Cupertino Facts

Month: July 2023

  • July 2023 Newsletter: Memorial Park updates, Council’s unusual move to reduce lobbyist transparency, and more

    What’s in this issue:

    • Memorial Park Redesign Takes Another Step Towards Completion
      Council Makes Unusual Move to Reduce Transparency into Lobbyist Activity
    • A Simple Explanation of RHNA and how it impacts local residents

    Memorial Park Redesign Moves Closer to Completion

    After a year of research and community outreach, plans for a revitalized Memorial Park are moving closer to completion. The new plans will provide recreational opportunities for all ages and abilities, improve upon dated features, and increase connectivity with more bikeways and walkways.

    Proposed Park Plan

    Source: Memorial Park Preferred Draft Concept Presented 6/21

    Many features in the park plan put forth by city staff appear to have council support. However, a few areas generated questions during the June 21st City Council meeting:

    1. Removal of softball field: The new Memorial Park plan proposed eliminating the softball field. This is one of the only local softball fields with lighting at night, a size large enough for slow-pitch (adult) softball, and home run fencing. It is currently used by at least 16 teams, and helps draw business into the city. To save the softball field, a few other features in the new park plan (basketball courts, pickleball courts) would be moved or eliminated. Given strong demand for the field, including a petition with 835 signatures, Council voted to have staff return with a revised schematic plan including the softball field.

    Aerial view of Memorial Park as it is today with the softball field

    Source: Memorial Park Preferred Draft Concept Presented 6/21

    1. High cost of redesign: While cost estimates have not been provided, one should expect such a large-scale renovation to cost significantly more than the Jollyman Park playground renovation, which will cost about $5M for a much smaller scope. The Memorial Park renovation plan was initiated in 2022, before Cupertino was hit by a significant budget deficit. Currently, only its design phase has funding, with a $650,000 budget. “The City is facing a very tight budget now, so I hope that staff can come back with a more economical version of the plan,” stated Council Member Liang Chao during the meeting. “We tried to pack [many things] in the proposed plan, but we don’t have just one park, we have many parks. Many of these nice features, even if they don’t get implemented in Memorial Park, can be implemented in other parks in the city,” said Chao. For example, instead of replacing the highly-used softball field with basketball courts, residents could use the brand new basketball courts at Wilson Park.

    Read more to find out what new features are planned to be added to the park, what will stay the same, when the Memorial Park renovation might begin, and more.

    Read More

    Cupertino Council Majority Moves to Reduce Transparency into Lobbyist Activity

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

    Background

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

    Council Moves to Limit Lobbyist Ordinance

    Three Councilmembers approved first round changes to the lobbyist ordinance (Wei, Mohan, and Fruen voted YES; Chao and Moore voted NO). This means:

    • Expenditure lobbyists will no longer be required to publicly disclose activity (Defined as entities who pay others to lobby the City or elected officials on behalf of a position).
    • Media will no longer be required to disclose lobbying activity, regardless of who funds the media activity.
    • All nonprofits including member benefit organizations will no longer be required to disclose lobbying activity, regardless of who funds them.
    • Any lobbyist who is paid less than $5,000 per calendar quarter will not be required to register as such with the City of Cupertino.

    A Comparison of Local Lobbyist Ordinances

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

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

    A Loss of Transparency in Cupertino

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

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

    The lobbyist registration ordinance will be discussed by Council again in September 2023. Click below to get the full story about why the ordinance was challenged and revised.

    Read The Full Story

    Simple Explanation of RHNA and Housing Markets

    By Amy Kalish
    Marin Post

    RHNA is the Regional Housing Needs Assessment — the number of housing units (a place for at least one person to live) assigned to an area by the state. This happens in eight-year housing cycles, and the allocation numbers are determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

    Read The Full Story

  • Cupertino Council Majority Moves to Reduce Transparency into Lobbyist Activity

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

    Cupertino’s Lobbyist Ordinance: A Brief History

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

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

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

    New Council Moves to Limit Lobbyist Ordinance

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

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

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

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

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

    A Comparison of Local Lobbyist Ordinances

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

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

    A Loss of Transparency in Cupertino

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

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

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

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


  • Memorial Park Updates: Renovation, Timeline, and What to Expect Next

    Memorial Park Updates: Renovation, Timeline, and What to Expect Next

    After a year of research and community outreach, plans for a revitalized Memorial Park are moving closer to completion. The new design will provide recreational opportunities for all ages and abilities, improve upon dated facilities, and increase connectivity with more bikeways and walkways.

    What’s Changing

    Many of the park’s new features will occupy space that is currently not in use. The plan would turn many areas of empty lawn or plants into a multi-age playground and nature play area, additional picnic areas, upgraded bathrooms, a passive garden walk, and a bocce court. It would also include more bike paths and walkways throughout the park.

    What’s Staying the Same

    Some of the park’s most prominent features will remain unchanged. These include the Veteran’s Memorial, tennis courts, main event lawn, amphitheater and stage (with upgrades), gazebo picnic area, and Quinlan Community Center & Senior Center.


    Source: Memorial Park Preferred Draft Concept, Presented 6/21/23

    Next Steps

    In order to move forward, the Cupertino City Council must approve the final Memorial Park plan. While most of the park plan put forth by city staff appears to have council support, one controversial feature generated much debate during the June 21st City Council meeting: the proposed elimination of the softball field. 

    Reasons for keeping the softball field:

    1. High usage from at least 16 teams per week, including the Cupertino Girls Softball League and senior groups

    2. Desirability of Memorial Park softball facilities versus neighboring fields (has lighting for nighttime games, a larger size appropriate for adult slow-pitch softball, and home run fencing)

    3. Positive revenue impact for Cupertino from players who frequent its businesses before and after games, and pay fees to the City

    4. Cost savings for Cupertino due to reduced scope of construction

    Source: EngageCupertino.org

    Reasons for eliminating the softball field: 

    1. Community feedback. In the initial survey, respondents ranked the softball field as their least favorite feature of the park. However, via public comments during the June 21st council meeting, residents argued that not enough people had taken the survey to make it representative, and that the nature of the survey questions was flawed.

    2. Freeing up space for other features, such as basketball and pickleball courts

    After hearing public comments, the Council voted to have staff present a schematic plan including the softball field. Councilmember Kitty Moore suggested piloting a DOLA in the current softball field, since it is already unofficially frequented by many dog owners. This would help address the need for a DOLA in Memorial Park, and ensure it is kept in the final park plan even if the softball field is kept. Others suggested having fewer new parking spaces or decreasing event lawn space (formerly the drained ponds) in order to make way for the basketball and pickleball courts.

    When can we expect Memorial Park renovations to begin?

    During the June 21st meeting, City Manager Pamela Wu stated that we can expect construction to begin “as early as two years from today”. This would mean mid- to late 2025. However, significant changes to the plan would result in delays. The revised schematic plan is expected to be presented in a December 2023 or January 2024 City Council meeting. 

    How much will the Memorial Park renovations cost?

    While cost estimates have not been provided, one should expect such a large-scale renovation to cost significantly more than the Jollyman Park playground renovation, which will cost about $5M for a much smaller footprint. The only portion of the project that has been funded is the design phase, with a $650,000 budget. Given that Cupertino is currently in a budget deficit and is cutting events and services, it remains to be seen how the city will fund such a large-scale park reconstruction. 

    “The City is facing a very tight budget now, so I hope that staff can come back with a more economical version of the plan,” stated Council Member Liang Chao during the June 21st meeting. “This has been done before. Usually in the first round, people propose a lot of ideas, and it’s very costly. Then usually we will come back with a more realistic and economical plan. That has happened for the Stevens Creek Corridor before, that has happened with the City Hall.”

    Chao also questioned whether such a large-scale reconstruction was necessary. “We tried to pack in a lot of stuff in the proposed plan, but we don’t have just one park, we have many parks. Many of these nice features, even if they don’t get implemented in Memorial Park, they can get implemented in other parks in the city,” said Chao. For example, instead of replacing the highly-demanded softball field with basketball courts, residents could use the brand new basketball courts at Wilson Park.

    “We spent $1.7M filling in the ponds and replacing them with grass,” said Chao during the meeting. “We should be in no rush to make a decision.”

    Learn more about the Memorial Park specific plan here.

  • Simple Explanation of RHNA and Housing Mandates

    By Amy Kalish
    Marin Post & Citizen Marin

    https://marinpost.org/blog/2023/6/10/rhna-and-housing-mandates-made-easy

    WHAT IS RHNA?

    RHNA is the Regional Housing Needs Assessment — the number of housing units (a place for at least one person to live) assigned to an area by the state. This happens in eight-year housing cycles, and the allocation numbers are determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

    WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?

    The total number is supposed to represent California’s current and projected housing needs over the next eight years. This is the 6th RHNA cycle, covering 2023-2031. The HCD says California is short 2.5 million housing units. (Walked back from Governor Newsom’s unsubstantiated campaign assertion of 3.5 million). The numbers have been questioned. 

    Note from Cupertino Facts: In the 6th Cycle Housing Element update (2023-2031), Cupertino must plan for 4,588 new housing units.

    DID RHNA FAIL AN AUDIT?

    Yes. The 2.5-million-unit requirement was not in line with projected population growth even before the pandemic. An emergency state audit was requested. The result of the audit: The California State Auditor found that the numbers were not reliable or reproducible, and the methodology was opaque. All documentation is available at citizenmarin.org on the AUDIT page. The audit result was ignored by HCD, and the 2.5 million wasn’t adjusted. It was chunked out into regions. Ours — the Bay Area — was assigned 441,000 new units to be distributed over each city and the unincorporated area.

    IS THIS HOUSING CYCLE DIFFERENT?

    Yes. The 6th cycle is NOT like other cycles. The numbers are huge. For example, Marin County’s total RHNA went from 2,298 (5th Cycle) to 14,405 (6th Cycle). 

    DID CITIES APPEAL?

    Yes. Cities were shocked by the huge rise in their RHNA, and many across the state appealed based on “changed conditions” including drought, fire, lack of evacuation access, flood zones and other hazards, infrastructure issues, lack of buildable land, environmental concerns, etc. All appeals were denied without comment. 

    WHAT IS A HOUSING ELEMENT?

    Each locality, by law, must create a Housing Element plan and document showing where the RHNA units can be accommodated and submit it to the state for approval. In the past, these reports were not too difficult to create and were done by in-house staff. This cycle, the numbers were so overwhelming, and the Housing Element added so many new required reports, that cities had to hire consultants to write them. This has been taking time and energy away from our city governments for a couple of years now.

    WHO BUILDS THE HOUSING?

    Except for a few affordable projects that are built on donated city/county land with a small amount of grant money made available, the state expects private, for-profit developers to build the housing. Market-rate (luxury) housing has greater profit margins, so developers’ interests are focused there, and not on affordable housing. They add the fewest number of below market rate units as possible to each project. This creates an explosion in expensive units, not the affordable housing that is actually needed.

    WHY SO MANY NEW HOUSING LAWS?

    The state declared a housing crisis in 2018. Cities were blamed for lack of affordable housing and for not producing enough housing, even though cities do not build. The state ended its redevelopment agency programs in 2012. So, the legislature passed new laws to speed up approvals for multi-family developments by forcing local authorities to rezone for greater density, and approve projects swiftly, often without public input or environmental review.

    The three things that are literally demonized by the state as holding up construction are zoning, CEQA, and public input. (Those are also called city planning, the environment, and local voice/democracy.) Some of these have sometimes slowed the process, but more often produce community/developer/city compromise.

    ARE THERE PENALTIES FOR CITIES?

    New laws speed up approvals for multi-family developments by forcing local authorities to rezone for density, and approve projects swiftly, without CEQA or public input. Attorney General Bonta’s office has a special housing Strike Force to strictly enforce new laws and policies. Besides fines, most punishments are designed to give developers more power, and cities less. Fines can bankrupt cities, put them into receivership, and require cities to cede all zoning control to the state.

    The state can then decide which public lands will be donated or sold for housing projects. Private lawsuits have been brought against cities “not complying fast enough.” the Housing Accountability Act, Builder’s Remedy, and by-right development are all looming punishments based on annual HCD reviews.

    DOES THIS CREATE LOW INCOME HOUSING?

    The laws are sold that way, but what they mostly do is create luxury and market-rate housing along with a very few less expensive units for low-income households. Since developers typically lose money on the low-income units, many of these new laws offer density bonuses and other incentives to developers to add 10-20% of “affordable” units in their projects. This is supposed to “trickle down” and result in lower rents and housing costs.

    DOESN’T THAT JUST RESULT IN MORE EXPENSIVE HOMES?

    Yes. RHNA is broken into categories, each of which needs to be fulfilled exactly, or the locality is declared out of compliance and is subject to streamlining and ministerially approved projects, which further restricts any ability to regulate development.

    IS THE CITY DONE WHEN THE RHNA NUMBER IS BUILT?

    No. In a better system it might be, but RHNA is divided into four major income categories, and each must be met exactly. The laws make it advantageous to developers to add the minimum (10-20%) affordable units, no matter how large the project is. Making RHNA requires many more units.

    DOES THE CITY GET CREDIT ONCE THEY APPROVE THE UNITS?

    No. The state doesn’t measure success by entitlement (approval) of projects, but by the numbers of permits pulled and housing units completed. Once they’ve entitled a project, the city has done its job and rest is out of their control. They cannot compel development. Cities do not build, developers build, but the penalties to cities are based on developer performance.

    There are many reasons approved projects never begin — or start and stall: High costs and scarcity of labor and supplies, high interest rates, and inability to get fire insurance are among them. The state has not let these or any other factors reduce or excuse the RHNA. California’s largest property insurers have halted new home policies due to wildfire risk, rising costs. There has been no acknowledgement that this will affect RHNA.

    IN SUMMARY:

    The state has shifted power away from local governments and given it to for-profit developers who are incentivized to prioritize multi-family developments that are 80-90% market rate, regardless of the effects on communities. Because state laws encourage a low percentage of affordable units per project, not in line with RHNA percentages, much more market-rate housing is built than moderate, low, or extra-low units.

    Working from an incorrect assumption about need and growth creates problems. There are shortages of “affordable” housing throughout the state, but there is no crisis regarding luxury homes, and until the state decouples housing mandates from private, for-profit development, we’re going to see a surge in production in the wrong direction.

    Note: This is an excerpt from the full article published to Marin Post. Please visit their site for additional resources and information regarding RHNA.