CC 02-15-2022_Oral Communications_Late CommunicationsCC 02-15-2022
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Jean Bedord <Jean@bedord.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 15, 2022 6:11 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:February 15, 2022: Study Session: Commissions and Committees
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 my oral comments in the Written Communications
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 15, 2022: Study Session: Commissions and Committees
Good evening, Mayor Paul and council members
My name is Jean Bedord and am a long time Cupertino resident.
I am expressing my concern with sheer amount of staff time that is being spent on
Commissions and Committees. First of all, Cupertino has more commissions than
other cities of comparable size and complexity. Why? This seems very inefficient.
Secondly, according to the staff report, there are 4,552 hours of work devoted to
commissions and committees. That’s a lot of hours. This work takes away from the
day-to-day service to the public as well as the overly ambitious city work plan.
While I can understand the number of hours necessary for the Planning Commission
and Parks and Recreation commissions, I am baffled by the 400 hours for the
Legislative Review Committee. In addition to significant staff time, there is also a
$72,000 contract for a paid lobbyist. Yet this committee does not appear to be effective
in influencing our local representatives in Sacramento. As a small city, shouldn’t
council be spending time in working with other jurisdictions, rather than generating
letters which are readily ignored?
Please consider streamlining the commissions and committees and letting our
staff work on council work plans as well as their day-to-day jobs.
Thank you for your consideration.
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 15, 2022 6:17 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Erc
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.
Fyi. Please add to the Public Record for this study session on Committees.
Thank you.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Subject: Erc
From: Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022, 6:15 PM
To: CityCouncil@Cupertino.org
CC:
Dear City Council:
Please do not get rid of the Environmental Review Committee. It has a long standing history
In Cupertino, and it is needed now more than ever before. The state is intent on removing
CEQA oversite to allow high density housing units to be built in dangerous areas, ie flood zones,
Earthquake faults, high fire areas.
We need to keep the ERC.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 15, 2022 8:17 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Investigation into Inflated Housing Element Numbers
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.
Fyi. Please include in the Public Record. Thank you.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Subject: Investigation into Inflated Housing Element Numbers
From: Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022, 8:14 PM
To: CityCouncil@Cupertino.org
CC:
Dear City Council:
I think it would be prudent of the city to have a study session on how the RHN A
Numbers were calculated for this RHNA cycle.
California cities are being forced to okay housing in very dangerous environmental
Areas to attempt to satisfy the very inflated Housing RHNA numbers.
This includes rezoning areas that are in one hundred year flood zones, high fire danger
Areas, high earthquake fault areas, areas where levies could break and flood homes
Such as in the Central Valley, areas where creeks or tides can affect housing,
And areas by beaches that would be subject to searise.
There have been attempts to eliminate CEQA and the Coastal Commission.
The way too high Housing Elements numbers are forcing cities to take risks by rezoning
Areas of environmental hazard to high density housing.
This also does not guarantee that HCD will certify cities' Housing Elements. Many of
Housing Elements in Southern California cities have been rejected by HCD. This will
Most certainly happen to Northern California cities.
I am very concerned the inflated Housing Element Numbers will result in high density
Housing being built in high danger areas.
Please investigate how these very high Housing Element Numbers were calculated or
Obtained by HCD. A city workshop on this topic would be of the utmost importance.
2
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
CC 02-15-2022
Item No. 20
Stevens Creek
Blvd Transit Vision
Study
Written Comments
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 15, 2022 4:40 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Item 20 City Council Meeting 2/15/22-
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.
Fyi. Please include in public record for item 20 on the 2/15/22 City Council Agenda.
Thank you.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Subject: Item 20 City Council Meeting 2/15/22‐ Stevens Creek Blvd. Transit Vision Study
From: Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022, 4:35 PM
To: CityCouncil@Cupertino.org
CC:
Dear City Council:
I am concerned about some of the issues involving Cupertino being involved in the
Stevens Creek Boulevard Transit Vision Study.
1. Involvement of MTC and Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 was adopted by MTC without any public input. Plan Bay Area has not
Had any input or oversight from the public. It was created by a private group that had no
Public meetings and excluded the public from understanding what they were trying to do.
Plan Bay Area was adopted by MTC and was used by ABAG/MTC to create very large housing
element numbers for cities which have been under review as to what algorithms were used
To create these numbers.
I don't think it is a good idea for Cupertino be involved in something as questionable as
Plan Bay Area. No one understands what this mysterious plan is trying to do.
I am concerned because MTC adopted it and it is trying to be used in the Stevens Creek Transportation
Corridor.
2. Putting Fixed Bus Rapid Transit Down Stevens Creek Blvd.
I don't think it is a good idea to put Fixed Bus Rapid Transit down Srevns Creek Blvd.
Through Cuoertino. This involves giving up car traffic lanes or the center lane
Of Stevens Creek Blvd. to light rail or buses on wires. There is not enough room on
2
Stevens Creek Blvd. For this. The outer lanes are already being taken up by bike lanes
With barriers and it is difficult to make right turns on Stevens Creek Blvd. Traffic
Is at gridlock now and taking the middle lane away is unthinkable.
Also, someone may try to put the down and up the hill by the Blue Pheasant and it will
Cause bedlam and traffic gridlock.
3. Complete Streets Program
I don't think it is a good idea for Cupertino to be involved in a Complete Streets Program
Tied up with this traffic corridor study, especially if Plan Bay Area is involved. These
Program is not well understood by the public and tries to close roads to vehicle traffic
Without the public being involved. Plan Bay Area is sketchy and questionable enough with
The housing issues. I don't feel comfortable having it involved with Cupertino.
4. Vallco Issues with Wolfe Road and Traffic Impacts
The Vallco build out will involve massive issues with Stevens Creek Blvd. And we do not
Know what the traffic issues will be. Trying to implement some sort of Traffic Corridor
study on Stevens Creek Blvd. would be premature at this point.
5. San Jose Urban Village Issues
San Jose is implementing massive high density rezoning of their side of Stevens Creek Blvd.
Dwarfing the 3 to 4 story buildings planned by Santa Clara on the other side of Stevens Creek.
blvd. Cupertino is sitting on the western side of this San Jose high density rezoning and we
May wind up with the full brunt of this new massive amount of traffic on Stevens
Creek blvd. Any implementation of new modes of transportation on Stevens Creek Blvd.
Have to be understood before they are rolled out. What works for San Jose, may not
Work for Santa Clara and Cupertino. We cannot build anything until we understand what
San jose is trying to do. The Urban Villages will generate immense new amounts of
Traffic on Cupertino and Stevens Creek Blvd. In Cupertino. I don't feel comfortable
With this Corridor Study because I think San Jose and VTA and MTC will try to dominate it
And send tons of traffic down Cupertino Stevens Creek Blvd. To De Anza College. Why
Do we have to hook De Anza College up with Diridon Station? What about San Jose City
College or Mission College? Why not take students there?
I am very concerned about the above listed issues in the Stevens Creek Blvd. Transit
Vision Study.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin