zone-California 7

Bollinger Road is the boundary between Cupertino and San Jose.

In July 2021 (during Covid-19 pandemic), the City of Cupertino generated Bollinger Road Corridor Safety Study. The report provided many safety suggestions and two alternatives.

• Alternative A includes a lane reduction on Bollinger Road, from two travel lanes in each direction to one travel lane in each direction and a two-way left-turn lane.
• Alternative B maintains the existing lane configuration of two travel lanes in each direction.

You can also see related information here.

San Jose Spotlight reported on 01/22/2024 that the project is set to start this (2024) summer.

Cupertino received external funding for this project. Cupertino needs to pay 20% of the cost for design.

This project appeared as Low priority item on 03/19/2024 City Council study session.

According to Bollinger Road Corridor Safety Study, the total cost for Alternative A is $11.7M, and the total cost for Alternative B is $10.5M in 2021. The project will be a five-year project. And total cost for Cupertino is estimated to be $4M.

During the public comment time, residents were split into two groups with one group supported Alternative A (lane reduction), while another group supported Alternative B (maintain lanes). Which alternative do you support?

Below are more details about Bollinger Road Corridor Safety Study.

The study is a safety study with goals to "identify improvements to create a safer and more accessible corridor". According to the report, seems all the collisions happened at intersections.

The study performed two surveys in March 2021 and May 2021, respectively. The March survey received 247 responses. While the survey in May had 139 unique users "VIEW" the maps. The report didn't mention how many responses received for the survey in May. The survey in May was about the two alternatives of reducing lanes and maintaining current lanes. Some residents reported they were aware of the survey in March, but they were not aware of the survey in May.

The results for the survey in March 2021 were:

The results for the survey in May 2021 were:

California cities are expected to update their Housing Element every eight years. The Housing Element serves as the local government's blueprint for how the city will grow and develop.

The Housing Element must be approved by HCD (California Department of Housing and Community Development). HCD adopted RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) in 2021. HCD uses the RHNA methodology to specify housing allocation goals. The allocation numbers that Cupertino and other cities must now meet are generally much higher than previous cycles. An audit by the California State Auditor has outlined several weaknesses in the RHNA methodology. Here is a good article regarding the controversy regarding this issue.

California also passed many laws recently to encourage housing. Those new laws and HCD's high RHNA allocations changed cities' Housing Element dramatically. Cupertino has no exception. Cupertino's RHNA allocation is 4,588 new units from 2023 to 2031.

Cupertino has its third draft of Housing Element. To achieve the RHNA allocation, Cupertino rezoned many sites and setup many ways to increase density.

One interesting part of the Housing Element is HE-1.3.6 (page H-17 of the Housing Element third draft). The first bullet says "Allowing corner lots in R1 zoning districts to develop as multi-family rental housing using R3 zoning regulations to encourage missing-middle developments." R1 means single family house. R2 means duplex. R3 is not triplex, but multi-family housing. All apartments in Cupertino so far are R3. This means all the corner lots can become apartments without additional parking requirements.

The second bullet says "Allowing lots zoned for single-family residential uses that abut (either shares a property line or is directly across the street from) property that fronts an arterial or major collector, and is zoned and used for commercial or mixed-use development, to develop with rental multi-family housing using R3 zoning regulations to encourage missing middle housing. "

This means properties located behind or around a shopping center can become apartments. Probably many people live there didn't realize they are impacted.

Arterials:

• Homestead Rd
• Stevens Creek Blvd
• De Anza Blvd
• Wolfe Rd

Major collectors:

• N. Tantau
• Miller Ave
• N. Stelling
• Bubb Rd
• N. Foothill Expressway

Below is an incomplete list of impacted streets:

• Near Homestead
  ** Shady Oak Ln
  ** Firethorn Dr
• Near Stevens Creek Blvd
  ** Norwich Ave - all of east side
  ** Amherst Dr-east end
  ** Denison Ave-south end
  ** Wheaton Dr-all of south side
  ** Stern Ave-north end
  ** Bret Ave-north end
  ** Judy Ave-north end
  ** S Tantau Ave-north end
  ** E. Estates Dr-north end
  ** Richwood Dr-north end
  ** Bixby Dr-all of north side
  ** Brenda Ct-north and east end
  ** Mello Place-north end
  ** Deeprose Pl-north end (possibly)
  ** Randy Lane-south end close to Stevens Creek Blvd
  ** Miner Place-north end, south end
  ** Partlett Place-north end, south end and by Donut Wheel
  ** Scofield Dr – all of it
  ** Alves Dr-between Sachi Way and Stelling
  ** Peninsula Ave-south end
  ** Santa Clara Ave-south end
  ** Adrian Ave-south end
  ** Eaton Place-east end
  ** Ramona Ct-north end
  ** Northeast side of Stevens Creek Blvd near N. Foothill Expressway
  ** Cupertino Rd-west end
• De Anza Blvd
  ** Sunrise Dr-east end (possibly)
  ** Rodrigues Ave-behind XLB Kitchen shopping center
  ** Terry Way-east side
  ** Paradise Dr-east side
  ** McClellan Rd-northeast and southeast end
  ** Felton Way-east side
  ** Blossom Ln-east end
  ** Kirwin Ln-east end
  ** Westlynn Way- east side (possibly)
  ** Jamestown Dr-east side
  ** Clifden Way – west end
  ** Clay St – west end
  ** Silverado Ave – west end
• Bollinger
  ** Clifden Way-west side
  ** La Roda Dr-south end
  ** S Blaney Ave-southwest end

Don’t make me wrong. I like the idea of Democracy. But I don’t like our current practices of Democracy.

Our current practice is the Trustee Model of Representation. Voters vote for a candidate based on the belief that the candidate will represent them properly. Once elected, the representative works on their own for two, four or six years based on the length of the term. But voters basically lose control of their representative.

This model fails in both theory and reality.

There are only four ways of spending money.

• You spend your own money on yourself. Our everyday life works on this model. Fortunately it is also the most efficient way of spending money — you always try to spend your own money in a way that serves you the best.
• You spend your own money on someone else. Thinking of giving gifts for a coworker’s baby shower. You tend to not care about the gift, with staying under the budget being your main concern.
• You spend someone else’s money on yourself. One legal case is that if you are on a business trip your company can compensate for meals. You tend to spend as close to the limit as possible.
• You spend someone else’s money on someone else. You tend to not care about how much you spend and how the money is spent. Unfortunately, our Government falls in this model.

The case is not only limited to money, but to everything, like natural resources and even the safety of the society. Even worse, most representatives are trying to convert some resources from Model 4 to Model 3, which is they can benefit from the resources they control for all the people. That’s why most people think their representatives are out of touch and even corrupted. Representatives who wholeheartedly work for the people are rare. You should cherish them if you are lucky enough to have some.

Is there any solution? Fortunately, the answer is yes. With the help of modern technology, we can convert representatives to the Delegate Model of Representation. In this way, people as a whole controls how to spend their own money on themselves. Suddenly we return to the model 1 of spending, which is also the most efficient way.

It will also be the first time to fulfill an American dream: the Government should be of the people, for the people and by the people.

@lookingaround Thank you for the comments.

My explanation for the law enforcement cost increase was that was the number the County Sheriff charges to Cupertino. I guess it's more costly to setup the in house police department at first, but the running cost should be lower than what the County Sheriff charges. But it's just a guess, I would love to see a research to compare the two options.

For sales tax, in a perfect world, each city should receive the sales tax from their residents. For each $100 on taxable spending, the city should receive $1 (the other $8 goes to the state, county, etc). Cupertino should receive only $60K per month or $720K per year if average resident spending is $100 per month. $9M sales tax is equivalent to $1250 non grocery spending per resident (not per household) per month. I don't know about other families, but my family should be much lower than this number. I think even $9M sales tax for Cupertino is still higher if we go to a fairer system.

My suggestions are not the most important things. Cupertino verified voters' voice is more important. I am glad my suggestion 1 and 2 made the top 2, which were also surpassed 55% of participated registered voters. I am quite glad with this results. The results were published here.

@long This is a good summary you have put together.

https://data.census.gov/profile/Cupertino_city,_California?g=160XX00US0617610#populations-and-people
Census data on Cupertino is interesting. Very wealthy population.

Cupertino has one of the lowest per capita police costs, and no city-owned police facility. Why would they drive up the law enforcement cost? Interesting idea to bring in house, probably way too expensive.

The unassigned fund balance is now at $80M. It has been steadily increasing for the past ten years.

The sales tax estimate is now adjusted to $9M down from $11M.

Would you alter your suggestions now from what you made before?

You may enjoy watching the State Assembly Revenue and Taxation meeting regarding sales tax with a rep from CDTFA explaining the matters: https://www.assembly.ca.gov/media/assembly-revenue-and-taxation-committee-20231115 At minute 54 it gets more interesting. You can read the transcript quicker, but there is a presentation as well you will get in the video.

Great work!

There are two representation modes: trustee model of representation and delegate model of representation.

Almost all the current representatives are in the trustee model of representation. People are familiar with this model since the beginning of Democracy. But people chose this model not because it is good, but because they had to use this model due to technical limitations.

Representatives need to make laws and policies. They need to 1. communicate to each other efficiently, 2. vote quickly. In the old days, people have to stay in the same room to achieve both. Democracy system had to use representatives and representatives had to run on trustee model of representation due to the technical limitations.

But with today's technology, people can communicate and vote online which can overcome the two requirements easily. Current law still requires representatives. But representatives can run on delegate model of representation, so the constituents make the decision directly.

SB 9 took effect on 01/01/2022. What's your opinion about it?

This is the text of AB 2098, which was introduced by Assembly Member Evan Low.

This is the text of AB 1400. This is the text of ACA 11.

Below is the incomplete list of reports for the bills.
• ACA 11: California Constitutional Amendment Would Double Taxes (based-politics.com)
• California Revisits Offering Universal Health Care, Despite No Clear Plan to Pay for It (msn.com)
• Universal health care bill advances in California Assembly | AP News
• Single-payer health care: what Californians need to know - CalMatters

Myths about California Universal Health Care System

1. Health Care is a right.
   • False. Rights are given by God, not granted from the Government. The government can only protect rights.
2. AB 1400 and ACA 11 will almost double the state tax.
   • Both True and False.
     i. True: All health care expenses will be in the form of tax, which is almost the current level of state tax.
     ii. False: At the same time, employers and individuals don’t have to pay for health insurance and premiums and copayments, so it’s a trade of above payments to the form of state tax. But we don’t know the amount of current payments would be the same, more than or less than the proposed state tax.
3. AB 1400 and ACA 11 will reduce the total medical expense of all Californians
   • Unknown. There is no real number to support either claim, but currently all state run programs are wasteful and inefficient. Upgrading to Democracy 2.0 will help make the claim true.
4. AB 1400 and ACA 11 will eliminate all private medical insurances in California
   • Mostly true. Depends on the program. In the UK, which is a single payer system, some private medical insurances are still available. Most private medical insurance companies will disappear in California for sure. Some businesses which are both insurers and medical providers won’t survive in single payer system.

What’s missing in AB 1400 and ACA 11
In the proposed health care system, there are givers and takers. When there are more givers than takers (in terms of amount of money), the system runs better and better. When there are more takers than givers, the system will degrade and eventually broken down.

What should be done when there are more takers? Will the givers give even more to meet ends?

According to AB 1400, switching to Universal Health Care System is based on a report BEFORE the system is implemented, or make the major switch based on hypothetical data only. It’s very irresponsible and won’t go well.

My Proposal
Instead of establishing a full Universal Health Care System, proposed CalCare should start as an alternative Government run Medical Insurance, which competes with existing medical insurances. CalCare should cover State employees and retirees first. It’s a large enough pool to support a medical insurance to run and figure out the cost for the coverage. It should be open to all California residents, and private company employees can also switch to CalCare voluntarily.

By doing so, we can collect real data for the cost. Since all the participants will contribute, CalCare should have surplus. The surplus should provide to expand Medicare and County healthcare systems. If CalCare works as expected that it reduces overall cost and participants’ medical expense, most if not all California residents will switch to CalCare. And the surplus of CalCare will elevate Medicare or equivalent system to the same level of quality as CalCare.

Winning by competition is much better than by mandate.

My name is Long Jiao. I am a Software Engineer and fist generation immigrant. I have had no political experience before. Please contact me if you can provide any help.

I am running for State Assembly of AD 26. Ask me anything @ longforassembly@gmail.com.

AD 26 comprises of Alviso, Cupertino, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and some part of San Jose. Please see https://www.wedrawthelinesca.org/map_viewer for detail.

I will run as a Democrat.

My plan is to upgrade the Democracy we are practicing without violating or changing existing laws.

I call current Democracy 1.0. Democracy 1.0 is a wholesale deal. Voters elect representatives to fully represent them in the Legislature. In theory, representatives can vote however they want.

Democracy 1.0 causes problems in theory and in reality.

There are only four ways of spending money:

1. You spend your own money on yourself. Our everyday life falls in this model. And it's the most efficient way of spending money.
2. You spend your own money on someone else. Think of giving gifts for a coworker's baby shower. You tend to not care about the gift, with staying under the budget being your main concern.
3. You spend someone else's money on yourself. This can be legal. For example, if you're on a business trip, your company can compensate for meals. You tend to spend as close to the limit as possible.
4. You spend someone else's money on someone else. You tend to not care about how much you spend and how the money is spent. Unfortunately, our Government falls in this model in Democracy 1.0.

The case is not only limited to money, but to everything, like natural resources and even the safety of the society. Even worse, representatives are trying to convert some resources from Model 4 to Model 3, which is they can benefit from the resources they control for all the people. That's why most people think their representatives are out of touch and even corrupted.

In my opinion, people chose Democracy 1.0 with representatives due to technical limitations. In the past, the only way people were able to communicate efficiently is to come together so they can hear each other directly.

But times have changed. With the Internet, people can freely discuss issues online at any time and any place.

My platform is that I have two promises.

1. Once elected, I'll post all the bills I am going to vote on in advance so people may deliberate them. Voters in my district can vote on each bill after deliberations. I'll provide a platform for discussion and voting.
2. My official vote will always go with the result of the voters in my district. I will faithfully represent voters in my district.

I have my own opinion on everything, but my opinion isn't more important than a regular voter in my district. I'll accept the results if it doesn't go my way.

I call candidates or representatives who made these two promises as Democracy 2.0 candidates or representatives. Democracy 2.0 is a retail deal. People can get involved in any topic they are interested while leave those they are not interested in to their representatives and neighbors.

In this way, people become the de-facto law makers. All the voters together can be considered as all the people. All the people control how to spend our tax dollars on all the people, how to deal with the environment they live in for all the people. As a result, the legislative branch becomes Model 1: The people spend their tax dollars on themselves. (Please replace tax dollars to other resources.) This is the most efficient model in economics.

Democracy 2.0 can apply to any level of the legislative branch, no matter if they are School Districts, City Councils, State Assemblies and Senates, or the Congress.

It will also be the first time to fulfill an American dream: the Government should be of the people, for the people and by the people.

If you are tired of partisan politics, vote for Democracy 2.0 candidates. If you are tired of special interest controlled representatives, vote for Democracy 2.0 candidates. If you know our current system need to change, but don't know how to change it, Democracy 2.0 is the answer for you. If your favorite candidates are not yet Democracy 2.0, demand them to be one.

Now let's start to upgrade our society.

Together let's upgrade to Democracy 2.0!

See https://longforassembly.com/