Cupertino Facts

Author: Cupertino Facts

  • Statement of recusal, 5/9/23 meeting: Council Member Chao

    Statement of recusal, 5/9/23 meeting: Council Member Chao

     

  • Liang Chao Presentation for 5/9/23 Meeting: Individual Councilmembers’ Right to Information

    Liang Chao Presentation for 5/9/23 Meeting: Individual Councilmembers’ Right to Information

     

  • April 21st Newsletter: Cupertino Braces for Budget Cuts, and What’s Next for Lehigh Cement

    April 21st Newsletter: Cupertino Braces for Budget Cuts, and What’s Next for Lehigh Cement

    Two weeks ago, we highlighted the impact of Cupertino’s declining revenue on community programs like Shakespeare in the Park. This email examines the latest news of budget cuts in Cupertino, along with additional background on how the situation arose. 

    We also share updates on a topic that, directly or indirectly, affects many Cupertino residents: the future of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry, located on Stevens Creek Blvd in unincorporated Cupertino. The cement plant has been one of California’s worst air polluters. The quarry that feeds the plant limestone has forever altered our view of the mountains, and polluted water. Most noticeable is the truck traffic, dust and noise. 
    As both of these situations are ongoing, we will continue providing updates to keep you informed.

    Cupertino Braces for Massive Budget Cuts

    On April 13th, the Cupertino City Council discussed the sobering budget impact of an anticipated 30% reduction in City revenue. The potential revenue reduction was first identified in December 2021, and repeatedly disclosed throughout 2022. Now, even cost-cutting of services and staff will not prevent the City from running in the red for at least a decade.

    WHY IS REVENUE DOWN?

    Cupertino’s press release attributes the decline to “the anticipated outcome of a California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) audit of one of the City’s taxpayers.” This taxpayer is most likely Apple. 
    In the late 1990s, the City helped rescue Apple from failure by sharing its sales-tax revenues. As permitted by State law, Apple assigned its Cupertino headquarters as the point-of-sale location for all online sales of its products in California; Cupertino receives the sales-tax revenue and shares it with Apple.

    The State is considering terminating this long-standing agreement, which could hobble the City. However, it is not clear what legal standing, if any, the State has if it were to end tax-sharing agreements between businesses and cities. An article from Bloomberg Tax provides more detail. 

    CITY HALL SUBCOMMITTEE RINGS WARNING BELLS

    In October 2022, the City Hall subcommittee, on which Councilmember Kitty Moore served, warned of the audit’s potential short and long-term funding impacts. The subcommittee advised against spending money on building a brand-new City Hall. 
    Instead, it recommended a seismic retrofit and renovation of the existing City Hall and utilization of the recently-purchased annex building for the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) as the most efficient, economical solution. Additionally, to improve fiscal oversight, Councilmember Moore brought our Audit Committee into compliance. 
    Disregarding the warning, in December 2022, Mayor Hung Wei, Vice Mayor Sheila Mohan, and Councilmember J.R. Fruen pushed for a new and larger $72 million City Hall. They also removed several fiduciary duties assigned to the Audit Committee, and reduced the number of times the Committee will meet each year. 

    UNCERTAIN FUTURE

    The worst-case scenario, yet to be modeled by the City’s finance department, would require Cupertino to refund past disbursements to the State. It is unclear what, if anything, the current Council majority is able to do about this situation, other than lodge a boilerplate appeal, given this majority’s demonstrated unwillingness to focus on fiscal details. 
    Per a signed agreement, Apple will also help defend Cupertino in administrative proceedings regarding its status as the point-of-sale location. The State will reveal the outcome of its audit in 4 to 6 months. 

    Learn What’s Next for the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry on Wednesday April 26

    On Wednesday, April 26, at 6:30 PM at Cupertino Community Hall and on Zoom, various oversight agencies will give updates on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Permanente Quarry, along with an opportunity to ask questions. This meeting will also be recorded. Sign up here. 
    Last week, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved two decisions regarding the Lehigh Cement Plant and Permanente Quarry: 
    1. The County will ask Lehigh to enter a legally-binding agreement to permanently close its kiln at the cement plant. Following an industrial accident in 2019, the Bay Area Air Quality District (BAAQMD) received a plethora of phone calls reporting excessive pollution from the cement plant. It ceased operations in 2020 and instead became a distribution center for imported cement. In 2022, a representative testified that Lehigh would not rebuild its cement kiln because it would be too expensive to comply with modern pollution regulations, but would continue manufacturing and distributing cement. 
    2. The County will create a policy framework guiding restoration and future development of portions of the 3,500-acre Lehigh site, in cooperation with the City of Cupertino. The only land that Lehigh can develop is in Cupertino. 

    Supervisor Simitian announced three goals: close the cement plant, stop mining the quarry, and begin restoration and reclamation of the property. In March, the Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Storage Exploratory Committee rejected the idea of turning the quarry into a lake for water storage. Instead, the County is awaiting a new proposal that would transform the quarry into a for-profit waste-rock landfill with an estimated 600 truck trips per day for 30 years. 

    READ MORE

  • Learn What’s Next for the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry on Wednesday April 26

    Learn What’s Next for the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry on Wednesday April 26

    On Wednesday, April 26, at 6:30 PM at Cupertino Community Hall and on Zoom, various oversight agencies will give updates on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Permanente Quarry, along with an opportunity to ask questions. This meeting will also be recorded. Sign up here.

    On April 18, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved two decisions regarding the Lehigh Cement plant:

    1. Santa Clara County will obtain a legally-binding commitment from Lehigh to not rebuild its cement kiln. Following an industrial accident in 2019, the kiln sputtered through to the beginning of 2020. During this time, the Bay Area Air Quality District (BAAQMD) received a plethora of phone calls reporting excessive pollution from the cement plant. The cement plant subsequently ceased operations and instead became a distribution center for imported cement. 
    The kiln, which is fueled by petroleum coke, incinerates locally-mined limestone and other imported materials to manufacture clinker. This portion of the cement-making operation creates the most air pollution. The clinker is ground in a mill, mixed with other materials, and stored in giant silos for distribution. 
    During a County meeting in November 2022, a Lehigh representative testified that the company would not rebuild its kiln because it would be too expensive to comply with modern pollution regulations but would retain its Conditional Use Permit in order to continue manufacturing and distributing cement.
    Lehigh Cement Plant
     2. The County will create a policy framework guiding restoration and future development of portions of the 3500-acre Lehigh site, in cooperation with the City of Cupertino. The only land that Lehigh can develop is in Cupertino. 
    Supervisor Simitian announced three goals: close the cement plant, stop mining the quarry, and begin restoration and reclamation of the property. The cement plant’s kiln and active mining shut down three years ago. 
    Reclamation, which is required to occur concurrently with mining is grossly overdue.
    The 2012 County-approved plan stipulates that mining-waste-rock piled upon over 300 acres would be placed in the quarry pit to protect water-quality and to shore up the crumbling ridgeline at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. 
    Instead, the County is awaiting a new proposal that would transform the quarry into a for-profit landfill for waste rock, with an estimated 600 truck trips per day for 30 years. In March, the Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Storage Exploratory Committee rejected the idea of turning the quarry into a lake for water storage. 
    To attend the Lehigh meeting in person or via zoom to learn about the organizations that are in charge of regulating the facility, click here. 

    Links:
    April 18 2023 Board of Supervisors items 20 and 21: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=14890
    November 17 County Housing, Land Use, Environment, and Transportation Committee (HLUET) item 5: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=13084&Inline=True
    March 29 2023 Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Storage Exploratory Committee item 5.2: https://s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/valleywater.org.us-west-1/s3fs-public/WSEC-Agenda-03292023.pdf

  • April 7, 2023 Email Newsletter: Shakespeare in the Park – To Be or Not To Be? – City Hall Renovation, and More

    April 7, 2023 Email Newsletter: Shakespeare in the Park – To Be or Not To Be? – City Hall Renovation, and More

    April 7, 2023 — Welcome to the Cupertino Facts newsletter! This resident-led publication is dedicated to ensuring that we have a safe, vibrant, honest and effective community. We stand for win-win situations.

    In this issue, we explore the following issues:

    1. Cupertino Shakespeare in the Park – To Be or Not To Be?

    2. Should Cupertino Spend $72M on a New City Hall?

    3. Cupertino’s Payments to a Politically-Driven Organization Raise Questions

    We have seen the rhetoric of doing good and doing well. Yet far too often, problems have accumulated, requiring much greater efforts to solve, following ever-increasing harms. These include financial accountability and the addressing of social problems. As well, we are at a point in time when public discourse is unfortunately dominated by the politics of attack. We are not interested in contributing to this problem. 

    What is the remedy? Communication is essential. We will dedicate both to setting forth good work, and communicating regarding this work. If we disagree, it must be on honest, principled differences.

    We must start with the commonly-accepted premises that the facts matter, and that we can address concerns while improving endeavors for all. We believe in the politics of efficacy, not the politics of accusation. We are there for you, and we will keep engaging and supporting the values of thoughtful, honest discussion.


    Cupertino Shakespeare in the Park – To Be or Not To Be?


    THE FACTS: Cupertino residents have enjoyed free Shakespeare in Memorial Park every summer since 1995. But at the April 4, 2023 City Council meeting, Toby Leavitt, Executive Director of the San Francisco Shakespeare Festival, made the dramatic announcement that Shakespeare in Memorial Park is at risk of being canceled this summer by the Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department. 


    Staff stated that they were experiencing “unexpected financial constraints affecting both staffing levels and their ability to host free Shakespeare in the Park this summer.” Leavitt asked for help in finding solutions to retain this program along with the many other beloved Cupertino community summer events.

    WHY THIS MATTERS: As resident Rhoda Fry explained at the Council meeting, Cupertino’s Q4 2022 and Q1 2023 sales and use tax revenue is significantly down from prior years. She is concerned that the City faces a “double whammy” with the decline in revenue, plus potential fallout from an impending tax audit of one of Cupertino’s largest sales-tax revenue sources. Meanwhile, our Council and Commissions are being asked to allocate funds for new projects.

    We won’t sugarcoat things – less tax revenue eventually impacts all residents, whether it’s cuts to community programs or capital improvements. Yet while the City looks to cut Shakespeare in the Park, Mayor Hung Wei and City Manager Pamela Wu will spend 10 days in Taiwan visiting sister cities. Wu confirmed that the expenses for this international trip will be paid for by Cupertino. It is customary for the Mayor to go on taxpayer-funded sister-city trips, and our students will certainly benefit from her insights. However, there is no record of a City Manager ever going on a sister-city trip. The cost of the trip has yet to be approved by the City Council.


    WHAT CAN WE DO? Residents believe it is important to find responsible solutions to address Cupertino’s financial situation. While official conversations are still underway, resident-proposed solutions include:

    • Increasing fiscal transparency in order to better evaluate Cupertino’s expenditures
    • Identifying opportunities to reduce city expenses.  For example, at the meeting Peggy Griffin recommended capping fee waivers, limiting trips to sister cities, and prioritizing community events that bring people together. 
    • In Griffin’s own words, “Let’s live within our means and reduce the impact to the City.”


    (more…)

  • Cupertino Shakespeare in the Park – To Be or Not To Be?

    At the April 4, 2023 City Council meeting, Toby Leavitt, Executive Director of the San Francisco Shakespeare Festival, made the dramatic announcement that Shakespeare in Memorial Park is at risk of being canceled this summer by the Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department. On Thursday March 30, Parks staff let her know that they were experiencing “unexpected financial constraints that were affecting both their staffing levels and their ability to host free Shakespeare in the Park this summer.” Cupertino residents have enjoyed free Shakespeare in Memorial Park every summer since 1995. Leavitt asked for help in finding solutions to retain this program along with the many other beloved Cupertino community summer events. Her plea confirms the grave concerns that resident Peggy Griffin expressed at the City Council meeting on March 21: our City had received no sales tax deposits from the State in February.Resident Rhoda Fry followed Leavitt during Oral Communications and talked about the sales-tax shortfall, “zeroes just don’t happen.” Fry explained that Cupertino averaged $8M in the three previous Februarys. She was worried that the City is facing a “double whammy” with a catastrophic decline in sales-tax revenue along with the fallout from an impending tax audit of one of Cupertino’s largest sales-tax revenue sources. Although the City knew on February 21 that we had no money coming in, there was no notification in the intervening five Council meetings or two Audit Committee meetings. Meanwhile, our Council and Commissions have been asked to allocate funds for new projects.

    Peggy Griffin joined in via Zoom and said, “it is disappointing that the Audit Committee and the City Council were not told about this as soon as possible.” She recommended limiting fee waivers, suspending trips to sister cities, and prioritizing community events that bring people together. She concluded with, “Let’s live within our means and reduce the impact to the City.”

    Mayor Hung Wei and City Manager Wu have scheduled a sister-city trip to their native country of Taiwan that is to be paid with City funds. Cupertino has four sister and friendship cities in Taiwan, two in China, and one each in Japan, India, and Italy. It is customary for the Mayor to go on taxpayer-funded sister-city trips, and our students will certainly benefit from her insights. However, there is no record of a City Manager ever going on a sister-city trip. The cost of the trip has yet to be approved by the City Council.

    By the end of May, we will have the income numbers from the State for the second quarter. It is unknown as to when the City Council or the public will be apprised of the new economic situation and who will make the decisions about cutting programs.

    You can watch these speakers on YouTube below starting at 7:56:


  • Cupertino City Hall: Renovate for $28M or Build New for $72M?

    Structural Analysis Reports for our city hall confirm that the nearly 60-year-old structure does not meet current building standards; it needs to be retrofitted for seismic safety. City hall’s current configuration–with its main floor dominated by a room that hosted city council meetings before community hall was completed in the early 2000s–and outdated HVAC and IT infrastructure does not meet the needs of today’s mobile workforce that requires both collaborative and quiet workspaces, but can be anticipated to work remotely at least some of the time. Additionally, Cupertino’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) must satisfy more stringent seismic safety requirements than those that apply to city hall. The City, understandably, prefers to locate the EOC in close proximity to city hall.


    Prior to 2/21/2023, Cupertino had acquired the property at 10455 Torre Ave (“City Hall Annex”), located across the street from city hall, with an eye to renovating the existing office building to accommodate the EOC and its robust seismic safety requirements. The plan for city hall and the EOC was to retrofit and renovate existing City-owned properties for an estimated cost of $28M.

    On 2/21/2023, a new Council majority of Mayor Hung Wei, Vice Mayor Sheila Mohan, and Council Member JR Fruen overruled Council Members Liang Chao and Kitty Moore and voted in favor of suspending all work on the City Hall Renovation plan, except the City Hall Annex project. Instead, the Council majority directed staff to prepare options for a new city hall building of approximately 80,000 square feet to include a flexible event space with hosting capacity of up to 500 people. ($72M estimated new construction cost as reported in the FY 23-24 Capital Improvement Program 5 Year Plan.)

    Does Cupertino need its own 500-person capacity event space? In 2022, Cupertino and the Santa Clara County Library District added 2-floors of programming space at the Cupertino Library (100-person event capacity). Cupertino Community Hall can accommodate 170 people. A mile from City Hall, De Anza College has the 400-person Visual and Performing Arts Center and a college district board that considers re-build options for its now closed 2,400-person Flint Center Theater. Across the street from De Anza College at Quinlan Center, the Cupertino Room seats up to 280 people. Additionally, there are numerous 400+ seating capacity venues located throughout the South Bay and Peninsula.

    Cupertino forecasts revenue of $130M for FY 2023, operating expenditures of $127M, and capital expenditures of approximately $4M, for a projected deficit of $343,000. Where would funds for a multi-year city hall renovation or build new project come from? We could look to Sunnyvale as a guide. Earlier this year, Sunnyvale announced the near completion of Phase I of its multi-phase civic center renovation. According to San José Spotlight, the first phase will cost $315M and will be funded by over $130M in bonds—bonds that will incur interest of $100M that will be paid by the City of Sunnyvale (its residents) until 2052. Remaining sources of funding include the sale of surplus property, city development fees, and unnamed “other sources.” How much money and debt obligation do we, Cupertino voters and taxpayers, want to dedicate to a city hall development project? What projects wait or will not get built if the City moves forward with a new $72M city hall, especially when a renovation project costing less than half of new construction brings the safe and modern facilities that the City needs?

    Finally, we must consider the environmental benefits of renovating the existing city hall over building new. Blueprint for Better, a climate action campaign supported by the American Institute of Architects offers this support for renovation of existing buildings whenever possible: 

    “… Renovating buildings dramatically reduces embodied carbon, which is the carbon emitted during new construction by the manufacture, transport, and assembly of materials. As a result, architects can renovate existing buildings to reduce their operational carbon to zero, lessening their contribution to climate change.

    ‘If you renovate and reuse the biggest parts of existing buildings—typically the structure and foundation—you can save 50 percent of your carbon on a project right off the bat,’ says Larry Strain, FAIA, a principal at Siegel & Strain Architects in Emeryville, California. ‘It’s the first thing all architects and owners should try to do.’”


    Learn More

    City of Cupertino, Capital Improvement Program Dashboard: https://gis.cupertino.org/webmap/cip/

    City of Cupertino, City Hall Project: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/capital-improvement-program-projects/city-hall-project

    “Budget at a Glance: Fiscal Year 2022-2023”, Cupertino Scene, October 2022: https://www.cupertino.org/visitors/cupertino-scene

    Santa Clara County Library District Meeting Rooms: https://sccld.org/book-a-room/

     “Sunnyvale Gets Sleek New City Hall” by Joseph Geha, San José Spotlight, 1/23/2023: https://sanjosespotlight.com/sunnyvale-gets-sleek-new-city-hall/

    American Institute of Architects, Blueprint for Better campaign, “Renovating Buildings to Protect the Climate and Rejuvenate Communities”: https://blueprintforbetter.org/articles/renovating-buildings-to-protect-the-climate-and-rejuvenate-communities/

    “To Build or Not to Build? Architects Struggle with the Future of Their Craft in a Warming World” by Frances Anderton, Sierra: the Magazine of the Sierra Club, 12/16/2021: https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2021-6-winter/feature/build-or-not-build

  • Non Profits: Not All are Charities

     

    As we get to the end of the year, we wish all of you a happy and relaxing holiday season. It is also the season of giving, where we contribute to our favorite causes, often represented by charities we donate to. We often use the words non-profit organizations and charities interchangeably. However they are NOT the same. 


    Did you know that the National Football League (NFL) was classified as a non-profit organization for almost five decades?


    While most charities are non-profits, not all non-profits are charities. Organizations become non-profits when they are classified by the IRS as exempt from paying taxes on the contributions and investment income they receive. 


     In fact many tax-exempt nonprofits are organized for the explicit purpose of advocating for the interests of the members, and NOT for social causes and the greater good which we associate charities with.

     

    In this post we go into the differences between nonprofits and also focus on a nonprofit (not charities) whose dealing with the City of Cupertino, and the use of our tax dollars raises serious questions.


    Different Kinds of Non-Profit Organizations 

     

    The IRS has published guidelines describing the tax treatment for various kinds of nonprofits. 


    Charities or 501 (c)(3) exempt organizations are typically what comes to mind when we think of nonprofits. 501 (c)(3) exempt organizations can be large organizations like the American Red Cross or local organizations like the West Valley Community Services who assist those in need in our neighborhood.


    Another class of non-profit are business and trade leagues whose tax exemption is covered under IRS Section 501 (c)(6). These organizations are organized to advocate for the interests of their members. The National Football League (NFL) was a 501 (c)(6) exempt non-profit for about five decades before giving up its non-profit status in 2015!


    Locally, the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce is a 501(c)(6) exempt non-profit, which advocates for its members. Out of the about 2400 registered businesses in Cupertino, less than 10% are dues-paying members of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce.

     

    Cupertino Chamber of Commerce & the $16,000/year Ghost Contract

     

    For as far as anyone in the City Offices can remember, the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce has been sending a bi-annual invoice for $8000 ($16,000 per year) to the City of Cupertino. Under normal business practices the invoices are paid by the City for services delivered under a contract agreed upon prior to the delivery of the services.

     

    However, the City staff is unable to locate any such agreement or contract against which the Chamber of Commerce was invoicing the city and getting paid for many years! After further investigation, the City Council was informed that the payments were made under a verbal agreement which no-one can reproduce. 

     

    To summarize, there is:

    • NO Definition of the service the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce performs for the city
    • NO Criteria to determine whether the Chamber is fulfilling the terms of the contract for their invoices to be paid
    • However the City has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to this organization whose charter is to lobby for its dues-paying members, without any contract in place.


    Councilperson Kitty Moore ‘s scrutiny of a  line-item during the review of the City’s spending led to the discovery of these payments. These annual payments are in addition to the membership dues which the City pays to the Chamber, or the more than $60,000 paid by the City to the Chamber to run the ILoveCupertino website, or other concession the city provides like the free use of City facilities. 

    City Elections & the Chamber of Commerce PAC


    As an organization created to lobby for the interests of its members, the Chamber of Commerce sponsors PACs during elections. During the 2016 election cycle, the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce PAC committed campaign finance violations and was fined by the FPCC.


    During the 2018 election the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce sponsored a PAC, to influence the results of local city council elections in the favor of certain candidates sponsored by the coterie of ex-mayors, The PAC used the name and the logo of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce to solicit votes.

    For many years, the city was paying $16,000 of our tax dollars, annually, without a locatable contract, to an organization which ran a PAC in support of city council candidates backed by the coterie of ex-mayors.

     

    The Coterie of Mayors & Their Web of Influence

     

    One challenge the residents face is that the coterie of ex-mayors have a well entrenched web of influence among local organizations which they have cultivated over the decades.

     

    These networks have been built over the years via both soft favors like memberships in committees, endorsements & awards, and hard benefits, like the annual transfer of our tax-payer dollars to the Chamber of Commerce which then runs PACs to favor the coterie.


    Whether it was shutting down already overcrowded CUSD schools in the middle of a 100 year pandemic or granting their favorite developer the unheard of privilege to build without any height limits, or sending our tax dollars to lobbying organizations which then advocate to get them get elected, the coterie of mayors does not have the residents’ best interests in mind.

     

    Please stay alert and continue acting as a watchdog to keep them in check.

  • Stay Engaged to Preserve Your Interests

    A few years ago no one would have thought that CUSD would close schools even though: 

     

    • CUSD has the most crowded schools in the area
    • 30% of primary school classrooms are non-permanent portable structures
    • The district is projecting a $39M surplus over the next five years
    • And the savings from school closure are minimal

     

    Why do our elected leaders take such decisions?

    Part of the reason is that they do not face repercussions for their decisions.

    And that happens because they have well-oiled machinery to misdirect residents.

     

    One leg of that machinery is media outlets which spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) among residents; and the other leg of that is suppression of dialogue among residents which challenges that FUD.


    In this email, we focus on the second aspect: the suppression of free dialogue by the coterie of ex-mayors to harm residents’ interests. 

    Kent Vincent and Censorship on Nextdoor

     

    Kent Vincent has been living in Cupertino for more than 40 years. He worked at HP Labs where he (co)authored more than 50 patents before his “retirement”. For the past 15 years, he has been organizing large travel groups to destinations all over the world.

     

    Earlier this month, Kent wrote a post on Nextdoor challenging the premise of the editorial published by San Jose Mercury News about the Cupertino elections.


    Kent’s post was marked as disrespectful, and deleted, twice, from the platform by Nextdoor lead. 

     

    Not surprisingly, the six leads who deleted Kent’s post, are vocal cheer-leaders of investor interests on various forums and curtail any discussion which challenges the investor’s narrative.

     

    We are sharing the screenshots of those who voted to delete Kent’s post to suppress discussion, and also the content of the original post below.

    Kent Vincent’ Post

    Jollyman/Faria • 3 Nov

     

    There is a dynamic in the Cupertino Council race that bothers me. As in recent past elections, our six candidates are marketed by two PACs, three candidates supported by a pro-development PAC of past Cupertino mayors predominantly residing on the west end of Cupertino and three candidates supported by a “sensible growth” development PAC of individuals predominantly residing on the east side of Cupertino. 


    Virtually all of the high rise, high density, high traffic generating “big city” development that has been built or planned for Cupertino in recent years has been approved exclusively for the east of Hwy 85 east side and its residents by the Councils of the west end PAC mayors. This includes the ill-fated amendment of a Vallco General Plan in 2014 having no building height limitation that now allows the build of multiple 20-story skyscrapers on that site via SB35.


     What bothers me is that most of those pro-development PAC leaders personally live in neighborhoods isolated from the impact of their development decisions, areas of low traffic where significant development has not occurred for 40 years nor is planned. It is very easy to be pro-development altruistic when development you approve always occurs in someone else’s neighborhood and doesn’t negatively impact you personally. 


    I have good fortune to know most of the leaders of both PACs and view all as very decent, well-meaning leaders and residents that I respect and applaud for their commitment to our community. I am bothered, however, that the west end PAC and its influenced San Jose Mercury News editorials have labeled the east side PAC and its slate of current Council members and candidates as “nimbies” (not in my back yard) on development. 


    That’s “calling the kettle black” in my opinion. Always approving “yes in your backyard” development is just a different form of “not in my back yard” (NIMBY). Fact is, virtually no one wants high rise, high density, traffic impacting development in their neighborhood. We’re all NIMBYs in that sense. In my view, any candidate running on a platform of pro-development (altruistic or otherwise) should state willingness to bear the negative impact of their approvals in the part of the city where they live.  


    I know the PAC leaders read Nextdoor and I look forward to their comments. Do I have a valid concern?

    The Coterie of ex-Mayors and their “Ethics”
    One of the foundations of the democratic system we cherish, is our freedom of expression. That expression takes various forms, with yard signs being a convenient method for residents to express their preferences during election season. 

     

    The security video below shows how those rights are infringed upon by these power-brokers who have no qualms in stealing their opponent’s yard signs. The resemblance to one of the most prominent members of the coterie of ex-mayors is not accidental. While this sign-stealing video is from the 2020 election cycle  the behavior continued this cycle also.

    Video

    Please Stay Engaged and Involved

     

    They have no qualms in shutting down our already overcrowded schools in the middle of a 100 year pandemic, they have no problem trespassing and stealing our yard signs, they have no problem suppressing discussion among residents, but they do have a problem in registering as paid lobbyists.

     

    Whether it is unbalanced editorials in newspapers, or a constant barrage of half truths, vested  interests will force the city in a direction which enriches their backers substantially, at the cost of our quality of life.

     

    The only bulwark we have against these vested interests, is an engaged community.. So please stay engaged and come together to preserve your interests. One way to help is to share our content with your neighbors and friends.

    A reminder of how desperate the coterie of ex-mayors was to label our Harvard and Princeton educated resident focused council members as “bums” and “scoundrels” since they resisted the deep-pocketed investors.

  • Cupertino: It is a Lot More Than Vallco!

     

     

    This is going to be our last email before the elections.

    1. The Vallco Obsession

    2. Opt-In Email List

     

    The Vallco Obsession


    The coterie of ex-mayors sent out another email showing the Vallco lot. We wanted to set the record straight.

     

    Vallco SB35 Plan: Stuck due to Toxic Contamination


    The SB35 plan approved by the previous city council (Rod Sinks, Barry Chang and Savita Vaidhyanathan) after firing the City Attorney is still valid. 


    However, the Vallco site is contaminated, and the County of Santa Clara Department of Environment Health (SCC-DEH) is supervising the cleanup. The City of Cupertino or the City Council is not involved. The city will issue the permits after SCC-DEH gives clearance.

     

    The developer knew of the contamination as far as 2016, but neither they, nor the previous City Councils listened to the residents who expressed concern about the potential impact on the workers who are working on the  contaminated site, and nearby residents, without adequate mitigation efforts.

     

    No Height Limits: The Empire State Building


    We also wanted to reiterate that the previous councils removed height limits at Vallco in 2014 and refused to put them back in 2017 when Steven Scharf and Darcy Paul requested them, due to the upcoming  SB35 legislation. In principle, the developer could have built something as high as the Empire State Building at that development since there were no restrictions in place. 

    The resident focused city council, in place after the 2018 election, put reasonable limitson the development for any future plans which come up.


    Cupertino Top Issues:

     

    We feel that the top issues facing Cupertino are the CUSD school closures and the potential of 14 units being permitted on a single lot in our single family neighborhoods under SB10.

     

    While we would all like to see Vallco developed, it is up to the developer to clean up the site, and start construction on the SB35 plan or discuss an alternative with the City if they prefer.

    VOTE WISELY

     

    To save our schools and preserve home values, please VOTE for Govind Tatachari, Liang Chao, and Steven Scharf for Cupertino City Council, and Darcy Paul, Satheesh Madhathil & Jerry Liu for CUSD Board. They have taken a public stand to keep school closure off the table and roll back past mistakes. These city council candidates are opposed to SB10 becoming a law in Cupertino.  They are not funded by external special-interests and will keep the interests of residents foremost.

     

     

    Please do NOT vote for JR Fruen, Sheila Mohan for Cupertino City Council, and Ava Chiao (CUSD).  They have been supportive of school closure and giving the land to developers, and have strong endorsements from the three CUSD trustees who closed the schools.  They have also received extensive funding from construction interests, who covet the land our schools stand on, and have not signed the City of Cupertino voluntary spending limit on election expenses.

    .

    Sign up for our Email List


    With the election season coming to an end, we are going to move to an opt-in subscription list. Our goal would be to send quarterly or as needed (without exceeding once a month) updates on issues of importance to our fellow residents, and also dispel any new FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) being shared by vested interests.

     

    You can also contribute to help us inform our residents. The financial declaration about us is available here

     

    We end with a video showing how the previous council gave the Vallco owner a carte-blanche to build as high as they want at Vallco; a reminder of what can happen if the investors backed candidates take control again.