Loading...
CC 11-02-2020 Oral Communications_Written CommunicationsCC 11-02-20 Oral Communications Written Comments 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Fryhouse <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Sent:Tuesday, October 13, 2020 11:16 AM To:City Clerk; City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Deborah L. Feng; Roger Lee Subject:Regarding lack of County oversight at Cupertino Quarries, submitted to the State Mining and Geology Board Attachments:Ltr to County re SCQ Use Permit RPA (10-8-20).pdf; Attachment-202360.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Dear City Clerk,  Please post this email and attachments to public comment for the next City Council and Planning Commission meetings  regarding the lack of County oversight at Cupertino Quarries. These were submitted to the State Mining and Geology  Board for their October 15 Board meeting.  Thank You,  Rhoda Fry  From: Fryhouse [mailto:fryhouse@earthlink.net]   Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 4:09 AM  To: 'smgb@conservation.ca.gov' <smgb@conservation.ca.gov>; 'dmr@conservation.ca.gov'  <dmr@conservation.ca.gov>  Cc: 'webmaster@conservation.ca.gov' <webmaster@conservation.ca.gov>  Subject: SMGB Agenda Item #12 (Public Comment) October 15, 2020    From: Rhoda Fry, Santa Clara County  To: State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) and Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR)  CC: Santa Clara County (Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, HLUET Committee), City of Cupertino, Water Board,  Valley Water, Senator Jim Beall, Assembly Member Evan Low, Assembly Member Kansen Chu, Department of  Conservation, MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District  For: SMGB Agenda Item #12 (Public Comment) October 15, 2020   RE: Santa Clara County Oversight of Cupertino Quarries    Dear State Mining and Geology Board,    I am writing you once again about our community’s grave concern regarding Santa Clara County’s ability to regulate its  mines pursuant to the State Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). While we have seen improvement under the skillful  leadership of the County’s new Planning Director Jaqueline Onciano, years of willful neglect must be resolved timely. We  request that the SMGB assist the County in bringing the Lehigh Permanente Quarry and the Stevens Creek Quarry into  compliance and that the DMR remove these quarries from the AB3908 list until they have achieved compliance.    Last month, I wrote you about a landslide at the Lehigh Permanente Quarry in Santa Clara County that is at risk of  blocking Permanente Creek which leads San Francisco Bay. This landslide also poses a hazard to structures and  residences downstream. Since at least 2015, County inspection reports have mentioned slope stability issues in the 200+  acre mountain of mining‐waste, known as the West Materials Storage Area (WMSA), yet little has been done aside from  installing failing silt fences. As we approach rainy season, little can be done to resolve this landslide because, according  to the inspection report, working in the area during the wet season is unsafe. This health and safety hazard was  highlighted by a large boulder that landed on an access road. Why has the County and the State Mining and Geology  Board allowed an unstable hillslope to become a landslide?    2 Just last week, the City of Cupertino sent a 6‐page missive (attached) to Santa Clara County pertaining to an inadequate  reclamation plan along with inadequate oversight of the Stevens Creek Quarry, whose use permit expired in 2015. Areas  of concern include:  ‐ failure to start reclamation timely  ‐ water quality and discharges to Stevens Creek Reservoir  ‐ two landslides  These longtime SMARA infractions, demand that SCQ be removed from the AB3098 list in order for the quarry to return  to compliance timely. Note that the AB3098 list is a list of compliant mines that are permitted to sell product to  government projects. Since 40% to 60% of the quarry’s clients are public projects, this list provides an incentive to  remain in compliance. Allowing noncompliant mines to remain on the AB3098 list provides an unfair competitive  advantage over mines that adhere to SMARA. Additionally, taxpayers must not be forced support businesses that break  government rules. I ask that the Division of Mine Reclamation remove SCQ and Lehigh Permanent Quarry from the  AB3098 list.    In spite of the County having recently doubled Stevens Creek Quarry’s Financial Assurance Cost Estimate (FACE), this  estimate remains woefully inadequate. On February 3, 2020, Mr. Paul Fry of the Division of Mining Reclamation  recommended an increase of Stevens Creek Quarry’s FACE and these recommendations are yet to be implemented. I  have previously written and testified at the SMGB, as have others, about the risk of inadequate FACE for both Cupertino  quarries. Without adequate FACE and an assurance mechanism, the $60+ million cost of reclaiming these quarries,  could fall upon the shoulders of California taxpayers. You must not allow this to happen.    A number of Santa Clara County citizens have urged the SMGB to include these quarries on a Board agenda in order to  protect the environment and California taxpayers in an open forum. Our requests have been repeatedly denied. Please  add these quarries to your next agenda. If the public cannot escalate our grievances to the SMGB, then where can we  go?     Thank you for your consideration,    Rhoda Fry  1 October 8, 2020 Robert Salisbury County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Street East Wing, Seventh Floor San Jose, CA 95110 Robert.Salisbury@pln.sccgov.org Dear Mr. Salisbury, The City of Cupertino appreciates the County’s referral of the application for a use permit and major reclamation plan amendment (“Application”) recently submitted by Stevens Creek Quarry (“SCQ”). SCQ acknowledges that its onsite reserves are dwindling. This should lead to reclamation of the property under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act and County Code “at the earliest possible time on those portions of the mined lands that will not be subject to further disturbance by the surface mining operation.” Pub. Res. Code § 2772(c)(6). Instead, and as the City noted in its July 2, 2019 comments on SCQ’s pre-application for the same approvals, the Application seeks to expand and extend activities that already violate standards for water quality protection and slope stability, and that have significant impacts on City roads and infrastructure. SCQ now asks to open a major new area that SCQ does not even own for mining in order to keep operating as its own resources run out. This proposal appears inconsistent with both City and County policies that seek, among other things, to minimize impacts of vehicular use on the local community and infrastructure, local and regional air quality, and global climate change. These policies also protect resources such as water quality and provide for reclamation and restoration of mining properties once resources are depleted. The City looks forward to working with the County on revisions to bring any use permit and reclamation plan into compliance with these and other authorities. Please note that, in addition to the concerns about the Application identified below, many of the issues that the City has raised related to the reclamation plan amendment and other activities proposed by Lehigh Southwest Cement Company (“Lehigh”) also apply to SCQ. In particular, the City opposes export of aggregate from Lehigh’s quarry to SCQ, which would expand operations at both properties, add an 2 estimated 400 truck trips each day between the properties, extend the life of SCQ’s processing operation, and thereby extend and increase impacts of SCQ’s operations. Neither quarry has any vested right or entitlement to engage in new activities such as export of materials from Lehigh to SCQ. Likewise, the City has serious concerns about both quarries’ proposals to truck millions of cubic yards to their properties for reclamation, through City streets. At a minimum, the County must consider the common and cumulative impacts of both the expanded operations and the approach to reclamation for which these two large, adjacent businesses now seek approval. Together, they would impose significant and lasting impacts on the environment and the surrounding community. I. The Application is inconsistent with City and County policies. The County General Plan allows the Planning Commission to approve a use permit if it makes findings including that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the adjacent area, substantially worsen traffic congestion affecting the surrounding area, or adversely affect water quality, and that it will control erosion and adequately manage stormwater and runoff. County General Plan § 5.65.030(D). When considering applications to renew or extend a use permit, the Planning Commission must consider whether the new application seeks to intensify use, whether the existing permit and conditions were adequate to control the use, and whether a greater degree of control by the County is needed. Id. § 5.65.040. SCQ’s existing impacts and history of noncompliance support denial of any expansion and imposition of meaningful controls in a new use permit. The County also prioritizes coordination with cities such as Cupertino about impacts of traffic and transportation, especially from activities and properties such as SCQ that are located within the city’s sphere of influence. The City’s General Plan specifically identifies trucks from SCQ as a problem in Policy HS-8.7. In particular, the City’s policy is to minimize impacts of quarry-related trucking with “measures [that] include regulation of truck speed, the volume of truck activity, and trucking activity hours to avoid late evening and early morning. Alternatives to truck transport, specifically rail, are strongly encouraged when feasible.” Policy HS-8.7. To this end, the City will “coordinate with the County to restrict the number of trucks, their speed and noise levels along Foothill and Stevens Creek Boulevards, to the extent allowed in the Use Permit” and “ensure that restrictions are monitored and enforced by the County.” It also identifies “road improvements to reduce [quarry] truck impacts” as a priority. As described in greater detail below, the current limit of 1,300 truck trips each day is far too lax to protect the City, its residents, its air quality and noise levels, and its infrastructure. A meaningful, enforceable truck plan will be an essential condition on any use permit. At a more general level, the City works to minimize stormwater runoff, and has expressed particular concern about material from quarry trucks that is deposited on City streets and that reaches its storm drain system. The City already pays for extra street 3 sweeping to mitigate impacts from trucks leaving SCQ, even though such work is assigned to SCQ under the Mediated Conditions described below. The City also has goals to reduce greenhouse gases and other air pollutants. Continuation of current, high levels of quarry-related trucking, plus additional trucking in the future to bring backfill materials to the site, both run contrary to those goals. Each of these policies further reinforces the need for stringent controls on trucking to and from SCQ. Overall, extension and expansion of SCQ’s mining and aggregate processing operations will prolong and exacerbate impacts that quarry-related activities already impose on the City, its residents, and its infrastructure unless any use permit adds meaningful limits on quarry-related operations, especially transportation. The City looks forward to working with the County to craft an appropriate limit on daily truck trips as part of a truck plan that addresses these impacts. II. Stevens Creek Quarry has no vested right to engage in the activities proposed in the Application. The City notes several inaccuracies and key omissions in the Application. In particular, SCQ has never established a vested right to mine on its property, including its northern “Parcel B.” In fact, and although SCQ fails to acknowledge this anywhere in the Application, SCQ has been operating under a set of mandatory conditions since 2002 that were negotiated with neighbors and approved by the Board of Supervisors (“Mediated Conditions”). Those conditions limit operations in a manner equivalent to the conditions provided in a use permit. They regulate hours and days of operation, number of truck trips per day, loading and managing truck loads to prevent spills, maintenance of local roads, noise and light conditions, and reclamation, among other things. Likewise, SCQ does not—and cannot—assert rights to expand mining onto Lehigh’s property. The record is clear that SCQ has no existing entitlements. It has operated under an outdated use permit, set of conditions, and reclamation plan for years, followed by a compliance agreement. All prospective approvals and associated conditions are entirely within the County’s discretion. III. SCQ proposes to expand mining beyond its own property, into an area of significant instability, without adequate analysis or mitigation. SCQ seeks a use permit to extend mining onto 85 acres owned by Lehigh, located west of Parcel B. This is a proposal for purely new extractive operations expressly intended to extend the life of its operations instead of winding down as soon as possible once its resources are depleted, as intended by SMARA. Pub. Res. Code § 2772(c)(6). Such an expansion and extension of its operations is inappropriate and unwarranted. SCQ’s request for a 30-year use permit essentially seeks to restart the clock on its operations. The County should not accept the proposed expansion and associated impacts. 4 This proposal is problematic for the additional reason that it seeks to expand operations into an area of significant, known instability, without any analysis. SCQ’s reclamation plan amendment claims that a “memo prepared by Norfleet Consultants support[s] the slope design” it proposes for this new area, but it does not provide the referenced (and required, 14 CCR § 3502(b)(3)) Slope Stability Memorandum.1 Instead, other portions of the Application glibly state that “[s]everal geotechnical evaluations have been prepared for the site previously. A geotechnical investigation to support the current mine and reclamation design is ongoing.” Application p. 5. In fact, the City’s geotechnical consultants, Cotton Shires and Associates, Inc., have identified a large, active, deep-seated landslide extending off the northwest corner of Parcel B into the Lehigh property near the location of Lehigh’s proposed new Rock Plant Reserve pit. This landslide is failing into SCQ’s existing upper pit. It has pushed through the quarry cut and does not appear to be a cutslope failure from cutting too steeply. Cotton Shires identified an additional landslide at the northern perimeter of Parcel B (again, adjacent to Lehigh’s proposed new pit) that appears to have been active since at least 2011 and continues to show instability despite installation of a toe buttress and wall upslope. In addition to these two landslides, Lehigh has proposed to excavate its new Rock Plant Reserve pit in a location that backs up to the north wall of SCQ’s existing pit. In other words, SCQ and Lehigh both propose to mine toward unstable material without adequate information or slope stability analyses. The County should not allow SCQ’s proposed expansion. Were the County to consider it, the County should require coordination between geotechnical consultants for both quarries to ensure consistent and adequate characterization and analysis of geologic conditions in this unstable area. Only then can the County hope to understand and obtain mitigation to address the impacts of further excavation at either site, much less in both locations. IV. The Application would result in significant impacts from quarry-related truck traffic. SCQ’s operations already impact both traffic and infrastructure, with significant expense and disruption to the City and its residents. The quarry’s current hauling contributes to congestion, excessive queuing of trucks, deposit of debris, and traffic violations along its Stevens Canyon Road/Foothill Boulevard truck route. Likewise, that stretch of road in the City’s jurisdiction is in poor condition, largely due to hauling associated with the quarry’s operations. The City has had to invest in substantial and expensive improvements to that stretch of City streets, simply to address the impacts of existing operations. These operations have also required the City to expend resources on 1 Interestingly, SCQ provides a geotechnical analysis, including a slope stability analysis, for the new settling pond proposed in the Application, but not for the new quarry pit and area of excavation. See Project Description, Appendix A. 5 extra street sweeping and enforcement by the County sheriff. Accordingly, any use permit and reclamation plan amendment must both address and impose meaningful limits on quarry-related traffic and must require mitigation of the significant offsite impacts caused by trucks travelling to and from SCQ. These activities and impacts are supposed to—and should—sunset with the end of SCQ’s resources. Any decision to extend and increase the material that SCQ can process beyond these current expectations must minimize the associated impacts that would not otherwise occur. Similarly, the Quarry’s proposal to import roughly 1 million tons of aggregate from neighboring Lehigh Permanente Quarry for processing and sale remains underdeveloped and under-analyzed. The City previously pointed out that the proposed off-road haul route between the two quarries violates the Mediated Conditions governing operations on Parcel B; raises significant concerns related to emissions, seismic stability, and ridgeline protections and views; and raises unaddressed permitting issues. The County also noted that it could not support the use of this haul route until existing violations are corrected. Rather than address these concerns, the Application states only that the use of this route will depend on City and County approvals, and defers to Lehigh’s pending reclamation plan for the haul road. However, SCQ confuses the issue by also contending that it will develop a “new off-highway roadway” to facilitate the transfer of material from Lehigh to SCQ. As the City has previously explained, this alternative route only exacerbates impacts by climbing higher over the ridge. The County should reject the proposed transfer of aggregate between businesses for processing. At a minimum, SCQ should be required to clarify its proposed route for importing aggregate, and to obtain the requisite permits for that route before its use permit is approved. Under no circumstances, however, should SCQ use City streets to import aggregate from Lehigh. Finally, SCQ proposes a major reclamation plan amendment that compounds the problems described above by proposing to import two million tons of fill with which to reclaim the quarry property.2 The Application does not acknowledge the additional impacts on City streets and residents associated with adding even more hauling to already overburdened routes. It also does not explain why onsite materials are inadequate to complete reclamation, but suggests that imported fill may be “superior” to minimize water quality impacts without meaningful discussion or analysis. SCQ is also entirely silent about the recent reclamation plan amendment submitted by Lehigh, that proposes to import millions of additional tons of fill. The cumulative effects of these projects are obvious and must be addressed, including alternatives that rely on onsite material for reclamation. V. The Application does not adequately address water quality. 2 Note that the Mediated Conditions expressly require retention of onsite overburden for use in the reclamation and revegetation process. 6 SCQ’s approach to water quality protection is similarly cavalier. The Application seeks to expand operations without undertaking a sufficient analysis of protections for Rattlesnake Creek and Swiss Creek, which merge within the facility and discharge to Stevens Creek Reservoir. The County noted that the pre-application project description failed to show the location of proposed Best Management Practices (“BMPs”). Here, while the Application includes maps showing proposed BMP locations throughout much of the SCQ property, there is no information on BMPs for the 85-acre area SCQ proposes to lease from Lehigh. Similarly, the quarry’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan do not appear to account for either the additional, leased 85-acre parcel, or the proposed expansion of operations to process imported aggregate. The County should require SCQ to document, construct, and maintain adequate protections for the full scope of its operations. VI. Conclusion The City looks forward to working with the County to address the scope and impacts of any use permit and reclamation plan amendment to bring them into conformity with City and County policies and to address significant impacts that they will have on the City and the surrounding community. However, as briefly summarized above, the City finds SCQ’s proposed expansion inappropriate and highly detrimental to its residents and resources. Sincerely, Deborah Feng City Manager 1297568.2 1 Cyrah Caburian From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence Subject:FW: With Attachment-- Oral Communications Slides and Comment for CITY COUNCIL MTG Monday, Nov 2 ,2020 Attachments:Responsive_Redacted reduced.pdf On Monday, November 2, 2020, 11:39:09 AM PST, Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net> wrote: Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members, Please see attached information that has recently been provided as a response to a public records request . I am requesting that all eight (8) pages be entered into the record for this evening's City Council meeting. I am also requesting that the city clerk read this message and display the accounting pages as well as the 5 check images. I further request that the same 8 pages be posted on the city of Cupertino's website under the Vallco SB35 Project title. It has been indicated to me that it may not be possible to grant this request. I think it is important for the public to know if this is the case and have confirmation from the city attorney as well as an explanation as to why this information is not website material. The community has continued to be mislead by several residents who repeatedly publish erroneous information claiming that the Friends of Better Cupertino lawsuit (and name Kitty Moore) filed against the City of Cupertino has resulted in over $240,000.oo of tax payer money being 'spent' on the lawsuit. 2 Days after all 5 council candidates were sent the attached facts, I read the same false claims on the facebook page of a current City Council Candidate ! The dollar figure in the misinformation was even doubled in that posting. This is more than disappointing. These same community members continue to dispute the facts. The attached details and images were provided by the city and should serve to support those who have been saying 'all along' that the city was protected by an indemnification clause written in to the Development Agreement (DA) years ago. Regardless of the fact that election day is tomorrow, the information should still be readily available on the City's website as soon as possible. If that is 'legally' not doable, a public statement at tonight's meeting should be made with the goal to confirm that the legal fees for the FoBC lawsuit have been reimbursed by Vallco Property Owner, LLC and the reason why they were reimbursed. This could be done in the city manager's report, or by the city attorney. Each of the 5 current Cupertino city council candidates was provided with the same information on October 26, 2020., directly by city staff. Thank you. Lisa Warren 1 Friends of Better Cupertino v City of Cupertino (SB35) 18CV330190 – Attorneys’ Fees In response to your public records request for “Vallco SB 35 attorney fees,” the City of Cupertino is providing this list of all legal costs associated with Friends of Better Cupertino, et al. v. City of Cupertino, et al., Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 18CV330190 (“Lawsuit”). Within this document you will find the monthly invoice amount and date broken down by law firm. Below are the total amounts spent on all legal costs associated with the Lawsuit broken down by year. 2018: $ 91,365.23 2019: $138,984.46 2020: $ 11,032.70 Please note that prior to August 2019, the City had in-house City Attorneys. While the bulk of the work for the above-named lawsuit was performed by outside consulting attorneys, the City Attorneys also likely contributed on these projects. We are unable to determine what portion of the City Attorneys’ time was dedicated to this litigation. Instead, we are providing the total office salary for all City Attorneys’ from the years 2018 to 2019 below. 2018: $495,436.66 2019: $168,124.86 2 Law firm: Monthly Charge: Date: Wendel Rosen $11,220.00 06/30/2018 $ 5,207.47 07/31/2018 $ 740.68 08/31/2018 $ 3,035.39 09/30/2018 $ 4,467.40 10/31/2018 $30,197.17 11/30/2018 $36,497.12 12/31/2018 $18,122.95 01/31/2019 $19,140.10 02/28/2019 $ 7,058.05 03/31/2019 $ 3,344.90 04/30/2019 $18,530.00 05/31/2019 $ 5,278.75 06/30/2019 $ 1,484.80 07/31/2019 $ 1,782.50 08/31/2019 $ 552.50 09/30/2019 $ 2,372.50 10/31/2019 $ 1,657.50 11/04/2019 $ 382.50 11/30/2019 Total legal fees: $171,072.28 3 Law firm: Monthly Charge: Date: Shute Mihaly & Weinberger $ 4,612.50 06/26/2019 $ 8,296.02 07/22/2019 $ 8,971.09 08/29/2019 $22,319.70 09/26/2019 $ 5,080.75 10/28/2019 $ 4,943.01 11/29/2019 $ 1,591.24 12/31/2019 $ 3,463.10 01/31/2020 $ 55.00 02/28/2020 $ 220.00 04/29/2020 $ 4.20 05/29/2020 $ 9,680.00 06/30/2020 $ 1,073.50 08/14/2020 Total legal fees: $70,310.11 ORDER OF p::TWOM-WPERTINij H W: zta@9- WE uvb4R5 !g=N-PEXiT'4W; CA 9Ql4 DATE:12,/23/2019 CK#:3605 TOTAL:!il7,168.15" RAYEE:CITY OF CUPERTINO(coc) BANK:PosPay JPM Checking(vlcpsock) Job(Prop)Categ(Acct)Invoice - Date Description vlco-600(vlclpzo) vlco-600(vlclpro) vlco-600(vlclpro) WENDEL ROSEN-VALLCO(JUN WR-INV#2000169350 6/30/18 LEGAL FEE WENDEL ROSEN-VALLCO(JUN WR-INV#2000170940 7/31/18 LEGAL FEE WENDEL ROSEN-VALLCO(JUN WR-INV#2000171638 8/31/18 LEGAL FEE HBeu'tV'ED JAM -3 2!12fl CityAaDey's Office RECENVED Jka"%li i')2(1 CityAttorney's Office Amount 11, 220.00 5,207.47 740.68 17, 168.15 DATE:01/28/2020 .CK#:3658 TOTAL:S78,5,28.51** BANK:POSPa37 JPM Checking(vlcpzock) PAYEE!5ITY OF CUPERTINO(COC) Job(Prop) ' " Categ(Acqt) ' InVoice - Dare Descriptio 7 Amount. 78 528.51 78 528.5i 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net> Sent:Monday, November 2, 2020 4:55 PM To:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk; City Attorney's Office Cc:Steven Scharf; Darcy Paul; Jon Robert Willey; Liang Chao; Rod Sinks Subject:Further info Regarding my Oral Communications email and attachments for tonight Nov. 2,,2020; 6:45 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney and All Council members. A resident of another city that I am friends with forwarded this email to me a couple of hours ago. It is lengthy but I felt that I should include the entire message and not attempt to edit if for brevity. I have, however, highlighted in yellow and italicized the portion that is of interest to me as far as my email request sent earlier today to each of you except the City Attorney. The publisher of this communication is one of several people who have continued to insist, using various methods, that Cupertino via the city's tax payers were ultimately required to pay a sum of hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover legal fees tied to the FoBC vs City of Cupertino (VPO) (the amount varies depending on the false claim - over $200K to close to half a million$) I again ask you to publicly correct the repeated falsehoods. I request that this full communication be included in the records for tonight's City Council meeting, including the yellow highlight if possible. Thank you, Lisa Warren Begin forwarded message: From: Jean Bedord <Publisher@cupertinomatters.org> Date: November 2, 2020 at 1:55:46 PM PST Subject: Cupertino Matters: CUSD update; TONIGHT, Nov. 2,,2020; 6:45 City Council regular meeting, 5:30 Study session; Recap-Planning Commission,Oct. 27, 2020 Reply-To: Jean Bedord <Publisher@cupertinomatters.org>   View translation in your browser   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Friends, 2 Last minute election shenanigans have popped up. Last week, the CUSD Citizens’ Advisory Committee reported six scenarios which included potential school closings. There were NO decisions made, yet concerned parent groups have quickly formed to “Save Our Schools”, and inundated board members and the city council with emails and protests. There is a lot of misinformation being spread on NextDoor and social media; the district is responding by holding Town Halls to talk directly with parents. Now city council candidates Kitty Moore and Steven Scharf are claiming that they can “Save Our Schools”, even though Cupertino is only one of six cities included in the CUSD attendance area. Many parents do not realize that the city has no jurisdiction over operation of school districts. On the eve of the election, Mayor Scharf has added an agenda item to consider acquisition of the Finch district property from CUSD. The agenda item was then broadened to discuss other potential steps to assist CUSD in light of potential school closures in Cupertino, thus allowing council members to claim that they are “helping” CUSD. Please consider joining the council meeting and voice your opinion on this agenda item. Declining enrollment and the funding challenge it creates for CUSD has been known for years, yet only now, on the eve of the election does Mr. Scharf see fit to try to assist through the city. How is this not mere electioneering on the city staff’s time? The CUSD budget situation is dire, but fiscal solutions are not within the scope of the city, with its own financial challenges. The fundamental issue is the drop in student enrollment. CUSD is guaranteed $8,537 per student, a combination of property tax and state backfill, under the LCCF funding formula established in 2013 to replace an older funding model. Current enrollment projections show a 25% decline in student enrollment, resulting in a cumulative loss of $31,819,521 from 2015-2016 through 2022-23, which can’t be sustained by the district.  2015/16 18,910  2019/20 16,712  2024/25 14,264 3 In August, Cupertino Matters submitted a PRA (Public Records Act) request to the city for all legal costs associated with the Friends of Better Cupertino 35 litigation (Case # 18CV330190) filed by Kitty Moore,Ignatius Ding and Peggy Griffin. This turned out to be123 pages of records, but the information provided by the city attorney’s office was incomplete. Buried in the SB35 agreement with the city was an Indemnification clause which required Sand Hill properties to reimburse the city for lawsuits brought by a third party. This was not provided with the PRA request. Last week, copies of checks from Sand Hill Properties obtained by a separate PRA request were posted on NextDoor. The checks total is $221,113.90. There is also a separate check for $4327 from Friends of Better Cupertino/Better Cupertino to SHP, probably for filing fees. At this point, it’s hard to determine what the true cost of the Friends of Better Cupertino lawsuit. The PRA request shows $428,764 in expenses, plus an unknown amount of city attorney staff time prior to the contract with Shute Mihaly and Weinberger. The city attorney expenses for 2018 were $495,436 and for 2019 the expenses were $168,128. In addition, non-quantifiable administrative time was involved in closed door meetings, developing reports and communications.     To help protect yMicrosoft Office pautomatic downlopicture from the Vallco Lawsuit Version 2.pdf       4       To help protect yMicrosoft Office pautomatic downlopicture from the Vallco Legal Chron order.pdf       As with all matters, feel free to voice your opinions to individual councilmembers, the council as a whole, the city manager, and the city clerk to have your thoughts and views heard. Note that emails to city council as a whole are forwarded to the city manager, whereas emails to individual councilmembers are not. Clearly include in your subject line the topic or agenda item on which you are commenting: City Manager Deb Feng: manager@cupertino.org City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia: cityclerk@cupertino.org City Council: citycouncil@cupertino.org Mayor Steven Scharf: sscharf@cupertino.org Vice-Mayor Darcy Paul: dpaul@cupertino.org Councilmember Liang Chao: liangchao@cupertino.org Councilmember Rod Sinks: rsinks@cupertino.org Councilmember Jon Willey: jwilley@cupertino.org   UPCOMING: City Council, Tues. Nov. 2, 2020; 6:45 p.m. Regular Meeting; 5:30 Study Session   This meeting has a light agenda. The study session is a Presentation on the transition from Level of Service (LOS) to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for determination of transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as required by Senate Bill (SB) 743. This will be a technical discussion regarding traffic impacts, and changes required   5 for planning staff in approving projects. The sole Ceremonial Presentation is Certificates of Appreciation to volunteers at the Silicon Valley Korean School (SVKS). Item 3: City Manager’s update on emergency response efforts. Unfortunately, the number of COVI-19 cases is increasing in Cupertino, though the level is the lowest in the county. The report will cover election activities as well as responses to all emergencies. You can find county updates on COVID-19 here. Item #4 Report on Committee assignments is usually brief. The consent calendar is routine. Item #18 Second reading of Ordinance No. 20-2213 adopting Municipal Code Amendments to CMC Chapter 10.48 Community Noise Control to regulate leaf blowers to implement the Fiscal Year 2020-21 City Council Work Program items related to ordinance updates on gas- powered leaf blowers. Previously approved, this should be a routine second reading. Item #19: Second reading of Ordinance No. 20-2214 to adopt minor, cleanup amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.04.010 (concerning regular meetings of the City Council); Section 2.28.040 (concerning powers and duties of the City Manager); Section 8.01.090 (concerning animals in City buildings); Chapter 11.08 (concerning bicycle licensing and registration); and Section 13.04.190 (concerning activities prohibited in City parks). Previously approved, this should be a routine second reading. Item #20 Second reading of Ordinance No. 20-2215 for a one-time adjustment to the City of Cupertino minimum wage to be consistent with the cities of Los Altos, Palo Alto, and Santa Clara such that the minimum wage will be consistent among those cities and the City of Cupertino in 2021 and in subsequent years to achieve a desired uniformity among the cities of Los Altos, Palo Alto, and Santa Clara. Previously approved, this should be a routine second reading. Item #21 Discuss improvements to the Weed Abatement Program, and approve a budget appropriation (BMN 2021-105) of $8,046 to supplement outreach for the Weed Abatement 6   Program and to cover initial inspection fees for properties found to be in compliance. This council has spent much, too much time on this annual county program. This item proposes to spend another $8,046 to modify procedures to satisfy Councilmember Liang Chao personally. She was previously cited for non-compliance, requesting a personal exemption that was denied by council upon expression of outrage from the public. Why is this council spending money and time on a minor matter that previous councils authorized on the consent calendar? Item #22: Consider investigating potential acquisition of Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) property located on Finch Avenue next to D. J. Sedgwick Elementary School and discuss other potential steps to assist CUSD in light of potential school closures in Cupertino; provide direction to staff on these issues. This is a last-minute electioneering move on the part of Mayor Steven Scharf in conjunction with Councilmember Liang Chao. CUSD is facing a financial crunch, and nominally, the item is to consider an offer to acquire a property owned by the district to “help” the budget crisis. The district has already stated a sale would be a one-time capital infusion of restricted funds, not badly needed operating income, and which doesn’t fit their fiscal needs. Plus there is no money in the city capital budget for additional acquisitions. However, the item was amended to broaden the discussion, so expect grandstanding on potential relief measures that are illegal, unfeasible or not useful to the school district. The staff report is worth perusing since it quantifies $2,049,320 in programs that the city already provides to CUSD. Most of this is athletic field maintenance.   EXPRESS YOUR OPINION: Readers are encouraged to speak at council meeting, either at Oral Communications on any topic, or on specific agenda items. Speakers have three minutes, and coaching is available! Readers are also encouraged to email individual council members, the council as a whole, the city manager, and the city clerk. These become part of the public record. Contacts at CupertinoMatters.org/express-your-opinion   RECAP: Planning Commission, Oct. 27, 2020   YouTube: Part 1 3 hr. 28 min.: Part 2 1 hr. 39 min. 7   This was an unusually long Planning Commission meeting, ending at midnight. Item #2: Modification to Use Permit (U-2011-09) and an Architectural and Site approval to allow for the installation of two (2) hydrogen refueling dispensers and accessory utility structures, site improvements and landscaping to an existing gasoline station (BSP Union). Commissioners were enthusiastic about installation of an alternative fuel site in Cupertino. Approved unanimously.. Item #3: Consider Municipal Code Amendments to update existing Mobile Vending regulations, including, but not limited to, regulations in Chapter 5.48, and potential conforming edits to other chapters in the Municipal Code, including in Titles 5, 11, 13 and 19, and adopting new policies and definitions regulating Mobile Vendors. The Cupertino Municipal Code has to be revised to meet SB 946 standards. The staff recommended going beyond the minimum revisions, but after discussion, the commission ultimately decided to adopt the minimum necessary to meet state standards. Approved 3-2, with Fung and Takahashi voting nay. Item #4: Municipal Code Amendments to adopt glazing and lighting regulations to implement the Fiscal Year 2019/20 City Council Work Program items related to Dark Sky and Bird-Safe Design. The speakers during public input urged adoption of these policies. The commission got bogged down in discussion of string lights in residential areas. The item finally passed 4- 1, with Vice-Chair Ray Wang voting nay.   CUPERTINO COURIER: October 30, 2020   The cover photo and article on page 5 is “The Young Coders: Cupertino siblings make coding connection with Indian Village”. Community briefs on page 12 are (1) “More RYDEs Coming”, an expansion of rides for seniors and (2) “Valley Water Grants”. Legal notices on page 32 included a Notice about applying to serve on a city commission. Warm regards, Jean Bedord Publisher and Editor, Cupertino Matters 8   P.S. If you have received this from a friend and would like your own copy, go to CupertinoMatters.org to subscribe to our mailing list. If there's something you'd like to see included in Cupertino Matters, please feel free to email Publisher@CupertinoMatters.org. NB: Over 50 language translations of the newsletter are available by clicking on the “translate” link at the top of the newsletter, which directs users to a webpage with translation options at the upper right corner.     Copyright © 2020 Cupertino Matters, All rights reserved.