Loading...
CC 06-18-2025 Late CommunicationsCC 06-17-2025 Oral Communications Written Comments From:valerie To:City Council; City Clerk; planningcommissions@cupertino.org Subject:CEQA and traffic impact for McClellan Rd SB 330 project Date:Tuesday, June 17, 2025 7:11:03 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, I understand this is a bit late for today's meeting at 6:45. But please include the below request in written communication for the ongoing meeting now. Dear Mayor Chao and City Council Members, As a long time Cupertino resident near McClellan Rd SB 330 project, I believe the proposed 27 unit townhomes is not a safe dwelling design for the current neighbors and the future residents. Please conduct a full CEQA analysis and traffic impact study for the McClellan Rd SB 330 project, and share the results with the community. Thank you very much for your attention. vj From:Peggy Griffin To:Kirsten Squarcia Cc:City Clerk Subject:6-17-2025 City Council Meeting - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - AB 648 Date:Tuesday, June 17, 2025 6:30:37 PM Attachments:Oral Comm-Peggys Slides.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. Hi Kirsten and City Clerk Staff, I plan to speak during Oral Communications tonight (6/17/2025) on Zoom. I would appreciate it if you’d display these slides for me when I speak. Also, please include them as part of Written Communications for this meeting. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin AB 648 – Community Colleges Housing – Overriding Local Zoning within ½ mile of campus AB 648 exempts the construcƟon of housing that is for faculty and staff, student or university housing from ALL local zoning regulaƟons IF EITHER: 1 – parcel is within ½ mile radius of a main campus 2 – parcel is within ½ mile radius of a satellite campus that existed before July 1, 2025 CURRENT STATUS DONE-CA Assembly voted May 27, 2025: YES=63 NO=5 NOT VOTING=11 TBD - CA Senate June 18 – CA Senate EducaƟon on bills Senator Josh Becker (DEM) – District 13 Office in Sacramento: 916-651-4013 District office: 650-233-2724 AB 648 – Community Colleges Housing – Overriding Local Zoning within ½ mile of campus From:Santosh Rao To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:Fw: Cupertino Matters: Housing Element; TONIGHT - City Council, Tues, May 14, 2024, 6:45 p.m., Regular; 5:30 Closed; RECAP-City Council, Tues, May 7, 2024 Date:Tuesday, June 17, 2025 4:58:47 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 communication for the 06/17/25 city council meeting. [Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident.] Dear City Council members, I am writing to correct the written communications record raised by Ms Jean Bedord alleging misinformation in the 06/17/25 city council meeting written communications. Enclosed below is the Cupertino Matters edition of 05/14/24 of which Ms Jean Bedord is the editor. As Ms Bedord states in her own publication below at the city council meeting of 05/14/24 city council deliberated on agenda item 2 and approved the revised user cost recovery policy to achieve full user cost recovery. See excerpt below from Cupertino Matters stating the same. Item No. 2: Fiscal Year 2024-25 Fee Schedule (continued from May 7, 2024). Annually, city fees are reviewed and revised. Most of the fees are adjusted using an index-based metric such as CPI and labor costs. In light of the city’s financial challenges, council had also directed staff to move toward full cost recovery of services, except for policy related charges, such as appeals and block parties. A Credit Card Transaction fee has been added. Several Planning Division fees have been added to recover increased demand for review processes which had been previously subsidized by the General Fund. If possible, services have been streamlined and the associated fees consolidated. Fees for services no longer provided are eliminated from the schedule. The total of these fee updates would generate an estimated $774,680 for the General Fund. 05/14/24 agenda and related docs on user cost recovery policy are below: https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=1191938&GUID=7D2D4C0D-BD0C- 448B-B589-F6A5F59CE2DF https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=12912846&GUID=5CDB0C0F-E57F- 4712-8B66-41244B6F8683 https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=12912847&GUID=68B02EE7-EEA9- 457C-A90E-63137DA2DDAF https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=12912848&GUID=171A9210-B539- 4C07-A1CF-4D745526C211 05/14/24 minutes are below: https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1191938&GUID=7D2D4C0D-BD0C- 448B-B589-F6A5F59CE2DF Thanks, San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only) Begin forwarded message: On Tuesday, May 14, 2024, 2:52 PM, Jean Bedord <Publisher@CupertinoMatters.org> wrote: View translation in your browser Friends, Budgets at all levels of government are in the news this month. According to the Mercury News, Gov. Newsom says state has $27 billion budget shortfall, but it can be balanced without raising taxes. This is the proposed budget, which will undergo scrutiny in the Legislature, and will be adjusted even more as revenue and expenditure estimates change over the next few weeks. At the county level, according to San Jose Spotlight, Santa Clara County closes deficit but can’t escape budget cuts. Note the statement: “A key driver of the structural deficit is the slower pace of property tax rolls — the largest source of county discretionary revenue. Fewer home sales and Prop. 13 — which only allows a reassessment when there’s actual change in ownership of property — have had an effect.” This has had a similar impact on Cupertino, due to its lack of development under previous councils. Meanwhile, the city has released its 640-page proposed budget for FY2023-24. Cupertino may be impacted by state and county budget cuts, but the biggest issue is the loss of $30 million in ongoing revenue due to an administrative decision by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). The city reduced expenditures by $15 million, but needed an additional $15 million to address the ongoing structural deficit. Through a combination of service level reductions, modestly increased property tax revenues and other revenue improvements, the proposed budget is $146.5 million in expenses, with the General Fund proposed at $89.9 million funded with $89.8 million in revenue, with $0.1 funded from the unassigned fund balance. UPCOMING - CITY COUNCIL - Tues, May 14,2024, 6:45 p.m., Special Meeting; 5:30 p.m.,Closed Session Agenda and Presentations Closed Session: Item No. 1: Conference with legal counsel – existing litigation pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9 (Pacific Autism Center for Education v. City of Cupertino, Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 23CV423995). This regards a deed-restricted property. Item No. 2: Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9 (City of Cupertino v. Jennifer Chang, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 21CV380291). This case has been considered at a previous session. It inovlves a follow-on civil action initiated by the city to recover additional money over and above those already recovered from Ms. Chang’s criminal restitution. The judge handling this matter recently decided portions of the case through “summary adjudication” in favor of the city. As readers will recall, these cases stem from the 2018 discovery of an embezzlement scheme run by Ms. Chang when she was still a city employee. Special Meeting: Item No. 1: 6th Cycle Housing Element and Associated General Plan Amendments Even though the city has been notified that the revised third draft of the Housing Element meets the statutory state requirements, the city has to adopt the Housing Element and rezone Priority Housing Sites in order to be fully compliant. There are 36 sites consisting of a total of 62 parcels. Non-compliance means loss of land use local control– including ongoing eligibility for the “builder’s remedy” of the Housing Accountability Act, potential exposure to litigation, ineligibility for significant grant funds, and other adverse consequences. As a result, staff is recommending a plan that would create four new land use designations for higher density, particularly in commercial/residential areas. To encourage development of “missing middle” housing in established single family neighborhoods, corner lots will be allowed to develop using the standards for duplexes. This is consistent with earlier ADU changes which allowed development of up to two primary units and two ADUs in R1 zoning districts. The plan also commits to reviewing parking standards and parkland dedication fees in order to reduce constraints on housing development. As noted at both the prior council study session in April and the Planning Commission hearing on the topic, any changes would jeopardize certification of the Housing Element. Item No. 2: Fiscal Year 2024-25 Fee Schedule (continued from May 7, 2024). Annually, city fees are reviewed and revised. Most of the fees are adjusted using an index-based metric such as CPI and labor costs. In light of the city’s financial challenges, council had also directed staff to move toward full cost recovery of services, except for policy related charges, such as appeals and block parties. A Credit Card Transaction fee has been added. Several Planning Division fees have been added to recover increased demand for review processes which had been previously subsidized by the General Fund. If possible, services have been streamlined and the associated fees consolidated. Fees for services no longer provided are eliminated from the schedule. The total of these fee updates would generate an estimated $774,680 for the General Fund. Item No. 3: Consider accepting the City's Investment Policy. This Consent Calendar item was added at the last minute. This policy is reviewed annually. The most recent review and acceptance of the investment policy by the Audit Committee occurred on April 22, 2024, and needs to be formally approved by the City Council. Changes are minor to comply with state code or to make clearer declaratory statements of existing policy. If the policy is not adopted, then a gap in investment authority will arise leaving the city unable to fully dispose of its assets. YOU CAN 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. 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: These become part of the public record. Contacts at CupertinoMatters.org/express-your-opinion City Manager Pamela Wu: manager@cupertino.org City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia: cityclerk@cupertino.org City Council: citycouncil@cupertino.org Mayor Sheila Mohan smohan@cupertino.org Vice-Mayor J.R. Fruen jrfruen@cupertino.org Councilmember Hung Wei hwei@cupertino.org Councilmember Liang Chao: liangchao@cupertino.org Councilmember Kitty Moore kmoore@cupertino.org RECAP - CITY COUNCIL - Tues, May 7, 2024,6:45 p.m., Regular Meeting; 6:00 ClosedSession YouTube: 2 hr. 22 min. (Meeting adjourned at 9:07) Agenda and Presentations The sole action item was Item No. 10: 2024 Legislative Update. The legislative consultant highlighted the number of new members that will be elected this year, potentially affecting two year legislative bills. The state budget deficit and proposed budget are a moving target. Council discussed the three pieces of legislation that the consultant recommended taking a position, then these were considered individually: (1) Senate Bill (SB) 1143 (Allen) voted 5-0 to support (2) Assembly Bill (AB) 1779 (Irwin) - Public Safety voted 5-0 to support (3) Bay Area Affordable Housing Measure (BAHFA) - Affordable Housing garnered more discussion with a substitute motion by Moore to watch, rather than support. The original motion by Councilmember Wei, as amended by Vice Mayor Fruen to support the measure passed 4-1 with Moore voting nay. CUPERTINO COURIER: May 10, 2024 The front page photo and community brief on page 3 is entitled National Rebuilding Day: Volunteers perform maintenance, repairs at 18 projects. Community Briefs on page 5 are (1) Rebuilding Day, (2) Live Well, Age Well, and (3) Housing Resource Fair on May 30 Agriculture Walk. The sole legal notice is a Bid Invitation for Preventative Maintenance Programs Project. Warm regards, Jean Bedord, Cupertino Matters, Publisher and Editor 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 © 2024 Cupertino Matters, All rights reserved. This email was sent to santo_a_rao@yahoo.com why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Cupertino Matters · Stevens Creek Blvd. · Cupertino, CA 95014 · USA From:William Jiang To:Kirsten Squarcia Cc:Public Comments; City Clerk; Jimmy Tan, P.E.; The Ivy Advisor Subject:Re: Oral Communications Statement for July 17th City Council Meeting Date:Sunday, June 15, 2025 9:55:53 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 Kirsten, Again, thank you for your reply and information. Thank you for attaching the 6/17 meeting agenda. I got a copy online also. You mentioned, The June 17 agenda has already been published. "However, you may request that the topic be considered for a future agenda when addressing the Council during the meeting." Yes, I do want to have the topic be considered for the next meeting agenda (for July 1st meeting if possible). So I should request so when I address the Council duing my 3-min time, Right? I will do so then on Tuesday. Thank you. Best regards, William Jiang On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 10:34 AM William Jiang <dr.william.jiang@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you for the information, Kirsten! I will do accordingly. Best, William On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 10:25 AM Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.gov> wrote: Good morning William (City Council Bcc’d), Your comments have been received and will be included with the written communications for the June 17 City Council meeting, under the Oral Communications section. Comments not related to a specific agenda item may be shared during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. Please submit your request to speak at any time before, or within nine minutes after, the Mayor opens the item for public comment. This item will be heard near the beginning of the meeting. The Council meeting begins at 6:45 PM in the Community Hall Council Chamber, located at 10350 Torre Avenue. The June 17 agenda has already been published and is attached for your reference. However, you may request that the topic be considered for a future agenda when addressing the Council during the meeting. Regards, Kirsten Kirsten Squarcia City Clerk City Manager's Office KirstenS@cupertino.gov (408) 777-3225 From: William Jiang <dr.william.jiang@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 9:25 PM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.gov>; Public Comments <publiccomment@cupertino.gov>; Jimmy Tan, P.E. <JimmyT@cupertino.gov> Cc: The Ivy Advisor <leslieyi08@gmail.com> Subject: Oral Communications Statement for July 17th City Council Meeting 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 Respected City Clerk Ms. Kirsten, I am not sure if you are aware of Wilson Park's public safety issue that my wife and I raised over the last two weeks, but I would like to see whether this issue can be put on the City Council's 6/17 meeting agenda. Forgive me if this is not the way to present the issue to the meeting agenda. Please advise me. I plan to come to the June 17th City Council meeting and make a 3-minute oral public comment. I talked to Mr. Jimmy Tan and expressed my desire to make a public comment on this issue. My oral communications statement is attached here. My wife Leslie and I will come earlier and complete a Speaker's Card and identify ourselves. We have not done this before. If anything we need to know (e.g., the best time to come, the exact location to see you for completing the Speaker's card, etc.), please email or call me to let us know. My mobile number (for call or texting) is 408-891-7668. You can always use my email to communicate also. Thank you. Any attention to this issue from you or the city is highly appreciated. William Jiang Leslie Yi CC 06-17-2025 Item No. 11 Amendment to the Grant Agreement with Apple Inc. Written Communications From:Kirsten Squarcia To:Melissa Robertson Subject:FW: I had my hand up for Consent Items! CONSENT ITEM #11 Date:Tuesday, June 17, 2025 9:34:14 PM Please include for written communications Kirsten Squarcia City Clerk City Manager's Office KirstenS@cupertino.gov (408) 777-3225 From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 9:09 PM To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.gov> Subject: RE: I had my hand up for Consent Items! CONSENT ITEM #11 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 Kirsten, Please include this email as my communication for Consent Item #11 – Apple Agreement Modification I am in support of the Apple Grant Amended Agreement. This reallocation of funds and addition of a significant amount of additional funds will improve: Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Traffic in the I-280 and N. Wolfe interchange area. These funds re-allocation will enable the I-280 interchange reconfiguration to be completed AND improve access to multiple development projects – both existing and in-progress. Thank you to Chad Moseley, staff and council for making this happen. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 8:46 PM To: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: I had my hand up for Consent Items! Peggy - I’m very sorry. I did not see your hand raised. My error. Would you like to email comments? Kirsten Squarcia City Clerk City Manager's Office KirstenS@cupertino.gov (408) 777-3225 On Jun 17, 2025, at 7:51 PM, Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> wrote:  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. Peggy CC 06-17-2025 Item No. 16 Potential purchase of 10480 Finch Avenue Written Communications From:Peggy Griffin To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:2025-06-17 City Council Meeting-ITEM #16 - Finch Ave Property Date:Tuesday, June 17, 2025 11:07:55 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 INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM. Dear City Council and Staff, I support the purchase of the Finch Ave property for the use of Parkland. Now days more and more development projects are paying parkland fees in-lieu rather than providing actual land for parks OR even worse, getting out of providing the land/fees all together. This is an increasing situation. The fees our city receives need to be used to purchase land to provide much needed parks for new and existing residents and visitors. The availability of land for parks is becoming less attainable as our area becomes more dense. That said, the City of Cupertino needs to focus on all size parcels, small ones included, to provide park facilities. The park-in-lieu fees were to purchase land for parkland. It also allows improvements to existing parks. This is an opportunity to purchase land to benefit an area that is lacking in adequate park land. Please act to correct this situation! Sincerely, Peggy Griffin