Cupertino Facts

Year: 2023

  • No Money, No Problem: Cupertino to Pursue Costly New City Hall, Despite Lack of Funding

    No Money, No Problem: Cupertino to Pursue Costly New City Hall, Despite Lack of Funding

    On October 17th, 2023, a heavily-debated topic was presented at the Cupertino City Council meeting: whether or not the City should tear down and rebuild its City Hall. In order to fund the construction of a new City Hall, Council considered building high-density housing on City-owned properties, such as the current City Hall, Community Hall, and Sports Center.

    Video Recap of City Hall Meeting

    Background

    Cupertino’s City Hall, which contains the Emergency Operations Center, does not meet current seismic safety standards. Over the last decade, several City Councils have floated solutions, ranging from new buildings with many amenities ($100 Million +) to a retrofit of existing buildings ($27 million). A recent audit of the tax deal between Apple and the City might result in a $56M+ loss to the City. However, rather than working to resolve this impending loss of tens of millions of dollars per year, the current Council majority is instead opting to spend more money on a brand-new City Hall. The solution could include selling public land to private entities and/or engaging in public-private enterprises. 

    A Change in City Hall Direction

    In 2022, the prior council, including current Council Members Kitty Moore and Liang Chao, voted to pursue the lower-cost renovation of City Hall. On February 21st, 2023, the current City Council led by Mayor Hung Wei directed city staff to stop working on plans to seismically retrofit the City Hall, and  instead investigate a plan for a new and larger City Hall. Currently, City Hall is an office for about 130 employees, many of whom often work from home.

    Questionable Funding for New City Hall

    The City hired a consultant, Cumming Management Group, with a master agreement of up to $170,000 for real estate research. The initial 83-page study, which cost our City $76K, explains that these partnerships can involve selling or long-term leasing of City-owned land. It recommends building housing at sites that it considers to be “underutilized,” such as the Sports Center. However, the study revealed that it would be difficult for these partnerships to provide enough funding for a new City Hall, even with high-density housing.

    During the October 17th meeting, Assistant City Manager Matt Morley presented the findings of the report. Morley noted that because Cupertino is in a 10-year deficit, it does not have the cash flow to issue debt to fund a new City Hall. Raising taxes would also not be ideal, since taxes typically fund operational expenses. The only funding method staff could recommend was a public-private partnership, though profitability is unlikely. It is questionable whether profit-seeking development interests will assume the work of City Hall on behalf of the public.

    Councilmember Chao questioned the density of housing required to make the project profitable. Chao stated that Stevens Creek currently has 35 units per acre, but by her calculations, a project would need 60 units per acre (or 10 stories) to be profitable. Morley demurred, saying he did not want to get into this further. 

    Councilmember Moore questioned the public-private partnership option, given doubtful profitability. “Why would we go to this endeavor if it doesn’t pencil out?” Moore asked. Moore stated that she worked on the City Hall subcommittee, and  a seismic-only retrofit could cost as little as $ 7.4 million; other options had different price tags.

    The need for a new City Hall is further questioned given that the City’s population is projected to decline over the next five years.

    Protest from Cupertino Community

    Many residents and non-resident supporters attending the October 17th Council meeting were driven by their concern that the Cupertino Sports Center might be eliminated to fund City Hall.  Forty speakers put in speaker cards and several more raised their hands on Zoom, but they did not all have the opportunity to speak. Speakers reminded the Council how important the Sports Center was to creating a sense of community, as well as to their health. 

    Resident Patrick Kwok stated the city spent millions of dollars making the center ADA compliant. Kwok added that projects like the retrofit, or the new City Hall complex should be put on the ballot, like the library, so the public can decide how taxpayer dollars would be spent. City councils have the authority to place land use decisions, such as whether to build a new City Hall or renovate an existing City Hall, on the ballot for Cupertino voters to decide.

    Another resident wrote the Council, stating “Our City Hall should continue to be part of our Civic Center complex with our Community Hall and Library. Housing in Cupertino should continue to be provided by the private sector with supportive policies from our City Council and City staff.”

    Possible Project Ties to Vallco

    Mayor Wei shut down Oral Communications on Item #7, the City Hall study, before all speakers spoke. She stated that it was necessary to bring the item back to the council for a vote. Wei put forward a motion to “pursue conceptual development of a new City Hall and/or renovation” along with specific interest in partnering with Sand Hill Properties (the owner of Vallco). 

    At Councilmember Moore’s objection to the ethics of naming individual developers in a motion, Sand Hill was removed. To note, Sand Hill recently defaulted on a 100,000 square-foot office building in Mountain View. 

    By a 3-2 vote, the revised motion passed. Chao and Moore cast the dissenting votes.

    Additional Resources:

    To view the Council Meeting, the presentation and written comments go to:

    https://cupertino.legistar.com/DepartmentDetail.aspx?ID=22534&GUID=759DE527-B7CF-4B4C-88AB-B83875AB732D&Mode=MainBody

    The City of Cupertino’s website provides a summary and a number of documents. To note the comprehensive study to renovate the City Hall is presently missing: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/capital-improvement-program-projects/city-hall-projectPart of the City Hall renovation plan can be found in Councilmember Kitty Moore’s public comment from the 10/17/23 meeting, starting on page 121:

    https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E2&ID=1053225&GUID=32C570ED-67B8-43BB-8BE8-7F0A82467799

  • Cupertino Anticipates Financial Deficit – Impacts Remain Unknown

    Cupertino Anticipates Financial Deficit – Impacts Remain Unknown

    Cupertino financial woes got a reality check when last-ditch efforts at the governor’s office failed to save its lucrative tax revenue sharing agreement with Apple. On October 17, 2023, staff proposed to set aside a $56.5M sales tax reserve, further worsening Cupertino’s impending budget deficit.

    Background

    Since 1998, Apple has assigned Cupertino as its point-of-sale location for all online purchases of its products in California. According to Bloomberg Tax, the appropriate point-of-sale location for internet sales is determined by where an item is “picked, packed, and shipped.” Because Cupertino is not a distribution center for Apple products, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) warned the City in December 2021 that its sales tax revenues might have been improperly allocated.

    Like all public money, Cupertino’s tax dollars are subject to redistribution. While the State of California has been questioning tax sharing agreements that divert money from other municipalities, there are also arguments for keeping these agreements. Tax revenue sharing agreements, such as the one Apple argued was essential to its survival during a lean period in the 1990s, are enacted to help struggling businesses thrive and benefit the greater economy. Apple has received over $107.7 million of California’s sales tax revenue since its revenue sharing agreement with Cupertino was first enacted in 1998.

    Over the years, Cupertino has become increasingly dependent on Apple for its sales tax revenue, which City staff expects to drop from $42.1M to $9.4M (the $42.1M likely includes Apple’s portion per the agreement). Additionally, Apple-owned properties also account for about a quarter of the City’s real estate tax revenue.

    Budget Deficit Worsens

    Although copious information is available through Bloomberg Tax, the current Council majority (which took office December 2022) only recently began discussing the fiscal crisis that it was repeatedly warned about by the prior Council. The City’s response to the CDTFA’s threat to terminate the Apple agreement and to repay the taxes dating back to April 2021 has been sluggish.

    On October 17, 2023, staff proposed to reserve $56.5M to repay the taxes. Then, on October 25, City Council met in closed-session to discuss litigation against the CDTFA. City Council is expected to reveal the outcome of that meeting at the next City Council meeting on November 7. Meanwhile, the debt will grow as Cupertino continues to receive disputed funds from the state. Accounts payable data indicates that the City ceased reimbursing Apple its share in January 2023.

    Moving forward, City spending has continued unabated. The budget allows for an 11% increase in employee headcount since 2019 (203 to 225), while Cupertino’s population has declined 8%. Cupertino is already in debt from the construction of the Library and the Community Hall, pegged at $2.7M annually until 2030. Given the impending structural deficit, the City is unable to able to issue more municipal bonds because it does not have a reliable revenue stream to repay them.

    At a time when Cupertino needs it most, the current Council majority canceled the Economic Development Committee at the beginning of this year. Meanwhile, Mayor Wei has not asked for budget cuts, instead advocating for a new City Hall that the City can’t afford.

    References

  • New Cupertino Boba Shop Draws Hour-Long Waits

    New Cupertino Boba Shop Draws Hour-Long Waits

    A highly-anticipated new boba shop has made Cupertino its home: Chicha San Chen. The franchise’s Cupertino location is the first in all of Northern California. As such, it is currently drawing waits from 40 minutes to two hours, with lines stretching down the block. Fortunately, guests are supplied with umbrellas to shade them as they wait.

    Chicha San Chen Cupertino
    Chicha San Chen Cupertino

    Boba, also known as “bubble tea”, is a tea-based beverage containing tapioca pearls or “bubbles”. What separates Chicha San Chen from other boba shops is its focus on Taiwanese tea. All of the teas on its menu have won awards from the International Taste Institute. The franchise uses a proprietary LION “teapresso” brewing machine customized for each type of tea. 

    Unlike most boba shops, Chicha San Chen also offers a complimentary tasting of its teas. Guests can sample its Oolong roasted to five different levels: light, light-medium, medium, medium-heavy, and heavy. Reservations are required for this experience.

    Chicha San Chen is currently open 7 days a week, from 12:00 – 7:00 PM. At the time of this article, drinks are approximately $6.75 – $7.75 each. It is located on 20688 Stevens Creek Blvd in Cupertino, in the space formerly inhabited by Fire Wings.

  • AB 838: Cupertino to Offer New Health and Sanitation Investigation Services for Renters

    AB 838: Cupertino to Offer New Health and Sanitation Investigation Services for Renters

    Do you rent a home you suspect to have exposed lead or that may harbor other conditions that could endanger life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare for yourself, other residents, or the public? Have complaints to your landlord about unsafe conditions in your home gone unanswered or resulted in deferred or only partial resolution? 

    Thanks to the 2021 passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 838, cities and counties will now respond to complaints of substandard housing conditions with inspections, inspection reports, and citations, as needed, to remediate unsafe conditions in rental homes. 

    During the 9/19/2023 Council meeting, Council Members unanimously approved amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code to expand existing property maintenance requirements in accordance with AB 838 changes to California Health and Safety Code section 17970.5. The 2021 AB 838 mandates that cities and counties must:

    • Receive any complaint of substandard building or lead hazard violations;Investigate the complaint and make findings through a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property;Conduct an inspection at least as promptly as the agency’s Building Department responds to requests for building permit final inspection;
    • Produce an inspection report;Advise the property owner or operator of violations and of corrective actions required to remedy the violations; and
    • Provide free, certified copies of an inspection report and citations issued to any involved or potentially affected party.

    2021 AB 838 states that cities and counties shall not collect fees from property owners for inspections or inspection reports, unless the inspection reveals one or more lead hazards, or code enforcement officers identify the property as substandard pursuant to California Health and Safety Code sections 17920.3 and 17920.10. 

    If you have alerted your landlord to an observed or suspected hazard condition in your home and your landlord has failed to correct the issue in a timely manner, submit a request for a home inspection at Cupertino 311 (https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/advanced-components/cupertino-311) or by using the Cupertino 311 mobile app.

    References

  • The Latest Updates on Vallco – September 2023

    The Latest Updates on Vallco – September 2023

    Five years have passed since Cupertino employees approved the 2018 Vallco Town Center SB 35 project (Vallco SB 35 project, located on Stevens Creek Blvd and N. Wolfe Rd) under ministerial approval provisions of the 2017 SB 35 bill. The last project updates published on the City of Cupertino’s website and on the property owner’s “The Rise” website are dated May 2023.

    Vallco Cupertino

    Empty Vallco Site, as of September 2023

    Background

    Several areas of Vallco land were found to be contaminated by toxic waste. In April 2021, the supervision of the soil contamination cleanup was transferred to Santa Clara County’s Department of Environmental Health and Safety (DEH). After significant testing and reporting, a site cleanup plan was approved in December 2022.  Cleanup efforts began around May/June 2023 with the hauling away of some contaminated soil, but since then activity at the site appears to have stalled.

    In 2018, Kitty Moore unearthed the contamination at Vallco via her thorough analysis of EIR and Geotracker reports from California’s State Water Board. Since becoming elected, Councilmember Moore has worked to ensure the developer remains accountable and does not build atop contaminated ground.

    Proposed building blocks with their uses and soil/vapor probing areas.  Each color designates a different investigation.  Not all the dots indicate areas of concern.  The areas of particular concern are indicated within the dashed blocks.  In some probes, the deeper they went, the more they found. Source: Geotracker

    New Changes to Plan

    Based on information inferred from a 8/22/2023 DEH letter to the property owner, representatives for the property owner met with DEH representatives sometime after the May/June 2023 cleanup effort began.  From the letter, the property owner considers “significant deviations from the development plan” associated with the Site Management Plan (SMP) to clean up the site.  The changes discussed in the letter include:

    1. “Site development and occupancy in phases. (The approved SMP does not consider phasing the Site development and occupancy).“
    2. “Construction of 6 additional buildings…for a total of 12 buildings to be located west of Wolfe Road.  (The approved SMP considers construction of only 6 buildings in this location, referred to as Blocks 1 through 6).” It is unclear where these 6 new buildings would go.

    To note: With its submission of the Vallco SB 35 project, the property owner bypassed Cupertino’s parkland requirement for new developments (3 acres of parkland for every 1,000 new residents) by ignoring the “land” in parkland and designing a sloped, contiguous rooftop canopy it labeled a park. However, it has never been made clear how public access to the rooftop amenity would be maintained and enforced.Will there be well-lighted and adequately ventilated spaces below the canopy safe for gathering and strolling?With 6 additional buildings considered for the west parcel of the Vallco property, it remains to be seen how the canopy and the environmental conditions below it will change.

    1. “Elimination of subterranean parking garages beneath some or all of the buildings. (The approved SMP includes mechanically ventilated parking garages beneath every building).” Would there be sufficient parking for residents, employees, and visitors if underground parking were eliminated from the site?


    The elimination of the underground parking likely means the property owner abandons plans to excavate the contaminated soil, which would leave the contamination on the site. Upside, nearby neighborhoods would be spared the particulate pollution from the contaminated dust and vehicle exhaust from truckloads that would not be removed from the site, and another community would not be burdened with dumped hazardous waste it did not create.

    Screening levels for contamination vary depending on the proposed use of the buildings.  Commercial buildings are allowed higher levels of contamination because less time is spent in commercial buildings.  Whereas, residential areas, daycares, and schools have stricter guidelines.  This is very important because prolonged exposure to various contaminants can impact children’s development and public health and wellbeing. Once these contaminants enter our water supply, they can spread, impacting a greater number of people.

    While the Court dismissed the 2018 petition filed by Friends of Better Cupertino to challenge what residents perceived as an unlawful approval of the Vallco SB 35 project, the Court’s decision could not disappear the substantive problems identified in the petition that persist with the project to this day. These include but are not limited to the continued presence of hazardous waste and disregard for the Cupertino General Plan requirement that residential developments shall include 3 acres of parkland for each 1,000 new residents forecast from each new residential development. Lost ground level parkland surrendered by the City to the property owner at the Vallco SB 35 project site is estimated to be 12.96 acres.

    What’s Next

    If the developer decides to go ahead with these changes, they will be required to notify the DEH in writing.  The DEH would then decide if a whole new SMP is required along with possible additional reports.  If contamination is left on the site, the DEH may put a permanent use restriction on the property along with long-term monitoring and inspections.  As a result of these possible changes, the construction may be delayed.

     

    References

    Friends of Better Cupertino’s First Amended Petition, October 16, 2018:

    https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/24187/636921307628070000

    GeoTracker – Vallco Town Center – Staff Letter – Potential Development Plan changes Letter 8.22.203

    https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable_documents/2614820182/Potential%20Development%20Plan%20Changes%20Letter%208.22.2023.pdf

    GeoTracker – Vallco Town Center – all documents

    https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T10000017167

    GeoTracker – Vallco Town Center – Conceptual Site Model (CSM) Revised February 2022

    Page 29/142, Figure 2B – Boring locations in Relation to Proposed Development Building Footprints

    Page 43/142, Figure D1 – Project Blocks & Basement Extent

    https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/9535237014/T10000017167.PDF

    City of Cupertino – The Rise – Status Updates (as of May 2023)

    https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/vallco-status-updates/

    The Rise Construction Update – May 24, 2023

    https://therisecalifornia.com/news/the-rise-construction-update-may-2023

  • New Mirage Glass Sculpture at Apple Park Uses Sand from 70 Deserts Across the World

    New Mirage Glass Sculpture at Apple Park Uses Sand from 70 Deserts Across the World

    At the busy headquarters of one the world’s most iconic companies, a new oasis beckons to contemplate the diversity of our planet. Mirage is a new glass sculpture commissioned by Apple and created by artist Katie Paterson and architectural studio Zeller & Moye. It is located adjacent to the Apple Visitor Center in Cupertino. 

    Paterson and architectural studio Zeller & Moye partnered with UNESCO’s International Geoscience and Geoparks programme, sand experts from around the world, and local glass artisans to create the artwork.

    Mirage is free to the public, and is accessible 24 hours a day. At night, the pillars are lit with a gentle glow. Parking is available at the Apple Visitor Center parking lot. Learn more at mirage.place.

    Here are some photos:

  • 2023-2031 Cupertino Housing Element Update

    2023-2031 Cupertino Housing Element Update

    On July 25, 2023, the Cupertino City Council received an update on the 6th Cycle Housing Element, 2023-2031. The Housing Element (HE) is one of 8 required elements of every California city or town’s General Plan. Whereas, the General Plan is a kind of long-term roadmap for all kinds of development in a jurisdiction, the Housing Element is  the roadmap strictly for housing development, and it is revised and updated multiple times within a single General Plan cycle.

    Possible Revisions to the Submitted Housing Element that Might Incline HCD to Approve It
    The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews the HE for compliance with current State laws and conducts its own analysis as to whether each jurisdiction has identified sufficient suitable new housing locations. As Cupertino learned from HCD’s comments to the HE Cupertino submitted in February 2023, certain revisions to the draft HE submission may increase the likelihood that HCD would view the HE favorably and grant approval. Hints included:
    • Rely less on pipeline (approved but not constructed) projects to satisfy to RHNA obligations
    • Choose sites that allow for maximum housing density due to the passage of recent State laws, for example 2022 AB 2011 “Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022” and recent revisions affecting 2006 AB 32/2008 SB 375 (both focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions)
    • Lean into redevelopment of developed sites that are between 0.5 and 10 acres
    According to Cupertino Assistant Director of Community Development Luke Connolly, most of Cupertino is recognized by the State as an area of “Highest Resource with Access to Opportunity” because of its proximity to high paying jobs and high performing public schools. As a high opportunity community, the State assigns the City a greater share of the region’s housing development obligation than communities perceived to offer less economic and educational opportunity.

    For the 2023-2031 HE Cycle, Cupertino is required to identify 4,588 potential housing locations to accommodate its Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) assignment. Additionally, 2017 SB 166 “No Net Loss” law mandates that jurisdictions must maintain adequate site inventory to accommodate their remaining unmet RHNA by each income category (very low, low, moderate, market rate) at all times. HCD recommends that each city allocate a “RHNA buffer” of an additional 25-30% of the total RHNA obligation, especially for homes for people with low or moderate incomes to ensure that the City would not be required to update its site inventory before the next HE cycle commences. 
    Cupertino, then, is expected to identify sites for the construction of 5,735 – 5,964 new homes (4,588 RHNA + 25-30% buffer). This equates to approximately 30% of its entire existing housing inventory, to be identified by 2024 and constructed within 8 years. 

    To note, the World Population Review reports Cupertino has a 2023 population of 55,326, a decline rate of -2.85% annually and -8.31% since the most recent census (60,343 in 2020). 

    Challenges with Cupertino’s Housing Requirements
    Like most high opportunity communities in the region, Cupertino is challenged to identify so many housing sites where most lots are already developed. What sites are vacant/available, close to transit (within 0.5 mile of a bus stop), and sized between 0.5 and 10 acres?

    HCD’s comments from the 7/25/2023 Council meeting point to opening up all eligible retail and commercial locations as sites for future housing. Cupertino’s current and dwindling retail and commercial corridors will most likely become candidate sites: Homestead Rd, Stevens Creek Blvd, De Anza Blvd, and to a lesser extent Foothill Blvd, Bubb Rd, Stelling Rd, and Bollinger Rd.


    Current retail & commercial along Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino


    Cupertino must add 2,635 homes for individuals and families with very low, low, and moderate incomes. However, while the political pressure shifts to cities to approve more housing development, the State and federal government have removed themselves as providers and administrators for most affordable housing. Is it reasonable to expect that the private sector will build and maintain affordable housing, which is not lucrative, when current density bonus laws require developers set aside no more than 10-20% of new multi-family dwellings for people with incomes <50-120% of the area median?

    Under current development provisions, would Cupertino need to approve between 13,175 – 26,350 new homes to assure the construction of the 2,635 below market rate homes necessary for the community and to satisfy HCD’s requirements? What if a private property owner were to accept a housing entitlement, but then decide not to build? How does Cupertino satisfy its RHNA requirements when owners of entitled properties decide not to build, or decide to build later?

    There is Another Way

    Cities are often frustrated when they rely on the private sector and non-profit organizations to build and maintain a public good. Some cities are turning to land banks and community land trusts to meet the RHNA requirements to build the homes that people need today.

    The National Housing Policy Guide describes land banks and community land trusts:

    Land Banks
    “Land banks are created by local jurisdictions – usually as a public entity but occasionally as an independent nonprofit –to hold abandoned, vacant, and tax-delinquent properties for future development. Not only does this provide local jurisdictions with land for future development, it also reduces the number of “problem properties” in a community by creating a process for management and disposition. Land banks are a powerful tool for jurisdictions faced with problems from both the hot and cold ends of the housing market spectrum. In hot markets, land banks allow jurisdictions to make development decisions with less concern about the cost of land because they already have a portfolio of parcels ready for development. In cold markets, land banks reduce blight by acquiring abandoned and/or delinquent properties, clearing title, and then putting the properties back into productive use….”

    Community Land Trusts
    “Community land trusts (CLTs) are organizations that own land and develop it through an inclusive, community-based process. CLTs develop land according to the community’s needs, which can include anything from open space to a multifamily rental project. Most often, however, CLTs are created to provide affordable homeownership opportunities to low- and moderate-income households. The United States has around 200 community land trusts, and the model has become popular in the UK, as well.

    The CLT model is structured around a ground lease. The CLT owns land which is leased to households who purchase the homes that sit on CLT land. Removing the cost of land from the cost of purchasing the home provides a significant subsidy to the households. The ground lease limits the price at which the home can be resold, passing the subsidy on from one homeowner to the next. CLTs also often retain the right to repurchase the home in the case of foreclosure. CLTs are one form of shared equity homeownership.”

    Should Cupertino wait on for-profit developers, property owners, and investors to decide what and when to build, when the community needs safe, sustainable, and affordable housing today? Why not support local funding for the development of a Cupertino land bank for the specific purpose of public investment and retention of residential land for the sole purpose of providing long-term affordable for rent and for sale homes for people who need them?

    What’s Next
    Next steps for Cupertino’s HE include the publication of a revised Draft HE and public outreach for possible zoning changes. Sign-up to receive Housing Element updates from the City of Cupertino here: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/housing/housing-element



    Note*: The 5 Santa Clara County cities with higher RHNA numbers than Cupertino also report declining populations since 2020:

    Milpitas, 2023-2031 RHNA 6,713 new homes, has a 2023 population of 76,535, a decline rate of -1.61% annually and -4.76% since the most recent census (80,363 in 2020).

    Mountain View, 2023-2031 RHNA 11,135 new homes, has a 2023 population of 79,670, a decline rate of -1.14% annually and -3.38% since the most recent census (82,455 in 2020).

    Palo Alto, 2023-2031 RHNA 6,086 new homes, has a 2023 population of 63,210, a decline rate of -2.64% annually and -7.7% since the most recent census (68,486 in 2020).

    San Jose, 2023-2031 RHNA 62,200 new homes, has a 2023 population of 930,862, a decline rate of -2.71% annually and -7.92% since the most recent census (1,010,908 in 2020).

    Sunnyvale, 2023-2031 RHNA 11,966 new homes, has a 2023 population of 145,302, a decline rate of -2.31% annually and -6.77% since the most recent census (155,860 in 2020).


    References
    City of Cupertino. Video Recording of the 7/25/2023 Special Meeting of Council, Agenda Item 1: Study Session and Staff Presentation on the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update: https://cupertino.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=18&clip_id=3271. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    City of Cupertino. Slides, Staff Presentation on the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, 7/25/2023: https://cupertino.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=ca20968a-4c57-4836-8958-19d88309d090.pdf. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    City of Cupertino. Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/general-plan. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    World Population Review, Cupertino, CA: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/cupertino-ca-population. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    California Legislative Information. 2017 SB 166, “Residential density and affordability”: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB166. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    California Legislative Information. 2022 AB 2011, “Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022”: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2011. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    Institute for Local Government. 2022 AB 32/SB 375, “Understanding AB 32 and SB 375: A Legal Analysis for Local Government Officials”: https://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/resources__Sept_8_AB32-SB375_Webinar_Slides.pdf?1442270849. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    California Legislative Information. 2006 AB 32, Amended 2022, “Energy: general plan: building decarbonization requirements”: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB32. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    California Legislative Information. 2008 SB 375, “Transportation planning: travel demand models: sustainable communities strategy: environmental review”: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=200720080SB375. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    United States Census. “Urban vs Rural”: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural.html. Accessed August 25, 2023.

    National Housing Conference. Land Banks and Community Land Trusts: https://nhc.org/policy-guide/land-based-solutions/land-banks-and-community-land-trusts/. Accessed August 25, 2023.

  • August 2023 Newsletter: FUHSD to Transition to By-Trustee Area Elections & the Future of Housing in Cupertino

    What’s in this issue:

    • FUHSD Begins Move from At-Large to By-Trustee Area Elections
    • The Future of Housing in Cupertino: Challenges and Opportunities

    FUHSD Begins Move from At-Large to By-Trustee Area Elections

    THE FACTS: The Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) is transitioning to By-Trustee Area Elections. This means that starting in 2024, residents will be able to vote for only the board member(s) in their designated trustee area. In the past, voters were able to elect FUHSD Board Members for the entire district.

    HOW IT WORKS: To transition, FUHSD must first draw the geographic boundaries for trustee areas. Per federal requirements, each district must have equal population. Gerrymandering to draw lines by race or ethnicity is prohibited. There are no rules about how lines are drawn around or through cities. The board may adopt a resolution to provide greater direction on how the lines are drawn.

    PERSPECTIVES ON THE CHANGE: During the March 7th, 2023 board meeting in which By-Trustee Area Elections were discussed, numerous Sunnyvale residents expressed support for the move. During the public comments, they expressed the sentiment that their needs had historically been underrepresented by the board.

    For Cupertino residents, the potential impact is dependent upon how the lines are drawn. If Cupertino is split into multiple trustee areas, it could become harder for candidates from Cupertino to be elected.

    SHARE YOUR INPUT:

    • Learn more about the change to by-trustee area voting
    • Join the FUHSD board meeting on Tuesday, September 19th at 5:15 PM to share your feedback on how the boundary lines should be drawn. By law, boundary maps cannot be reviewed during these meetings, but feedback is welcome. Details here.
    • View the documentation for the public hearings on trustee areas during the August 22nd FUHSD Board Meeting (Agenda Item #8)
    • Listen to the August 22nd FUHSD Board Meeting (scroll to the bottom of the page)

    The Future of Housing in Cupertino: Challenges and Opportunities

    BACKGROUND: The Housing Element (HE) is a roadmap for housing development. On July 25, 2023, the Cupertino City Council received an update on the 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2023-2031:

    Cupertino is required to identify 4,588 potential housing locations to accommodate its Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) assignment.

    HCD recommends that each city allocate a “RHNA buffer” of an additional 25-30% of the total RHNA obligation, especially for homes for people with low or moderate incomes.
    2017 SB 166 “No Net Loss” law mandates that jurisdictions must maintain adequate site inventory to accommodate remaining unmet RHNA by each income category (very low, low, moderate, market rate).
    Cupertino, then, is expected to identify sites for the construction of 5,735 – 5,964 new homes (4,588 RHNA + 25-30% buffer).

    THE CHALLENGE: Like many other communities in the region, Cupertino is challenged to identify so many housing sites, as most lots are already developed. What sites are vacant/available, close to transit (within 0.5 mile of a bus stop), and sized between 0.5 and 10 acres?

    HCD’s comments during the 7/25/2023 Council meeting suggest allowing all eligible retail and commercial locations in Cupertino to become future housing sites. Candidate sites will most likely be found along the City’s current and dwindling retail and commercial corridors: Homestead Rd, Stevens Creek Blvd, De Anza Blvd, and to a lesser extent Foothill Blvd, Bubb Rd, Stelling Rd, and Bollinger Rd.

    Current retail along Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino

    Cupertino must add 2,635 homes for individuals and families with very low, low, and moderate incomes. However, the State and federal government have removed themselves as providers and administrators for most affordable housing. Since affordable housing is not lucrative, it is unclear how much of it the private sector will build and maintain. Private property owners might also accept a housing entitlement, but then decide not to build.

    If current density bonus laws require developers set aside no more than 10-20% of new multi-family dwellings for people with incomes <50-120% of the area median, would Cupertino need to approve 13,175 – 26,350 new homes to assure the construction of 2,635 below market rate homes to fulfill HCD requirements?

    POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: Cities are often frustrated when they rely on the private sector and non-profit organizations to build and maintain a public good. Some cities are turning to other solutions to meet the RHNA requirements to build the homes that people need today.

    The National Housing Policy Guide describes these solutions for affordable housing:

    • Land Banks – Created by local jurisdictions, land banks hold “abandoned, vacant, and tax-delinquent properties for future development.”
    • Community Land Trusts (CLT) – “The CLT owns land which is leased to households who purchase the homes that sit on CLT land. Removing the cost of land from the cost of purchasing the home provides a significant subsidy to the households.”

    Why rely solely on for-profit developers, property owners, and investors to decide what and when to build, when land banks and CLTs can help directly alleviate the need for affordable housing in our community?

    Click below to find out what’s next for Cupertino’s Housing Element, revisions that might help it get approved, and how Cupertino’s RHNA numbers compare to those of neighboring cities.

    READ MORE

  • 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.