the three CUSD trustees who spear-headed the effort to close schools. These candidates, supportive of school closures, are JR Fruen, Sheila Mohan (City Council) and Ava Chiao (CUSD) are a risk to our home values and should be actively opposed.
Note that the three trustee of CUSD who led the school closing efforts are facing their own recall by CUSD parents living across multiple cities.
Getting things in Order
In order to fix the problems the coterie of mayors have left behind, it is important that both the City Council and CUSD work together to address residents’ interests, including putting an end to school closures, reopening closed campuses and adding school capacity for the thousands of new homes in the development pipeline.
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 enhance the dignity and respect of our Council and School District, and ensure that the local agencies work for the betterment of the residents
It’s no secret that homes in Cupertino command a significant premium due to the stellar reputation of CUSD schools. However, due to the anti-children policies of the CUSD board, 33% of all eligible children are now attending private schools. This number has grown 3x in the past decade.
With parents fleeing CUSD due to lower desirability of schools, our home values are at risk.
One of the big reasons for the flight was the mismanagement by CUSD including overcrowding, and the deeply unpopular decision to close three campuses on extremely flimsy and unsubstantiated grounds. In order to restore vitality to CUSD, it’s critical that we do not close any more schools, and reopen the recently closed campuses.
In order to secure the future of our children and preserve home values, please do NOT vote for any candidate who is supported (eg: campaign funding, endorsed) by those who spear-headed the effort to close our schools or construction interests who covet the land under our schools
To 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.
CUSD has among the most crowded schools in the region. In spite of that there are certain elements who want to close our school campuses.
Ava Chiao & School Board Future
One such candidates is Ava Chaio for CUSD Board.
Ava has stated that she supports school closure. Beyond supporting school closure, she has even proposed plans on how the land of the closed schools should be used to build housing.
Ava is backed by unions who are pouring in tens of thousands of dollars to her campaign; she will not be representing the parents’ or the children’s interests on the board.
Ava is being supported by other candidates who have championed for school closure like JR Fruen. Ava has contributed to JR Fruen’s campaign.
No Plans to Adress Students’ Challenges
However, we have seen little from Ava on how the problems created by over crowded schools will be addressed.
Whether it is the lack of lockers in middle school, children not having table space to have their lunch (they sit on the ground), the large traffic bottlenecks, Ava has no plans to address those.
School Closure & Property Values
With more than 30% of children in CUSD going to private schools, one of the major reasons why people paid premium prices for Cupertino homes is fading away. This will impact the desirability of Cupertino and will impact property prices negatively.
Save Cupertino Schools and Your Home Values
Even if you do not have school going children, your home values are strongly impacted by the quality of schools.
In order to ensure that CUSD schools thrive and your homes do not lose value, please do not vote for any candidate who supports school closure.
Ava Chiao has even proposed plans for how to use land under the closed schools; she has no plans on how to reduce the exodus to private schools from CUSD.
To 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.
It is no secret that homes in CUSD command a premium to neighboring communities because of the high quality of schools. Real Estate listings in Cupertino specifically mention the Cupertino schools the children in the home will attend.
But This May Not Last Forever
In 2021 CUSD shut down three school campuses claiming a financial shortfall, even though their own projections show a surplus of over 39 Million dollars over the next five years.
CUSD has the most crowded schools in Silicon Valley
And parents are now increasingly sending their children to private schools
The percentage of children in CUSD who are attending private schools has been rising dramatically. It has tripled in the past decade.
The word is getting out that in spite of their high test scores, the overall educational experience being offered in CUSD is falling below the standards parents expect.
And they are voting with their wallets, by spending tens of thousands of dollars every year to send their children to private schools.
Home Values Impacted Negatively
This trend of falling confidence in CUSD schools will impact home values negatively since one of the primary reason homes command high value is not as relevant any more.
We have already observed this with homes in parts of Sunnyvale School District (Cumberland area) commanding similar prices to homes in Cupertino, for homes of comparable size and age. A decade ago these homes used to about 15-20% less expensive than Cupertino.
Preserve Home Values: Restore Vitality in CUSD Schools
In order to ensure that Cupertino homes command a premium value, it is important to preserve the quality of CUSD schools.
We need to roll back school closures
We need to plan for additional capacity as the thousands of homes in the pipeline are built
