CC 02-04-2025 Late CommunicationsCC 02-04-2025
Oral
Communications
Written Communications
From:Liang Chao
To:City Clerk
Cc:Mahesh Gurikar
Subject:Fw: New Construction on Mary Avenue
Date:Tuesday, February 4, 2025 5:28:12 PM
Dear Resident,
Thank you for reaching out with your comments.
Due to a change in the implementation of how written communication is collected for
the upcoming council meeting, your email will not be included in the official record
unless a councilmember forwards it to the City Clerk.
Dear City Clerk,
Please enter the enclosed communication as written communication for the upcoming
council meeting from a councilmember, per CMC 2.08.100.
I am submitting this comment at the request of my constituents to ensure that
community voices are included in written communications of council meetings as
requested, rather than at the discretion of councilmembers, which might inadvertently
leave out some minority voices.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
Liang
~ Cupertino City Council (elected in 2018, re-elected in 2022)
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
From: Mahesh Gurikar <mgurikar@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 5:15 PM
To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.gov>; Kitty Moore <KMoore@cupertino.gov>; J.R. Fruen
<JRFruen@cupertino.gov>; Sheila Mohan <SMohan@cupertino.gov>; R "Ray" Wang
<RWang@cupertino.gov>; Debra Nascimento <Debran@cupertino.gov>
Subject: New Construction on Mary Avenue
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 Council Members,
I am resident of Cupertino for almost 40 years.
I am writing this to protest the plan to build new housing on west side of Mary Avenue along Highway 85.
Mary Avenue has already been modified from its original configuration to accommodate bike lanes with
buffer zones. Now the developer wants take away many parking spaces and squeeze in new housing.
This will make the parking situation worse on Mary Avenue. During various events held in Memorial Park
both residents of the city and non-residents come to the events. We need parking for them.
Affordable housing is needed all over Bay Area and should be built. The new development in old Oaks
shopping area was supposed to have affordable housing. I am not sure how many affordable units were
built there.
Please find another city owned or privately owned parcel of land for the proposed affordable housing
(may be as apart of Vallco development). But do not permit any reconfiguration to existing Mary Avenue.
Thank you,
Mahesh Gurikar
10486 Anson Ave
Cupertino, CA
CC 02-04-2025
Item No. 5
Tyler New World
Enterprise Resource
Planning Replacement
Written Communications
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Feb 4 Agneda #4 ERP - that seems like a lot of money
Date:Tuesday, February 4, 2025 6:25:32 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.
Feb 4 Agneda #4 ERP - that seems like a lot of money for ERP.
Is there a less costly alternative?
CC 02-04-2025
Item No. 6
City Bridge
Preventative
Maintenance Project
Written Communications
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:feb 4 agenda #6 bridge project
Date:Tuesday, February 4, 2025 6:28:12 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.
feb 4 agenda #6 bridge project
Is the city guaranteed the grants from the federal government?
Are some bridges more urgent than others?
CC 02-04-2025
Item No. 8
Future Agenda Items
(TBD List)
Written Communications
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Item #8 city council meeting feb 4, 2025
Date:Tuesday, February 4, 2025 6:37:26 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.
Hi City Council,
TBD list – let’s please get the EOC going, renovate city hall, and stop delaying!
Hopefully the purchase of the antiquated building is now off the table.
I agree with items 1-9.
Doing Wednesday meetings is a bit of a drag but I see that it allows for supplemental reports,
so I’m okay with #10.
I agree with line items 11 to 16.
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
From:Jean Bedord
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Agenda Item No. 8: Future Agenda Items: NO on Economic Development Committee
Date:Tuesday, February 4, 2025 6:27:29 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.
Sorry, I didn't copy you on this email but I did send it before 4:00. Please include in Written
Communications for this meeting.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jean Bedord <Jean@bedord.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 3:29 PM
Subject: Agenda Item No. 8: Future Agenda Items: NO on Economic Development
Committee
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Attorney's Office
<CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>
Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore and Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang,
While we all can agree on the need to focus on economic development in Cupertino, the
previous Economic Development Committee is NOT an effective platform to
accomplish this goal. It was the wrong "tool" for many reasons, and a waste of staff and
public time.
* Major employers won't participate. They will not participate in a Brown Act governed body
that is recorded with public minutes. They do have representatives who are members of the
Chamber of Commerce. These are generally communications officers who are willing to speak
off the record but are not decision makers. They were noticeably absent in the
initial recruitment (I was there!)
* Cupertino has a wealth of semi-retired and retired business executives who are potential
recruits. However, they may balk at filing a Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests,
required by a Brown Act body, which makes their personal finances publicly visible.
* The city is unable to provide the key support that businesses need: (1) Marketing and (2)
Financial know-how. The city can streamline the permitting process, but this is best handled
by the Planning Department.
* Inadequate space. According to a report by Kidder Mathews, Cupertino is in the very
unusual situation of having a 2.3% office vacancy rate, the lowest in the West
Valley, much lower than the 30-35% vacancy rates in SF, SJ, and Oakland, and
among the lowest in the Bay Area. This means there is no space for new
companies to diversify the city economy.Shane Company searched for four years, and
still ended up with a suboptimal location. Splunk used to be in Cupertino and has since moved
to Santana Row. Plus Ai (https://plus.ai/) recently moved from Cupertino to Santa Clara. I
have personally talked with two organizations who are unable to find suitable space in
Cupertino.
Please remove this item. City organized Brown Act bodies are inflexible, and ineffective.
Working with partners is much more productive.
Engaged Cupertino resident,
Jean Bedord
CC 02-04-2025
Item No. 9
Award a
construction
contract to Golder
Bay Construction
Written Communications
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Agenda Item #9 - find a less expensive alternative
Date:Tuesday, February 4, 2025 6:40:45 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,
We are in a budget crisis.
It doesn’t look like we are because there is a plan to spend down our savings.
What happens in a decade when they’re gone.
Please consider finding an effective yet lower-cost alternative such as flexible bollards.
I also wonder about how the City will be able to easily do street-sweeping and cleaning out
storm drains.
I am also worried about all of the businesses along Stevens Creek blvd and how all of the
ingress and egress on Stevens Creek affects bike-safety.
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
CC 02-04-2025
Item No. 10
Award a design-build
contract for the
Photovoltaic Systems
Design and Installation
Project
Written Communications
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Agenda Item #10 - please stop the PV project while you can
Date:Tuesday, February 4, 2025 6:42:54 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.
Agenda Item #10 - please stop the PV project while you can
When we use PG&E we are using wind and solar.
Rebates from the feds are not guaranteed.
We are in a budget crisis and we have no plan beyond a decade.
Cities like San Jose are cutting back and Cupertino is spending like there is no tomorrow - - -
well there will be no tomorrow in Cupertino if reckless spending continues.
Regards,
Rhoda Fry
From:Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir
To:Chad Mosley; City Council; Pamela Wu; City Clerk
Subject:Reconsidering the Photovoltaic Project Due to Cost and Funding Risks
Date:Tuesday, February 4, 2025 5:24:10 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 Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for 02/04/2025 council meeting.
Dear Mayor Chao and Council Members,
I urge you to reconsider and reject the photovoltaic (PV) project due to escalating costs,
uncertain federal funding, and financial risks to Cupertino.
The project’s budget has grown from $6.3 million to at least $10 million, with the Syserco
Energy Solutions contract at $4.3 million and $225,000 for 4Leaf, Inc. in project management
fees. Given the potential for cost overruns, this is a significant financial commitment.
Additionally, the project relies on a 30% rebate from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and a
10% “Build America Buy America Act” (BABAA) bonus credit, both of which are now on
hold under the new administration and require federal approval. Without these incentives,
Cupertino could face much higher costs than anticipated.
Projected savings of $276,000 annually and $13 million over 30 years depend on meeting the
April 2026 deadline for Net Energy Metering (NEM) 2.0. Any delays could push the city onto
less favorable NEM 3.0 rates, reducing the return on investment. Given these risks, the
remaining $1.67 million in city funds could be better allocated to more immediate
infrastructure needs.
To ensure fiscal responsibility, I respectfully urge you to cancel this project and avoid
exposing the city to unnecessary financial risk.
Sincerely,
Yuva Athur
From:Deepa Mahendraker
To:Chad Mosley; City Council; Pamela Wu; City Clerk
Subject:Reconsidering the Photovoltaic Project Due to Cost and Funding Risks
Date:Tuesday, February 4, 2025 4:48:27 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 Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the 02/04/25 council meeting.
Dear Mayor Chao and Council Members,
I urge you to reconsider and reject the photovoltaic (PV) project due to escalating costs, uncertain federal funding,
and financial risks to Cupertino.
The project’s budget has grown from $6.3 million to at least $10 million, with the Syserco Energy Solutions
contract at $4.3 million and $225,000 for 4Leaf, Inc. in project management fees. Given the potential for cost
overruns, this is a significant financial commitment.
Additionally, the project relies on a 30% rebate from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and a 10% “Build America
Buy America Act” (BABAA) bonus credit, both of which are now on hold under the new administration and require
federal approval. Without these incentives, Cupertino could face much higher costs than anticipated.
Projected savings of $276,000 annually and $13 million over 30 years depend on meeting the April 2026 deadline
for Net Energy Metering (NEM) 2.0. Any delays could push the city onto less favorable NEM 3.0 rates, reducing
the return on investment. Given these risks, the remaining $1.67 million in city funds could be better allocated to
more immediate infrastructure needs.
To ensure fiscal responsibility, I respectfully urge you to cancel this project and avoid exposing the city to
unnecessary financial risk.
Sincerely,
Deepa Mahendraker
Sent from my iPhone
CC 02-04-2025
Item No. 11
Study Session for the use
of Committed Future
Use Reserve one-time
funds
Written Communications
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:feb 4 2024 #11 one time funds - save them - don"t spend them
Date:Tuesday, February 4, 2025 6:45:48 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,
feb 4 2024 #11 one time funds - save them - don't spend them
no spending plan
these are not one-time-funds, they are the tail-end of a sweetheart deal
most city “reductions” were not real reductions – only fluff was removed from the budget –
that’s self evident by looking at opengov
we will NEVER be able to get that type of income flow again
Please secure the economic future of our city.
Thanks,
Rhoda
CC 02-04-2025
Item No. 12
Study Session on
revisions to the
Cupertino City Council
Procedures Manual
Written Communications
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Feb 4 2025 #12 council procedures
Date:Tuesday, February 4, 2025 6:52:44 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.
Feb 4 2025 #12 council procedures
Dear City Council,
There are too many study sessions tonight!!!
Ideas on procedural changes:
1. Allow a council member to be mayor on consecutive years
2. Allow discussion of informational items
3. Put informational memos on the council agenda so they can be discussed if needed and
easily found
4. Add more responsibility to audit committee
5. Bring back the enviro committee, legislative, and economic development among others
6. Allow the public to remove consent items from consent calendar
7. Allow a speaker to have a third more time up to 10 minutes depending on how many
people are added. Hung Wei actually tried to put this one when it was discussed a long
time ago. 1 person up to 4 minutes, 2 people get 6 minutes, 3 people up to 8, 4 people up
to 10 minutes etc… but there’s an easy way to do this.
I agree with EVERYTHING PEGGY GRIFFIN SAYS!!!
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
From:Lisa Warren
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:City Council Mtg Agenda comments Feb 4, 2025 Item #12
Date:Tuesday, February 4, 2025 4:16:30 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.
Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council members.
I believe that it is in the best interest of our community to change some of the current
ways that CC meetings are organized and run. Including agenda creation.
I am asking that you consider improving what is now in place. A discussion about
restoring some of what we lost within the last 2 years would be very important.
Members of the 'public' should be allowed to PULL Consent items again as was
the case in the past.
'Informational Memos' should surely appear on published agendas. Members of
the public should have a mechanism to publicly comment on them during any
meeting with agendized memos.
All written communications, even on non-agenda items, must be included in the
Written Communications collection. This should include making all comments
available in written communications in the 'archives' for all comments made
prior to the meeting, not only the comments received pre 'deadline' for posting
on meeting day.
I STRONGLY feel that personal, or 'city issued' cellular phones should NOT be
allowed during meetings. This includes Council member AND Staff.
We need to do everything possible to restore and improve transparency.
Your 'constituents' ARE very clear on this matter.
Thank you.
Lisa Warren