Cupertino Facts

Year: 2024

  • YIMBY Takeover of Cupertino City Council

    YIMBY Takeover of Cupertino City Council

    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:

    1. To not count pipeline projects towards meeting the housing unit requirements
    2. To increase the buffer of additional housing from 17% in the city’s draft proposal
    3. 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 requirements the 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. 

    1. About 1316 homes in the pipeline were removed and not counted against the 4588 required
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    YIMBY Lawsuit Settlement: Builder’s Remedy Plans Welcome

    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.

  • One & a Half Years of Builder’s Remedy: How We Got Here

    One & a Half Years of Builder’s Remedy: How We Got Here

    Last December we highlighted how the Cupertino City Council was making changes which would drastically alter the character of its Single Family Neighborhoods. Another risk to the single family neighborhoods is what is called Builder’s Remedy.

    Builder’s Remedy is a new interpretation of a California Housing Accountability Law (1990) which allows developers to ignore the zoning requirements of the area. They can build whatever they want as long as 20% of the homes are reserved for low income housing or 100% for middle income housing. Builder’s Remedy comes into play if the City does not have an approved Housing Element (HE) plan with the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)

    October 2022 HE Plan

    In spite of the challenges posed by the pandemic, the City of Cupertino had a draft of the Housing Element (HE documents available here) ready in October 2022 for public review. This was a quarter before the filing deadline of January 31, 2023. The plan had provisions for 117% of the requirement the city was expected to fulfill.

    Default by Three Days

    After the November 2022 elections, JR Fruen & Sheila Mohan replaced Darcy Paul & Jon Willey in the Cupertino City Council. Along with the incumbent Hung Wei, this led to shift in control of the council, with the resident-focussed leaders being in the minority. JR Fruen is the founder of Cupertino For All, a YIMBY lobbying group, and has received substantial funding from real-estate related interests both for his City Council Campaign, and for running a PAC (2018) supporting builders interests.


    The new city council submitted the HE to the HDC on February 3, 2023,  three days after the official deadline of Jan 31, 2023. Not having the plan on file, by the January 31st deadline, put Cupertino in automatic default of the HAA and opened the flood-gates for Builder’s Remedy projects and YIMBY lawsuits.

    Delaying the Housing Element Plan by Nineteen Months

    HCD reviewed Cupertino’s Feb 2022 submission, and wrote back to the city on May 4, 2023 with the ruling that:

    “The draft housing element addresses most statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code)

    It also stated that:  

    “HCD considered comments from South Bay YIMBY, YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance, YIMBY Law, David Kellogg, Cupertino For All”. 

    Yes, you read it right. Cupertino For All, the organization incubated by JR Fruen, demanded changes in the HE submitted by Cupertino, where JR Fruen himself is a council member! 

    Earlier in August, 2022, JR Fruen, had written to the City, as the Policy Director for Cupertino For All, asking the council to not consider the pipeline projects at Vallco & Hamptons as part of the HE, asking for a larger buffer, and questioning why more sites were not being up-zoned. (Page 81-83 of communications for Aug 16 meeting)


    After getting elected to the City Council, with the support of Mayor Hung Wei & Sheila Mohan, JR Fruen drove the process of redoing the HE with the final plan submitted in March 2024, more than an year after the Jan 31, 2023 deadline; it was accepted in September 2024. During the nineteen months period the HE was delayed, the council removed many pipeline projects from the HE, added more sites, upzoning them along the way without adequate community input. 

    The final HE is expected to increase the total number of housing units in Cupertino by 30%! Delaying the HE by nineteen months, to satisfy YIMBY organizations’ desire to upzone sites showed a complete disregard to the risk posed by Builder’s Remedy.

    During these one and a half years, Cupertino had no defenses against Builder’s Remedy projects

    Builder’s Remedy Proposals

    There are two projects which we want to discuss in this post which give us a window for what is in store for us in the future. 

    20739 Scofield Drive

    This proposal is to construct a FIVE story, 20 unit condominium to replace a single family home on Schofield Drive near Faria Elementary School.

    Proposed five-story condominium complex in a single family neighborhood

    The single family home which will be replaced by the five story condominium


    Vista Heights (former McDonald Dorsa quarry)

    This proposal is combining three parcels zoned for Residential Hill Side (RHS) and converting them to a development with 35 homes and a commercial gymnasium. The entry to the complex will be via a road which ends inside Linda Vista Park. The City RHS Ordinance is designed to preserve the natural setting of the hillside and protection from natural hazards like fire & landslides, but it will no longer be applicable since this is a Builder’s Remedy project.

    A similar proposal on this site requesting a General Plan Amendment  had been considered by the City Council in 2019 but did not receive a go-ahead due to the steepness of the land, and the amount of regrading needed to make the plan feasible.

    Neighborhood Impact

    Both these projects are fundamentally altering the nature of the neighborhoods. The Scoffield drive plan is putting a five-story building in the middle of a quiet tree-lined street in a single family neighborhood.

    Street View of Scofield Drive: A quiet residential street

    The Vista Heights project will require significant regrading to carve out building-pads for the 30+ homes, on a steep hill. This will impact the stability of the hill, possibly increasing the risk of landslides and putting neighboring homes at risk. It will also route commercial traffic through Linda Vista Park, coming down a steep sloping road, impacting the safety of the residents, especially children using the park.

    This trend of building five story buildings on single family lots will drive existing homeowners out of Cupertino and also discourage future single family  home buyers from Cupertino. Cupertino homes demand a premium pricing, and new buyers will be reluctant to pay that premium if the lot next door can be converted into a five story condominium.

    What Can We Do?

    These projects serve as a reminder of the risk to our quality of life when our city council does not represent the interests of existing residents, but prioritizes maximizing the profits of real estate developers.

    For the time-being, the city will not be required to accept any new Builder’s Remedy projects since the Housing Element Plan has been accepted by the HCD. However, there are other laws which can lead to similar construction (eg: SB10 which allows 14 units on a single family lot). A new Housing Element plan will also be required in a few more years.

    The residents of Linda Vista neighborhood are petitioning the City Council to review those decisions, and Scofield residents have actively pushed back against the developer. However, the best way to preserve our neighborhoods is to elect a city council which is not beholden to builders’ interests and will keep existing residents’ interests in mind when developing the city.

  • New Creekside Park Playground Now Open

    New Creekside Park Playground Now Open

    A newly-built playground is open for play at Creekside Park. The renovation was initiated four years ago, in 2020. Via the City of Cupertino website, construction was scheduled to begin in June 2022. However, the playground appears to have undergone renovation much later, in 2024.

    The new playground brings a much-needed revitalization to Creekside Park, which is home to both a weekly farmers market and many sports and recreational activities. Below are photos and videos of the new playground:

  • Memorial Park: Field of Dreams?

    Memorial Park: Field of Dreams?

    On April 3rd, 2024, the Cupertino City Council approved a plan to renovate Memorial Park. The plan promises a plethora of amenities for the community to enjoy, from an all-inclusive playground to eight new pickleball courts. The only catch? An $84M price tag, which remains entirely unfunded and does not have a timeline.

    Potential Tax Increases to Pay for Park

    Currently, Cupertino does not have any funds available for the $84M Memorial Park Plan. To address this, staff proposes splitting the construction costs into six phases, over an indefinite time frame. While building the park in phases might make the costs more digestible for a city in a budget deficit, it actually increases the overall cost of the project. According to the Memorial Park Specific Plan, “Though the possibility exists that the cost of construction could come down, it is expected that costs will increase based on inflation rates and other market conditions.”

    In order to fund the project, staff is exploring:

    • Community Facilities District (CFD) special tax district: This would be an additional tax on property owners in a defined area. “The tax continues until bonds are paid off and then reduced to maintain investment.”
    • Parcel taxes, Special Assessment taxes, leveraging local sales tax measures, and other special tax initiatives
    • Grant funding
    • Partnering with local companies, sports leagues, and organizations to obtain sponsorships and naming rights

    Background

    Memorial Park was built in the mid-1970s, and at 22 acres, is the largest park in Cupertino. In 2020, Cupertino first presented its Parks & Recreation Master Plan to better serve the community. The plan included the goal of making Memorial Park more of a “community hub.” 

    Memorial Park Gazebo

    In July 2022, City staff hired Gates and Associates to create a renovation plan for Memorial Park. They gathered community feedback, and found that the most-liked features of Memorial Park were its walking paths, natural areas with trees, and festival and event space. The most-desired features were:

    • Better park and facility access: This includes bike lane connectivity, pedestrian paths, more parking, inclusiveness, and mobility
    • More nature experiences: Survey results revealed more tree shade is the #1 most-desired feature in the category of nature. Results showed that participants view “Memorial Park as a Natural Site and Park, and want this scenario further emphasized in the future.”
    • More opportunities for extraordinary play: Survey results showed a strong desire for playgrounds to be renovated and expanded, with water play as the highest-rated play amenity

    Gates then presented design concepts that entirely reimagined Memorial Park (save for a few key features like the historic Veterans Memorial and gazebo). These plans were brought to Council in June 2023 (read our prior article for background). 

    Conflicting Interests

    Throughout the years of Memorial Park discussions, one thing has become clear: satisfying all stakeholders is a very difficult task. The June 2023 meeting was dominated by dozens of Softball and Dog Off Leash Area (DOLA) supporters protesting the elimination of the softball field. With the softball field secured in the latest plans, this group is now largely silent. 

    Meanwhile, a new group has emerged: pickleball players. Pickleball supporters filled the meeting hall on April 3rd, serving snacks and passing out supporter pins in the lobby. Via public comment, about half of the local Pickleball Whatsapp group lives outside of Cupertino. The diverse crowd came from far and wide to attend the Cupertino City Council Meeting, ranging from Marin and the North Bay to Union City in the East Bay. Many of the comments expressed passion for the health benefits of pickleball. Several also lobbied to ask for the pickleball courts to be expedited into an earlier phase of construction. 

    Part of the allure of Cupertino’s pickleball courts is that they are free. Many neighboring cities, including Sunnyvale, Saratoga, Santa Clara, and Mountain View, charge for reservation of their courts. Residents receive lower rates, while non-residents receive higher rates.

    Cupertino residents questioned why noisy pickleball courts would be located next to homes. One major concern was noise from the pickleball courts. Staff measured the noise level of pickleball at about 50 decibels, which is the same noise level as the street. However, pickleball noise is sharper than traffic noise, occurring when the ball hits the paddle.

    Residents also expressed concern about the loss of open space at Memorial Park. Some proposed converting existing tennis courts to pickleball courts to preserve the existing green space.

    Moving Forward

    Councilmember Liang Chao proposed a friendly amendment for staff to explore reducing the cost of the Memorial Park plan. However, Mayor Sheila Mohan rejected the amendment, stating, “We’re talking about big numbers here. And we have not identified… the funding sources for this entire conceptual plan. So I don’t think the time for talking money [is now].”

    Staff also agreed to explore alternate locations for the pickleball courts. “I’m very concerned about the individuals who are going to be living near where these courts are going to be,” stated Councilmember Moore. Considering that nearby De Anza College has a large number of tennis courts that can potentially be re-striped to pickleball courts, as well as parking space, Memorial Park is not the only feasible location for pickleball courts.

    Given that the city cannot even afford to maintain pavement quality, sidewalk quality, or street trees for its residents, it is unclear how the $84M Memorial Park plan will ever receive sufficient funding to reach fruition. 

  • Resident Uncovers $100K Cupertino Accounting Error

    Resident Uncovers $100K Cupertino Accounting Error

    After discovering over $100,000 in funds designated for affordable housing instead went to pay off a YIMBY lawsuit, San José Spotlight reports that Cupertino is “scrambling fix what city officials are calling an ‘accounting error.’” As the City continues to struggle with its budget deficit and residents endure budget cuts, the latest error drew more questions about its fiscal management.

    YIMBY Law, one of the two litigants in the lawsuit questioned Cupertino’s motives in its misallocation of funds. “They’re saying it’s an error, so I think we have to pretend that we believe that,” stated YIMBY Law’s Sonja Trauss. “There’s another reality where it wasn’t an error at all and Cupertino looks even worse.”1

    Resident Discovers Alleged Error
    The issue first came to light at the February 21 City Council meeting, when resident Rhoda Fry spotted errors in the Accounts Payable Report which had been approved by three levels of City staff. Fry said, “developers are paying these mitigation fees in good faith that these will go toward below market rate housing, not to pay for frivolous lawsuits.” It was thanks to Councilmember Kitty Moore that Fry found the error; in 2021 Moore requested that the specific paying fund be listed in the Accounts Payable Report.2

    Councilmember Liang Chao pulled the Accounts Payable item from the Consent Calendar. City Attorney Jensen tried to shut down discussion by claiming that it was an administrative issue while City Manager Wu added that it was a waste of time to discuss it. Their comments angered residents who hadn’t originally intended to speak on this item, resident Lisa Warren chided “you should be very happy you have people that care.”

    Although City staff admitted that affordable-housing money was misallocated, Councilmember Hung Wei persisted in assuming that the City has “checks and balances in place.” Councilmember Kitty Moore requested that any adjustments to the BMR Fund make their way into the City’s annual Development Mitigation Fee Report under State Law AB 1600.

    More Concerns about the Affordable Housing Fund
    Since the article was published, other questionable withdrawals from the fund have been discovered such as subscriptions to the San Jose Mercury News, memberships to organizations, airfare, and hotel stays. Furthermore, the use of the fund has been surprisingly inefficient. Nearly half of the fund’s 2023 expenses of $769K went to pay for “Staff and Administration.”

    The San Jose Spotlight Article closed with a quote from Councilmember Moore, who previously served on the City’s Audit Committee, “We are the stewards of the city’s public funds and must demonstrate we are prudent, responsible and accountable.”

    Sources

    1 – Freimarck, A. (2024, March 29). Cupertino spent affordable housing funds on lawsuit. San José Spotlight. https://sanjosespotlight.com/cupertino-spent-affordable-housing-funds-on-lawsuit/ 

    2 – Cupertino Development Fee Impact Reports: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/finance/budget-reports

  • Lehigh Update: 600 Trucks a Day on Foothill for 30 Years

    Lehigh Update: 600 Trucks a Day on Foothill for 30 Years

    On March 27, 2024 outgoing County Supervisor Simitian hosted his ninth and last Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant and Permanente Quarry Public Meeting at Cupertino Community Hall. The forum provided current status, future plans, and anticipated impacts to residents. The following story expands upon information from the meeting.

    Meeting Draws Regional Interest with Diverse Panel

    Officials from a number of cities were present including Cupertino’s Mayor Mohan, Councilmember Moore and Councilmember Wei. Also in attendance were representatives from Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Senator Cortese, Senator Becker, Congressman Khanna (via Zoom), FUHSD, and Foothill / De Anza Board Member Ahrens.

    The panel included representatives from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Management District, Valley Water, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and various Santa Clara County personnel from Planning, Counsel, and Department of Environmental Health.

    Quarry Expansion Withdrawn

    Supervisor Simitian reminded attendees that in 2019, Lehigh applied for a major expansion of the Permanente Quarry that would “chop the top” off of the ridgeline between the Quarry and Rancho San Antonio. The ridgeline is protected by the 1972 Ridgeline Protection Easement Deed. In 2021, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and the Board of Supervisors agreed to share enforcement of the deed, intended to protect the crumbling ridgeline. The quarry expansion proposal was subsequently withdrawn.

    In December 2023, Lehigh submitted a new Reclamation Plan application to repair the quarry land for other beneficial uses. However, the County deemed Lehigh’s 2023 application incomplete. Amongst many needed clarifications, the application was insufficient in addressing an interim need to stabilize the over-mined ridgeline between the quarry and Rancho San Antonio. Now it is up to Lehigh and its parent company, Heidelberg Materials, to respond to the County’s requests for clarification.

    Cement Kiln Closed

    In 2023, Supervisor Simitian brokered a deal with Lehigh to permanently shut down the cement kiln. As part of that effort, the County Counsel surveyed Lehigh’s egregious history of violations across numerous regulatory agencies. Lehigh intends to file an application to demolish structures relating to the cement kiln this year.

    To note: the cement kiln has been shut down since 2020 following multiple polluting industrial incidents. However, Lehigh continues to vehemently protect its right to manufacture cement.

    Truck Traffic

    Supervisor Simitian paused his discussion with County Planner Salisbury to repeat that reclamation is expected to take 40 years. Additionally, the quarry would be filled with imported “clean fill” at a rate of 600 trucks per day over 30 years, rather than using materials onsite. Supervisor Simitian concluded that this would be “a lively debate for the next Board of Supervisors.”

    The source of quarry truck traffic on Foothill Expressway is operations for both Lehigh’s new aggregate plant and existing Stevens Creek Quarry. The source of cement truck traffic is the company’s new business of distributing cement manufactured elsewhere.

    Other Panel Highlights:

    • Lehigh is required to reclaim the land toward a secondary beneficial use and to post a bond to ensure the work is completed, under SMARA (Surface Mining and Reclamation Act), a State Law. County Planner Salisbury lamented that the Financial Assurance Cost Estimate (FACE) of $67M is unlikely to cover the reclamation expenses.
    • Land heavily used for a variety of industrial uses such as cement, aluminum, metals, fertilizer, plaster made with asbestos, and incendiary bombs might fall under the jurisdiction of the County Department of Environmental Health.
    • The Permanente Creek Restoration Area permitting timeline is underway to resolve a 2015 consent decree with the Sierra Club.
    • Lehigh must restore a PG&E service road that it widened illegally (some of the grading occurred in Cupertino).
    • Supervisor Simitian clarified for audience members that Lehigh receives money for selling aggregate. It would receive money for “importing” clean fill and for scrapping structures and equipment. In 2019, Lehigh’s proposal to turn the quarry into a for-profit landfill also drew criticism from the Open Space District and neighboring cities.
    • Other questions included Valley Water’s rejection of turning the quarry pit into a water reservoir, future uses of Union Pacific’s rail spur, groundwater quality, and the decision of the County not to purchase the property.

    The future of Lehigh’s 3,500 acres of land remains uncertain, as Lehigh could still apply for uses that are not allowed under current zoning rules. Cupertino Facts will provide more information as it becomes available.

    Additional Resources:

    Link to Meeting Recording on YouTube:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO47PK-CYwA

    Link to County Lehigh Documents
    https://plandev.sccgov.org/policies-programs/smara/permanente#3925188384-320845100

    Link to Permanente Creek Restoration Plans
    https://plandev.sccgov.org/permanente-creek-restoration-plan-draft-supplemental-eir

    Link to Meeting Recording on YouTube:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO47PK-CYwA

    Link to County Lehigh Documents
    https://plandev.sccgov.org/policies-programs/smara/permanente#3925188384-320845100

    Link to Permanente Creek Restoration Plans
    https://plandev.sccgov.org/permanente-creek-restoration-plan-draft-supplemental-eir

  • March 2024 Newsletter: Outcry Over FUHSD Trustee Areas, Cupertino’s Zero-Interest Bank Account, and MoreMarch 2024 Newsletter

    What’s in this issue:

    • Development News: More Retail Replaced by Hotels and Housing
    • Local Parent Outcry over FUHSD Transition to Trustee Areas
    • Cupertino’s Zero-Interest Bank Account Raises Questions

    Development In and Around Cupertino: Retail Land Replaced by Hotels and Housing

    Two more housing projects expected to build 113 new homes are under review in Cupertino’s Planning Department. They include 55 homes near Wolfe and Stevens Creek Blvd. and 58 homes along Stevens Creek Blvd. These were submitted under the State Law SB330, which streamlines housing approvals. Two hotel projects, which have been on hold for years, also applied to renew their development agreements.

    United Furniture Club site

    In west San Jose adjacent to southern Cupertino, there are plans for a hotel and multifamily housing (S. De Anza between Hwy 85 and Prospect Road). Separately, in June 2023, Cupertino City Council approved a 34-home mixed-use project just across the road at 1655 S De Anza Blvd.

    READ MORE

    Local Parents Protest FUHSD Transition to Trustee Area Voting

    Over 2,200 residents from the Monta Vista and Lynbrook High School attendance areas have expressed opposition to the Fremont Union High School District’s transition from At Large to By-Trustee Area elections. Residents have spoken out at board meetings, community meetings, and signed a petition.

    Feb. 13, 2024 FUHSD Board Meeting

    With the previous at-large voting system, residents were able to elect all five FUHSD Board Trustees. With the new Trustee Area voting system, residents will only be allowed to elect one trustee in their designated Trustee Area. Read the full article to find out why many local residents oppose the change.

    READ MORE

    Should Cupertino Hold $48M in a Bank Account with Zero Interest?

    As Cupertino continues to face a budget deficit and cut services, a growing number of residents are questioning why approximately $48M in city funds are being held in an account earning zero interest. Councilmember Kitty Moore flagged the account to staff, who confirmed it does not earn interest.

    Assuming the city leaves $3M in the account for liquidity purposes, the remaining $45M could be earning up to $2.25M per year simply by moving it into a 5% interest CD or Money Market.

    READ MORE
  • Cupertino’s 0% Interest Bank Account Raises Questions

    Cupertino’s 0% Interest Bank Account Raises Questions

    As Cupertino continues to face a budget deficit and cut services, a growing number of residents are questioning why approximately $48M in city funds are being held in an account that earns zero interest.

    Councilmember Kitty Moore flagged the account to staff, who confirmed that it does not earn any interest. Cupertino uses its Wells Fargo checking account to handle day-to-day transactions. The account is regularly referenced in Treasurer’s Reports, with a stated balance $49M as of December 31, 2023. A recent Public Records Request shows all of the latest transactions in this account, with a slightly different balance of $48.4M as of December 31, 2023. 

    Checking accounts serve as an important source of liquidity for cities to fund regular operations. However, residents are now questioning whether it is appropriate to hold such a large amount in zero-interest checking. Assuming there is $48M in cash, if the city leaves $3M in the account for liquidity purposes, it could be earning up to $2.25M per year simply by moving the remaining $45M into a CD or Money Market bearing 5% interest. 

    Considering Cupertino’s proposed drastic measures to close the budget gap, the millions in lost interest income are meaningful. For example, the City recently explored tax increases to generate $1M-$5M per year, raising fees on residents, and reducing costs by requiring residents to maintain sidewalks and street trees.

    Residents are always welcome to express their opinion by emailing:

    City Manager: [email protected]
    City Council: [email protected] 

  • Development In and Around Cupertino: Retail Land Replaced by Hotels and Housing

    Development In and Around Cupertino: Retail Land Replaced by Hotels and Housing

    Two more housing development projects that expect to build 113 new homes are under review in Cupertino’s Planning Department. These have been submitted under the State Law SB330, which streamlines housing approvals.1

    • 10065 E Estates Dr: 55 townhomes at the “United Furniture” site at, near Wolfe and Stevens Creek Blvd. There is PCE (tetrachloroethylene) contamination at the site from the One Hour Dry Cleaner that is currently above residential screening levels.2 PCE is heavier than water, sinks to the groundwater and spreads rapidly, and its vapors then rise through the soil and enter indoor air spaces. 
    10065 E. Estates Dr.
    • 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd: 58 homes, 12 of which will serve the needs of people with “moderate” incomes at the old Fontana’s Restaurant, adjacent to Staples.

    Two hotel projects, which have been on hold for years, have applied to renew their development agreements.

    • 10801 N Wolfe Rd: The Cupertino Village Hotel project at the Duke of Edinburgh pub in the Cupertino Village shopping center at Homestead Road. The 185-room hotel application was initiated in 2017 and approved by City Council in 2019. More information is available here.
    • 10931 N De Anza Blvd: The De Anza Hotel project at the Goodyear Auto Service, adjacent to the Cupertino Hotel at the 280 interchange. The 155-room hotel application was initiated in 2018 and approved by City Council in 2020. More information is available here.

    In nearby San Jose on S De Anza between Hwy 85 and Prospect Road are plans for a hotel and multifamily housing. The City of Cupertino is behind and across the road from these properties.

    1655 S. De Anza Blvd.

    Separately, in June 2023, Cupertino City Council approved a 34-home mixed-use project just across the road on the nearly 8-acre shopping center with the Kikusushi Restaurant at 1655 S De Anza Blvd.3

    • 1510 S De Anza Blvd: The 4-story 132-room hotel with a roof-top deck and underground parking on a 0.86 gross acre site was approved in 2020. It is located at the old Kelly-Moore Paints Store.4
    • 1000 S De Anza Blvd: The seven-story 99-unit multifamily residential building on a 0.72-gross acre site is located at the closed Mori Restaurant. This project has been submitted under the “Builder’s Remedy,” which is a method by which developers can obtain ministerial project approval when a City has failed to obtain its Housing Element. It is unknown as to whether the City of San Jose has accepted this project under the provisions of the “Builder’s Remedy.”5
    1000 S. De Anza Blvd.

    Sources:
    (1) Cupertino Online Permit Services  https://aca-prod.accela.com/CUPERTINO/Default.aspx Accessed March 5, 2024.
    (2)  ONE-HOUR DRY CLEANERS. Geotracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000021095 Accessed March 9, 2024.
    (3)   1655 S. DE ANZA BLVD., City of Cupertino. https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/1655s-de-anza-blvd. Accessed March 5, 2024.
    (4)  1510 S. DE ANZA BLVD., City of Cupertino. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/planning-building-code-enforcement/planning-division/environmental-planning/environmental-review/negative-declaration-initial-studies/1510-s-de-anza-hotel-project  & Site Development Permit. City of San Jose, 18 November 2020. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/66859/637406168452370000. Accessed March 5, 2024.
    (5)   Geha, Joseph. San Jose spurns developers, sparking possible legal fight. San Jose Spotlight, 6 February 2024. https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-spurns-developers-sparking-possible-legal-fight-lawsuit-builders-remedy/. Accessed March 5, 2024.

  • Local Parents Protest FUHSD Transition to Trustee Area Voting

    Local Parents Protest FUHSD Transition to Trustee Area Voting

    Over 2,200 residents from the Monta Vista and Lynbrook High School attendance areas have expressed opposition to the the Fremont Union High School District’s transition from at-large to by-trustee area elections. Residents have spoken out at board meetings, community meetings, and signed a Change.org petition.

    Feb. 13, 2024 FUHSD Board Meeting

    A Controversial Move

    With the previous at-large voting system, residents were able to elect all five FUHSD Board Trustees. But with the new Trustee Area voting system, residents will only be allowed to elect one trustee in their designated Trustee Area. See our previous article for more background. 

    FUHSD’s stated reason for transitioning from At Large to Trustee Area Elections is to avoid scrutiny under the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). The CVRA, passed in 2002, helps minority groups more easily challenge At Large elections, on the grounds that they cause racially-polarized voting. However, to date, FUHSD has not done any analysis to determine whether there is racially-polarized voting in its district.

    Cupertino Councilmembers Question FUHSD Plan

    At the February 13th FUHSD Board Meeting, Cupertino City Councilmember Liang Chao, representing herself only, stated, “In the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in August 2023, the Supreme Court raised the bar for the CVRA challenge. It specifically said alternatives could be ranked-choice voting and cumulative voting.” 

    Chao called for the FUHSD Board to immediately add an agenda item to consider other voting methods, and also “consider fiscal impacts of going through the lengthy redistricting process every 10 years with by-trustee area elections.”

    Cupertino Councilmember Kitty Moore, whose children attended FUHSD schools, also spoke out representing herself only. Moore stated, “I am very concerned about the profound lack of data concerning redistricting, especially considering that we are a high school district known for our academics. This could potentially expose the district to various risks.”

    Supporters of By-Trustee Areas

    According to the FUHSD presentation delivered by Superintendent Graham Clark, the switch helps North Sunnyvale residents. Historically, most FUHSD trustees have come from South Sunnyvale and Cupertino. North Sunnyvale has not had any trustees. With the transition, North Sunnyvale would always be guaranteed one board member. 

    One of the decision’s biggest advocates is an organization called Sunnyvale Equity in Education (SEE). SEE has stated in a Facebook post that its goals include achieving equal representation on the board, and, in the long term, opening its own North Sunnyvale school.

    Current and former Sunnyvale City Councilmembers are also proponents of the move. “No taxation without representation,” stated Sunnyvale’s Councilmember of District 5, which includes North Sunnyvale. “In the past 50 years, there has never been a Latino or a North Sunnyvale resident on this board. In the 40 years since the closure of Sunnyvale High School, North Sunnyvale residents have not enjoyed the same access or quality of high school educational resources as the rest of this district. Our residents deserve the same access to educational resources as South Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Los Altos, and San Jose residents.”

    Opponents of By-Trustee Areas

    Many Monta Vista and Lynbrook area parents expressed frustration with Trustee Areas, across multiple FUHSD meetings. Numerous public comments showed concern that the change would put Monta Vista or Lynbrook at risk of being closed, in order to make way for a Sunnyvale school. FUHSD currently has five high schools; it is unlikely to be able to afford six. During public meetings, several parents stated that it takes only three out of five board members to close a school. With the Trustee Area system, Southern FUHSD would be at risk of not having enough board members to vote against such a move, if it ever arose. 

    Many parents also stated that the change to Trustee Areas was made without their consent. All community outreach meetings occurred after the decision was made, asking residents to “choose a map” for Trustee Areas, rather than provide input on the Trustee Area decision itself. “By-Trustee Area will undercut the ability of every voter to have an impact, since we can only vote for one trustee every four years,” stated Councilmember Liang Chao. 

    Next Steps

    FUHSD now faces the challenging task of managing the needs of multiple parent groups. The District continues to reassure parents that it “has no plans to close schools”. However, it also refuses to definitively state that it “will not close schools.” Ultimately, this lack of certainty is leaving many questioning the district’s motives.

    How To Get Involved

    There are many ways local residents can share their opinions on the move to Trustee Areas. Most immediately, there are two remaining Map Hearing Schedules. These are held during the regular board meetings at the District Office (589 W. Fremont Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94087).

    • March 20, 2024 (6 P.M.)
    • April 24, 2024 (6 P.M.): This is the final map hearing where the board will approve a final map of Trustee Areas, as well as which areas will be up for election.

    Attend an FUHSD Board of Trustees meeting.

    View the presentation made during the Monta Vista High School Community Outreach meeting.

    Email:
    DO STAFF: [email protected] 
    BOARD & DO STAFF: [email protected]

    Those opposing the transition can sign the Change.org petition.