CC 01-22-2025 Item No. 12 FY 2025-27 City Work Program Study Session_Written CommunicationsCC 01-22-2025
Item No. 12
FY 2025-27 City
Work Program
Study Session
Written Communications
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2025-01-22 City Council Meeting - ITEM 12 City Work Program
Date:Tuesday, January 21, 2025 12:02:54 AM
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.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE
MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, City Councilmembers and Staff,
After reviewing your top 10 items and considering my personal preferences, I would hope you
prioritize the following:
1. Update the Council Procedure Manual and city written communications policy to
include ALL input ASAP!
2. Emergency Operations Readiness (#1 Wang’s list)
a. With all the fires in the LA area and the fact that we are long overdue for a major
earthquake, the EOC needs to be ready NOW! I’ve heard so many versions of
where it is or will be located (city maintenance yard, Community Hall, City Hall,
Torre Annex). PLEASE decide and get it done! Use the one-time funds and don’t
waste them.
3. City Hall Seismic Safety Issues (#7 Wang’s list and #3 Mohan’s list)
a. Get this done! Use the one-time funds and don’t waste them.
4. Urban Forest/Tree List/Canopy (#5 Chao, #5 Moore, #1 Fruen)
5. Restore Commissions (#10 Chao, #2 Wang)
6. Public Safety-license plate readers, neighborhood readers, “We’re bright at night”, (#3
Moore, #9 Wang)
7. Public Safety-block leader and neighborhood watch (#8 Wang)
8. Update City’s Impact Fees (#5 Chao, #6 Mohan)
9. 5G Ordinance (#10 Wang)
10. Reduce scope of Memorial Park Plan (#3 Chao, #6 Wang)
As you can see, there are several items that 2 or more of you agree on, at least generally. I
would encourage you all to pick those items for sure!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2025-01-22 City Council Meeting - ITEM12 City Work Program Study Session
Date:Sunday, January 19, 2025 5:59:01 PM
Attachments:image001.png
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.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING
AGENDA ITEM.
Dear City Council and Staff,
In the Staff Report for the City Work Program Study Session, Page 3 of 4, under “Next Steps”, end of
1st paragraph there is an incomplete sentence.
Q: What was intended to be said?
Could the Staff Report be corrected to complete the sentence please?
The city is paying many consultants to provide many different services to the city but those services
need to be monitored by city staff. This document was “Reviewed” and “Approved” by 2 different
people but nobody caught it? Are we actually reviewing work or is it just a gathering of signatures?
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
From:Tracy Kosolcharoen
To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:[02/22/25 Special Session] Agenda item 12 Written comments
Date:Tuesday, January 21, 2025 3:42:35 PM
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 Council and staff,
Please include this as a written comment for agenda item 12. Thank you for the upcoming City
Work Program agenda discussion. There are many worthwhile priorities listed across the
Councilmembers' lists, and I have faith that a good outcome will be reached.
Given that the priorities on each Councilmember's list vary quite widely, I am writing to ask
for prioritization of three initiatives:
1. Seismic retrofit & EOC: This has been on the table for years. The research around costs is
already done. Since our number one priority should be to keep residents and staff safe, I see no
reason why a low-cost retrofit and EOC should be postponed any further.
2. Memorial Park renovation: This is the largest park in our city, centrally located near retail
and housing. A renovated park would positively impact our city by attracting more events,
foot traffic to surrounding businesses, and improving overall perceptions of Cupertino as an
appealing city to live, work, and do business in. Please consider a scaled-back renovation plan
at a fraction of the original $84M price tag. The current plan has too many line items and can
be brought down to reasonable levels simply by paring back unnecessary updates or finding
lower-cost contractors.
3. Defensible impact fee nexus study -- if we want a thriving retail community and
downtown area, some degree of urban planning and city intervention is required to ensure that
what is built is cohesive across multiple developers. Mayor Chao makes an excellent point that
the impact fees can help encourage developers to build not only for profit, but for the
community.
I am also writing to deprioritize or clarify several initiatives:
- Please deprioritize dedicated bike lanes on major thoroughfares like De Anza and
Stevens Creek. We should be encouraging bikers to go down smaller roads with slower speeds
of traffic, not fast-moving roads like Stevens Creek where a collision can mean a fatality.
Research has shown that even with buffered roads, accidents still occur at intersections, where
buffer protection ends. I have spoken with several bikers who strongly prefer to bike on
smaller roads and would not bike down Stevens Creek because they feel traffic is going too
fast.
- Please clarify exactly what an urban forest is before considering prioritizing it. Given
the severity of recent wildfires, we need to be careful about increasing flammable foliage
across our city. Street trees in medians and near concrete buildings are probably OK, but if we
are planning on significantly increasing foliage in areas with wooden roofing/residential
neighborhoods, we are making it easier for fires to spread. I emailed the environment@ and
sustainability@cupertino.gov email addresses and have not yet heard back, but it would be
great to get some clarity on where exactly an urban forest would be implemented. The location
is key. If we are talking about just street trees in medians, does this need to be a dedicated
CWP item or can it just be part of ongoing street tree efforts?
Thank you for your consideration,
Tracy
From:Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir
To:City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Pamela Wu; Rachelle Sander
Subject:Addressing Spending Priorities and Resident Concerns
Date:Saturday, January 18, 2025 6:36:07 AM
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 include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting.
Subject: Addressing Spending Priorities and Resident Concerns
Dear Mayor Chao and Cupertino City Council Members,
I am writing to express my deep disappointment regarding the priorities reflected in the first
agenda under the current leadership, following nearly 40 days without a council meeting.
Residents made their voices heard loud and clear in the 2024 election. The resounding
message was frustration with the city’s repeated disregard for common-sense solutions and its
ongoing focus on projects that prioritize costly, disruptive infrastructure—such as concrete
cinder block bike lanes—at the expense of road users. Yet, the first significant proposal
brought forward is a $1.6 million allocation for more such bike lanes.
This decision feels entirely out of step with the will of the electorate. Residents have
overwhelmingly rejected the notion of eliminating road lanes, restricting right turns, and
making it harder for commuters to travel across our city—all while plans for thousands of new
housing units on already congested streets like McClellan Road and Linda Vista Drive move
forward. These are the very issues that led to the defeat of candidates advocating for these
policies, yet the agenda appears to reflect their platform instead of the resident mandate for
change.
Over the past months, I spoke with countless residents who expressed their frustration with the
city’s fixation on bike lanes at the expense of the 60,000+ daily auto users. If the only solution
the city’s traffic engineering department can offer is concrete bike lanes, it may be time to
reassess this department’s leadership, goals, or even its necessity. Cupertino needs traffic
engineers who can focus on meaningful road improvements and solutions that address the
needs of the majority of residents. The data used regarding bike accidents is based on city
wide use and does not adequately justify the need for dedicated bicycle lanes on the roads on
which these changes are proposed.
The city must refocus its priorities on critical infrastructure and inter-agency collaboration,
including:
Fire readiness: Ensuring adequate water in hydrants and reservoirs, and effective
communication between city, fire district, and water agencies.
Emergency preparedness: Strengthening oversight and cooperation with key agencies like
County Fire District, County Supervisor, Valley Water, SJW, and the County Sheriff’s
Department.
Road infrastructure: Addressing the immediate needs of our auto users while maintaining
safety and efficiency for all commuters.
I strongly urge the council to reject the $1.6 million expenditure on additional concrete bike
lanes and redirect those funds toward infrastructure that benefits the broader community,
including fire and emergency readiness and road improvements.
Moreover, the city should prioritize initiatives that enhance community engagement and
quality of life, such as:
Fully funding an all-day July 4th community celebration, including daytime festivities at
Blackberry Farm and evening fireworks.
Reducing consultant expenditures and reallocating those funds toward Parks and Recreation
events that are affordable and accessible for Cupertino residents, with tiered pricing for non-
residents.
Additionally, I request that the traffic engineering department provide transparent data on bike
usage for recently constructed bike lanes, such as those on De Anza Boulevard and Stevens
Creek Boulevard. The community deserves to know whether these projects are delivering
meaningful value.
Finally, I ask that the council and the mayor set a higher standard for agenda items, aligning
them with the resident mandate. Consultation with recently elected officials who campaigned
on resident-centered priorities may help ensure the council’s focus remains on the
community’s needs.
It is not "business as usual." Residents are increasingly frustrated and expect meaningful
change. Please listen to their voices, reject wasteful spending, and redirect resources toward
critical infrastructure and community-benefiting initiatives.
Thank you for your attention to these important matters.
Sincerely,
Yuva Athur
Cupertino resident
From:Ravi Kiran Singh Sapaharam
To:City Clerk; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Pamela Wu; Rachelle Sander; City Council; City Council
Subject:Addressing Spending Priorities and Resident Concerns
Date:Friday, January 17, 2025 9:43:32 AM
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 include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting.
Subject: Addressing Spending Priorities and Resident Concerns
Dear Mayor Chao and Cupertino City Council Members,
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my deep disappointment and concern regarding the priorities
reflected in the first agenda under the current leadership. The nearly 40-day hiatus without
a council meeting has only exacerbated the sense of disconnect between the council's
decisions and the will of the electorate.
The 2024 election sent a clear message: residents are frustrated with the city's focus on
costly, disruptive infrastructure projects, such as concrete cinder block bike lanes, at the
expense of road users. Yet, the first significant proposal presented is a $1.6 million
allocation for more bike lanes, which feels out of step with the resident mandate for change.
Residents have overwhelmingly rejected the notion of eliminating road lanes, restricting
right turns, and making it harder for commuters to travel across our city. It is imperative that
the council refocus its priorities on critical infrastructure and inter-agency collaboration,
including:
Fire Readiness: Ensuring adequate water supply and effective communication between city agencies
Emergency Preparedness: Strengthening oversight and cooperation with key agencies
Road Infrastructure: Addressing the immediate needs of auto users while maintaining safety and
efficiency for all commuters
I urge the council to reject the $1.6 million expenditure on bike lanes and redirect those
funds toward infrastructure that benefits the broader community. Furthermore, I recommend
prioritizing initiatives that enhance community engagement and quality of life, such as fully
funding community celebrations and reducing consultant expenditures.
Transparency is crucial in this matter. I request that the traffic engineering department
provide data on bike usage for recently constructed bike lanes, such as those on De Anza
Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard.
I implore the council and the mayor to set a higher standard for agenda items, aligning
them with the resident mandate. It is time to listen to the voices of the residents, reject
wasteful spending, and redirect resources toward critical infrastructure and community-
benefiting initiatives.
Thank you for your attention to these pressing matters.
Sincerely, Ravi Kiran Singh, Cupertino Resident