Oral Communications (added 5/21/25) — Cupertino City Council, May 20, 2025

Written Comments
received for
Oral Communications
(Non-Agenda Items)
No
te: Presentations, Supplemental Reports, and Written Communications for agenda-related items are located in the Meeting Details under the speciﬁc Agenda Item Number.

For additional details on submitting written comments, please visit the Public Comments on the City Council Agenda page on the City website.

From: uvl narayana
To: Chad Mosley; City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk
Subject: CSC Parking lot
Date: Monday, May 19, 2025 6:13:40 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 following in the written communications for the May 15, 2025, City Council meeting.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, and Council Members, I am a regular user of the Cupertino Sports Center and am writing to ask that you cancel the planned photovoltaic (PV), solar panel, and electric vehicle (EV) parking project at the Sports Center.

The CSC parking lot is already under heavy use, especially during peak hours. It’s not uncommon for members to struggle to find a space — I’ve personally had to park beyond the exit gates multiple times. Adding a Hopper EV fleet and accommodating their drivers’ personal cars would place even more pressure on this already limited parking area. This would push CSC users to park offsite, such as at the nearby church or Whole Foods lot, which means many would be forced to cross a busy four-lane road. That’s not just frustrating — it’s unsafe, especially for older community members, some of whom are in their 70s or 80s.

The Sports Center supports over 1,200 active members, not including many more who attend Lifetime classes. The demand for parking is already high, and there is simply no capacity to dedicate stalls to EV fleets without causing real disruption. Commercial vehicle use should not come at the expense of local residents trying to access a city facility they pay to use.

In light of these concerns, I strongly urge the Council to cancel the PV/EV project at the Sports Center.

More broadly, I also ask that you defund the entire $7 million PV/EV project, including any Hopper-related elements. Cupertino is currently facing a fiscal deficit, and with falling sales tax revenues, this is not the time to be spending on non-essential projects. There is no guarantee that outside grants will materialize, and even if partial funding is available, this is still a major use of limited resources that could be put to more pressing needs.

Thank you for your time and service. I hope you will take this feedback seriously and make a fiscally responsible choice.

Venkat
From: g s
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Request for Urgent Action to Implement Resolution No. 25-13918 Date: Saturday, May 17, 2025 10:41:06 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 upcoming city council meeting.

Subject: Request for Urgent Action to Implement Resolution No. 25-13918 Dear Mayor Liang Chao, Vice-Mayor Kitty Moore, and Honorable Council Members, Wishing you all a happy spring! I live in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the McClellan Terrace Apartment complex. We are one of the families directly impacted by the displacement efforts currently being carried out by Foothill-De Anza at McClellan Terrace. A change in such land use impacts our neighborhood and raises concerns of traffic, late night noise, noise from student gatherings, and other potential issues that come with a large young populace.

With great sadness we observe that the local communities and their well being disregarded over foreign subjects and members outside of the local community. A community college serves the community first, develops and enriches the local community. However, there's a heavy influence of foreign aids, funds, and nationals who are threatening the stability of local communities. It's shameful that we allow the displacement of existing communities in the name of addressing a larger national housing crisis without any appropriate forethought for sustainable and endurable societies. It is harmful and dangerous to all facets of society. Please consider allocation of housing needs of students communities that are TRANSIENT by nature within the campus or other locations instead of removing existing communities and displacing the local school age children and their families who are vital to the community today and in the future.

With sincere concern, we urge you to take the next steps to implement Resolution No. 25-13918, which was adopted by the City Council on May 6, 2025. This resolution acknowledges the severe impact that converting multifamily rental housing to student housing has on our community and calls for protections to prevent such harmful transitions.

Many families—including those with children attending Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle, and Monta Vista High—are facing forced eviction. This situation is causing significant hardship and emotional stress to long-standing Cupertino residents.

While we understand the importance of student housing, it should not come by displacing families who have made Cupertino their home and CONTRIBUTE DIRECTLY TO CUPERTINO.

I kindly urge the Council to move forward with updates to the municipal code—similar to San Francisco Municipal Code Section 317—to protect our city’s rental housing and maintain stability for working families.

Thank you for your leadership and continued support for our community's well being! City of Cupertino Residents will receive your utmost attention, care, and consideration.

Warm regards,
Geetha
Cupertino resident of over 25 years.

From: Manoj Sahu
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Request for Urgent Action to Implement Resolution No. 25-13918 Date: Thursday, May 15, 2025 10:34:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting.

Subject: Request for Urgent Action to Implement Resolution No. 25-13918 Dear Mayor Liang Chao, Vice-Mayor Kitty Moore, and Honorable Council Members, I hope you are doing well. I am a resident of Cupertino and I am concerned by the displacement efforts currently being carried out by Foothill-De Anza at McClellan Terrace.

With sincere concern, I respectfully request that you urgently direct staff to take the next steps to implement Resolution No. 25-13918, which was adopted by the City Council on May 6, 2025. This resolution acknowledges the severe impact that converting multifamily rental housing to student housing has on our community and calls for protections to prevent such harmful transitions. Many families—including those with children attending Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle, and Monta Vista High—are facing forced eviction. This situation is causing significant hardship and emotional stress to long-standing Cupertino residents. While we understand the importance of student housing, it should not come by displacing families who have made Cupertino their home. I kindly urge the Council to move forward with updates to the municipal code—similar to San Francisco Municipal Code Section 317—to protect our city’s rental housing and maintain stability for working families.

Thank you for your leadership and continued support for our community.

Warm regards,
Manoj Sahu
858 September Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
From: Ram Sripathi
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Request for Urgent Action to Implement Resolution No. 25-13918 Date: Thursday, May 15, 2025 12:36:34 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 upcoming city council meeting.

Subject: Request for Urgent Action to Implement Resolution No. 25-13918 Dear Mayor Liang Chao, Vice-Mayor Kitty Moore, and Honorable Council Members, I hope you are doing well. I am a resident of McClellan Road and one of the families directly impacted by the displacement efforts currently being carried out by Foothill-De Anza at McClellan Terrace.

While we understand the importance of student housing, it should not come by displacing families who have made Cupertino their home. I kindly urge the Council to move forward with updates to the municipal code—similar to San Francisco Municipal Code Section 317—to protect our city’s rental housing and maintain stability for working families. I’m also concerned about unknown who could come and in addition student housing causes law and order situations. I’d like to urge you to update the municipal code.

Thank you for your leadership and continued support for our community.

Warm regards,
[Ram sripathi ]
Cupertino resident
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: PLEASE STOP STUDENT-HOUSING CONVERSIONS that create a loss of housing in our community! Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 8:00:28 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 Mayor and City Council,
There are so many reasons why FHDA should not be purchasing the apartment building adjacent to our K-12 schools.

Any city planner would tell you that to have housing that is a half-mile from K-12 schools that excludes K-12 students is a bad idea.

I am grateful that that the Mayor has brought this issue forward and that the majority council wants to take action on this issue.

To that end, please update our MUNICIPAL CODE ASAP to stop this travesty from happening.

Please refer to San Francisco’s Municipal Code #317 and draft something similar (it is not a perfect match for Cupertino).
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_planning/0-0-0-22516 Keep in mind that FHDA is anticipating that this purchase could “generate future value,” and I think that is terribly sad.

Cupertino citizens and the broader community supports you. Please refer to this editorial written by San Jose Spotlight staff:
https://sanjosespotlight.com/editorial-silicon-valley-college-board-should-look-elsewhere-for- student-housing/
Regards,
Rhoda Fry

From: J Shearin
To: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Liang Chao Subject: Mayor Chao"s message regarding Public Service Recognition Week Date: Friday, May 9, 2025 9:31:39 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 in Written Communication for May 15, 2025 City Council meeting.

Dear Mayor Chao (copy to Acting City Manager Kapoor),
I’m happy to thank the officeholders of these departments for their fine work during Public Service Recognition Week. I can see that our city staff, including our top city staff, are accomplished, experienced, and caring. They are deserving of everyone’s thanks, especially that of our Councilmembers.

There is some irony, though, in your message as your direct actions have caused the two top officials in our city—the City Attorney and our City Manager—to no longer be in their positions. I can’t see the appreciation for our staff in these actions, either for our two former top leaders or the many staff that report to them who must deal with the inevitable confusion of new top staff and concern for their own livelihoods.

We all know the City Attorney wasn’t directly fired, but rather left after the disrespectful and unprofessional way that he was treated by you and your politically aligned colleague, Councilmember Wang. The final straw seemed to be the disgraceful way you led his performance review. No one, especially not someone who has worked as hard and weathered as many legal crises for our city as our former City Attorney, should be treated that way in a professional setting.

The current—likely soon-to-be former—City Manager Pamela Wu has been treated similarly, with excessive “performance reviews,” unprofessional conduct by Councilmembers—as documented in Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury reports—and exceedingly petty complaints leading to a politically biased administrative leave order. She led the city very well through our major sales tax fiscal crisis and the Housing Element process, plus dramatically improved CIP and Work Program processes and significantly increased resident outreach. We should be grateful for her hard work and for her excellent results, and not send her off unceremoniously.

Forgetting some staff names on an email meant to thank them—therefore requiring an edited email—is a small mistake, but one symptomatic of the larger issue of disrespect for staff by you. Like that rushed error, much more destructive decisions are being made in haste by you about our city staff which have long-term negative effects for our city and its residents.

I am sending a copy of this message to Acting City Manager Kapoor, so she understands that many residents do not support the unnecessary churn of our top staff solely for political reasons. We support the staff, and know that they are following the law and looking out for our best interests.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
From: Ping Gao
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Concerned of Intersection Change
Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 2:48:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
This is Ping, an 18-year Cupertino resident.

I'm writing to you today to express my deep concern about the potential intersection changes of Steven Creek Blvd and Blaney, De Anza, Bandley, Stelling, Mary and Bubb which three city council members Mohan, Kitty and Fruen have voted for:

I have witnessed the intersection change of Stevens Creek Blvd and Wolfe, where a right-turn lane disappeared, and one lane disappeared on Stevens Creek Blvd westbound. I'm driving through that intersection commuting to work. I know how much traffic is on that section.

Well, I get it that you want to make the intersection safer for bikers, at the cost of increased traffic. Fine....

Last year, the same change was made to De Anza and Pacifica, and this is really causing a traffic gridlock and I was very very frustrated every time I drove through that intersection.

Again, a right turn lane disappeared and it took forever for the cars to turn right from Pacifica westbound onto De Anza northbound. In addition to this painful right turn experience, I didn't see how this change would make bikers safer either. Say, if a biker is biking on Pacifica westbound, and a car is also driving on Pacifica eastbound and wants to turn right. When the light turns green, both drivers and the bikers will be reluctant to go because they don't know who will go first. In the old intersection design, right turn vehicles had their dedicated lane, and it made a very clear signal to the biker that the car wanted to turn right. Biker also has his/her own lane moving forward. Now, the car and the biker are just sharing the same lane without knowing who will go first and need a proper "handshake" (eye contact) to decide who goes first. If it's a reckless driver, it could cause danger to the biker.

As I have mentioned many times before, could you please stop wasting money on changing these intersections and cause more traffic gridlock in the city? Please go take a look at these intersections at rush hour yourselves and make sensible decisions. Please keep the major road as they are which is important to relieve traffic during rush hours. It is not a good idea to change every road for bike lane use and cause more traffic, unless the road itself is wide enough (such as San Thomas's bike lane: it is a separate bike lane because the San Thomas has widened during the change, which makes more sense.)
If possible, I strongly encourage the city council to have a survey of the worst intersections in the city and let residents voice their opinions, before you make any changes to the intersections.

Thank you for your time and patience reading my email. Please keep it as a record.

Thanks and regards,
Ping

From: Venkat Ranganathan
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Stevens Creek Corridor Class IV Bikeway – Phase 2A Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 1:42:17 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 upcoming council meeting.

Dear City Council, City Manager, and City Clerk
As a resident, who lives on a road feeding into Steven's Creek, I oppose the current proposal for the Stevens Creek Corridor Class IV Bikeway – Phase 2A project due to its potential to exacerbate vehicular congestion along a critical east-west artery in Cupertino.

The proposed reduction of vehicular lanes to accommodate protected bike paths may create bottlenecks, particularly at intersections already experiencing delays. Commuters, parents, and school buses could face longer travel times and increased frustration.

I oppose the Stevens Creek Corridor Class IV Bikeway – Phase 2A as it impacts vehicular lanes on one of Cupertino’s busiest corridors, worsening traffic congestion, increasing delays for school routes and emergency vehicles, and compounding frustration for majority who drive. While improving cyclist safety is very important, it is irresponsible to prioritize the demands of vocal bike advocacy groups over the needs of thousands of daily commuters.

The City’s own reports cite 15 serious injuries and fatalities over a decade, yet the response should be balanced—not punitive to drivers. Installing concrete barriers and narrowing lanes introduce new hazards: limited turning space for buses and delivery trucks, blind spots at driveways, and danger at merging zones. These changes may increase accident risk rather than reduce it.

City leaders must listen to residents—not just well-funded lobbying groups—before implementing changes that disrupt traffic and compromise road usability.

Moreover, the project's estimated cost of $1.6 million for Phase 2A, funded through the City General Fund and the One Bay Area Cycle 2 Grant Program , raises concerns about the allocation of resources. The city should consider whether these funds could be better utilized to improve existing infrastructure without compromising vehicular traffic flow.

Another issue I have is that this project is funded, design complete, but no where to find the design on the city's website.

In conclusion, while the safety of cyclists is paramount, the potential negative impact on vehicular traffic and the broader community warrants a reevaluation of the Stevens Creek Corridor Class IV Bikeway – Phase 2A project.

1. Grants and Contract Narrowly Approved for Next Phase of Stevens Creek Protected Lanes

2. Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor - draft VISION STUDY Thanks
Venkat Ranganathan
Get Outlook for Android
From: Deepa Mahendraker
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Benjamin Fu
Subject: Stop efforts to ban gas appliances in Cupertino Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 12:46:05 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,
Would you please include in written communications for the 05/20/25 city council meeting.

Dear Mayor Chao and Councilmembers,
I’m writing to ask the City to stop efforts to ban gas appliances in Cupertino.

The 9th Circuit Court ruled against Berkeley’s similar ban, saying federal law overrides such local ordinances.

Several cities — including Santa Rosa, Sunnyvale, and San Mateo County — have already backed off in response.

Cupertino should not waste resources on a legally risky policy. Also, gas cooking is essential to many in our community, especially Asian and Indian households and restaurants. Banning it ignores cultural needs and everyday realities.

Please focus instead on what residents are asking for: reducing crime, improving traffic flow and road safety, enhancing our parks, hosting more community events and festivals, simplifying permit processes, and avoiding new ordinances that create unnecessary burdens for residents and businesses.

Thank you,
Deepa Mahendraker
Cupertino resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: Greg Shtilman
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Benjamin Fu
Subject: Please don"t ban gas appliances in Cupertino
Date: Monday, May 19, 2025 11:07:42 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,
Would you please include in written communications for the 05/20/25 city council meeting.

Dear Mayor Chao and Councilmembers,
I’m writing to ask the City to stop efforts to ban gas appliances in Cupertino.

The 9th Circuit Court ruled against Berkeley’s similar ban, saying federal law overrides such local ordinances. Several cities — including Santa Rosa, Sunnyvale, and San Mateo County — have already backed off in response.

Cupertino should not waste resources on a legally risky policy.

Gas cooking is essential to many in our communities and provides a lifeline during power outages in the days of worsening quality of service PG&E has been providing. In 2022 and 2023 we lost power for nearly 24 hours one time, and over 48 hours another time. Our friends and neighbors were without power for over a week. This was a literal life saver for many of them since they could cook and heat water to make tea/coffee, and even have some warm water for washing with babies & elderly, particularly important on cold winter days.

In fact, we have considered buying a natural gas generator for my elderly parents to help them cope on very cold and very hot days which are frequently when power outages are most likely.

Gradually removing gas appliances for everyone would replace one problem with another.

Only doing it for new homeowners won't be equitable & will discourage some from buying in Cupertino lowering our real estate values.

Please focus on what residents are asking for: reducing crime, improving traffic flow and road safety, enhancing our parks, building more trails, hosting more community events and festivals, simplifying permit processes, and avoiding new ordinances that create unnecessary burdens for residents and businesses.

Thank you,
Greg Shtilman
Long time Cupertino resident
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk; Kristina Alfaro; Tina Kapoor Subject: Cupertino Budget: Restore Fiscal Discipline, Reverse Resident Fee Increases, and Rebuild Reserves Date: Monday, May 19, 2025 9:25:50 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,
Would you please include the below in written communications for the 05/20/25 city council meeting. Thank you.
[Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident] Subject: Cupertino Budget: Restore Fiscal Discipline, Reverse Resident Fee Increases, and Rebuild Reserves
Dear Mayor Chao and Cupertino City Council,
I am writing as a concerned resident who has reviewed the city’s most recent projected budgets and is alarmed by the current fiscal trajectory. The decisions reflected in the budget show a clear and growing imbalance that must be addressed urgently to protect the city’s long-term financial health and fairness to residents.

Declining General Fund Reserves
Cupertino’s General Fund reserves have been shrinking—a sharp departure from the strong fiscal position the city historically maintained. These reserves are essential for stability and risk management, yet they continue to erode without a comprehensive plan to rebuild them. I find this deeply troubling.

Expenses Now Exceed Revenues
The budget shows that the city is spending more than it is bringing in. This is a fundamental red flag. While revenue has risen on paper, it appears to be propped up by questionable policies rather than sustainable growth. At the same time, special project funding continues to expand, even as the city’s fiscal foundation weakens.

Resident Fee Hikes Mask Deeper Budget Issues
I am particularly concerned that revenue increases mat potentially be the result of the user cost recovery policy, enacted by the prior council majority last year, which has led to steep increases in permit and service fees for residents, ranging from 10% to 75%, while some business-related fees have been reduced or waived entirely. This shift is unfair, regressive, and out of line with Cupertino’s values. The budget should not be balanced on the backs of residents.

My Requests to the City Council

1. Reverse the User Cost Recovery Policy
I strongly urge the Council to immediately reverse this policy and reject any additional fee increases on residents this year. Burdening homeowners with rising costs while reducing costs for businesses is inequitable and shortsighted.

2. Make Deeper Cuts in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). I ask that the Council conduct a second round of deep cuts to the CIP to preserve core services and rebuild General Fund reserves to responsible levels.

3. Reduce Expenses to Fall Below Revenues Without Relying on Resident Fees. I request that the city develop a revised budget that shows expenses coming in below revenues, excluding the artificial revenue boost from increased resident fees. This will provide an honest picture of the city’s financial structure.

4. Provide a Revenue Forecast Without the User Fee Hike Policy. I ask that the Council direct staff to provide a transparent forecast of revenues assuming the user cost recovery policy is rolled back. This forecast should also factor in an expected decline in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue due to weakening demand in the hospitality sector. The city must prepare for reduced hotel tax income and avoid overestimating future revenues.

5. Reduce Non-Critical Staffing and Limit Long-Term Liabilities. I encourage the city to reduce headcount in non-critical, non- community-facing departments, such as in the City Manager’s Office and Economic Development, and to replace some roles with contract staff where appropriate. Contract roles do not carry the same long- term pension and healthcare obligations and can help control costs.

6. Strengthen Staffing for Critical Community Services. Conversely, I urge the city to increase staffing for key community-facing roles such as planners, inspectors, and permit processors, and to reduce reliance on outside contractors in these areas. These functions are essential to both residents and developers and deserve investment.

Cupertino is at a crossroads. I believe it is time to take clear, decisive action to correct course: stop overspending, rebuild reserves, eliminate regressive fee policies, and prioritize services that directly benefit the community.

Please bring these concerns into public discussion and provide residents with an honest and responsible plan for Cupertino’s fiscal future.

Sincerely,
San Rao (on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident, voter and taxpayer)
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk; City Council; Tina Kapoor; Benjamin Fu
Subject: Request to Halt Gas-to-Electric Appliance Ordinance Effort Date: Monday, May 19, 2025 8:16:52 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.
[Writing on behalf of myself, as a Cupertino resident, voter and taxpayer.] Dear City Clerk,
Would you please include in written communications for the 05/20/25 city council meeting.

Dear Mayor Liang Chao and Cupertino City Council Members, I respectfully request that the Council and Mayor direct staff to halt the initiative on electrification and attempts to ban gas appliances in Cupertino.

I would like to remind the Council that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has already ruled against a similar ordinance passed by the City of Berkeley, citing federal preemption under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Pursuing a similar path in Cupertino could expose the City to unnecessary legal challenges.

It is also important to consider the unique demographic needs of Cupertino.

Nearly 70% of our residents are of Asian descent, and gas appliances are essential for traditional Asian and Indian cooking methods, both in homes and in our restaurants. Attempts to limit or ban gas usage do not reflect the cultural realities or culinary practices of a significant portion of our community.

Given that this effort was not approved through the CWP process, I urge the Council to cancel it immediately and focus on initiatives that reflect Council direction and community priorities.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued commitment to thoughtful governance and cultural inclusivity.

Sincerely,
San Rao (Cupertino resident and voter)
——————————
Court ruling:

California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley (2023): On April 17, 2023, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Berkeley's 2019 ordinance that banned natural gas piping in new construction. The court ruled that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act preempts local regulations that effectively ban gas appliances.
Sonoma County's Suspension of Natural Gas Ban (2024): Following the 9th Circuit's decision, Sonoma County suspended its prohibition on natural gas appliances in new construction in August 2024, acknowledging that federal law overrides such local bans.
Santa Rosa: In May 2024, Santa Rosa suspended enforcement of its all-electric code for new residential constructions.

Sunnyvale: In May 2024, Sunnyvale suspended its natural gas ban to avoid potential litigation, acknowledging that its regulations were structured differently from Berkeley's.
San Mateo County: In May 2024, San Mateo County paused its efforts to promote all-electric buildings in response to the legal developments. San Luis Obispo:

April 18, 2023: The City Council voted unanimously to suspend its natural gas ban for new construction in response to the appellate court's ruling against Berkeley's similar ordinance. Cal Coast News
July 18, 2023: The city announced a pause in enforcing its all-electric new buildings ordinance, allowing permits for mixed-fuel buildings until further notice.
——————————-
City communications on the project:
“
The City of Cupertino is considering a policy to transition home appliances and equipment that use natural gas to those that use electricity. This transition is essential for fighting climate change.

To help inform and guide this draft policy, we invite you to share your knowledge, experience, and opinions on home electrification. This refers to using electric appliances and equipment, such as electric panel upgrades, induction cooktops, heat pump water heaters, and heat pump air conditioning and heating systems.

What could this policy look like?
The City is carefully considering options for what is best for our community and is limited on what we can do legally. Here are a few concepts:

Option 1: (most ambitious) Require homes to meet a whole-house energy efficiency standard.

Option 2: (somewhat ambitious)Require an “electric-ready” home (panel upgrade and wiring) and allow for the switch from gas to electric to happen as appliances need replacing.

Option 3: (least ambitious) Phase in requirements over time, e.g. require “electric-ready” homes now and a stricter energy efficiency standard in a few years.

Option 4: (not ambitious) Support the policies and programs created by state and regional districts and consider local policy at a later date.

Each of these options comes with some concerns and challenges to overcome. We need your help planning the best path for Cupertino. “
https://engagecupertino.org/goelectricsurvey?tool=survey_tool#tool_tab From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk; Liang Chao
Subject: Fw: Written communications not consolidated.

Date: Monday, May 19, 2025 8:08:20 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,
Would you please include the below in written communications for the 05/20/25 city council meeting. Thank you.

Thanks,
Santosh Rao
Begin forwarded message:

On Wednesday, May 14, 2025, 11:14 PM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear All,
Please do not change long standing practices around how council (and commission) materials are posted. Please maintain expiring practices. Please past the consolidated written communications. It is too cumbersome and too many clicks to view all written comments when posted by agenda item. A single consolidated written communications has been a long standing practice. Please continue the same.

Thanks,
San Rao (Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) On Tuesday, May 6, 2025, 4:42 PM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor Chao and Council, City Clerk, City Manager, City CIO, The written communications for the 05/06/25 council meeting have not been consolidated into a single document and posted to the city calendar.

Instead a placeholder document states that comms are under each individual agenda item.

This change makes it extremely cumbersome to navigate even for the most informed residents. For the rest it is a hopeless exercise.

Please revert this change. Please post consolidated written communications as has been done for years.

Thank you.

Thanks,
San Rao (Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident) From: J Shearin
To: City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Brown Act violations on May 15, 2025 City Council meeting Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 5:38:57 PM
Attachments: PastedGraphic-1.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 as part of Written Communications in the next possible City Council meeting.

Dear City Attorney Andrews, Acting City Manager Kapoor, and Cupertino City Councilmembers:

Provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act were violated during the Cupertino City Council Meeting of May 15, 2025.

Therefore, any and all actions taken at that meeting should be declared null and void immediately, including all resolutions and votes.

The specific provisions that were violated relate to the remote teleconferencing of Councilmember Wang from the Sheraton Stockholm, Tegelbacken 6, 101 23, 101 23 Stockholm, Sweden, Hotel Lobby as stated in the meeting agenda posted in Cupertino. There are two specific violations:

Councilmember Wang’s teleconferencing setup did not allow the public to hear or testify in the meeting, as required.

As the lobby is currently undergoing a “full renovation”, it is also uncertain how Councilmember Wang was able to teleconference in from the lobby portion of the hotel (see screenshot, below).

There was no posted public meeting notice in the teleconferencing location. The hotel confirmed that no agenda was posted for the Council meeting (see screenshot, below).

Any one of these issues constitutes a Brown Act violation and must be addressed.

The requirements of the Brown Act are outlined in The Brown Act, Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies, by the California Attorney General’s Office. This handbook is presented to each councilmember and commissioner in the City of Cupertino along with a mandatory training session to review its concepts. I have quoted below the relevant sections that the city must follow in its meetings.

The Brown Act defines the following as a teleconference meeting:
“A teleconference meeting is a meeting in which one or more members of the body attend the meeting from a remote location via electronic means, transmitting audio or audio/video.” (page 14) It further states,
Each teleconference meeting must be conducted in such a manner so as to protect the statutory and constitutional rights of the public. Each teleconference meeting agenda must ensure the public’s right to testify at each teleconference location in accordance with section 54954.3…The Act requires that each teleconference location must be fully accessible to members of the public… Moreover, members of the public must be able to hear the meeting and testify from each location. [emphasis mine] (page 14) And further, “When a body elects to use teleconferencing, it must post an agenda at each teleconference location.” (page 14)
It should be noted that other Cupertino Councilmembers have teleconferenced into the regularly scheduled City Council meetings. However, they have not violated the Brown Act law regarding teleconferencing, as the locations have been publicly accessible without fees or restrictions; the teleconference setup allowed public participation and testimony from that location (as shown in the Zoom feed, the public can clearly see the screen and hear the meeting); and the meeting notice was publicly posted. The Brown Act specifically allows teleconferencing from personal homes as long as they are opened to the public for the duration of the meeting. (page 14) I, as an “interested person” (page 45) request that you immediately address these violations by declaring all actions at that meeting null and void, having no effect on our city’s governance. I am making this request within the 90 day window that the Brown Act specifies for a “written demand to the board to cure or correct the violation…” (page 46, specific timeline provisions page 48).

Please notify me regarding your corrective action.

Thank you for your help with this matter, and your work on behalf of Cupertino.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
Cupertino resident
From: J Shearin
To: City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Brown Act violations at the May 6, 2025 meeting Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 5:26:43 PM
Attachments: PastedGraphic-1.tiff
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 this to Written Communications at the next possible City Council meeting.

Dear City Attorney Andrews, Acting City Manager Kapoor, and Cupertino City Councilmembers:

Provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act were violated during the Cupertino City Council Meeting of May 6, 2025.

Therefore, any and all actions taken at that meeting should be declared null and void immediately, including all resolutions and votes.

The specific provisions that were violated relate to the remote teleconferencing of Councilmember Wang from the Dubai Airport, United Arab Emirates, Terminal 3, Departures as stated in the meeting agenda posted in Cupertino.

There are three specific violations:

Councilmember Wang teleconferenced in from a location that was not accessible to the general public, requiring a paid plane ticket to reach the physical location. Even if the argument is made that the public can reach it through that purchase (which is not assured, as the required TSA Security checks may not allow a person to do so), the cost of the required plane ticket would be considered a fee or tax for participation in the meeting.

Councilmember Wang’s teleconferencing setup did not allow the public to hear or testify in the meeting, as required.

There was no posted public meeting notice in the teleconferencing location, as the Dubai airport has strict regulations which do not permit posting signs, flyers, or any other kind of notices in public areas.

Any one of these issues constitutes a Brown Act violation and must be addressed.

the public can clearly see the screen and hear the
meeting); and the meeting notice was publicly posted. The Brown Act specifically allows teleconferencing from personal homes as long as they are opened to the public for the duration of the meeting. (page 14) I, as an “interested person” (page 45) request that you immediately address these violations by declaring all actions at that meeting null and void, having no effect on our city’s governance. I am making this request within the 90 day window that the Brown Act specifies for a “written demand to the board to cure or correct the violation…” (page 46, specific timeline provisions page 48).

Please notify me regarding your corrective action.

Thank you for your help with this matter, and your work on behalf of Cupertino.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
Cupertino Resident

Cupertino City CouncilMay 20, 2025

Cupertino City Council
May 20, 2025