Loading...
CC 04-15-2025 Late CommunicationsCC 04-15-2025 Oral Communications Written Comments From:S B To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Re: Topics not on the agenda Date:Tuesday, April 15, 2025 10:21:10 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. To the City clerk and to council member Fruen, Please include my email in written communications for the next City Council meeting! Not sure if you can include Your reply to me Council member Fruen for context! Council member Fruen, Thank you for getting back to me so quickly and for explaining the City Council’s position on how written communications are handled under Section 2.08.100 of the Municipal Code. With all the budget challenges Cupertino faced in 2022, it’s surprising that time was spent enforcing an obscure section of the Municipal Code that, although on the books since 1995, had never been enforced. For decades, the lack of enforcement never caused any issues for the Council or the community. I hope you can understand why—even if the Council didn’t formally change anything in 2022 or 2023— the way this rule is currently being applied has raised concerns among many in the community. While asking residents to include a sentence requesting their comments be added to the public record might seem like a small detail, it’s not something everyone is aware of. As a result, important input may be unintentionally excluded. Whether this change is due to a new interpretation or simply a shift in enforcement, it has made the process feel less open and accessible to the public. Based on how the ordinance is written, it actually seems like relevant public comments should be included in the meeting materials automatically. So it would make more sense—and feel more transparent—to include them by default, unless the writer specifically states otherwise. I request that the Council reconsider its approach and begin automatically including all relevant public comments in the record, without requiring residents to make a special request. regards Sashi . On Apr 15, 2025, at 3:09 PM, J.R. Fruen <JRFruen@cupertino.gov> wrote: Sashi, Council took no action in 2022, 2023, or 2024 to limit public comment in the fashion you describe. Rather, the City Attorney’s office reviewed and began enforcing Section 2.08.100 of the Municipal Code, which is reproduced here below for your convenience. It has been part of the Municipal Code in its present form since 1995. 2.08.100 Written Communications. 1. Written communications transmitted to a majority of the members of the City Council by any person in connection with a matter which is subject to discussion or consideration at a meeting of the City Council shall be delivered by the recipient Councilperson to the City Clerk who shall retain them as public records and shall otherwise treat them as written communications to the City Council. 2. Written communications addressed to the City Council and delivered to the City Clerk shall be transmitted to each City Councilperson, the City Manager, and any department director having responsibility for the subject matter of the communication. Written communications which are relevant to a matter subject to being discussed or considered at a City Council meeting shall be included as supplementary material to that agendized matter. Other written communications may be placed on the agenda, as a separate item of business under written communications, by a Councilperson, City Manager or any department director having responsibility for the subject matter of the communication. (Ord. 1697, (part), 1995; Ord. 673, (part), 1975; Ord. 389, § 3.6, 1968) J.R. Fruen​​​​ Councilmember City Council JRFruen@cupertino.gov (408)777-1316 From: S B <sashibegur@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 2:12 PM To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.gov>; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.gov>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <CityManager@cupertino.gov> Subject: Topics not on the agenda 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. To the city clerk and City Council Please include the following email as part of Written communications for the City Council meeting of April 15th 2025. To the Mayor, Vice Mayor and council members, I request that the City Council consider adopting the following procedural changes regarding the handling of written communications and commission meetings. Written Communications: Either in 2022/2023, the majority on the then Council—comprising JR Fruen, Sheila Mohan, and Hung Wei— implemented a change requiring residents to explicitly request that their written communications be included in the public record. While this may have been done with procedural intent, it has unfortunately had the effect of limiting public voices and reducing transparency. In a healthy democracy, open communication between residents and their elected representatives is essential. Written comments from the public are a vital part of civic engagement and should be treated with the same respect as in-person testimony. Requiring residents to add a specific statement to ensure their voices are included in the public record creates an unnecessary barrier to participation. I urge the Council to reverse this policy and restore the default practice of including all written communications in the public record—unless the sender explicitly requests otherwise. Doing so would demonstrate the City’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and inclusive public dialogue. Commission meetings: In 2022, citing logistical or operational reasons, all commission meetings—except for the Planning Commission— were moved to the Quinlan Community Center, removed from the hybrid format, and, at times, not even recorded. While meetings are now recorded, public participation requires in-person attendance, and some of the rooms used at Quinlan are often too small to accommodate residents effectively. These changes have significantly reduced transparency and public engagement. During this period, the conduct of a former commissioner raised serious concerns about a lack of accountability—concerns that were brought to the attention of the City Manager but, unfortunately, not meaningfully addressed. This lack of oversight was particularly troubling given the absence of recording or broadcasting during that time. While I am willing to provide further details about this matter separately, my primary request is that commission meetings be relocated back to Cupertino Community Hall and returned to a hybrid format. Doing so would provide adequate space, restore accessibility, and help ensure transparency, respectful conduct, and public trust in our civic processes. Thank you for your attention and for supporting open, inclusive governance. regards Sashi From:Santosh Rao To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Chad Mosley; David Stillman Subject:Urgent Request to Reverse De Anza Boulevard Lane Reductions Date:Tuesday, April 15, 2025 4:37:59 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, Can you please include the below in written comments for the 04/15/25 city council meeting. [Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident.] Subject: Urgent Request to Reverse De Anza Boulevard Lane Reductions Dear Mayor Liang Chao and Honorable Members of the Cupertino City Council, I write today to urge this Council to take bold and corrective action on the De Anza Boulevard lane reductions—a decision that has significantly impacted traffic flow and community safety, despite widespread public opposition and concerns raised during the prior council majority tenure. I draw your attention to a recent article in SFGATE (linked below), which details how the City of San Mateo recently made the courageous choice to reverse a costly and disruptive bike lane project that had eliminated 200 parking spots. Despite the expense and need to return grant funding, their council prioritized the needs of residents and restored over 100 parking spaces. https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/bay-area-city-nearly-2-million-bike-lane-removal- 20149966.php Cupertino now has a similar opportunity. Last fall, residents repeatedly voiced strong opposition to the removal of vehicle lanes on De Anza Boulevard. Yet, the prior council and staff moved forward regardless. At the time, transportation staff assured residents that traffic would not be impacted—claims which have not aged well. Residents now face daily gridlock, especially during peak hours. East-west and left-turn traffic is particularly burdened, with right-turn lanes such as the one on McClellan Road backing up all the way to Stelling Road. Additionally, it appears that signal timing for left-turns has been shortened, causing more drivers to rush through red lights—raising both safety and enforcement concerns. This change seems to prioritize north-south traffic flow at the expense of all others. At a prior community meeting, I asked what modeling or testing had been done to assess the impact on east-west traffic. The answer was: none. I urge the Council to investigate what specific signal timing changes have been implemented on De Anza and direct staff to restore timings that allow left-turn lanes to fully clear before the lights turn red. Moreover, the new bike lanes on De Anza Blvd remain underutilized. Despite driving in the area frequently, I rarely observe any cyclists using these lanes. This raises critical questions about how staff is evaluating the effectiveness of such projects: Are bike lane sensors installed to count usage by day and time? If not, why not? How is the city measuring the return on investment (ROI) of these major capital projects? Until there are clear, data-driven metrics and a transparent ROI analysis subject to public review, I respectfully request that the Council immediately pause all new bike lane spending and approvals. I also recommend that a study session be scheduled where staff must present quantifiable usage data and cost-benefit analysis to the council for comment and scrutiny. Given that the city has already spent over $500,000 on the De Anza lane reduction, that expenditure should now be offset by pausing or canceling all current and future bike lane projects and intersection changes. Finally, this raises a broader question of accountability. How will Council ensure that staff and leadership are held accountable for the clear and costly failure of the De Anza Boulevard lane reduction? Residents deserve not only a reversal of the physical changes, but also a firm commitment to more transparent, data-driven, accountable and responsive governance moving forward. Now is the time to act decisively. Please restore the fourth vehicle lanes on De Anza Boulevard and set a new standard for listening to residents, using metrics, and demanding accountability. Respectfully, San Rao (Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident) From:Devendar Reddy To:City Clerk; City Council; Benjamin Fu; Pamela Wu Subject:Oral communication Re: Request for Urgency Ordinance or Interim Moratorium to Protect Existing Rental Housing Date:Tuesday, April 15, 2025 6:00:31 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. Please add to oral communication for todays meeting 04/15. > >  > Mayor Liang Chao > Vice-Mayor Kitty Moore > Members of the Cupertino City Council > Cupertino City Hall > 10300 Torre Avenue > Cupertino, CA 95014 > > > Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, and Members of the Cupertino City Council: > > I am writing to respectfully urge the Cupertino City Council to adopt an urgency ordinance or interim moratorium at the next City Council meeting that prohibits the conversion of existing multifamily rental housing in Cupertino to student housing or other non-residential uses. The intent of this request is to safeguard the city’s current rental housing stock during a time of increasing pressure and changing land use demands. > > As Cupertino faces growing demand for both affordable housing and student accommodations, it is critical that the city prioritize policies that protect its existing rental units—many of which are home to young families with school-aged children, seniors, and others in need of stable, affordable housing. Allowing multifamily rental properties to be converted into student housing or other uses risks displacing current residents and exacerbating our housing affordability crisis. > > > Several California cities, including San Francisco, Berkeley, and Santa Clara, have implemented measures to protect their rental housing stock from similar conversions. San Francisco’s Municipal Code Section 317 is one such example, requiring specific zoning and permit processes before rental units can be converted. These types of policies have helped cities maintain neighborhood stability while still allowing thoughtful expansion of housing options. > > Cupertino’s rental housing is essential for maintaining the diversity, equity, and vibrancy of our community. Given the rapid shifts in housing demand and the pressing need to preserve affordability, Cupertino must take a proactive stance to prevent the loss of its existing multifamily rental housing stock. > > I therefore urge the City Council to act swiftly by passing an urgency ordinance or interim moratorium that will prevent conversions of rental housing to student housing or other non-residential uses until a permanent municipal code amendment can be studied and adopted. This action will allow the City time to fully evaluate the issue and consider appropriate long-term regulations. > > This matter is time-sensitive. Existing properties such as McClellan Terrace are at immediate risk of conversion. We must act now to ensure that Cupertino does not lose essential rental housing that supports families, workers, and long-time community members. > > Most urgently, I appeal to you on behalf of the 67 families with children enrolled in CUSD and FUHSD schools who currently live at McClellan Terrace. These are families who have built their lives in our community—who contribute to our schools, our neighborhoods, and our local economy. Their potential displacement would not only harm their wellbeing but would also undermine the very fabric of Cupertino. Please act to protect them. > > Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. I look forward to seeing this item placed on the next City Council agenda for urgent consideration and action. > > Sincerely, > Devendar CC 04-15-2025 Item No. 4 Presentation by Santa Clara Fire Department Written Communications Updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map in the LRA Santa Clara County Fire Department Assistant Chief, Hector Estrada Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area Government Code 51178 The State Fire Marshal shall identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors including areas where winds have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread. LRA -Local Responsibility Areas : Includes incorporated cities and urban regions where local government has wildfire responsibility. SRA -State Responsibility Areas: State has financial responsibility for wildland fire protection and prevention. FHSZ -Fire Hazard Severity Zones : Designation of an area by State Fire Marshal based on severity of fire hazard expected to prevail in that area. LRA Map Rollout Timeline Sent to local governments February 24, 2025 -Maps Released Posting Deadline (30 Days) -March 25, 2025 Adoption Deadline by local (120 Days) -June 24, 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) Fire Hazard ❑“Hazard” is based on the physical conditions that create a likelihood and expected fire behavior over a 30 to 50-year period without considering mitigation measures such as home hardening, recent wildfire, or fuel reduction efforts Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) Wildfire Risk ❑“Risk” is the potential damage a fire can do to the area under existing conditions, accounting for any modifications such as fuel reduction projects, defensible space, and ignition resistant building construction. Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) Map Development ❑Completed on December 1, 2024❑Approximately 450 jurisdictions (M, H, VH) ❑2007 –Over 200 jurisdictions in Very High FHSZ ❑Developed LRA jurisdictional Maps for Cities and Counties and statewide LRA data Current 2025 2007 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) Gov. Code 51179❑A local agency shall not decrease the level of fire hazard severity zone as identified by the State Fire Marshal for any area within the jurisdiction of the local agency, and, in exercising its discretion pursuant to paragraph (2), may only increase the level of fire hazard severity zone as identified by the State Fire Marshal for any area within the jurisdiction of the local agency. Concerns & Questions Science and Methodology Visit CAL FIRE to learn understand the process and how it evolved. FHSZ Model on CAL FIRE site Fire Hazard Severity Zone Rollout -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy8X3BCreXY Finding or Retaining Insurance CDI -Insurance Commissioner -Ricardo Lara https://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/200-wrr/ Insurance companies use Risk models not Hazard models that take into consideration short term factors not included in hazard modeling. Safer from wildfire link -https://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/200-wrr/Safer-from -Wildfires.cfm Costly Home Upgrades (Home Hardening) Learn to protect your home from direct flame, radiant heat, flying embers. Low -cost retrofitting list (CDI) https://readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for -wildfire/hardening -your-home/ What does it mean -In a FHSZ Building standards -CBC Chapter 7A Natural Hazard Real Estate Disclosure -AB 38 100 foot Defensible Space requirements -CA GOV 51182 Property Development Standards (MFSR) -CA PRC 4290 City and County General Plan -CA GOV 65302 Create a FireWise Community Thank you Questions? Links Finding or Retaining Insurance https://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/200-wrr/Safer-from-Wildfires.cfm Fire Hazard Severity Zones & FAQs https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones History of Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps CAL FIRE -Ready for Wildfire https://readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/ Fire Hazard Severity Zone Rollout https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy8X3BCreXY Low-cost retrofitting list https://readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/hardening-your-home/ What Enforced now CC 04-15-2025 Item No. 8 Rolling Hills 4-H Club Written Communications CC 04-15-2025 Item No. 13 Direct Staff on Commission Review of the Stevens Creek Blvd Corridor Vision Study Written Communications From:Kristina Pistone To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Stevens Creek Corridor Study and Cyclist/Pedestrian Infrastructure Date:Tuesday, April 15, 2025 5:15:04 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 Council, I am writing to urge you to *not* refer the Stevens Creek Corridor Study to the Planning Commission for input. While I am a resident of Sunnyvale, I frequently travel between here and San Jose, as many people do, and will choose public transit or cycling where it is safe and feasible. Adequate infrastructure to ensure cyclist and pedestrian safety is lacking through this whole region, particularly on larger streets such as Stevens Creek, and therefore this study is squarely in the purview of the BPAC. For evidence that cars are dangerous (even to those in other cars) and we urgently need to prioritize more and safer alternatives, you can look no further than the recent CalMatters article out yesterday about fatally dangerous drivers: https://calmatters.org/investigation/2025/04/license- to-kill/ Thank you for your time, Kristina Pistone, PhD she/her/hers From:Joel Wolf To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Pamela Wu Subject:Item 13--Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Study Date:Tuesday, April 15, 2025 4:48:41 PM Attachments:image.png image.png Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Councilmembers I am writing in regard to Item 13 on the April 15 agenda, Direct Staff On Commission Review of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study (Study). The staff report concludes that “Either the Planning Commission or (emphasis added) the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission would be reasonable choices for review of the Study. As such, the City Council may decide which commission is the appropriate next entity to review and provide input to the City Council on this matter.” I respectfully disagree with this opinion. The clear and correct choice for review of this Study is the Bicycle Pedestrian Committee (BPC) based on their Powers and Functions as listed in the Cupertino Municipal Code as follows: The words “bicycle”, “pedestrian” and “transportation” make their appearance multiple times in the BPC Powers and Functions. The Study is clearly directed at the transportation infrastructure along a 9-mile stretch of Stevens Creek Boulevard which includes Cupertino. One of the Study goals as stated in the Vision statement is to provide a “A stress-free and enjoyable walking and bicycling environment. High-quality pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure would be prioritized to connect neighborhoods to the corridor within ½ mile or 20-minute walk of transit stops.” In addition, one of the Values and Guiding Principles of the Study is the Safety of All Corridor Users including eliminating transportation- related fatalities and severe injuries and to allow safe passage for vulnerable road users along and crossing the corridor.” I remind the council that the BPC put considerable effort and input into the Cupertino Vision Zero study recently approved by Council. The BPC will also be putting in considerable effort in the new Active Transportation Plan. The staff report bases their opinion that the Planning Commission is an appropriate entity to review this Study on Section 2.32.070.G of the Municipal Code, which is to “Perform other functions as the City Council provides including conducting studies and preparing plans other than those required or authorized by state law.” In my opinion this is an overly broad interpretation of the Planning Commission powers. All the Powers and Functions of the Planning Commission are listed below. No where are the words “pedestrian”, “bicycle” or “transportation” mentioned. I would also add that a similar power is listed in the BPC Powers and Function in 2.92.080B6 which states “Any other activity that may be deemed appropriate and necessary.” I ask the Council the following question, Would they be comfortable having the BPC undertaking land use and zoning decisions? I certainly would not. Thank you for your consideration on this matter Joel Wolf Joel Wolf​​​​ Vice Chair, Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission JWolf@cupertino.gov From:Deepa Mahendraker To:City Council; Pamela Wu; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu; City Attorney"s Office Subject:Please Involve the Planning Commission in Transportation Projects Date:Tuesday, April 15, 2025 4:32:10 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 the 04/15/25 city council meeting for the SCB corridor vision study agenda item. Subject: Please Involve the Planning Commission in Transportation Projects To: Mayor Liang Chao Vice Mayor Kitty Moore Councilmember Ray Wang Councilmember Sheila Mohan Councilmember J.R. Fruen CC: City Manager Pamela Wu Director of Public Works Chad Mosley Director of Community Development Ben Fu City Attorney Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers, I’m writing as a Cupertino resident who cares about how our city handles transportation. I believe it’s important that all major transportation decisions go through a public hearing—either at the Planning Commission, at the City Council, or both. This should include road design changes, traffic signal timing, intersection redesigns, parking removals, and lane reductions. Many nearby cities already involve their Planning Commissions in transportation decisions. Here are just a few examples: Sunnyvale – Planning Commission Citywide Transportation System Plan – Oct 15, 2024 Caltrain Station Area Plan – Sep 10, 2024 Los Altos – Planning and Transportation Commission Community Traffic Safety and Parking – Mar 5, 2024 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements – Jan 22, 2024 Santa Clara – Planning Commission Traffic Calming Measures – Oct 2, 2024 Transportation Access for Mixed-Use Projects – Nov 6, 2024 Mountain View – Planning Commission El Camino Real Mobility Plan – Jan 10, 2025 Hwy 101 Interchange Improvements – Dec 15, 2024 San José – Planning Commission Safety Improvements at Race St and Parkmoor Ave – Feb 12, 2025 New Bike Lanes Project – Mar 18, 2025 These cities understand that transportation planning affects everyone and deserves input from the public through open meetings. Our city’s General Plan (Mobility Element) already states that transportation is part of our planning policy. That means the Planning Commission should have the opportunity to hear and discuss these matters in a public meeting before decisions are finalized. I respectfully ask the City Council to: Reaffirm that transportation and mobility fall under the Planning Commission’s responsibilities Direct staff to bring all current and future transportation projects to the Planning Commission and/or City Council for public hearings Make sure no changes to streets, parking, or traffic proceed without review at a public Planning Commission or City Council hearing Thank you for ensuring Cupertino residents have a voice in how our city’s transportation systems evolve. Sincerely, Deepa Mahendraker Cupertino Resident Sent from my iPhone