CC 02-19-2025
Oral
Communications
Written Communications
From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Cc: Rhoda Fry
Subject: Fw: 2/19/2025 City Council non-agenda comment on administrative hearing Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 12:13:02 PM
Please this in the written communication of 2/19 council meeting.
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Rhoda Fry <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 9:48 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: 2/19/2025 City Council non-agenda comment on administrative hearing
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,
Regarding an upcoming administrative hearing that reduces the required number of parking spaces for a new home 4 to 3 spaces. To make matters worse, the home has an adu. So there will actually be 1.5 spaces per home. And, one space completely blocks the garage while the other space appears to block egress from the other garage, which effectively reduces the parking to one space per home rather than four. I am very concerned about the configuration of the 3
rd space and the decision to address the issue ministerially. Also, other exceptions are made for this project.
I ask that the City Council forward this issue to the Planning Commission and cancel the administrative hearing.
The schematic for the third parking space is troubling. The location of the power pole reduces the number of outdoor parking spaces from 2 to 1.
I would ask, why isn’t the power pole moved?
Why aren’t we considering undergrounding power?
The CMC states that single family homes need two covered parking spaces and two uncovered parking spaces for a total of 4.
But this home will have two residences onsite, effectively reducing the number of parking spaces per home from 4 to 1.5.
This is worrying.
Can you please consider moving the power pole or configure the parking spaces in a different way?
The details of the administrative hearing can be found here:
https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7140980&GUID=DF74CEE6- 9B5A-456E-8B8A-85577867C8D1&Options=&Search=v
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
Below is a snip from the agenda packet
From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fw: City Council 2/19 non-agenda public comment Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 9:13:15 AM
Please enter this to written communication.
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Rhoda Fry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 3:04 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: City Council 2/19 non-agenda public comment
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,
Cupertino’s former Emergency Manager. Thomas Chin, now has a new job in Santa Clara County.
This has been the case for several weeks and the City well knew that he would be leaving quite some time ago.
Why is there no job listing for his position?
Is Emergency Management important to the City?
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Cc: Rhoda Fry
Subject: Fw: Non-Agenda Public Comment 2/19/2025
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 6:24:03 PM
Please add the email to the written communication of the 2/19 council meeting.
Thanks.
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Rhoda Fry <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2025 6:41 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Non-Agenda Public Comment 2/19/2025
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,
Can you please ask the City Manager as to the necessity of signing a contract with Environmental Innovations of Santa Cruz to conduct “Single-use disposable food service ware ordinance compliance work” at a cost of up to $92,279.30 on 1/13/2025? The summary for the scope of work is in pages 10 – 12 of the contract.
Here is the first paragraph:
The goal of this Scope of Work is to ensure that all “ covered” Businesses are in compliance with
the Single- Use Plastics Foodware Ordinance (“Ordinance”). The contractor will provide expertise in municipal code single-use plastic food service regulations, municipal code compliance assessments, food and beverage service business models, multi-lingual outreach, technical assistance, and graphic design. The Contractor shall be the lead for conducting the Ordinance compliance assessments and outreach for all Ordinance- covered food and beverage facilities (“ Businesses”), including distribution of outreach materials, and providing technical and financial assistance to eligible Businesses.
The entire agreement can be found here:
https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?
id=1143909&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino
It seems that this type of work, at a simplified level, could be done by members of the Sustainability Commission or by the Chamber of Commerce to help establish connections with local businesses or by our Economic Development manager or by our Enviro Manager or by Code Enforcement and more. I understand that our former enviro manager would do outreach to local businesses.
I am all for environmental programs. However, this seems to be an unnecessary expense.
I would like to remind you that the City’s current plan is to dip into savings at a rate of $10M per year.
Keep in mind that our projected sales-tax revenue is around $9 - $10M annually down from an average of about $27M.
We will NOT be able to double our sales tax revenue.
Transient Occupancy is now below $7M annually, down from a high of slightly over $9M.
And Apple, which is responsible for over 25% of our property-tax revenue, is negotiating to reduce its property value, which translates to property-tax.
We will not be able to double our projected sales-tax revenue in the short term or even in the long term.
We need to stop spending on non-necessities now.
I would also ask the City Council to do three things:
1. Reduce the maximum contract value without council approval to $50K
2. On a monthly basis, at the same time as accounts payable reports, provide a cumulative summary of the contracts signed during the fiscal year.
3. If possible, reduce or eliminate this contract.
Thank You.
Rhoda Fry
CC 02-19-2025
Item No. 7
Ratifying Accounts
Payable for
Jan. 3-Jan. 31
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #7 - question about accounts payable Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 7:25:35 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.
Agenda Item #7 - question about accounts payable
Why are the expenses from the Senior Center trip being pulled from the General Fund rather than a specific Senior Center Fund within Parks & Rec?
Thanks,
Rhoda
CC 02-19-2025
Item No. 8
Acceptance of Federal
Administration grant
Written Communications
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Pamela Wu; Chad Mosley; City Clerk
Subject: Support for Stevens Creek Bridge Repair Project and Prioritization of Critical Infrastructure – 02/19/25 Agenda Item 8
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 8:07:48 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 Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the 02/19/2025 city council meeting.
Subject: Support for Stevens Creek Bridge Repair Project and Prioritization of Critical Infrastructure – 02/19/25 Agenda Item 8
Dear Mayor Chao, Council Members, City Manager Wu, and Director Mosley, I am writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident and voter.
I am writing to express my strong support for Agenda Item 8 on the February 19, 2025 City Council meeting—specifically the Stevens Creek Bridge Repair Project.
I urge the City Council to approve the acceptance of the Federal Highway Administration grant and award the design contract per staff recommendation to Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. This critical infrastructure project is necessary to maintain public safety and address Caltrans’ recommendations for repair. Approving this project also allows Cupertino to benefit from federal funding, reducing the financial burden on the city.
Additionally, I urge the Council to reassess discretionary projects, such as consultant spend, and continued spend on non-essential priorities, In these times of budgetary constraints, the city should prioritize essential public works projects like the Stevens Creek Bridge Repair, road paving and roadway improvements to de-congest automotive traffic and and refrain from reckless spending on unnecessary initiatives.
I look forward to seeing the Council approve the Stevens Creek Bridge Repair Project and take steps toward more responsible fiscal management by cutting non-essential expenditures.
Thank you for your attention to these important matters.
Sincerely,
San Rao (Cupertino resident and voter)
From: Jean Bedord
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Agenda Item #9 Zoning Map Amendment, Council, Feb. 19, 2025 Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 11:07:13 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 in Written Communications for this meeting Honorable Liang Chao, Vice-Mayor Kitty Moore, and council members, I urge you to unanimously approve this item without wasting additional time in correcting a clerical error.
The intent has been clearly documented by the planning staff. The effort to have clean code for the General Plan is commendable, but has NO effect on the particular parcel and the development project which has already been submitted and grandfathered under SB 330.
There is no benefit to the community to keep hashing this item.
Please approve and
move forward on to substantial issues regarding the Housing Element.
Regards,
Jean Bedord, concerned Cupertino resident (and voter)
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Statement to City Council regarding item on 19 Feb 2025 Agenda Date: Monday, February 17, 2025 3:37:49 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.
I am a Cupertino resident living on Bonny Drive. My property does not abut the property in the proposed project at 20865 McClellan, but I am seriously protesting the proposed project due to the effects it will have on my neighbors and myself. My objections fall into several categories
1. Density – The proposed density of 27 HU on the 0.99 acre site greatly exceeds the surrounding properties.
The site plan shows an access drive occupying about 25% of the site, so that the actual HU density is nearly 37 HU per buildable acre. The surrounding HU density is 7.5 HU per buildable acre (not including our own “access drive” of Bonny Drive). If you insist on using the access drive in your HU density, then you should allow us to include our own “access drive” in our calculations, which lowers our own HU density to about 5.6 HU per acre.
However one calculates the HU density of the proposed plan, it exceeds the surrounding HU density by over 4.6 times. This number exceeds the guidelines contained in the General Plan.
2. Traffic – The proposed project has a single driveway for 27 HU connecting to an already crowded McClellan Road.
This narrow driveway connecting to a two-lane McClellan Road will lead to a complete standstill of traffic at the busy times of day – morning and evening commute and school traffic times.
Perhaps Council Members would like to experience the
McClellan traffic for themselves at present before they approve the increase due to the proposed plan.
3. Parking – The available renderings of the project are vague about parking for the 27 HUs. It can be inferred that the wider units have a double garage on the ground floor and the narrow units have a single garage on the ground floor.
There clearly is no accommodation for any
visitor vehicles on the site. Since parking is not allowed on the access driveway, visitors to the project will have to park on Bonny Drive. Does this plan fit with the Cupertino General Plan of projects “compatible with the surrounding environment”?
4. Design – The General Plan makes clear that “building layouts and designs are compatible with surrounding environments” and that “taller heights are focused on major corridors, gateways and nodes”.
This project is not located on any of these. The project as proposed is totally out of character with the surrounding environment. It towers above the five adjacent one- story homes and even the three adjacent two-story homes.
5. Cupertino General Plan – Cupertino has finally received approval (Sept 2024) for a Housing Element plan (March 2024) after a long and complicated process. Why is it necessary to offer waivers to that plan at this time? The project is requesting a “Density Bonus (7 units) and Density Bonus waiver” and is challenging many parts of the General Plan with regard to compatibility with the surrounding environment.
It is not situated along any gateway road
nor is it located adjacent to any tall structures or business corridor as the General Plan encourages.
It is located outside the Priority Development Areas in the General Plan. It is located outside the “Heart of the City” in the General Plan. This project does not contribute to a “Better Cupertino”. This project should be rejected as proposed.
Sincerely,
Charles Morehouse
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Public Comment City Council 2/19/2025 Agenda #9 re-rezoning Date: Monday, February 17, 2025 3:18:44 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.
Dear City Council,
Agenda Item #9 pertains to fixing an error made by the Planning Department when the property at 20865 McClellan Road was initially rezoned for the housing element.
The proposal is to change the zoning from R-3 to R-3/TH to “Ensure Consistency with the General Plan And Housing Element.”
This is a very long nearly 1-acre lot on McClellan is between Bonny Dr. and Stelling.
According to City documents, a developer has expressed interest in developing the property since 2021.
The developer intends to put 27 townhomes in six, three-story buildings on the site.
These new homes will have a direct view into the backyards of a number of single-family homes.
Learn more about the proposed development here:
https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Community-Development/Planning/Major- Projects/20865-McClellan-Rd
Commentary:
In the past, the City had been very sensitive to privacy issues for neighboring homes, requiring offsets for balconies and privacy screens.
Residents have lost the zoning protections that they have bought into.
The impact of increasing density on this property is an increase in land prices – not a decrease!!!
Another egregious error has been made by City Staff in that the initial list of housing element sites was never brought back to the planning commission as had been anticipated.
In 2023, there were only 6 planning commission meetings!!! Why weren’t the neighbors notified and would it have made a difference? Why is it that when the staff makes an error that puts the developer at a disadvantage that it can be fixed but when the staff makes an error that puts the residents at a disadvantage that it cannot be fixed?
I have the distinct feeling that no matter what public concerns are voiced over this re-re-zone (yes re-re-zone), that the outcome won’t change.
Questions:
Will the project go through ceqa?
Will current/future solar of neighboring homes be affected? What can be done to mitigate the privacy issues?
Could the developer have translucent (not transparent) windows on windows facing back yards)?
Could there be underground parking and have 2 stories instead of 3? Will neighboring fire-insurance be impacted?
What about traffic concerns?
Below is the site plan and google earth view.
Some neighboring homes will have tall buildings looming over their backyards while others will have the traffic (and pollution/noise) of a new driveway that runs behind their backyards.
It appears that the half-bulb on the cul-de-sac is in anticipation of a future project on Tula Ln where there is a home on a very large lot. What are the intentions for Tula Ln? What about cumulative impacts?
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
From: Ali Sapirman
To: City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Cc: Coy, Melinda@HCD; [email protected]; Corey Smith Subject: Re: HAC Comment letter on item 9 Housing Element zoning correction Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 3:06:08 PM
Attachments: HAC Cupertino Housing Element Comment Letter .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.
Apologies, our letter did not attach in the previous email.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 2:44 PM Ali Sapirman <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mayor Chao, Council, and Staff,
Please see the attached comment letter regarding Item No. 9: Zoning Map Amendment to correct zoning for Priority Housing Site No. 24 in the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
We ask that our letter is included in written communications for Item No. 9 on the Council Agenda of February 19, 2025.
Please reach out with any questions or concerns.
In solidarity,
--Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them
Advocacy & Policy Manager| Housing Action Coalition
555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111
Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: [email protected] To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". --
Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them
Advocacy & Policy Manager| Housing Action Coalition
555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111
Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: [email protected] February 18, 2025 Re: Zoning Map Amendment to correct zoning for Priority Housing Site No. 24 in the 6th Cycle Housing Element
Dear Mayor Chao and Members of the City Council, At The Housing Action Coalition, our mission is to advocate for housing at all levels of affordability, addressing
the
critical
issues
of
housing
shortage,
displacement,
and
affordability
crisis
in
the
Bay
Area
and
California.
We
write
to
encourage
the
City
Council
to
approve
the
proposed
rezoning
of
Housing
Element
Site
No.
24,
located
at
20865
McClellan
Road,
to
align
with
the
city's
state-certified
Housing
Element
and
fulfill
its
legal
obligations
under
California
law.
California Government Code Section 65860 explicitly requires that zoning ordinances be consistent with the
General
Plan,
including
its
Housing
Element.
Per
the
staff
report,
the
current
zoning
for
this
site
does
not
conform
with
what
was
envisioned
in
the
Housing
Element—specifically,
the
inclusion
of
a
locally
created
zoning
district
allowing
for
townhouses.
Aligning
the
zoning
for
this
site
with
the
Housing
Element
is
a
necessary
and
straightforward
step
in
maintaining
General
Plan
consistency
and
ensuring
compliance
with
state
law.
This rezoning should not be controversial. The existing R3 zoning already allows for the construction of apartment
buildings
at
the
same
density
proposed
in
this
item’s
rezoning.
This
change
merely
ensures
that
the
zoning
ordinance
reflects
what
was
already
contemplated
and
approved
in
the
Housing
Element.
Furthermore,
the
city’s
Housing
Element
certification
was
contingent
on
necessary
rezonings,
including
this
one.
Failure
to
act
raises
concerns
about
whether
the
city
has
adequately
fulfilled
its
commitments
under
its
Housing
Element
and
could
put
Cupertino
at
risk
of
noncompliance
with
state
housing
laws.
Importantly, this correction does not impact any other vested rights, including existing applications to develop
the
site.
Instead,
it
ensures
that
the
city
continues
to
meet
its
obligations
and
avoids
potential
legal
and
regulatory
consequences
stemming
from
noncompliance.
We strongly encourage the City Council to approve this zoning correction in accordance with the Housing Element
and
state
law.
Doing
so
will
demonstrate
Cupertino’s
commitment
to
meeting
its
housing
goals
and
providing
much-needed
housing
opportunities
for
residents.
Sincerely,
Corey Smith, Executive Director Housing Action Coalition (HAC)
Ali Sapirman, Advocacy & Policy Manager Housing Action Coalition (HAC)
From: valerie
To: City Clerk
Subject: downzone 20865 McClellan back to R1
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 11:01:41 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 2/19/25 city council meeting referenced 20865 McClellan zoning correction.
Thanks!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mayor Chao and Cupertino City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development of a three-story, 27- unit townhome complex at 20865 McClellan. I believe this development could significantly compromise the safety of the residents of the lot, as well as the existing neighbors. Yes, I am concerned about the potential loss of lives if such a large development is completed on this lot.
With this email, I have two requests:
1. Release of the Public Communication Record: It is unimaginable that there is no public communication record available upon request from a month ago. Unless the city can provide this record, all Cupertino residents will be convinced that even the city officials knew the proposal would face strong opposition. The failure to release the record suggests that the city officials have failed to serve the community they were elected to represent!
2. Downzone the 20865 McClellan Lot back to R1: Given the potential risks to public safety, I request that the zoning for 20865 McClellan be reverted back to R1 due to the serious concern over potential loss of lives.
Overburdened Infrastructure That Can Delay Rescue
As you may be aware, a student on a bike was involved in an accident near Westacre/McClellan on 2/12/25. The ambulance had difficulty getting through because McClellan is a two-lane street, and the bike barriers prevent cars from easily moving out of the way. Fortunately, the student had only minor injuries, but imagine if this were a more serious accident, where every second counts to save a life!
The bike barriers, designed to protect cyclists, have proven to be ineffective in such situations.
In the accident mentioned above, the barriers delayed the arrival of first responders. Adding potentially 54 additional cars (27 units with 2 cars each) to McClellan will only increase the risk of delays and create a more dangerous environment for everyone using this already busy street.
I have lived in this neighborhood for over 20 years and have witnessed firsthand how McClellan and surrounding streets have become busier. McClellan is already congested during school hours and when adults and parents are commuting to work or taking care of their families. The addition of 54 cars will only worsen the situation.
The developers is the only party that will benefit from this project.
Who will be held responsible for any injuries or loss of life? Safety Concerns for Potential Residents of 20865 McClellan The 0.99-acre lot designated for this project is far too small to accommodate 100+ residents, especially considering that each townhome will likely house families with multiple members, including young children and older adults. In the event of an emergency, there is only one access point for residents to evacuate, which would likely be insufficient for a safe and swift evacuation. Furthermore, this single access road must also accommodate emergency vehicles, which could delay response times and put lives in danger.
Additionally, the three-story buildings, as opposed to two-story structures, will make it more difficult for young and elderly residents to evacuate during an emergency. In a panic-filled situation, such delays could result in chaos. Who will be held responsible for injuries caused in such circumstances?
Conclusion
McClellan for years has not only been the main street for nearby residents to go to places, but it has also become a major route for many commuters to reach their destinations. As a result, the traffic during 'rush hour' on McClellan has become heavier and more prolonged. Even during lunchtime, when students are at school and most adults are at work, the traffic on McClellan is busier than in the past.
The added traffic from 27 new units will exacerbate this problem, creating a hazardous environment for pedestrians, particularly children. The increased traffic will endanger the lives of schoolchildren and other residents. (And let's not forget that the city council can't control how drivers operates their cars, especially when they are in a hurry.).
I urge you to consider the significant negative impacts this development will have on our community and take action by:
1. Downzoning the 20865 McClellan lot back to R1. R1 is what this neighborhood was built for, and
2. Releasing the public communication record to ensure transparency from city officials.
The well-being of all residents—current and future—should be the top priority for Cupertino city officials. This project, as currently proposed with R3 zoning, does NOT serve the best interests of our community.
Which is more important: fulfilling housing mandates or preventing the loss of lives due to neglectful city planning?
Thank you for your time and attention to this important downzone request. vj
From: Alison Cingolani
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office Subject: Re: Item No. 9 Zoning Map Amendment to correct zoning for Priority Housing Site No. 24 in the 6th Cycle Housing Element, February 19, 2025
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 10:07:50 PM
Attachments: image003.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 comment in written communications for Item No. 9 on the Council Agenda of February 19, 2025.
Dear Mayor Chao and Members of the City Council,
We are writing concerning Item No. 9, Zoning Map Amendment to correct zoning for Priority Housing Site No. 24 in the 6th Cycle Housing Element, because there seems to be considerable public confusion about the action Council is called to take. Amending the Zoning Map corrects an oversight in the City’s prior Housing Element rezoning, and helps protect Cupertino’s Housing Element against decertification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
The Government Code requires that zoning ordinances be consistent with the General Plan, including its Housing Element (Cal. Gov’t Code section 65860). Per the staff report, it is clear that the City’s current zoning for Housing Element Site No. 24, located at 20865 McClellan Road, is not consistent with the certified Housing Element, which specifically includes this parcel within a locally created zoning district allowing for townhouses. The staff report notes that the city allowed a series of sites designated to be rezoned R3 (multifamily housing for more than two dwellings per parcel) as Priority Housing Sites in the Housing Element site inventory, which were also supposed to allow for townhouse-style development. The city created the “townhouse combining district” for this purpose.
Priority Housing Site No. 24 is the only site designated R3 in the Housing Element that mistakenly did not receive the “TH” district designation. As a result, the city’s zoning ordinance and the General Plan are not consistent. Rezoning this site to match the permissible development in the Housing Element allows the city to fulfill the legal requirement of General Plan consistency. This should not be controversial, especially since the current R3 zoning already allows for the construction of apartment buildings at the same density proposed in this item’s rezoning.
While there is also a current application for development of townhomes on this site, the application is unrelated to the City’s obligation under its state-certified Housing Element–a Housing Element whose certification was contingent on rezoning. If Council decides against bringing the zoning ordinance into conformity with the General Plan, HCD may find that the City has failed to meet its Housing Element obligations, which could lead to decertification of the Housing Element and further exposure to the Builder’s Remedy, loss of access to some state and regional funding sources, and other consequences associated with SB 330. Cupertino’s Housing Element was created with extensive community engagement and stakeholder outreach, as well as research and careful selection of the most appropriate sites for planned growth. We believe that taking necessary steps to keep the Housing Element in compliance with State law is in everyone’s best interest, as it helps ensure growth is directed where the City has prioritized and planned for it.
Warm regards,
Alison Cingolani, AICP
Director of Policy | SV@Home
408.785.0531 | [email protected]
Join our Houser Movement. Become a member!
350 W Julian St. #5, San José, CA 95110
Website Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
From:
To: City Council; City Clerk; Pamela Wu
Subject: Written comments for Agenda Item #10 - Tyler New World ERP Replacement Date: Monday, February 17, 2025 3:27:19 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, City Manager, City Clerk,
I wanted to share my comments regarding Agenda Item #10 — Tyler New World Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) replacement. Please note I am speaking for myself only.
While I appreciate the interest in process improvement, it is important for Cupertino to level- set on its financial situation. From a revenue standpoint, Cupertino is not comparable to Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, or Palo Alto. The idea that Cupertino should spend $4M+ on an ERP when it generates $120M annually is spending beyond our means.
The only relevant comparable listed in
this table is the city of Mountain View. All other cities are generating far more (or less!) in revenue and are not true comparables.
Mountain View - $184M annual revenue, spent only $1.3M on Central Square ERP Palo Alto - $287M annual revenue, spent $6M on Oracle implementation + $0.9M annual license
City of Santa Clara — $310M annual revenue, spent >$10M on PeopleSoft (also oracle) + $350k annual license
Sunnyvale - $260M annual revenue, $10M Oracle implementation + $500k annual license.
The process seems to have been difficult. They originally hired Cherry Road in 2018 for $12M, terminated the agreement 6 months in, hired a new consultant Sierra-Cedar for $4M for implementation, and in 2024 put bid out for a final consultant for testing of the “recently implemented” tool.
Some questions:
1. Is Tyler ERP really a “lower Tier 2” option? Tyler is considered the #1 market leader in public sector ERP solutions. I would avoid writing off the city’s existing software simply due to an unofficial categorization.
2. How much has the city worked with its existing ERP, Tyler, to solve its problems and improve upon the solution it has? Tyler is a leading public sector ERP. Can we negotiate our existing contract to obtain the features that are needed?
3. If all of the options we are evaluating are “tier 2”, what precisely are the benefits to changing softwares?
By switching, do we risk spending millions on other technologies without
significantly improved outcomes?
4. Can we spend a smaller amount to fix the security issues with Tyler? We owe it to ourselves to explore the options here.
5. Cupertino only has ~100 employees. Is it really worth spending millions on a combined HR-Finance solution? Are there options for technologies that perform each function well separately and integrate with one another, rather than both functions together but mediocrely/expensively? Most smaller companies use a tech stack of integrated tools.
Attempting to find a tool that does everything at once is unrealistic, and leaves little flexibility for future customization as needs change.
6. If implementation takes 5+ years, do we risk the technology being outdated by the time it is implemented? What options exist for improving upon what we already have, which would be faster and more efficient?
Many thanks for your hard work and consideration,
Tracy
From: Santosh Rao
To: Teri Gerhardt, CGCIO; City Council; Pamela Wu; Kristina Alfaro; City Clerk Subject: 02/19/25 agenda item 10 - ERP Needs Assessment study.
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 10:34:27 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 Mayor Chao, Members of the Cupertino City Council, Manager Wu, CTO Gerhardt, I am writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, and voter to share some questions and suggestions regarding Agenda Item 10.
1. Needs Assessment Report – Would it be possible to include the needs assessment report, along with any supplemental documents, as part of the staff report or as a linked resource? It appears the assessment was conducted in January 2022, but I was unable to find a link or document summarizing the findings.
2. Reassessment of Needs – Since the original needs assessment was conducted three years ago, would it be beneficial to revisit the study to ensure that the identified gaps and available capabilities reflect the city's current needs?
3. Budget Appropriation Timing – The agenda item proposes appropriating $3.7 million at this stage. Could you clarify whether this approach is standard practice, or if there is an option to allocate funding incrementally—such as an initial appropriation for the RFP process, with further funding decisions made after vendor selection?
4. Comparison with Other Cities – Would it be possible to include a broader list of cities that use various ERP systems, specifically highlighting those using Tyler New World, which is Cupertino’s current ERP system?
5. Understanding Specific Gaps – Could a supplemental report outline the specific gaps identified in Tyler New World and their operational impacts? Additionally, it may be helpful to explore how other cities using Tyler New World are addressing similar challenges. My research indicates that Fremont, Tracy, Watsonville, Berkeley, Oxnard, Lathrop, and Turlock (among others) in California use Tyler New World, as do cities outside of California such as Newark, NJ, and Augusta, GA.
6. Buyer Intelligence Study – Would it be worthwhile to conduct a buyer intelligence study on ERP systems used by cities in California and similar municipalities elsewhere? This could provide insight into procurement trends, user experiences, and best-fit solutions. There may be off-the-shelf resources available, such as the database from Apps Run the World
.
Given these considerations, I respectfully request that the city continue this agenda item and direct staff to conduct a buyer intelligence study. This study could assess which cities currently use Tyler New World, the specific gaps Cupertino has experienced, how other cities have addressed those gaps, and which cities have transitioned to alternative ERP systems— including details on the replacement process and outcomes.
If the findings support a transition, I would recommend proceeding with the RFP process while deferring budget appropriations until after the RFP phase is complete. Please do not appropriate an amount before the RFP as the bid will bloat to match that amount and then overrun as may be seen with project implementations.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate the city's efforts in evaluating the best path forward.
Best regards,
San Rao (writing only as a Cupertino resident and voter)
From: Sheila Mohan
To: Lauren Sapudar; Kirsten Squarcia; Christopher Jensen Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Re: Mohan"s Comments - Council Policies and Procedures Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 4:06:11 PM
Attachments: image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
image013.png
image014.png
image015.png
image016.png
image017.png
image018.png
image019.png
image020.png
image021.png
image022.png
image023.png
image024.png
image025.png
image026.png
image027.png
image028.png
image029.png
image030.png
image031.png
image032.png
image033.png
image034.png
image035.png
image036.png
image037.png
image038.png
image039.png
image040.png
image041.png
image042.png
image043.png
image044.png
image045.png
image046.png
image047.png
image048.png
image049.png
image050.png
imag51.png
image052.png
Mohan's Comments - Council Procedures.pdf
VIII. Reports to City Council or Commissions
Mohan's comments: This should be done as part of the Councilmember Reports.
Expense reporting not required here. Councilmember Reports now include events attended by Councilmembers in their official capacity.
L1 Remove, : No good reason to include these
Mohan's comments
: The reason this (4.4) is included is to avoid the revolving door practice among current officials and to encourage new participants.
L2: Replace: Commission Removal by Council Approval
Mohan's Comments
:
There are objective standards for commissioners - attendance, Form 700, etc.
It is more efficient when City Clerk removes commission members when these objective standards are not met.
There is nothing discretionary or subjective
in the City Clerk's decision.
L5:
CM Provides Options (ICMA suggestion)
Mohan's Comments:
City Manager's performance criteria should not be part of Council Procedures Manual
L6:
Assume Suggestion, rather than instruction
Mohan's Comments:
I disagree.
There is no need for this Add.
We should all be able to
tell the difference between a suggestion and an instruction.
L7:
Replace:
Council may file PRA Request
Mohan's Comments:
I disagree that a Councilmember can file a PRA request.
PR
Requests have spiraled out of control - 333 requests in 2024!
PRA's have the intended
and/or unintended consequence of bringing City operations to a halt because of the time and huge effort involved in complying with the 10-day response period that the State requires.
L11:
Add 7.7:
Written Communication
Mohan's Comments:
Non-agenda communications should not be part of the agenda.
Minutes reflect oral communications which include non-agenda comments from prior council meeting.
L12:
Add:
When......regular council meeting
Mohan's comments: Start time of Council meeting should be at the discretion of the mayor and city manager.
L14:
Replace:
Anyone can pull items.
Mohan's Comments:
Disagree.
Efficient management of agenda will be
adversely
impacted.
L17:
Replace:
Encourage meaningful discussion
Mohan's Comments:
This is unnecessary.
Procedure exists now.
L18
:
Add:
Access to Closed session materials
Mohan's Comments:
Need clarification.
Revision to Council
Procedures Manual
2025-02-03
CONFIRM: “CM shall keep Council informed of the City
response”
5.4 Responses to Public.
It will be the responsibility of the City Manager to ensure a response is provided to public correspondence for informational requests addressed to the Council. Staff shall respond to all requests for services as appropriate, and the City Manager shall keep Council informed of the City response.[LC1]
[LC1] It seems the responses to residents have not been forwarded to Councilmembers in practice. I seem to have to request that the city’s response is forwarded to me.
CONFIRM: CM shall place requests on Agenda
6.6 Councilmember Access to Information. ….it more appropriately be assigned to staff through the collective direction of the City Council, based on the guidelines set forth in Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.17.043. The City Manager shall place requests that impose a significant workload on staff on the Council agenda for review by the full Council, along with a statement from that Councilmember as to why the information is needed.
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2025-02-19 City Council Meeting ITEM 11-Council Procedures Manual Revisions Date: Monday, February 17, 2025 11:42:22 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.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 AND ANY ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear City Council,
I compared City Attorney Jensen’s red-lined version of the Council Procedures Manual with the Feb. 4, 2025 Council’s motion listed in ITEM 6 Draft Minutes page 12 of 17.
The key differences between CA Jensen’s red-lined version and the Council’s approved motion that I feel should be changed to match the Council’s motion are:
Section 8.1 Meeting Schedule – doesn’t specify when Council calendar is set Section 8.3 Order of Business – no Information Memos in agenda Section 8.5 Public Comment – not clear that it is 2-5 people
TO CONSIDER…Should any other items be added (list from public comments) No phones/texting on the dais. Personal or “city issued” cellular phones should NOT be allowed during meetings. This includes Councilmembers and Staff and includes messaging apps on laptops.
Allow discussion of informational items
Allow a councilmember to be mayor on consecutive years
Fix Section 2.2 last sentence – It is still an incomplete sentence.
DETAILS ON THESE 3 ITEMS
SECTION 8.1 Meeting Schedule
BIG DIFFERENCE
JENSEN (Change #3)
Doesn’t specify when the schedule of meetings for the calendar year is set.
Added clarity with the last red-lined sentences which helps
COUNCIL
Specifies prior to the 2nd regular meeting in January. This forces it to be either the 1st meeting in January or in December.
CA JENSEN’S VERSION
COUNCIL’S VERSION
SECTION 8.3 Order of Business
BIG DIFFERENCE
JENSEN (Change #4)– Informational Memos – not added to agenda Councilmember Reports –
JENSEN – “info…relevant to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Council” COUNCIL – “other matters serving the constituents”
JENSEN’S VERSION
COUNCIL’S VERSION
SECTION 8.5 Public Comment
DIFFERENT
JENSEN – says “two or more” members
COUNCIL – says “2-5” members
NOTE: The issue I see is when a Mayor reduces a speaker’s time to be less than 3 minutes. If the max number of people in a group is not specified to be 5 then groups can be as many as can fit in 10 minutes. The group size needs to be specified so it is limited.
JENSEN’S VERSION
COUNCIL’S VERSION
From: Jean Bedord
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office Subject: Agenda Item #12. Appointment of Floy Andrews as City Attorney, Council, Feb 19, 2025 Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 1:55:54 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.
Please include this in Written Communications for this meeting Honorable Liang Chao, Vice-Mayor Kitty Moore, and council members, I urge you to reject this contract with Aleshire & Wynder. This law firm was previously engaged by the city in 2021 and invoiced the city over $400,000 for legal work.
https://cityofcupertinoca.nextrequest.com/requests/22-80 Their representation of the city with regard to Vallco
was a major factor in the poor reputation that Cupertino developed with state HCD, and contributed to the delay in approval of the Housing Element.
Such a
reputation carries over into current relationships with HCD, which will be challenging given Cupertino's poor progress in meeting
its Housing Element responsibilities.
Approval
of this contract is fiscally irresponsible. In FY 2021-22, the city attorney budget
was $1,400,710 from the General Fund. Thanks
to due diligence of Chris Jensen, our city
attorney, that was reduced to $1,139,685 from
the General Fund in the FY2024-25 budget.
Based on past
performance, engagement of Aleshire & Wynder is likely to significantly increase legal costs for our city at a time when money is tight.
Council has better options. Please choose a different law firm.
Regards,
Jean Bedord, concerned Cupertino resident (and voter)
The City of Cupertino appoints:
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
as
Interim City Attorney
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
PRACTICING AT THE CUTTING EDGE OF PUBLIC LAW
Defends local government authority and enhances fiscal responsibility Results-oriented track record of advocating for California cities Wins victories that protect municipalities and other local government interests Secured substantial business tax increases while protecting small business Negotiated successful tax-sharing agreements to seed key economic development Experts in land use, CEQA and housing law—litigation and compliance
MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS OVER THE PAST YEAR (SELECT)
Secured $550 million settlement for the City of Richmond to compensate the City for Chevron’s environmental impacts—one of the largest municipal settlements of its kind. Lead counsel in important Senate Bill 9 litigation, which doubled down on local control (City of Redondo Beach, et al., v. Rob Bonta, et al. (2024) Case Number 22STCP01143) and filed crucial amicus brief in U.S.
Supreme Court case, City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson (2024) 144 S. Ct. 679.
HYBRID MODEL AND COST CONTROL
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCCESSFUL strategies
City Attorney is accountable for results and cost-effectiveness City Attorney works with onsite staff attorneys, alongside firm attorneys to efficiently manage most assignments
Allows con of legal work within one Firm, limiting the number of people working on a matter and provides City Attorney greater access to matter management, billing and staffing levels
Firm controls overhead costs utilizing technology to reduce costs City Attorney Supervises attorneys and uses attorneys in their areas of specialization
Use standard forms (e.g., form contracts)
CITY ATTORNEY ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Michael Woo, Staff Attorney
Sr. Assistant City Attorney
Floy Andrews, City Attorney
Municipal Law, Real Estate, Litigation
Robert Lee, Special Counsel
Public Works, Contracting,
Franchises
John Fox, Asst. City Attorney
Housing Accountability Act,
Builders’ Remedy, CEQA, Land Use
Vrunda Shah, Deputy City Attorney
Municipal Law, Public Records Act
Alison Flowers, Special Counsel
Labor Negotiations, Employment
Sunny Soltani, Sr. Advisor
Complex Matters
Full-service public law firm with outstanding specialists and cost structures at rates lower than large firms. Our 60+ attorneys are solely devoted to representing public agencies. Our Services include:
• Land Use & Zoning
• General Litigation
• Constitutional
• Service Contracts
• Public Works Contracts
• Brown Act
• Public Records
• Conflicts of Interest
• Franchises
• Refuse
• Fees and Taxes
• Risk Management
• Real Estate
• Labor & Employment
• Economic Development
• Successor Agencies/Redevelopment and Housing
• Eminent Domain
• Toxics and Hazardous Waste
• Utilities (Energy, Waste, Sanitation)
• CEQA and Endangered Species
• Public Finance
• Elections Law
• Code Enforcement
• Marijuana
• Water
• Education
• Mobile Home Parks
• Prevailing Wage Law Compliance
RECENT RECOGNITION AND AWARDS
Daily Journal honored Aleshire & Wynder as the “Top Boutique Law Firm” of 2024 Los Angeles Business Journal named Managing Partner Sanaz (Sunny) K. Soltani a “Woman of Influence.” Norman A. Dupont received the "Best Lawyer - Lawyer of the Year" award in Environmental Law in 2023 Equity Partner, Wayne Lemieux was honored just this year as one of “The Best Lawyers in the United States for Water Law.”
Pam Lee was honored as a “Legal Visionary” by the Los Angeles Times Business Law Magazine in 2022.
We are thought leaders whose work contributes to excellence in public law. Several attorneys are authors of chapters in the California Municipal Law Handbook and serve as members of the League of California Cities Municipal Law Institute Committee. Our Partner, Benjamin R. Jones, recently authored an article regarding the SB 9 lawsuit that was published in the May 2024 edition of Daily Journal.
FLOY E. ANDREWS, PARTNER
Assistant City Attorney, City of Richmond
Previously
Acting City Attorney, City of Suisun City
Irvine Company, Vice President, Associate General Counsel O’Melveny & Myers, Litigation Counsel
Practice Areas
Ethics & Open Government
Environmental Law
Land Use & Zoning
Housing
Public Contracts
Education
Loyola Law School, Juris Doctor, magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, St. Thomas More Law Honor Society, 1996 Columbia University in the City of New York, Masters of Science, 2014 Claremont McKenna College, Bachelor of Arts, cum laude, Economics and Philosophy 7 Litigation & Appellate Law
First Amendment / Constitutional Law
Eminent Domain / Regulatory Takings
Real Estate
Toxics / Hazardous Waste
JOHN W. FOX, PARTNER
Assistant City Attorney
City of Calabasas
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Previously
Lead CEQA Attorney (Development & Litigation), City of Los Angeles City Attorney, City of Arvin
Land Use Attorney, City of Fresno
Practice Areas
Ethics & Open Government
Code Enforcement
Economic Development
Eminent Domain/Regulatory
Takings
Environmental Law
Housing
Land Use & Zoning
Litigation & Appellate Law
Public Contracts
Public Construction/ Prevailing
Wages
Education
Loyola Law School, Juris Doctor, 1993
Wheaton College, Bachelor of Arts, 1988
8 Admissions
State Bar of California
US District Court, Central District of California
Chair of CEQA and Land Use Practice Groups
SUNNY K. SOLTANI, MANAGING PARTNER
Positions
City Attorney
City of Carson
General Counsel
Carson Reclamation Authority Board
Carson Successor Agency
Carson Housing Authority
Special Counsel
City of Calabasas
City of El Segundo
City of Ojai
City of Redondo Beach
Practice Areas
Public Private
Partnerships/Economic
Development
Housing
Land Use & Zoning
Environmental Law
Eminent Domain /
Regulatory Takings
Education
Loyola Law School, JD,
2000, magna cum laude,
Order of the Coif, St Thomas
More Law Honor Society
University of CA, Los
Angeles, BA, 1997, with great
honors and distinction
9 Admissions
State Bar of California
United States Supreme Court
US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
US District Court, Central District of
California
US District Court, Eastern District of
California
US District Court, Northern District of
California
Mobile Home/Rent Control
Toxics/Hazardous Waste
First Amendment /
Constitutional Law
Public Agency Organization
10 THANK YOU!