An unusual expense is raising questions amongst Cupertino’s City Councilmembers and residents. Last year, while Cupertino was struggling with a fiscal deficit, City Manager Pamela Wu and current Councilmember Sheila Mohan (former Mayor) used city funds to cover luxury hotel stays at The Ritz Carlton in Bangalore (Bengaluru), India.
Mohan and Wu had been visiting Bhubaneswar, Cupertino’s Sister City in India. But oddly, according to publicly released expense receipts, both flew into a different city, Bangalore and stayed at the Ritz-Carlton for multiple nights on the city’s dime. Afterwards, the pair proceeded to the Sister City, Bhubaneswar for another four nights.
What Cupertino-related business could justify the expense of staying in Bangalore? Bangalore is Mohan’s hometown, but it is over 800 miles away from the Sister City, Bhubaneswar.
Distance between Bhubaneswar and Bengaluru (Bangalore), India
During the April 2nd City Council meeting, the Bhubaneswar Sister City organization made a presentation covering its partnership with Cupertino to date. None of the activities for Mohan’s visit were located in Bangalore.
During the March 18th City Council meeting, Mayor Liang Chao raised concerns over the fact that the trip and its over $6,000 in associated expenses (across Sheila Mohan and Pamela Wu) were never approved by council. Cupertino’s Sister Cities policy clearly defines a City-supported delegation as one that includes students. Committees with only adults or fewer than 4 students must be “considered” by Council. However, the most recent trip did not bring any student delegates to Bhubaneswar.
The goal of the Sister City program is to foster educational, technical, economic and cultural exchange between Cupertino and its Sister Cities. Why were city funds used for activities unrelated to Cupertino, without Council approval, and in conflict with city policies? The challenges are significant when some are attacked by special interests, while others are able to coast through with egregious improprieties such as luxury travel on the taxpayers’ dime.
Sheila Mohan’s tenure as Mayor ended with more than one decision lacking in transparency and proper protocols. In addition to the unexplained luxury trip expense, the regular City Council meeting scheduled for November 4th—just two days before Mohan and Wu’s trip—was apparently unlawfully canceled without Council approval. According to the Cupertino Municipal Code, any cancellation of a regular Cupertino City Council meeting requires a majority vote from the Council.
As written in the law, there is agendized public business at every regular Cupertino City Council meeting. The right of the public to speak at any regular public meeting regarding any concern within the purview of the City Council is specified in our Municipal Code (“Every agenda for regular meetings of the City Council shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the council on any item of interest to the public that is within the city’s jurisdiction.” Cupertino Municipal Code 2.08.105.A).
As such, the City Manager cannot decide by herself to cancel regular Council meetings. The right of the public to speak applies to every agenda for regular meetings of the City Council. Then-Mayor Mohan, the City Manager’s international luxury travel partner during this time, allowing the City Manager to cancel a regular meeting would be clear-cut “Councilmanic interference.” We were unable to locate any public process or rationale behind the cancellation, which created more than a month-long gap between regular meetings and supplanted the work of the public, during which time both the City Manager and Mohan were enjoying a taxpayer-funded stay at the Ritz Carlton in Mohan’s hometown.
In contrast, the connections between integrity and efficacy are clear, and are demonstrated with our current Mayor, Dr. Liang Chao, who is in her seventh year on City Council. Since beginning her term as Mayor, Chao has made strong efforts that are foundational to increasing and restoring transparency, public awareness, and ensuring a healthy and vibrant democracy in Cupertino. In addition to ensuring that public issues are heard rather than canceled, with respect to this issue, Chao has called for clarifications to the Sister Cities policy to ensure the City’s funds are properly used in the future.
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.
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.
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.
2. Debunking the “redevelopment needs office space to break even” myth
3. An update on the campaign spending by various candidates
4. A note from a fellow resident about the Bullying of our Treasurer Minna Xu
That is the line of a mailer sent by the coterie of ex-mayors claiming financial ruin in the city.
We would like to reassure the residents that the city is doing great financially, and your Harvard & Princeton educated councilperson (aka “bums”) are strengthening its governance.
The city has also instituted an internal audit function, instituted better financial processes & controls as recommended by Moss-Adams, and has created a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Program to allow whistle-blowers to report concerns anonymously to prevent embezzlement like the multi-year scam (2000-2014) which cost the city $800K. The City Manager has the following to say in his introduction to the city budget for 2022-2023
“The City is on solid financial footing in FY 2022-23 with a balanced budget. The budget is balanced with ongoing revenues meeting or exceeding expenditures, and fund balance is being used to fund one-time projects”
“Redevelopment Need Office Space to Break Even”: Not True
Another myth propagated by the investors’ proxies is that redevelopment needs a huge amount of office space to break even. This was the reason given to grant up to 2M sq ft of office space allocation at Vallco, in spite of intense multi-year opposition by the residents. Residents oppose it since it increases traffic, and does not improve the jobs to housing ratio.
The Westport development (Oaks) has zero office space. Later this month, the Marina Plaza redevelopment project is coming for review with the City’s Planning Commission, including commissioners Steven Scharf, Muni Madhdhipatla, and Ray Wang. It’s a 5.1 acre development with 206 condos and 41K sq ft of commercial space.
These two projects clearly establish that redevelopment does NOT need millions of sq ft of office space to be viable, just a City Council which considers the wishes of the residents and the needs of the city, while working with property owners to revitalize our city.
Campaign Spending Update (10/31/2022)
The resident focused candidates for the Cupertino City Council, Govind Tatchari, Liang Chao and Steven Scharf have raised/spent under $25,000 honoring the voluntary limit they agreed to for the election.
JR Fruen and Sheila Mohan have breached the $80,000 mark and are racing towards the $100,000 milestone with investor backed elements and unions pouring money into their campaigns. Claudio Bono is in the middle, near $50,000 (his campaign has a large loan amount)
Bullying of our Treasurer Minna Xu: A note from a fellow resident
Minna is a long time Cupertino resident who is warm-hearted and volunteers a lot in our local community. She has helped with school Yosemite trip fundraising, with boy scouts’ activities, and coordinating several Chinese and Asian events in the past. Whenever friends’ ask for help, if she can, she will help.
Why is she suddenly famous this campaign season? It’s because her friends asked her to help with their accounting. This organization’s name is Cupertino Facts. She read their article drafts and believed they were doing the right thing. They work to deliver the truth. So, she helped just like she did, so many times in the past.
But this time her simple act has resulted in this kind and innocent Asian lady being attacked by an old boys network with a Big Title: the Council of Mayors.
It’s because what Cupertino Facts provides is not something this group of ex-Mayors want the residents to hear. They pick on the weak one, intimidate and threaten, and hope the weak person would back off and never dare to do anything they don’t like. Do you feel disturbed by seeing this? Can you imagine such things happening in Cupertino nowadays?
Our beautiful city belongs to all the residents who love it. Our city belongs to all the people like Minna who believe in kindness, caring, selfless contribution with no return. If you believe that everyone in Cupertino has the right to speak the truth, unite and stand up, protect our fellow residents. Don’t let any of our residents be bullied by those snobbish old-boys network of Mayors.
VOTE WISELY
To save our schools and preserve home values, please VOTE for Govind Tatachari, Liang Chao, and Steven Scharf for Cupertino City Council, and Darcy Paul, Satheesh Madhathil & Jerry Liu for CUSD Board. They have taken a public stand to keep school closure off the table and roll back past mistakes. They are not funded by external special-interests and will keep the interests of residents foremost.
Please do NOT vote for JR Fruen, Sheila Mohan for Cupertino City Council, and Ava Chiao (CUSD). They have been supportive of school closure and giving the land to developers, and have strong endorsements from the three CUSD trustees who closed the schools. They have also received extensive funding from construction interests, who covet the land our schools stand on, and have not signed the City of Cupertino voluntary spending limit on election expenses.
We became aware of another group of CUSD residents who have formed a group called “Voice of CUSD Residents for Better Education”. You can learn more about them here.
We finish with a video with Mayor Darcy Paul who is now running to help fix CUSD.
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.
This email is an effort to inform you of special interest lobbying, and how CUSD schools are being closed to be sold to investors.
Lobbyist Registration
In the first half of 2021, the resident oriented City Council of Cupertino passed a lobbying ordinance asking entities who were receiving compensation to lobby with the city, to register with the city. Similar lobbying ordinances exist in many Bay Area jurisdictions including Santa Clara, San Jose and Palo Alto. At least ten entities who lobby in the city have voluntarily registered increasing the transparency and reducing conflict of interest.
Who Opposes Registering as Lobbyists?
You may have received inflammatory mailers from a self-styled coterieof ex-mayors, disparaging the council chosen by the voters in 2018. Not surprisingly, on Nextdoor, a leading member of the coterie cheered a lawsuit opposing the city’s requirement for paidlobbyists to register.
The lawsuit, which challenges the requirement register as a paid lobbyist based on theFirst Amendment, was filed one year after the ordinance came to force, just in time for the elections. Multiple people, who strongly advocate for the coterie’s agenda like school closure, have had a close association with the particular local chapter of the organization (LVW) which is opposing the transparency ordinance.
Special Interests Abusing Neighborly Trust
As residents of the same city, we tend to trust our fellow residents’ view more than an entity we are not familiar with. However, this trust can be misused by special interests, when the special-interests compensate certain residents to act as lobbyists for their interests.
The lobbying ordinance is designed to empower residents with the information to evaluate whose interests a particular person represents, and then make an informed decision.
That the leading member of the coterie of ex-mayors is not interested in transparency speaks volumes of their approach.
Selling CUSD Land to Investors
Another pet project of the coterie of ex-mayors is shutting down school campuses, in the already overcrowded schools of CUSD. During the recent school closure drama, residents were informed that CUSD has no money to run the schools; a claim debunked by many parents and invalidated by the huge surplus CUSD currently has.
A CUSD parent discovered this email after a public record request, which clearly shows CUSD studying how attractive our closed school sites will be for real-estate investors!.
It should be obvious by now that our school going children and families went through the dislocation during the pandemic, so that wealthy investors could grab more land to profit from.
Note that this pattern of trying to sell the school land is not new; in 2017 CUSD, then led by another protege of the coterie of ex-mayors, tried to sell off the land for Luther School and Park in Santa Clara, to none other than the Vallco investor, Sand Hill Properties (SHP)
Progress after 2018 Elections
The resident focussed council first took charge after Nov 2018 elections, when the voters shunned the money power on display from special interests. Since then, the resident-focussed council has worked hard to fix financial loop-holes (Internal Audit, increase transparency (lobbying), ensure greater resident involvement (Engage Cupertino), and unblock sensible development.
Many of the development projects like Westport and Canyon Crossing, which were stuck in the pipeline with the previous council have been approved with a usage-mix which addresses long standing city needs like senior care, without adverse impact on traffic.
The Vallco project is waiting for the cleanup of toxic waste which is being coordinated by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health.
Please Make an Informed Choice
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, work to roll-back school closure, and ensure that the local agencies work for the betterment of the residents.
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.
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
