FAQs
Updated 10/15/2024
False and Libelous Statements from Jean Bedord Smear Blog RE Non-existent ‘findings’
Today I was forwarded a copy of a smear blog post by Jean Bedord in which she claimed the following:
“His running mate, Kitty Moore, is known for her losing lawsuit against Vallco and Grand Jury findings of mistreatment of city staff.”
Instead of actually linking to any (non-existent) Grand Jury Findings regarding Kitty Moore, the statement that there were “findings” in a report which support the claim is false and libelous. There were no such findings, Ms. Bedord has been requested to takedown the article, post a retraction, and issue an apology immediately. Attempting to label oneself a ‘journalist’ without fact-checking opens self-described ‘journalists’ to all sorts of trouble. Stick to the facts.
Who Stalled the Housing Element and caused the Builder’s Remedy to Kick in?
There have been a series of misstatements from folks trying to cover up what Cupertino for All did to the Housing Element when the new Council was seated.
The Prior Council Direction, on November 15, 2022 agenda item 1 was very clear to turn in the document on time.
“Final Motion: Moore moved and Chao seconded to direct staff to
1) publish the draft Housing Element on Friday, November 18, 2022 and to solicit public feedback for at least 30- days;
2) submit an informational item on the January 17 Council agenda prior to submittal to HCD; and
3) incorporate comments received in the draft Housing Element and
submit the document to the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) for review on January 20, 2023.
The amended and modified motion carried unanimously.”
Why did Staff not follow the direction of the Council? The Housing Element was submitted February 3, 2023, the same day the city was sued by Yimby law costing us over $157k in legal fees and eliminating our ability to follow CEQA. The Housing Element then was heavily modified eliminating over 1,300 pipeline projects and incorporating Cupertino for All (founded by JR Fruen) changes to policy, pushed through by the new council majority, but not the public majority.
What is the Vallco Status?
The Vallco developer used a new state law, SB 35, introduced by Senator Scott Wiener December 5, 2016 (right after the Vallco Measure D, $7 Million developer ballot initiative campaign failed November, 2016) and signed into law September 29, 2017, to get by-right approval of the project with NO public hearings and NO environmental review. The project is larger than all of Apple HQ and on 1/3 the land. The developer has pulled various demolition permits for the site and the city is waiting for more information before they can commence excavation. The project is very costly for the developer and it would be excellent for the community if they chose to negotiate a better project, however, there will be very expensive to produce affordable units, 890 of them which is many more than any other project and goes a long way towards reaching our state-mandated goals.
What was the Prior Council’s Direction on the City Hall?
The City Hall would have been well under construction to be seismically retrofitted and remodeled by now, but in early 2023 the newly seated council majority halted the prior council’s direction, leaving the staff still in limbo regarding the necessary seismic retrofit of the structure. This is a health and safety risk.
Here is what the City Hall Subcommittee, comprised of former Councilmember Jon Willey, P.E. Mechanical and Civil and Kitty Moore, P.E. Civil accepted as recommended action for the City Hall, and accepted by the council to move forward on the improvements:
City Council Meeting, Item 23, November 15, 2022, Chao moved and Willey seconded to:
“ 1. Receive the report of the City Hall Project Subcommittee; and
2. Direct staff to include the City Hall Renovation – including full seismic retrofit, MEP/IT, interior finishes, and layout complete refurbishment, at the level of California Building Code’s structural “Risk Category IV” for approximately $27,500,000, as part of the fiscal year 2023-24 proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project and budget.
The motion carried with Wei voting no.”
Is Kitty Moore against Development or Housing?
This one is the most ridiculous question to me as a Civil Engineer with a background in land development. Civil Engineers design a great deal of our urban physical environment. That’s about as pro-development as one can get. However, I am pro-sensible development with an eye towards the impacts on residents. That means I will read the Environmental Impact Reports and be very concerned when there are significant unavoidable impacts to noise, air quality, and traffic which cannot be mitigated. We have a duty to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents and we must take that responsibility seriously, not just with pretty words, but with action.
What is Happening with Lehigh?
Lehigh is no longer making cement, or being used as a cement distribution center, they are crushing rock which is being trucked out. Unfortunately, this is further removing material from the site when their Reclamation Plan requires the massive pit which took over 100 years to create, to be filled in. Unlike their approved 2012 Reclamation Plan, Lehigh is requesting a different Reclamation Plan be approved. In this new plan they have requested to fill in one pit which will take 30 years, and 600 truck trips per day importing clean fill from alleged construction projects across the region. Actually forming the plan for Reclamation will likely take up to a decade, whether onsite or offsite material is used would be decided and then the lengthy process of filling in the pit would begin and take about 30 years regardless of the fill source. At completion, many residents have asked that the land be open space attached to Rancho San Antonio. Make your voice heard for what you would like the future of Lehigh, with all of the contamination on the site, and in the soil, to be.
Why did Kitty Moore join the Vallco SB 35 lawsuit?
No developer should be allowed to have by-right approval of such a huge project, period. Land use is a privilege, not a right. Kitty Moore was both a named petitioner and assisted the attorney on the lawsuit over two years. The project had to be challenged for multiple reasons including that the new law missed important definitions, such as the requirement that it be 2/3 residential. The developer counted residential parking garages, 1.4 Million square feet of them, and did not count 3.4 Million square feet of non-residential (office and retail) parking garages. During the 2-year process of the lawsuit, the law was amended. Because of this fault in the law, the project uses a housing law signed allegedly to help the housing crisis, and ends up with 1.81 Million square feet of office space leaving thousands of workers to find housing elsewhere and worsen commutes. The Vallco SB 35 project has the distinction of using Sacramento math to use a housing law to worsen the housing shortage.
Did Kitty Moore cost the City Vallco SB 35 Legal Fees? No.
The short answer is no, there was an indemnification clause in the 180-day approval. The long answer with reimbursement checks is here: https://kitty4cupertino.org/blog/vallcolegalfeemisinformationfix