Cupertino Facts

Category: Uncategorized

  • 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    Quarry Expansion Withdrawn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 The quarry expansion proposal was subsequently withdrawn.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
  • AB 838: Cupertino to Offer New Health and Sanitation Investigation Services for Renters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    References

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

    What’s in this issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    SHARE YOUR INPUT:

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

    The Future of Housing in Cupertino: Challenges and Opportunities

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

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

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

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

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

    Current retail along Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    READ MORE

  • May 13th Newsletter: Cupertino’s Resources Spent Scrutinizing a Prior Council’s Actions, and the Latest Budget Updates

     

    This month, we continue the ongoing coverage of Cupertino’s budget shortfall. This is a critical time as the City evaluates where to cut expenses, from community services to road maintenance. Your input is key – details below.


    But as Cupertino’s financial situation worsens, several Council Members have instead chosen to prioritize their time (and public resources) scrutinizing the actions of a former City Council. 

     

    While the role of a Council Member varies by city, according to the National League of Cities, “Councilmembers are responsible for and responsive to the citizens who elected them.” 

     

    And so, we ask: What are our needs, as Cupertino citizens? Are the priorities of each Council Member aligned with them?
     

    Cupertino Budget Shortfall News and Upcoming Meetings

    Once again, Bloomberg news had the scoop on Cupertino’s budget woes prior to announcements by the City. Their first article explains how Cupertino is at risk of losing its share of tax revenue from online sales of Apple products in California. Their latest article announces that Cupertino plans to appeal the change, and that Apple must fund the cost of the appeal. 
    Cupertino Apple Store

    The State audit can go as far back as the second quarter of 2021, which implies that Cupertino could owe the State up to approximately $40M in sales tax revenue. This is far above the anticipated 30% drop in overall City revenue. 


    In spite of City Staff’s knowledge of this audit and its consequences since December 2021, there were no proposals to reduce or eliminate expenditures until 2023. For example, although our City’s cost for the Jollyman playground has nearly doubled, on May 2, 2023, its budget was again increased by 16%. Including grants, the new playground is pegged at nearly $5M. The new City budget, published on May 5, includes expensive studies for new projects that are unlikely to come to fruition given our budget outlook.
     
    Here’s how you can participate in the budget decisions, and share input on which Cupertino services to keep or cut:

     

    1. Take the 2023 Community Budget Survey by May 16. Although the survey is open until May 31, survey results will be presented on May 17th.

    • The survey includes a question about selling assets. These are assets purchased through prior ballot tax measures:
    • Water rights, which were purchased through a bond measure in 1960, to San Jose Water, a subsidiary of a publicly-traded company
    • Blackberry Farm Golf Course, which was purchased to preserve as open space through a bond measure funded by the Utility Users Tax (UUT) in 1990
    • At the end of the survey, you can provide written comments. Draft your own response to express budget concerns or priorities that are not addressed elsewhere in the survey.

    2. Write to City Council as follows:
        TO: citycouncil@cupertino.org, cityclerk@cupertino.org
        SUBJECT: City Council 5/17/2023, Written Communication, City Budget, Agenda Item 1

    3. Meet with your City Council members

    4. Attend the May 17 City Budget Meeting in-person or via zoom at 5PM. 

    5. Attend the May 18 Budget Town Hall Meeting in-person or via zoom at 6:30PM 

    6. Sign up to receive meeting reminders at the City website 
     

    Civil Grand Jury Case Consumes Public Resources Scrutinizing Prior Council’s Actions

    BACKGROUND: From 2018-2022, resident-focused Council Members held a 4-1 majority in Cupertino, ensuring that our local government served the needs and interests of residents first. These Council Members pushed back against those who came to Cupertino intent on maximizing profit with little regard for how their actions impact the people who live here.


    During 2018-2022, the Council worked with City staff to accomplish significant achievements for the benefit of Cupertino residents, including:

    Despite efforts to elect 3 resident-focused Council Members in 2022, campaigns backing financial interest candidates were significantly better-funded. Council Member Liang Chao was re-elected, but financial interest candidates prevailed in 2022 and, for now, hold a 3-2 Council majority in Cupertino.


    Resident-focused Council Members Liang Chao and Kitty Moore continue to work hard to advocate for fiscal accountability, transparency, environmental protection, sensible development, and improved transit and City services for residents. They continue these efforts in spite of a work environment made hostile by a Council majority that resents sharing the dais with Council members whose legislative priorities and support base differs from their own. Unlike today’s Council majority, Council Members Chao and Moore neither sought nor received campaign support from financial interests: not from real estate interests, corporations, nor labor unions.


    CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT: In 2022, an anonymous individual submitted a complaint to the Civil Grand Jury, Santa Clara County alleging that resident-focused Council Members asked too many questions, wrote too many email messages to staff, made certain staff members “feel threatened”–not to be confused with  threatening staff, which they did not do–, and filed public records requests (a right protected by State Law for all persons, including elected officials, under Code § 7921).


    MAY 9TH CITY COUNCIL RESPONSE: Council Member Chao questioned which specific Cupertino Municipal Codes she allegedly violated. None were cited by number in either the Civil Grand Jury Report or the City-funded investigation summary. She also cited specific Municipal Code sections which did appear to codify the right of Council Members to ask questions of staff. The City Attorney did not answer Chao’s question. Instead, he asserted that the problem rested with her perceived “volume and tone of voice,” presumably when engaging with staff.


    Then, Council Member Fruen initiated a motion to remove Council Members Moore and Chao from their committee assignments. The motion was approved by Mayor Wei and Vice Mayor Mohan.


    It is questionable whether 3 Council Members will adequately represent Cupertino residents on the many City, district, County, and regional boards and committees without Council Members Moore and Chao. 


    In 4-5 months, Council will revisit the Civil Grand Jury report and reconsider the political consequences the Council majority has imposed on their colleagues. What will have changed?

    For further detail:
  • 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