Cupertino Facts

Author: Cupertino Facts

  • McClellan Terrace Residents Upset Over Potential Eviction, Cupertino Council Moves to Evaluate Options

    McClellan Terrace Residents Upset Over Potential Eviction, Cupertino Council Moves to Evaluate Options

    On Wednesday, April 2nd, residents gathered at Cupertino Community Hall to protest potential eviction from their homes. The Foothill-De Anza College District is entering a contract to purchase the 94-unit McClellan Terrace apartments on 7954 McClellan Rd. But this will displace the apartment’s existing residents and numerous families with school-age children, whose units will be provided to students attending the community college.

    Residents are now upset at the prospect of being evicted not only from their homes, but also having to leave the CUSD/FUHSD school district and the City of Cupertino. Neighbors are worried that the loss of sixty-seven K-12 students will exacerbate the decline in public school enrollment, leading to more school closures.

    In 2020, voters passed a Foothill-De Anza College District bond including projects to “plan, construct, acquire or contribute to affordable employee and student housing units.” The College District’s consultant recommended purchasing the off-campus McClellan Terrace apartments, but failed to disclose that the apartments are heavily populated by local K-12 school district families, and that these apartments are more affordable than others in our community. McClellan Terrace is one of very few apartments within a half-mile of Lincoln Elementary School, Kennedy Junior High, and Monta Vista High School. 

    Per county records, Prometheus purchased the property in 2022 and is assessed at $52M. The College District would purchase the property for $67M and make it ready for approximately 332 students for an additional $28M, for a total of $95M; the deal would not be finalized until at least July. 

    Via CBS news, McClellan Terrace resident Rachel Green said she did not receive any “official correspondence from the property management company.” The only information she and neighbors had was via news reporting. “All the communication we see online is that we have to be out by the summer,” said Green.

    The new resident-focused Council majority acted with expedience to address the situation. During the April 2nd meeting, Mayor Chao proposed a special session to study the city’s position on the conversion of multifamily housing to student housing, evaluate existing bills on student housing, and compare with other jurisdictions. This motion was approved unanimously by the City Council. Vice Mayor Kitty Moore emphasized the time-sensitivity of the discussion, since the purchase is already under process. Councilmember Ray Wang added, “I think it’d be prudent to let the College District know that we’re heading in this direction so that whoever’s in escrow knows this could be an issue.”

    Residents wishing to express feedback should attend the next College District Board Meeting, held at 6:00 P.M. on Monday, April 7, 2025 in the District Office Building (D700) at Foothill College, 12345 El Monte Road, Los Altos Hills. They can also email the College District Chancellor’s office and the District Board at Carla Maitland [email protected].

    Additional information:

    Fox 2 coverage of the April 2nd resident protest at Cupertino Community Hall:

    KPIX CBS News Bay Area Coverage of the McClellan Terrace Purchase:

    Coverage on Sing Tao Daily

    For more information, refer to the March 10 Foothill/De Anza College Board Meeting:


    – Agenda and documents https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/fhda/Board.nsf/Public
    – Meeting on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/live/XorJDacQ6Vs

  • City Council Prioritizes Economic Growth, Fiscal Sustainability, and More in 2025-27 Cupertino City Work Program

    City Council Prioritizes Economic Growth, Fiscal Sustainability, and More in 2025-27 Cupertino City Work Program

    In the March 18th City Council meeting, Mayor Liang Chao, Vice Mayor Kitty Moore, and Councilmember Ray Wang voted to approve the 2025-27 Cupertino City Work Program, which seeks to improve economic growth, fiscal sustainability, and public health and quality of life in Cupertino. Councilmembers Fruen and Mohan voted against the 2025-27 City Work Program.

    The new initiatives are summarized below (view the full list here):

    • Economic Development for Retail and Small Businesses: Streamline permitting for small businesses, explore options to retain and recruit businesses, explore themed events like restaurant weeks and festivals, explore creation of a small business council, restore the Economic Development Committee, and explore a Grants Analyst position.
    • Permit Streamlining and Simplification for Small Home Upgrades: This will be a suite of improvements to (1) improve access to, and (2) speed the processing of permits for small home upgrades to enhance compliance and improve efficiency. This includes setting SLA’s, customer service KPI’s, and internal staff expertise to reduce consulting expenses.
    • Financial, Investment, and Cashflow Policy Review: Review and assess the City’s investment policy and best practices. Establish a cashflow management policy with the goal to reduce the total percentage in cash from 20% to 2% and to reduce the total percentage in cash and cash-equivalent to at most 10%, on par with other cities.
    • Defensible Impact Fee Nexus Study for Traffic Impact Fee, Retail Impact Fee, BMR Impact Fee, and Parkland Impact Fee: Review impact fees and other means of offsetting conversion of commercial land uses to residential to ensure impact fees are defensible against legal challenges.
    • Enhance Senior Services: Utilizing survey results conducted in 2022 and 2023, consider consultant services similar to Palo Alto or Saratoga Senior Center to enhance services, while reducing cost to the city.
    • City Hall Retrofit and City Hall Annex Renovation including the EOC: Implement the previously approved 2022 Council plan with EOC migration funds
    • Planning for Optimal Use of City Properties: Future planning strategies for Stocklmeir house/ garages, Blech House, Blue Pheasant, McClellan Barn, and the house at the entrance of Blackberry Farm, with a goal of judicial use of city-owned properties. Investigate potential purchase of CUSD Finch/Phil property.
    • Emergency Operations Readiness: Review fire, earthquake tornado, active shooter, Tsunami, hazardous transport accident policies. Ensure EOC is active and functioning with a permanent position, not a consultant.
    • 5G Ordinance: Prepare an ordinance to regulate small cellular facilities in the public right of way.
    • Unhoused Policies: Determine best practices for limited-budget smaller cities to manage the unhoused. Review RV practices in surrounding cities for impacts and potential adoption. Review transitional housing outcomes in surrounding cities. Policies to include nimble contingency plans.
    • Water Conservation Policies: Reduce irrigation while increasing pollinator-supporting vegetation (turf conversion). Optimize irrigation systems including CUSD use agreement sites.
    • Urban Forest Program: Create an Urban Forest Master Plan that includes an updated and expanded tree list which will increase the number of trees, enhance the City’ s tree canopy, and promote landscaping throughout the City
    • Add notifications for SB 330 and other projects during the application and approval process: Consider a community meeting requirement for any major project application, especially those requiring a general plan amendment, as some other cities have adopted. Consider increasing notification radius from 300 feet to 500 (or 1,000) feet for any project application, especially those requiring a general plan amendment. Improve notification methods for SB 330 preliminary applications, streamlined projects not requiring planning/council approval, and other projects

    While many of the items reflect the fresh perspective of the new Council majority, the plan also continues several work program items from the prior council, including bicycle facilities, preserving and developing BMR housing, and the Vision Zero plan to reduce fatalities and severe injuries on roadways by 2040.

    Once approved, staff determines the resources needed to accomplish each Work Program item, and requests them during the Budget Adoption process. Via the staff report, the 2025-27 Cupertino City Work Program “will officially launch in July at the start of the new fiscal year.” Projects in the City Work Program are expected to consume about 10% of City staff time. The remainder of their time is largely devoted to day-to-day operations.

    Read more about Cupertino’s City Work Program here: https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/City-Council/City-Work-Program

  • Councilmember Sheila Mohan’s Luxury Ritz-Carlton Hotel Stay Raises Questions

    Councilmember Sheila Mohan’s Luxury Ritz-Carlton Hotel Stay Raises Questions

    An unusual expense is raising questions amongst Cupertino’s City Councilmembers and residents. Last year, while Cupertino was struggling with a fiscal deficit, City Manager Pamela Wu and current Councilmember Sheila Mohan (former Mayor) used city funds to cover luxury hotel stays at The Ritz Carlton in Bangalore (Bengaluru), India.

    Mohan and Wu had been visiting Bhubaneswar, Cupertino’s Sister City in India. But oddly, according to publicly released expense receipts, both flew into a different city, Bangalore and stayed at the Ritz-Carlton for multiple nights on the city’s dime. Afterwards, the pair proceeded to the Sister City, Bhubaneswar for another four nights.

    Ritz-Carlton hotel receipt, available via Public Records Request

    What Cupertino-related business could justify the expense of staying in Bangalore? Bangalore is Mohan’s hometown, but it is over 800 miles away from the Sister City, Bhubaneswar.

    Distance between Bhubaneswar and Bengaluru (Bangalore), India

    During the April 2nd City Council meeting, the Bhubaneswar Sister City organization made a presentation covering its partnership with Cupertino to date. None of the activities for Mohan’s visit were located in Bangalore.

    During the March 18th City Council meeting, Mayor Liang Chao raised concerns over the fact that the trip and its over $6,000 in associated expenses (across Sheila Mohan and Pamela Wu) were never approved by council. Cupertino’s Sister Cities policy clearly defines a City-supported delegation as one that includes students. Committees with only adults or fewer than 4 students must be “considered” by Council. However, the most recent trip did not bring any student delegates to Bhubaneswar.

    The goal of the Sister City program is to foster educational, technical, economic and cultural exchange between Cupertino and its Sister Cities. Why were city funds used for activities unrelated to Cupertino, without Council approval, and in conflict with city policies? The challenges are significant when some are attacked by special interests, while others are able to coast through with egregious improprieties such as luxury travel on the taxpayers’ dime.

    Sheila Mohan’s tenure as Mayor ended with more than one decision lacking in transparency and proper protocols. In addition to the unexplained luxury trip expense, the regular City Council meeting scheduled for November 4th—just two days before Mohan and Wu’s trip—was apparently unlawfully canceled without Council approval. According to the Cupertino Municipal Code, any cancellation of a regular Cupertino City Council meeting requires a majority vote from the Council.

    As written in the law, there is agendized public business at every regular Cupertino City Council meeting. The right of the public to speak at any regular public meeting regarding any concern within the purview of the City Council is specified in our Municipal Code (“Every agenda for regular meetings of the City Council shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the council on any item of interest to the public that is within the city’s jurisdiction.” Cupertino Municipal Code 2.08.105.A).

    As such, the City Manager cannot decide by herself to cancel regular Council meetings. The right of the public to speak applies to every agenda for regular meetings of the City Council. Then-Mayor Mohan, the City Manager’s international luxury travel partner during this time, allowing the City Manager to cancel a regular meeting would be clear-cut “Councilmanic interference.” We were unable to locate any public process or rationale behind the cancellation, which created more than a month-long gap between regular meetings and supplanted the work of the public, during which time both the City Manager and Mohan were enjoying a taxpayer-funded stay at the Ritz Carlton in Mohan’s hometown.

    In contrast, the connections between integrity and efficacy are clear, and are demonstrated with our current Mayor, Dr. Liang Chao, who is in her seventh year on City Council. Since beginning her term as Mayor, Chao has made strong efforts that are foundational to increasing and restoring transparency, public awareness, and ensuring a healthy and vibrant democracy in Cupertino. In addition to ensuring that public issues are heard rather than canceled, with respect to this issue, Chao has called for clarifications to the Sister Cities policy to ensure the City’s funds are properly used in the future.

    Photo credit: Marriott International

  • 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.