Written Communications (updated 6-18-25) — Cupertino City Council, June 17, 2025

CC 06-17-2025
Oral
C
ommunications
Writt
en Comments
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: William Jiang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 9:25 PM
To: City Clerk; Public Comments; Jimmy Tan, P.E.

Cc: The Ivy Advisor
Subject: Oral Communications Statement for July 17th City Council Meeting Attachments: Oral Communication Statement_6_17_2025.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Respected City Clerk Ms. Kirsten,

I am not sure if you are aware of Wilson Park's public safety issue that my wife and I raised over the last two weeks, but I would like to see whether this issue can be put on the City Council's 6/17 meeting agenda. Forgive me if this is not the way to present the issue to the meeting agenda. Please advise me.

I plan to come to the June 17th City Council meeting and make a 3-minute oral public comment. I talked to Mr. Jimmy Tan and expressed my desire to make a public comment on this issue. My oral communications statement is attached here. My wife Leslie and I will come earlier and complete a Speaker's Card and identify ourselves. We have not done this before. If anything we need to know (e.g., the best time to come, the exact location to see you for completing the Speaker's card, etc.), please email or call me to let us know. My mobile number (for call or texting) is 408-891-7668. You can always use my email to communicate also.

Thank you. Any attention to this issue from you or the city is highly appreciated.

William Jiang
Leslie Yi

Oral Communications Statement for June 17, 2025, City Council Meeting – Wilson Park Public Safety Hazard

Dear Cupertino City Mayor Chao, City Council, and City Clerk,

As long-time Cupertino residents living adjacent to Wilson Park, we urgently request that the City address a dangerous condition at the park’s baseball/softball field, which poses significant safety risks to our family, neighboring residents, and all users of the recently constructed Calabazas Creek bike path, including pedestrians, bikers, and joggers. We often see school kids of all ages walking/biking on the path, and they are susceptible to being hit by flying/errant baseballs/softballs. This is a critical public safety issue stemming from the City’s failure to provide proper protective measures at Wilson Park. This issue requires immediate action.

On May 28, 2025, at approximately 2:30 PM, a softball struck our master bedroom window with such force that it shattered multiple layers of glass, bent metal guards, and scattered debris, posing a serious risk to our family, including our toddler grandson (Sheriff’s Event #25-148- 0375C). The errant softball of about four inches in diameter weighing close to half pound is presented here together with other over a dozen baseballs we collected over the last few months.

Over the past five months, our property has been struck 12 times by baseballs, and over 30 years, we have replaced our master bedroom window twice and family room sliding door once. These recurring incidents have rendered our backyard unsafe, preventing its use by our family.

More broadly, the absence of protective barriers at Wilson Park endangers the public using the Calabazas Creek bike path, a City-maintained facility adjacent to the park. High-speed baseballs and softballs can easily strike unsuspecting pedestrians, cyclists, or joggers, creating a foreseeable risk of injury. Sheriff Diaz, who investigated the May 28 incident, emphasized the need for the City to install a protective barrier to safeguard both residents and bike path users, a recommendation we strongly support.

Under California Government Code § 835, the City of Cupertino is responsible for mitigating dangerous conditions on public property, as established in Ratcliff v. City of Redondo Beach (1987), where a municipality was held liable for property damage from stray baseballs. We emailed the City several times since May28th, we are grateful that the City has paid attention to our complaint, but the City so far has not addressed this known hazard affecting the entire community.

We respectfully request that the City:

1. Install high netting or a physical barrier between Wilson Park’s baseball/softball field and adjacent properties and the Calabazas Creek bike path to protect residents and public users.

2. Reimburse our family for damages, including the May 28, 2025, window repair and prior replacements.

3. Provide reasonable compensation for the emotional distress caused by ongoing safety risks to our family.

4. Conduct an immediate investigation into this public safety hazard and respond promptly.

We have filed a formal claim with the City, supported by photographs, collected errant baseballs, and the sheriff’s event report. These materials are available upon request. The City’s responsibility to ensure public safety extends beyond our property to all who use the Calabazas Creek bike path, especially the children and youth. We urge the Council to act swiftly to prevent further harm or potential injuries.

Sincerely,

William Jiang and Leslie Yi

Cupertino Residents

2 Lauren Sapudar
From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:03 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]; City Council
Subject: Fwd: Study Session on SB 330: Retail Loss, No Traffic Studies Required Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.

Dear City Clerk: Please include the following comments as Oral Communication for the City Council meeting on June 17, 2025. Thank you.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Study Session on SB 330: Retail Loss, No Traffic Studies Required From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025, 9:58 PM
To: [email protected],[email protected]
CC: [email protected]

Dear City Council:

SB 330 is becoming a problem in Cupertino.

1. There are so many SB 330 projects we are going to lose thousands of square feet of retail from The multiple projects along Stevens Creek Blvd. This Staples Project is 40,000 square feet Alone that is being lost. SB 330 is becoming a "retail crisis".

2. SB 330s do not require traffic studies because they are exempt from CEQA. This is a foolhardy Provision of this illogical housing bill. Just because the bill author, Senator Nancy Skinner, And the sponsoring bill groups thought no one needed traffic studies, it doesn't mean We don't need traffic studies. We already have like five or six SB 330 housing projects parked Up and down Stevens Creek Blvd and you can't tell me they are not going to affect traffic On Stevens Creek Blvd. We need to do traffic studies on how these projects and successive Projects will affect Stevens Creek Blvd and may even produce a cumulative traffic nightmare With so many SB 330 projects. We need to do both LOS and VMT Traffic studies. We look To Cupertino to protect the interests of Cupertino, not housing bill authors who don't care What actually happens in each city.
3 The more I see of SB 330 in action, I realize what a danger it is for Cupertino. We need to have A city study session to discuss the issues this bill is bringing to Cupertino in loss of retail And no traffic studies required. I'm sure there are a host of other problems SB 330 Will manifest as it rolls its disastrous way across Cupertino.

Best regards,

Jennifer Griffin

4 Lauren Sapudar
From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:20 AM
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]; City Council
Subject: Fwd: Loss of Retail on Stevens Creek Blvd.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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 as public comment for the Oral Communications section of the June 17, 2025 City Council meeting. Thank you.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Loss of Retail on Stevens Creek Blvd.

From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025, 11:17 AM
To: [email protected],[email protected]
CC: [email protected]

Dear City Council:

(Please include this comment as public comment for the "Public Comment" section for the June 17, 2025 City Council
Meeting.)

I am very concerned that we are losing valuable retail space on Stevens Creek Blvd. due to the ever increasing SB 330 projects being introduced. SB 330 was marketed as A "Housing Crisis" bill, but it is rapidly becoming apparent it is in reality a "Retail Crisis" bill. It is wiping out all retail in easily accessible areas in Cupertino. We will have No place to buy food or medicine or services in this city. It will just be miles of Highrise housing complexes (especially if SB 79 passes) and there will be no place To shop for essentials.

I think the ability to get food and medicine and fuel and medical access should be added To the list of items that CEQA protects.

We should have a Study Session about the issues emerging from SB 330. These May have been unanticipated consequences, but SB 330 was never marketed to all of 5 Us in the state before it was passed and we never got to comment on its downfalls.

Well, we are QAing it now. We are in the field and doing Beta Tests that should have been Performed before it was brought to market as an apparently "flawed" product. One of Its problems is that it is leading to a loss of retail which is a problem for the city.

We need to correct this bill flaw before it is too late and we have no retail left at all In Cupertino.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Jennifer Griffin
From: Jean Bedord
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.

Subject: Oral Communications, City Council, June 17, 2025: Building permits Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 3:52:40 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.

City clerk - please include in Written Communications
Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore and Council Members Fruen, Mohan and Wang Last week I attended Mayor Chao’s community chat. I heard a litany of complaints about the permitting process in the city. Unfortunately, Mayor Chao and Planning Commission Chair contributed to the misinformation regarding

building permits
One of the complaints was the cost of building permits. Chair Rao accused the previous council for responsibility for raising fees for residents, disregarding the city policy of cost recovery for all departments including planning.

This policy was NOT put into place
by the previous council as

accused.

It was a matter of prudent
fiscal responsibility put into place many councils ago.

I agree that permit fees, particularly for small projects, seem high, and the timeframes for approval seem to be problematic.

However, just
reducing fees without addressing the underlying issues will only contribute to a budget shortfall for the city.

First of all, is planning fully staffed? Are there any vacancies? Secondly, how many on the staff have at least a year’s experience in Cupertino?

My observation is that the turnover has been high for the past 4-6 years. As those of us who have worked in industry know, it takes six months or so for a staff member to be fully productive. Staff may not be able to determine this, but how many different planners “touch” an individual permit?

I talked with one developer who had to
work with three different planners, which meant a lot of extra time for both staff and the developer to come up to speed.

In addition, each
planner may focus on different aspects.

Thirdly, how many iterations are typically involved in an approval? How many applications are approved on the first submission? I’m guessing not many. Multiple submissions are a stop-start process so the planner goes on to the next application until resubmission. Are homeowners aware that changes and multiple iterations take more staff time and lengthen the approval process? Under the current regime, are staff meetings required or does the individual planner have ministerial authority? All of these contribute to costs and delays in approval.

Fourthly, can the city have an expedited process, similar to Sunnyvale, which does over-the-counter approvals for run-of-the-mill minor residential projects?

Arbitrarily, cutting fees only contributes to the city’s financial shortfall. More importantly, the city needs to streamline its permitting process to reduce the amount of staff time and the resulting delays for the homeowner. The city work plan is intended to address this - but was NOT mentioned by either Mayor Chao or Planning Chair Rao.

Stop the misinformation.

Jean Bedord

From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Fw: Written Communications
Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 6:45:44 PM
Attachments: PC 6-10-2025 Written Communications.pdf
Dear City Clerk,
I am forwarding written comments from 06/10/25 planning commission that were also addressed to city council.

Please include the below in written communications for the 06/17/25 city council meeting.

Thank you.

Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
[email protected]
From: Lindsay Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 5:35 PM
Subject: Written Communications
Hello Commissioners (bcc’d)
Attached are the written communications for tonight’s meeting Lindsay
Lindsay Nelson
Administrative Assistant
Community

Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-1374

PC 6-10-2025
Oral
Communications
Written
Communications
#138007 Concerns regarding the citywide active transportation plan surveys
Submitted
June 2, 2025 at 4:34 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Xin Wang <[email protected]>
CCs
Citycouncil <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Xin Wang June 2, 2025 at 4:34 PM
Dear City Staff, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners, I live in Cupertino. I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the surveys linked on the Citywide Active Transportation Plan webpage, particularly the project survey and the map survey:

Citywide Active Transportation Plan Page
I am seeing the city wasting huge amount of money on this kind of things but not benefit anybody. I am wondering anybody ever seriously considered what gain is achieved. Thousands of people (most if not all) will suffer due to this bad planning. But I am confused what drove the city to make wrong decisions again and again? here might be the answer.

In the project survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/extra-survey), all questions focus exclusively on improving walking and biking in Cupertino. While these are important topics, the survey does not include a single question addressing the needs or experiences of those who drive cars or ride motorcycles—despite being labeled a “transportation” survey. We believe the term “transportation” should encompass all forms of travel, including motor vehicles, which are essential for most residents' daily lives. Excluding drivers from this discussion feels like a form of discrimination and does not reflect the full scope of community transportation needs.

In the map survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/survey), when respondents indicate dissatisfaction with a roadway, the only improvement option was adding barriers or gaps for bike and pedestrian routes. This approach suggests that the only areas in need of improvement are bike and pedestrian routes, ignoring broader concerns about road quality, traffic flow, lane design or driving safety.

Many residents I’ve spoken with have found the surveys difficult or irrelevant to complete and have ultimately chosen not to participate. As such, I urge the City not to treat the survey results as a comprehensive or representative reflection of community input when making decisions about future transportation projects.

Please consider designing a more inclusive survey that better captures the full range of transportation experiences and needs in Cupertino. And please put my comments in public record.

Thank you!
6/9/25, 11:23 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138007/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138007/print 1/2
Sincerely yours,
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:23 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138007/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138007/print 2/2
#138019 An Apple Employee has big concerns regarding the Citywide Active Transportation Surveys
Submitted
June 2, 2025 at 5:41 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Tao Shui <[email protected]>
CCs
Citycouncil <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Tao Shui June 2, 2025 at 5:41 PM
Dear City Staff, Council-members, and Planning Commissioners, I am a Cupertino resident for more than 15 years. I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the surveys linked on the Citywide Active Transportation Plan webpage, particularly the project survey and the map survey:

Citywide Active Transportation Plan Page
In the project survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/extra-survey), all questions focus exclusively on improving walking and biking in Cupertino. While these are important topics, the survey does not include a single question addressing the needs or experiences of those who drive cars or ride motorcycles—despite being labeled a “transportation” survey. We believe the term “transportation” should encompass all forms of travel, including motor vehicles, which are essential for most residents' daily lives. Excluding drivers from this discussion feels like a form of discrimination and does not reflect the full scope of community transportation needs.

I believe this survey and the approach you are taking is severely biased, as it suggests that the only areas in need of improvement are bike and pedestrian routes, ignoring broader concerns about road quality, traffic flow, lane design or driving safety. The vast interest of motorist residents are not taken into account.

Please consider designing a more inclusive survey that better captures the full range of transportation experiences and needs in Cupertino. And please put my comments in public record.

Thank you!
6/9/25, 11:23 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138019/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138019/print 1/2
Yours sincerely,
Tao Shui
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:23 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138019/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138019/print 2/2
#138349 Concerns Regarding the Citywide Active Transportation Plan Surveys
Submitted
June 5, 2025 at 4:49 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
mingrui bao <[email protected]>
CCs
Citycouncil <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
mingrui bao June 5, 2025 at 4:49 PM
Dear City Staff, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners, I am a West San Jose resident. I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the surveys linked on the Citywide Active Transportation Plan webpage, particularly the project survey and the map survey:

Citywide Active Transportation Plan Page
In the project survey (https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fcupertinoatp.org%2f%23%2fextra- survey&c=E,1,C5an7G9PndEDI_7Q3HWjg-
cBRE2eCRKJofUK6iUBiCRWStOlmcToJDIOH542gTZu1p2X5bCQVsVyx7_4OdNpg9vvgdgCTs5ESNQR- pmHT0Jb1s2j5Ow,&typo=1), all questions focus exclusively on improving walking and biking in Cupertino. While these are important topics, the survey does not include a single question addressing the needs or experiences of those who drive cars or ride motorcycles—despite being labeled a “transportation” survey. We believe the term “transportation” should encompass all forms of travel, including motor vehicles, which are essential for most residents' daily lives. Excluding drivers from this discussion feels like a form of discrimination and does not reflect the full scope of community transportation needs.

In the map survey (https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url? a=https%3a%2f%2fcupertinoatp.org%2f%23%2fsurvey&c=E,1,tzFYkIBJtiuh3De5Q8z6_ODGN0ev- uDQ3pXIfnBTlhhNo2Ff2SvXl2wgwqwWcLCzBI_yhKaQZ0UYyjjksvmDwSs8jn7ZVej1cnBlZF4WomWG&typo=1), when respondents indicate dissatisfaction with a roadway, the only improvement option was adding barriers or gaps for bike and pedestrian routes. This approach suggests that the only areas in need of improvement are bike and pedestrian routes, ignoring broader concerns about road quality, traffic flow, lane design or driving safety.

Please consider designing a more inclusive survey that better captures the full range of transportation experiences and needs in Cupertino. And please put my comments in public record. Thank you! Ming
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:24 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138349/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138349/print 1/1
#138356 Concerns Regarding the Citywide Active Transportation Plan Surveys
Submitted
June 5, 2025 at 9:17 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Lidanj72 <[email protected]>
CCs
Citycouncil <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Lidanj72 June 5, 2025 at 9:17 PM
Dear City Staff, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners, I am a west san jose resident. I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the surveys linked on the Citywide Active Transportation Plan webpage, particularly the project survey and the map survey:

Please consider designing a more inclusive survey that better captures the full range of transportation experiences and needs in Cupertino. And please put my comments in public record.

Thank you!
Sincerely yours,
Lidan Jiang
Sent from my iPhone
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:24 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138356/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138356/print 1/1
#138357 Concerns Regarding the Citywide Active Transportation Plan Survey
Submitted
June 5, 2025 at 10:04 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Christine Cheng <[email protected]>
CCs
Citycouncil <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Christine Cheng June 5, 2025 at 10:04 PM
Dear City Staff, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners, We’ve been long time Cupertino residents. We’re writing to express serious concerns regarding the surveys linked on the Citywide Active Transportation Plan webpage, particularly the project survey and the map survey: Citywide Active Transportation Plan Page In the project survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/extra-survey), all questions focus exclusively on improving walking and biking in Cupertino. While these are important topics, the survey does not include a single question addressing the needs or experiences of those who drive cars or ride motorcycles—despite being labeled a “transportation” survey. We believe the term “transportation” should encompass all forms of travel, including motor vehicles, which are essential for most residents' daily lives. Excluding drivers from this discussion feels like a form of discrimination and does not reflect the full scope of community transportation needs.

Many residents we’ve spoken with have found the surveys difficult or irrelevant to complete and have ultimately chosen not to participate. As such, we urge the City not to treat the survey results as a comprehensive or representative reflection of community input when making decisions about future transportation projects.

Please consider designing a more inclusive survey that better captures the full range of transportation experiences and needs in Cupertino. And please put my comments in public record.

Thank you!
Sincerely yours,
Christine & Isaac
6/9/25, 11:25 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138357/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138357/print 1/3
Internal noteQing Li June 5, 2025 at 10:15 PM
Dear Mayor Chao and City Council Members,
As a longtime Cupertino resident and parent, I’m writing on behalf of myself and my family to ask you to defund the Active Transportation Program (ATP) and Vision Zero initiatives in their current form and instead direct staff to return with a roadmap of modern technology driven road safety improvements.

While I appreciate the city’s efforts to improve safety, I believe we need a more practical and future- ready approach—one that focuses on modern, proven technologies rather than changes that disrupt traffic without clear and measurable safety benefits.

Other Bay Area cities are beginning to explore or adopt innovations that improve safety for both pedestrians and drivers. Cupertino should consider doing the same by prioritizing tools such as:

Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI): Give pedestrians a brief head start at intersections.

High-visibility crosswalks and stop lines: Make crossings more visible and reduce encroachment.

Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE): Discourage speeding through the use of speed cameras in key areas.

Red light cameras: Help prevent dangerous intersection behavior.

Smart/adaptive traffic signals: Adjust timing based on real-time conditions for improved flow and safety.

AI-powered safety analytics: Detect near-misses and risky behavior before accidents happen.

Pedestrian beacons: Increase driver compliance at crossings with simple signal systems.

Automated pedestrian detection at signals: Improve accessibility and ease of use without push buttons.

These technologies offer a data-driven, effective way to improve safety without compromising traffic flow or relying on outdated infrastructure concepts.

I also want to point out that public input processes often attract only a narrow group of special- interest voices that focus only on a specific agenda. Many residents with busy lives are unable to attend city meetings, and as a result, the broader community’s views are not fully represented. I respectfully ask the City Council to defund ATP and Vision Zero in their current form, and instead instruct the transportation department to return with a comprehensive, modern road safety plan based on technology, data, and engineering best practices.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
6/9/25, 11:25 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138357/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138357/print 2/3
Qing and family
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:25 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138357/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138357/print 3/3
#138358 Concerns Regarding the Citywide Active Transportation Plan Survey
Submitted
June 5, 2025 at 10:06 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Adalia Lee <[email protected]>
CCs
Citycouncil <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Adalia Lee June 5, 2025 at 10:06 PM
Dear City Staff, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners, We’ve been long time Cupertino residents. We’re writing to express serious concerns regarding the surveys linked on the Citywide Active Transportation Plan webpage, particularly the project survey and the map survey: Citywide Active Transportation Plan Page In the project survey (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/extra-survey), all questions focus exclusively on improving walking and biking in Cupertino. While these are important topics, the survey does not include a single question addressing the needs or experiences of those who drive cars or ride motorcycles—despite being labeled a “transportation” survey. We believe the term “transportation” should encompass all forms of travel, including motor vehicles, which are essential for most residents' daily lives. Excluding drivers from this discussion feels like a form of discrimination and does not reflect the full scope of community transportation needs.

Please consider designing a more inclusive survey that better captures the full range of transportation experiences and needs in Cupertino. And please put my comments in public record.

Thank you!
Sincerely yours,
Adalia & Sophia
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:25 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138358/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138358/print 1/1
#138360 Concerns Regarding the Citywide Active Transportation Plan Surveys
Submitted
June 5, 2025 at 10:54 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Wenguang Wang <[email protected]>
Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Wenguang Wang June 5, 2025 at 10:54 PM
Dear City Staff, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners, I am a Cupertino area resident. I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the surveys linked on the Citywide Active Transportation Plan webpage, particularly the project survey and the map survey:

Please consider designing a more inclusive survey that better captures the full range of transportation experiences and needs in Cupertino. And please put my comments in public record.

Thank you!
Sincerely yours,
Wenguang Wang
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:25 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138360/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138360/print 1/1
#138445 Deeply concerned about the Cupertino Transportation Study Survey
Submitted
June 7, 2025 at 8:30 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Peng L <[email protected]>
CCs
Citycouncil <[email protected]>
Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Department
Planning
Peng L June 7, 2025 at 8:30 PM
Dear Councilmembers and Planning Commission members,
I’m a local resident, and recently my friends and I have become deeply concerned about the design of the Citywide Transportation Survey. It appears there are serious flaws in the way the survey is structured, making it difficult—or even impossible—for many of us to finish it.

For example, on the project survey page (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/extra-survey), we were only asked about walking and biking experiences. However, many of my neighbors are more interested in improving the driving experience on local roads. Unfortunately, this concern seems to have been overlooked entirely. It feels as though the city did not prioritize gathering feedback from those who drive daily, which excludes a large portion of the community.

Additionally, when reviewing the map survey results (https://cupertinoatp.org/#/survey), I noticed that many comments call for wider barriers on Bollinger Road. Yet none of my friends support that idea. In fact, we found that the survey provided very limited options for expressing dissatisfaction with the current road design—and no opportunity to explain why we hope the road design can be improved. As a result, only those who supported changes like wider barriers could easily complete the survey, while others were effectively silenced.

This has left many of us feeling frustrated and excluded. Some even feel discriminated against by a survey design that doesn’t allow for diverse perspectives. We hope the city will consider revising the survey process to be more inclusive and better reflect the full range of resident voices.

Sincerely yours,
Peng
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:26 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138445/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138445/print 1/1
#138457 Concerns Regarding the Citywide Active Transportation Plan Surveys
Submitted
June 8, 2025 at 10:39 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
liang xue <[email protected]>
CCs
Citycouncil <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Status
Open
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
liang xue June 8, 2025 at 10:39 PM
Dear City Staff, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners, We do not need more bike lanes. We need more car lanes.

I am a Cupertino resident. I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the surveys linked on the Citywide Active Transportation Plan webpage, particularly the project survey and the map survey:

Please consider designing a more inclusive survey that better captures the full range of transportation experiences and needs in Cupertino. And please put my comments in public record.

Thank you!
Liang Xue
Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 11:26 AM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138457/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138457/print 1/1
From: Victor Khan
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Fwd: 10095 orange ave Cupertino
Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 9:00:48 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.
>
> Hello ,
> Pls. Advise

why the setbacks on the new home construction right next to my home 10101 orange ave is less than 3 feet .
>
> Is it something was approved by the city ?
>
> Thank you
> Viktor khan
> 10101 orange ave
> Cupertino ca 95014
> Sent from iPhone
>
From: Victor Khan
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Fwd: 10095 orange ave Cupertino
Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 9:02:43 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.

Sent from iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
>
>
> Here are some
> Pics
>
> Sent from iPhone
>
>
>> On Jun 5, 2025, at 7:22 PM, Victor Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello ,
>> Pls. Advise why the setbacks on the new home construction right next to my home 10101 orange ave is less than 3 feet . >>
>> Is it something was approved by the city ?
>>
>> Thank you
>> Viktor khan
>> 10101 orange ave
>> Cupertino ca 95014
>> Sent from iPhone
>>
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject: 1000 South De Anza Blvd.

Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 11:04:59 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.

Thank you for sending the notice about 1000 South De Anza Blvd. This is the site of the old Mari Kitchen Building.

At 90 feet the building is too tall for the area. This is very close to the city of Cupertino so sensitivity Should be considered when building this structure. I think it is important that the city of San Jose Have outreach about this building to the city of Cupertino and residents of both Cupertino and San Jose as South De Anza Blvd. is shared by both cities. There needs to be some coordination in Construction so that there are not giant high rises from San Jose abutting new three story buildings From Cupertino. This makes for a very disorganized landscape. My husband grew up near South De Anza Blvd.

And Prospect in an area that was San Jose and switched to Cupertino in 1976. He attended Monta Vista High School. What high school will these students attend at 1000 South De Anza Blvd? It is also important to have adequate setback of buildings from De Anza Blvd. There needs to be room For trees and sidewalks.

I'm also concerned about the amount of traffic coming out of this project. The Traders Joes Shopping Center already has too much traffic at the corner of Bollinger and South De Anza Blvd. I am Glad that there will be adequate parking on site the property because this project could have people Parking in the adjacent shopping center parking lots or the Home Depot across the street.

I wish they had put a restaurant back in. We depend on South De Anza Blvd. to provide dining options.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
Cupertino Resident
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Fwd: Public Review Draft EIR: 1000 South De Anza Boulevard Residential Project (H23-029 & ER23-232) Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 11:09:35 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.

FYI.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Public Review Draft EIR: 1000 South De Anza Boulevard Residential Project (H23-029 & ER23-232)
From: City of San José <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025, 10:32 AM
To: [email protected]
CC:

Public Review Draft EIR: 1000 South De Anza Boulevard Residential Project (H23-029 & ER23-232)
The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 1000 South De Anza Boulevard Residential Project is now available online.

Post Date: 06/06/2025

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a Site Development Permit to allow the demolition of an existing single-story commercial structure and the removal of 13 trees for the construction a 97-foot tall, seven-story, 77,660 square foot, 120-unit residential building on a 0.72- gross-acre site. The new residential building would have 5,017 square feet of common open space and a 148-stall parking area with mechanical lifts and eight outdoor guest parking spaces. The building would be 91 feet tall from the top of the grade to the roofline. Sixteen of the units in the building are included as below market rate affordable living spaces.

LOCATION
The approximately 0.72-acre project site (APN 372-26-018) is located at 1000 South De Anza Boulevard in San José.

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
372-26-018

PUBLIC RECIRCULATION PERIOD
The Draft EIR will be circulated for public review and comment from June 6, 2025 through July 21, 2025.

The public is welcome to review and comment on the draft documents. Public comments must be submitted to the Environmental Project Manager no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 21, 2025.

Project website: 1000 South De Anza Boulevard Residential Project|City of San Jose (sanjoseca.gov)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT MANAGER
Nhu Nguyen
408-535-6894
[email protected]
Having trouble viewing this email? View on the website instead.

Change your eNotification preference.

Unsubscribe from all City of San José eNotifications.

PC 6-10-2025
Item No.2
SummerHill
Homes
Written
Communications
#138188 Letter of Support for 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd
Submitted
June 4, 2025 at 12:19 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Andrew Ha <[email protected]>
CCs
Emi Sugiyama <[email protected]>, Jordan Grimes <[email protected]>, Lin, Austin <[email protected]>, McNamara, Ryan <[email protected]>, Sbull <[email protected]> Status
Solved
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Andrew Ha June 4, 2025 at 12:19 PM
To whom this may concern,
My name is Andrew Ha and I'm writing on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance, an organization dedicated to advancing sustainable land use and climate-smart development in the 9 county Bay Area.

We would like to express our support for the 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd project (#DP-2024-002), which has now been certified by our Development Endorsement Program. We believe that this project will provide much needed sustainable infill housing to Cupertino and hope that the city's planning commission would agree.

Thank you so much for reviewing this project and we hope to see it break ground soon. ––
Sincerely,
Andrew Ha (he/him)
State and Regional Resilience Associate
Greenbelt Alliance
827 Broadway Ste 310 | Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 543-6771 ext. 322
greenbelt.org | Facebook | Instagram | X
From Surviving to Thriving: Greenbelt Alliance’s New Strategic Plan Read our vision for the next five years: greenbelt.org/strategic-plan Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 2:38 PM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138188/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138188/print 1/1
June 4, 2025
RE: Endorsement of 20840 Stevens Creek in Cupertino, CA Dear Cupertino Planning Commission,
For over 60 years, Greenbelt Alliance has helped create cities and neighborhoods that make the Bay Area a better place to live—healthy places where people can walk and bike; communities with parks, shops, transportation options; homes that are affordable and resilient to the impacts of climate change. Greenbelt Alliance’s Climate SMART—Sustainable, Mixed, Affordable, Resilient, Transit-Oriented—Development Endorsement Program provides support for projects that advance the right kind of development in the right places. By promoting climate-smart development we can create thriving, resilient neighborhoods with ready access to transit and housing choices for all of the Bay Area’s people.

After careful review, Greenbelt Alliance is pleased to endorse the proposed 20840 Stevens Creek project.

Location and Economic Benefits
In hopes to build more inﬁll housing, the developer SummerHill Homes is proposing a 59-unit townhome neighborhood nearby a plethora of community amenities including shops, parks, schools, and a community college. It is well situated for residents to have access to many of their basic needs. 12 of the units will be deed-restricted, below-market rate housing which will promote a
ﬀordability and accessibility in the community.

Sustainable Development
The project will be an all-electric residential neighborhood, providing solar panels and EV charging capacities within each home. Sustainability is also reﬂected in their landscaping and water management practices: SummerHill will grow drought tolerant and native plants, include climate sensitive controllers in common areas, and set up biological treatment for stormwater runo
ﬀ. The development will also be built in an area with minimal ﬁre and ﬂood risks, promoting its overall resilience to climate hazards.

Moreover, the 20840 Stevens Creek project will be moderately connected to public transit. It will be besides multiple VTA bus routes including the 55, 51, Rapid 523, and 23. Residents are also encouraged to bike to nearby amenities, with each garage allotting 2 spaces for bicycles.

According to GreenTRIP—a free online tool created by Transform that models traﬃc and greenhouse gas impacts of residential projects in California— the 20840 Stevens Creek project development will result in:

● 231 fewer miles driven every day compared to the Santa Clara County average. ● 12% fewer GHG impacts every day compared to the Santa Clara County average. ● 3% less parking use every day compared to the Santa Clara County average.

Greenbelt Alliance believes the 20840 Stevens Creek project will provide much needed SMART, inﬁll housing in Cupertino and we are proud to give this project an endorsement! We hope its approval will inspire higher density development in the city and around the Bay Area.

Sincerely,
Andrew Ha
State and Regional Resilience Associate
Greenbelt Alliance

#136248 Public Comment, May 13th meeting agenda item 3
Submitted
May 12, 2025 at 5:23 AM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Jack Farrell <[email protected]>
CCs
Emi Sugiyama <[email protected]>, Lin, Austin <[email protected]>, McNamara, Ryan <[email protected]>, Sbull <[email protected]>
Status
Solved
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Jack Farrell
May 12, 2025 at 5:23 AM
Good morning,
Please find attached correspondence from YIMBY Law regarding the proposal at 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd.

Sincerely,
Jack Farrell he/him
Research Attorney
267-218-1147
Check out everything we achieved in 2024!
McNamara, Ryan June 4, 2025 at 1:04 PM
Hi Emi, I just wanted to resend the attached from Jack Farrel for the June 10th Planning Commission packet.

Thanks,
Ryan
Ryan McNamara
Director of Development
SummerHill Homes

📞 Tel: (925)244-8706 | 📱 Mobile (925)766-1350
Follow Us:

All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to SummerHill Homes LLC and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes LLC. All rights reserved.
6/9/25, 2:40 PM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/136248/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/136248/print 1/2
YI M BY La w
2261 Market Street STE 1 041 6
S an Francisco, C A 941 1 4
hello@yim bylaw.org
1 Y IMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 1 041 6, San Francisco, C A 941 1 4 1 05/1 2/2025
Ci
t y o f Cu p er t in o
Planning Com m ission
1 0300 Torre A ve
Cu p er t in o , CA 9 50 14
Via em ail ([email protected])
Re: May 1 3, 2025 hearing, agenda item 3
D
ear Planning Com m ission of Cupertino,
W
e are pleased to subm it this letter of support of the proposed Sum m erhill Hom es project at 20840 Stevens C reek B oulevard. Y IMB Y Law is a 501 (c)3 non - profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. The Sum m erhill Hom es proj ect will consist of 59 townhomes, which include 1 2 below market rate townhomes, on a site designated for residential developm ent in the Cupertino Housing 2023 - 2031 Housing Elem ent.

S
um m erhill’s proposal is consistent with the Heart of the City specific plan, the Cupertino General Plan, and local zoning ordinances. As your officials have already identified to C alifornia’s D epartment of Housing and C ommunity D evelopment that the site i s appropriate for residential use and m ay contribute to the RHNA obligations, it is inarguably beneficial to public welfare that it be used for that purpose.

The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) and the City’s Housing Elem ent SummerHill proposes to develop 59 townhome - style condominiums on a portion of the approxim ately 2.97 - acre site at 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevcard. Sum m erHill subm itted an SB 330 Preliminary A pplication for the proj ect on J anuary 29, 2024. Pursuant to section 65589. 5 YI M BY La w
2261 Market Street STE 1 041 6
S an Francisco, C A 941 1 4
hello@yim bylaw.org
2 Y IMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 1 041 6, San Francisco, C A 941 1 4 2 of the G overnment C ode, the proj ect is subj ect only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the Preliminary A pplication was submitted.

The proposed proj ect is consistent with the C ity’s G eneral Plan and zoning ordinance and other applicable objective standards. In addition, the C ity’s subsequently approved 2023 – 2 0 3 1 Housing Elem ent identifies the project as a Housing Inventory Site . By designating the site as a Housing Inventory Site, the City selected the site for residential use and determ ined that residential developm ent of the site would assist the City in m eeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

The State Density Bonus Law
SummerHill proposes to provide 1 2 of the 59 townhome - style condominiums at below market rate prices. By designating at least 1 0 percent of the units for Moderate Incom e households, the project qualifies for benefits under the State Density Bonus Law.

Under the State Density Bonus Law, a developer m ay propose unlim ited waivers of developm ent standards that would have the effect of physically precluding construction of a qualifying project at the densities or with the concessions or incentives perm itted by the D ensity B onus L aw.

Sum m erHill is entitled to the waivers it has requested, all of which will provide relief from development standards that would physically preclude construction of the project at the density proposed.

Once a project qualifies for a density bonus, State law provides that the City m ay deny a requested waiver only if it would have a specific, adverse im pact upon health or safety, would have an adverse impact on a historic resource, or would be contrary to State or Federal law. In this context, specific adverse im pact “ m eans a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable im pact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the da te the application was deem ed complete.” 1 There is no
1 Gov. Code, §§ 6591 5, subd. (e)(1 ), 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).

YI M BY La w
2261 Market Street STE 1 041 6
S an Francisco, C A 941 1 4
hello@yim bylaw.org
3 Y IMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 1 041 6, San Francisco, C A 941 1 4 3 substantial evidence in the record that any of Sum m erHill’s requested waivers would m eet the criteria for City denial.

The Housing A ccountability A ct
The Housing Accountability Act, in Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A) - (B), lim its a m unicipality’s ability to deny or condition on lower density a housing development project that complies with objective standards. The C ity may only disapprove the project or impose conditions on the project that would reduce density if necessary to avoid a “ significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable im pact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on th e date the application was deem ed com plete” and there is no feasible m ethod to m itigate or avoid those im pacts other than disapproval or developm ent at a lower density.

W
e have reviewed the project plans, the CEQA docum ent and the various expert reports that have been prepared for the project, and there is not a preponderance of evidence in the record that would justify the C ity’s disapproval of the project or conditionin g the proj ect in a manner that would reduce density.

Sum m ary
T
he Legislature has made numerous amendments to C alifornia Housing Law in an effort to provide increased clarity and certainty for both m unicipalities and housing providers. Based on these laws, the project is subject only to the objective standards that were in effect on the date of the Prelim inary Application; the project is entitled to the requested waivers under Density Bonus law; with those waivers the project is consistent with applicable objective standards; and the evidence in the record would
not justify the City’s denial of the project or im position of approval that would reduce density. Disapproval of the project or approval with conditions that would render the project infeasible at the density proposed would contravene State law.

YI M BY La w
2261 Market Street STE 1 041 6
S an Francisco, C A 941 1 4
hello@yim bylaw.org
4 Y IMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 1 041 6, San Francisco, C A 941 1 4 4 It is Y IMBY Action’s understanding that City staff has processed Sum m erHill’s developm ent application with professionalism and recognition of the City’s obligations under State law. We appreciate the staff’s cooperation and encourage the Planning C ommission and the C ity C ouncil to continue to uphold the same standard.

I
am signing this letter both in m y capacity as the Executive Director of Y IMBY Law, and as a resident of C alifornia who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. I look forward to seeing this project approved and bought to realization to help change the tides of the housing crisis in the Bay Area.

S
incerely,
So
n ja Trauss
Executive Director
YI M BY La w

From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject: SB 330 Project at Staples Shopping Center & LOS Traffic Studies Date: Thursday, June 5, 2025 7:37:02 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:

I am very concerned about the traffic congestion from the upcoming Staples SB 330 project. This is a very Complicated area already with the current street configurations of Stevens Creek Blvd, Saich Ave, Bandley, the entrances and exits to the adjacent shopping centers. Also, the adjacent SB 330 Project at Panera Bread across Stevens Creek Blvd will have a traffic impact on the area too. It Will affect the same intersections.

Are there going to be LOS studies to determine the traffic impacts on the area and determine The Level of Service for each intersection in the area? Also, because Staples is filing first, will This mean that the traffic issues from the Panera SB 330 Project will be taken into account for the Staples SB 330 Project?
I think VMT is of little real value to determine how the Level of Service in the adjacent intersections To these two projects will be affected. LOS is the true indicator of future traffic trends.

Please make sure that the VMT Traffic Studies are performed. We are losing viable active retail Which is a true loss to the city. We don't want SB 330 to be both a retail crisis for the city As well as a traffic crisis in our city.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject: Re: SB 330 Project at Staples Shopping Center & LOS Traffic Studies Date: Thursday, June 5, 2025 8:06:12 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 see the corrected version of my letter to City Council to indicate that LOS Studies should be Performed on the Staples SB 330 Project.

Thank you.

Dear City Council:

I am very concerned about the traffic congestion from the upcoming Staples SB 330 project.

This is a very complicated area already with the current street configurations of Stevens Creek Blvd, Saich Ave, Bandley, the entrances and exits to the adjacent shopping centers.

Also, the adjacent SB 330 Project at Panera Bread across Stevens Creek Blvd will have a traffic impact on the area too. It will affect the same intersections.

Are there going to be LOS studies to determine the traffic impacts on the area and determine The Level of Service for each intersection in the area? Also, because Staples is filing first, will this mean that the traffic issues from the Panera SB 330 Project will be taken into account for the Staples SB 330 Project?
I think VMT is of little real value to determine how the Level of Service in the adjacent intersections to these two projects will be affected. LOS is the true indicator of future traffic trends.

Please make sure that the LOS Traffic Studies are performed. We are losing viable active retail which is a true loss to the city. We don't want SB 330 to be both a retail crisis for the city As well as a traffic crisis in our city.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
On June 5, 2025, at 7:36 PM, Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Council:

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Heritage Oak Tree South of Dish Dash Restaurant and Pizza Hut (By SB 330 Staples Project) Date: Thursday, June 5, 2025 9:02:34 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 and Planning Commission:

There is a heritage oak tree located just to the south of the Dish Dash Restaurant building And the Pizza Hut Building. The city planted the Valley Oak ten years ago to replace Another Oak Tree in the same location that was perhaps 150 years old. This was When the Dish Dash Building was being remodeled from the Marie Calendars that was There before.

The old oak tree had been on this site when the old house on the property was there. This old House was used as a mortuary and the oak tree was located adjacent to the house. The house Had probably been there since perhaps 1900 and I am assuming the oak was left on the Property as the tree was perhaps from 1860 from observing the huge diameter of the trunk.

The tree was clearly observable from the (former) Mervyns parking lot which is adjacent to The east and south side of the oak tree.

This 150 year old heritage oak tree was replaced by the city ten years ago. There is now a large Twenty foot tall Valley Oak in excellent condition. The tree has a large open area around its Perimeter and canopy and nothing is crowding it. It had plenty of space to grow to a Magnificent specimen tree.

I am concerned the proposed SB 330 Staples Condominium Project might be encroaching on this Heritage tree. I cannot tell from the plans where the tree is located, but I have always assumed It was on the Dish Dash property or the Mervyns parking lot property.

Please make sure this oak tree is not crowded or disturbed by this SB 330 Housing project.

This is a protected heritage oak tree that is protected by city law. The city has taken great pains And invested money in this tree and it would be an absolute travesty to see one of our city Heritage trees senseless destroyed or harmed by an SB 330 Project or any development for that matter.

I will be attending the June 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting on this SB 330 Staples Housing Project and will bring up the issues concerning the safety of this tree in this Potential construction zone. This Valley Oak has a good ten years of growing time already And I don't want to see this tree destroyed or damaged by getting housing construction Close to it. Valley Oaks are precious trees to California and this tree is irreplaceable.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: James Lloyd
To: Santosh Rao; Tracy Kosolcharoen; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Steven Scharf; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: City Clerk; Piu Ghosh (she/her); City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office
Subject: public comment re item 2 for 6/10/25 Planning Commission meeting Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 12:26:49 PM
Attachments: Cupertino - 20770-20840 Stevens Creek Blvd - HAA 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.

Dear Cupertino Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 2 for 6/10/25 Planning Commission meeting, the proposed 59-unit housing development project at 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes 6 moderate-income units and 6 median-income units.

Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
Jun 6, 2025
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Proposed Housing Development at 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear Cupertino Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed 59-unit housing development project at 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes 6 moderate-income units and 6 median-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and AB 2097.

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan.

Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov.

Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3).) The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org

CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to height, front setback, setback from landscape easement, side setback, rear setback, service access, private outdoor space clearance, building form, lot coverage, parking space size, planter strip, and retail component. If the City were to deny the requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City were to deny the requested requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v.

City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Additionally, the project is exempt from state environmental review under the Class 32 CEQA categorical exemption (In-Fill Development Projects) pursuant to section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, as the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as the applicable zoning designation and regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit; it will provide badly-needed affordable housing; it will bring increased tax revenue and new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents into homelessness. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
2 of 3
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.

You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3

From: David Rolnick
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Housing Project on Staples/Fontana"s/Pizza Hut Properties Date: Sunday, June 8, 2025 8:51:00 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.

Some thoughts on the housing project being proposed for the Staples and former Pizza Hut and Fontana properties:

1. There should be a retail component to this development. This may be one of the best areas in the city for retail to work.

If we want a walkable pedestrian friendly city, Stevens Creek Blvd. frontage should be retail.

If this developer can get away without providing any
retail, the message it will send to other developers is that Cupertino does not require retail as part of any new development.

2. No Very Low Income (VLI) Housing is being proposed. The Housing plan called for 59 VLI units at this site.

Zero are being proposed.

If this developer can get away with provide zero
units, other developers will try the same tactics.

3. Appropriate setbacks for the units on the south end of the property (bordering the homes on Scofield Drive) should be provided.

Thank you.

David Rolnick
From: Louis Mirante
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Support Letter for Stevens Creek
Date: Monday, June 9, 2025 2:49:29 PM
Attachments: Outlook-Logo Desc.png
Outlook-Text Desc.png
Outlook-Logo, icon.png
Outlook-Icon Desc.png
Outlook-Icon Desc.png
BAC Support - SummerHill Cupertino.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.

Hey Cupertino Planning Commission,
Please see the attached letter of support letter from the Bay Area Council for the 59-unit townhome project on Stevens Creek Boulevard you will consider at your meeting tomorrow. If you have any questions about our letter, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Best wishes,
Louis

Louis Mirante
Vice President of Public Policy, Housing

Phone: (510) 908-0537 | Email: [email protected]

The Historic Klamath, Pier 9, The Embarcadero, San Francisco

www.bayareacouncil.org

June 9, 2025
City of Cupertino
Cupertino Planning Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Support for SummerHill Homes’ 59-Unit Townhome Project at Stevens Creek Boulevard
Dear Commissioners,
On behalf of the Bay Area Council, I write to express strong support for the proposed 59- unit townhome condominium development by SummerHill Homes at 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard. This project represents a vital opportunity for Cupertino to advance toward meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets—particularly for moderate-income households—through thoughtful infill development.

The Bay Area Council represents 350 of the largest employers in the Bay Area, including companies, public agencies, and unions. We convene conversations on the most important issues facing the Bay Area and we work to make the Bay Area the best place to work and play. We are deeply committed to building the 3.5 million new homes our state needs to address our existing shortfall and the attendant high housing prices. Our goal is to endorse housing in areas that have important benefits to the region’s environment and transportation system, so we are especially supportive of projects close to jobs.

This project is one of the most important projects for meeting our goals we have seen in recent years. The proposal replaces an underutilized retail site with new homes, including 12 deed-restricted affordable ownership units for moderate- and median-income households. These types of for-sale affordable homes are among the most difficult to produce in California, and their inclusion makes this project especially valuable in addressing the city’s housing shortfall.

The units will count toward Cupertino’s RHNA obligations under the 6th Cycle Housing Element, helping ensure the city remains in compliance with state law and avoids consequences for underproduction.

SummerHill’s project is consistent with the city’s General Plan and the Heart of the City Specific Plan, and makes thoughtful use of the state Density Bonus Law to deliver a feasible and high-quality community that includes open space, landscaping, and public art. This development helps Cupertino make real progress toward its 2023–2031 housing targets by bringing a meaningful number of homes to a central location near jobs, schools, and services. Given the city’s ambitious RHNA goals, timely approval of well-located projects like this one is essential.

The Bay Area Council applauds Cupertino for its work to advance housing solutions and urges the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this project. Doing so sends a clear

P. 415.946.8777 Bay Area Council Bay Area Council Bay Area Council www.bayareacouncil.org The Historic Klamath PO Box 5135 1215 K Street, Suite 2220 Pier 9, The Embarcadero Berkeley, CA 94705 Sacramento, CA 95814 San Francisco, CA 94111
message that the city is serious about building housing for all income levels and meeting its long- term obligations under state housing law.

Sincerely,

Louis Mirante
Vice President, Public Policy
Bay Area Council
[email protected]

From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; [email protected]; City Clerk
Subject: Letters on Staples SB 330 Project
Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:05:02 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 Planning Commission:

I sent several letters to the Planning Commission about the SB 330 Staples Project site. I had Concerns about the traffic load, the heritage oak tree on the Southern side of Pizza Hut And Dish Dash Restaurant and loss of retail as I shop at the Staples frequently. I don't see Any of my letters in the comments received section. I am particularly concerned about the Potential of another SB 330 going in across Stevens Creek Blvd. at Panera Bread. We need To have LOS service traffic studies before this project is built.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: [email protected]; City Council
Subject: Fwd: Heritage Oak Tree South of Dish Dash Restaurant and Pizza Hut (By SB 330 Staples Project) Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:17:59 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.

FYI. Letter of concern about Oak Tree on the Southern Side of Dish Dash Restaurant and Pizza Hut sent on
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Heritage Oak Tree South of Dish Dash Restaurant and Pizza Hut (By SB 330 Staples Project)
From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025, 9:02 PM
To: [email protected],[email protected] CC: [email protected]
Dear City Council and Planning Commission:

The tree was clearly observable from the (former) Mervyns parking lot which is adjacent to The east and south side of the oak tree.

This 150 year old heritage oak tree was replaced by the city ten years ago. There is now a large
Twenty foot tall Valley Oak in excellent condition. The tree has a large open area around its Perimeter and canopy and nothing is crowding it. It had plenty of space to grow to a Magnificent specimen tree.

I am concerned the proposed SB 330 Staples Condominium Project might be encroaching on this
Heritage tree. I cannot tell from the plans where the tree is located, but I have always assumed It was on the Dish Dash property or the Mervyns parking lot property.

Please make sure this oak tree is not crowded or disturbed by this SB 330 Housing project.

This is a protected heritage oak tree that is protected by city law. The city has taken great pains
And invested money in this tree and it would be an absolute travesty to see one of our city Heritage trees senseless destroyed or harmed by an SB 330 Project or any development for that matter.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; City Clerk; [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: SB 330 Project at Staples Shopping Center & LOS Traffic Studies Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:31:14 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 letter from June 5 in the public comments about SB 330 at the Tuesday, June 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting on Item Number 2. Thid letter went to City Council as well as
Well as the Planning Commission on June 5 asking that an LOS (Level of Service)Traffic Study be conducted
On the SB 330 Staples Project as the LOS tells the actual degradation of the surrounding Intersections due to increased traffic load from this and other proposed projects. Please include this
Letter in comments on the SB 330 Project for the June 10 Planning Commission meeting.

Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: SB 330 Project at Staples Shopping Center & LOS Traffic Studies From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025, 8:05 PM
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected],[email protected] Please see the corrected version of my letter to City Council to indicate that LOS Studies should be
Performed on the Staples SB 330 Project.

Thank you.

Dear City Council:

I am very concerned about the traffic congestion from the upcoming Staples SB 330 project.

This is a very complicated area already with the current street configurations of Stevens Creek Blvd, Saich Ave, Bandley, the entrances and exits to the adjacent shopping centers.

Also, the adjacent SB 330 Project at Panera Bread across Stevens Creek Blvd will have a traffic impact on the area too. It will affect the same intersections.

Are there going to be LOS studies to determine the traffic impacts on the area and determine The Level of Service for each intersection in the area? Also, because Staples is filing first, will this mean that the traffic issues from the Panera SB 330 Project will be taken into account for the Staples SB 330 Project?
I think VMT is of little real value to determine how the Level of Service in the adjacent intersections
to these two projects will be affected. LOS is the true indicator of future traffic trends.

Please make sure that the LOS Traffic Studies are performed. We are losing viable active retail
which is a true loss to the city. We don't want SB 330 to be both a retail crisis for the city As well as a traffic crisis in our city.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
On June 5, 2025, at 7:36 PM, Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Council:

I am very concerned about the traffic congestion from the upcoming Staples SB 330 project.

This is a very
Complicated area already with the current street configurations of Stevens Creek Blvd, Saich Ave, Bandley, the entrances and exits to the adjacent shopping centers. Also, the adjacent SB 330
Project at Panera Bread across Stevens Creek Blvd will have a traffic impact on the area too. It Will affect the same intersections.

Are there going to be LOS studies to determine the traffic impacts on the area and determine The Level of Service for each intersection in the area? Also, because Staples is filing first, will This mean that the traffic issues from the Panera SB 330 Project will be taken into account for the
Staples SB 330 Project?
I think VMT is of little real value to determine how the Level of Service in the adjacent intersections
To these two projects will be affected. LOS is the true indicator of future traffic trends.

Please make sure that the VMT Traffic Studies are performed. We are losing viable active retail
Which is a true loss to the city. We don't want SB 330 to be both a retail crisis for the city As well as a traffic crisis in our city.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; [email protected]; City Clerk
Subject: Loss of Retail at SB 330 Staples Site on Stevens Creek Blvd.

Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:52:21 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 Planning Commission:
(Please include this as comment on Item Number 2 (SB 330 Staples Project) on the June 10, 2025 Planning Commission Agenda)
SB 330 was supposed to be a "Housing Crisis" bill. It is now apparently becoming a "Retail Crisis" bill because Cupertino is losing so much viable retail down Stevens Creek Blvd. 80,000 square feet of retail is being lost from the collection of SB 330 projects being Proposed on Stevens Creek Blvd.

I shop at the Staples frequently. This store fulfills many needs. It has a Fed Ex office, office Supplies, packing equipment and it sells other items too. It is near De Anza College And also sells computer equipment.

I am very concerned that Cupertino will become a "retail desert" by using SB 330 so much.

SB 330 is not a very good housing bill and it should be amended to promote the retention Of retail.

Why is no retail being required at this SB 330 site? I don't want to have to shop outside of Cupertino for supplies and food. When my grandmother lived in Cupertino, you could get everything you needed in Cupertino. When my husband's family grew up in Cupertino, They always shopped in Cupertino. When I first moved to Cupertino, I could get everything I Needed in town. Now we are having to go to other cities or even to Morgan Hill or Santa Cruz to get supplies, food and services.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Loss of Retail on Stevens Creek Blvd.

Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:49:23 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.

FYI. Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Loss of Retail on Stevens Creek Blvd.

From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025, 11:17 AM
To: [email protected],[email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear City Council:
(Please include this comment as public comment for the "Public Comment" section for the June 17, 2025 City Council
Meeting.)
I am very concerned that we are losing valuable retail space on Stevens Creek Blvd. due to the ever increasing SB 330 projects being introduced. SB 330 was marketed as A "Housing Crisis" bill, but it is rapidly becoming apparent it is in reality a "Retail Crisis" bill. It is wiping out all retail in easily accessible areas in Cupertino. We will have No place to buy food or medicine or services in this city. It will just be miles of Highrise housing complexes (especially if SB 79 passes) and there will be no place To shop for essentials.

I think the ability to get food and medicine and fuel and medical access should be added To the list of items that CEQA protects.

We should have a Study Session about the issues emerging from SB 330. These May have been unanticipated consequences, but SB 330 was never marketed to all of Us in the state before it was passed and we never got to comment on its downfalls.

We need to correct this bill flaw before it is too late and we have no retail left at all In Cupertino.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Demolition of Retail Buildings at SB 330 Staples Project Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:01:42 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 Planning Commission:

It might be advisable to not have all the retail buildings at the SB 330 Staples Project Be demolished at the same time. We would wind up with another situation like we Have had at Westport or Vallco/The Rise and El Paseo de Saratoga Shopping Center in West San Jose. You have perfectly good retail buildings taken down to only become Vacant lots.

The El Paseo Shopping Center is particularly worrisome because busy retail was taken down And now the shopping center is just sitting with nothing much in the shopping center and no Hope of anything being built. The examples were the busy Luckys Grocery Store and the Lovely Hallmark Store which were pretty well closed and demolished in like a week.

I would like to see the Staples Store in Cupertino stay on the SB 330 Staples Project site As long as possible since my family and my mother-in-law's family shop there regularily.

My friend's family in Los Altos as well as my friend in Santa Clara use the Cupertino Staples. The Los Altos friend was upset that the store would be closing.

It is hoped the Staples can be encouraged to relocate elsewhere in Cupertino after Its lease is up in 2026. It would not be good to knock the building down now because the Store has active retail and it has new service where you can return clothing and shoes And other items to the store and they will return them to the manufacturer for you.

My friend in Los Altos uses the Staples for this also as she has an elderly mother to Take care of too. I use the Staples service for my mother also as I purchase clothing and Shoes for her.

The Staples is a wonderful store and I think it should be encouraged to remain in Cupertino And not just knocked down.

The Fontana Restaurant Building is brand new and hardly used. It is beautiful inside and It is a shame to knock it down. Both of my mother-in-laws ate at Fontanas over the years And both were in the new building when it was open a number of years ago. Why are They trying to knock down such a beautiful building built in the lovely Italian Mediterranean Style? Why can't they use it as a Club House for the Condo Buildings or keep this building As a lovely retail building amenity for a nail salon or cafe again like Bobbies? We are going to be losing Panera Bread across the street soon with that SB 330 project Alottas in Los Altos was just Closed. Why do all the nice things In Cupertino get bulldozed? It doesn't look like this SB 330 Staples townhouse complex will be built all at once so I hope that the Existing retail on site can remain so the site is not just an empty location. It will make Shoppers just drive by Stevens Creek Blvd if it is empty and go shop elsewhere in another city, Especially if the Panera Bread is torn up across the street, not to mention Stevens Creek Blvd.

I see El Paseo de Saratoga and how empty it is and I just drive on by. Even the Red Robims Closed which is so sad. Its better to go to El Camino in Sunnyvale where they have lots of Restaurants and grocery stores. We live Marie Callendars and Black Bear Diner. We recently Had a family reunion at Black Bear Diner. It was wonderful.

Please preserve retail at SB 330 Staples Project as long as possible. Demolishing all The buildings at once looks so sad and makes no one want to shop or dine in Cupertino.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Demolition of Retail Buildings at SB 330 Staples Project Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:03:30 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 the following as comments on Item Number 2 at the June 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting on the SB 330 Staples Project. Thank you.) -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Demolition of Retail Buildings at SB 330 Staples Project From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025, 3:01 PM
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear Planning Commission:

I would like to see the Staples Store in Cupertino stay on the SB 330 Staples Project site As long as possible since my family and my mother-in-law's family shop there regularily.

My friend's family in Los Altos as well as my friend in Santa Clara use the Cupertino Staples. The Los Altos friend was upset that the store would be closing.

My friend in Los Altos uses the Staples for this also as she has an elderly mother to Take care of too. I use the Staples service for my mother also as I purchase clothing and Shoes for her.

The Staples is a wonderful store and I think it should be encouraged to remain in Cupertino And not just knocked down.

The Fontana Restaurant Building is brand new and hardly used. It is beautiful inside and It is a shame to knock it down. Both of my mother-in-laws ate at Fontanas over the years And both were in the new building when it was open a number of years ago. Why are They trying to knock down such a beautiful building built in the lovely Italian Mediterranean Style? Why can't they use it as a Club House for the Condo Buildings or keep this building As a lovely retail building amenity for a nail salon or cafe again like Bobbies? We are going to be losing
Panera Bread across the street soon with that SB 330 project Alottas in Los Altos was just Closed. Why do all the nice things In Cupertino get bulldozed? It doesn't look like this SB 330 Staples townhouse complex will be built all at once so I hope that the
Existing retail on site can remain so the site is not just an empty location. It will make Shoppers just drive by Stevens Creek Blvd if it is empty and go shop elsewhere in another city,
Especially if the Panera Bread is torn up across the street, not to mention Stevens Creek Blvd.

Please preserve retail at SB 330 Staples Project as long as possible. Demolishing all The buildings at once looks so sad and makes no one want to shop or dine in Cupertino.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Rajiv Chamraj
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: Vivek Sagdeo; Sherman Wang; Stephanie Yang; Barbara Morrone Subject: Proposed development on Stevens Creek Blvd -20840 Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:58:43 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 Members,
I live at 20791 Scofield Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014, and the proposed development on Stevens Creek Blvd is on the north side of my property line. The C Street in the proposed development almost touches my property line. The City should ensure that the street terminates where Buildings 7 and 8 end.

This will be helpful for several residents who live on Scofield Drive to maintain a level of privacy and be free from traffic noise.

Best
Rajiv Chamraj
From: Vivek Sagdeo
To: Rajiv Chamraj; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc: Sherman Wang; Stephanie Yang; Barbara Morrone
Subject: Re: Proposed development on Stevens Creek Blvd -20840 Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 4:12:57 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 members,
I am also a resident right next to the proposed development. My address is 20821 Scofield Drive. Fron one Fontanna's restaurant we all loved, to a very crowded 59 townhouse community in this 129000 sq ft lot is very drastic transition. More setbacks and lesser crowding will go a long way in keeping Cupertino livable and breathable city we all have come here for..

Thinking about the new residents in these townhouses, they will need decent living too.

Planning commission should compare this to communities like De Anza oaks and spacings in there.

Thanks
Vivek
From: Rajiv Chamraj <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:58 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Vivek Sagdeo <[email protected]>; Sherman Wang <[email protected]>; Stephanie Yang <[email protected]>; Barbara Morrone <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed development on Stevens Creek Blvd -20840

This will be helpful for several residents who live on Scofield Drive to maintain a level of privacy and be free from traffic noise.

Best
Rajiv Chamraj
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk; Rachelle Sander; Alex Corbalis, CPRP; Tina Kapoor; Colleen Ferris Subject: Fw: parks and rec facilities overrun by non-residents.

Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 5:37:21 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 06/17/25 city council meeting. [Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident.] Dear City Council,
While the below is addressed to parks and rec commission, via this email, I wish to draw your attention to this matter of non-resident take over of our city’s sports infrastructure be it tennis courts or the pickleball non-resident surge onto our tennis courts.

Please prioritize and put in place reservation policies for our parks and rec infrastructure that prioritize residents over non-residents.

Please limit the number of non-residents allowed to join paid city parks and rec facilities or events that are in-demand.

Please at the earliest enable reservations for our public park tennis courts with locked gate and codes activated by reservation codes.

Please limit reservations only to residents.

It’s high time that the city enforced policies that ensured city parks and rec sports infrastructure is usable for residents and that residents are not left on the sidelines due to a non-resident takeover of our city sports and other parks and rec infrastructure-demand offerings.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Begin forwarded message:

On Thursday, June 5, 2025, 12:58 PM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Parks and Rec staff/clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming parks and rec commission meeting.
[Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident and taxpayer] Hi Parks and Rec Commission,
I ask you some fundamental questions below.

I urge you to agendaize these questions in a future agenda item. I implore you to deliberate on these questions. Please make the deliberations actionable such that coming out of your deliberations will be a resolution or a motion to give explicit direction to parks and rec department leadership and staff based on the outcome of your deliberations. Please turn the output into a resolution that shall guide the priorities of parks and rec leadership and staff when future such questions shall arise. If necessary please forward the approved motion or resolution to a city council agenda item to further seek council approval and memorialize a set of edicts on the core charter and purpose of parks and recs facilities and offerings such as but not limited to tennis and pickleball courts.

What is the core purpose of parks and rec facilities such as city parks tennis and pickleball courts?
Is it to exclusively or primarily serve Cupertino residents or non-residents or if both to what ratio should it serve Cupertino residents? Should our public park sports facilities like tennis courts and pickleball courts be free, paid for annually, pay per use, or free for use but by reservations.

Should all public park tennis courts be for use by reservations with enforcement via gate codes only obtained when a successful reservation is made? Should court gates be lockable and unlocked only via a reservation code ?
Should reservations be allowed for non-residents?
If pay per use, what significant premium should non-residents have to pay? Should our city tennis and pickleball courts at CSC be open to league play whereby a large number of teams consisting of over 80-90% non-residents use the courts, take over these facilities courts during peak hours on weekday evenings? Or should the city limit the number of league teams and apply regulations to limit the uncontrolled growth of these league teams and the number of non-residents they bring in?
As an example I have included screen shots of an upcoming season of USTA league teams and their roosters with city of residence. As you can see ratios are predominantly non-residents.

Should non-residents albeit paying members have input on city policy on the priority and use of parks and rec city facilities? Keep in mind that a league team is 15 - 20 players and a set of 10 league teams can bring in 200 players of which 150 - 175 could be non-residents. If all input is equal as a sheer numbers game non- residents will overwhelm the amount of input that parks and rec can receive and act on.

Is the purpose of any fee charges to recover costs or to serve as profit centers? Should costs be fully recovered or if partial what is the right % of cost recovery? Should public works facility maintenance, operations and improvement costs be charged to the parks and rec facility or handled independently under public works budget?
Should cost recovery factor in the public works component. Which can be a sizable factor.

Should any city contracts with vendors offering programs seek to create competing vendors at the facility so as to improve services and increase revenues to the city from the vendors by achieving competitive RFP bids and improving the profit or revenue sharing split to the city?
Should parks and rec staff operate these facilities with the use of contractors so as to wholly or largely retain the revenue and profits from the operations of any pay for use facilities? Or should these be outsourced to vendors for convenience with the city getting a 10% split in profits?
If you wonder why I raise these questions it is because our city offers superior parks and recs infrastructure and offerings compared to neighboring cities and we are inundated with non-residents taking over our facilities be it our free courts in public parks or paid courts in city facilities or in-demand classes, and events. Our public courts are almost unusable for residents. At 6am large groups enter and take over public courts and set camp never to leave while rotating amongst themselves. No resident stands a chance amidst such large group coordinated takeovers.

I will be happy to raise these points and more in front of you at oral comments and public comments but ask that you please agendaize a discussion on these questions with intent to make the output actionable so as to direct staff or to send your recommendation to council so as to have council direct staff.

While you may wonder if these are operational matters let me remind you that the core and fundamental starting question is the matter of the policy setting aspects of what should be the mission and purpose of our parks and rec city facilities and offerings such as but not limited to tennis and pickleball courts. (Using two heavily used examples but could apply to any in-demand parks and rec facility, class, camp or program).

Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident and taxpayer) Screen shots of upcoming league season team rosters with city of residence by player

From: valerie
To: City Council; City Clerk; [email protected] Subject: CEQA and traffic impact for McClellan Rd SB 330 project Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 7:11:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
I understand this is a bit late for today's meeting at 6:45. But please include the below request in written communication for the ongoing meeting now.

Dear Mayor Chao and City Council Members,
As a long time Cupertino resident near McClellan Rd SB 330 project, I believe the proposed 27 unit townhomes is not a safe dwelling design for the current neighbors and the future residents.

Please conduct a full CEQA analysis and traffic impact study for the McClellan Rd SB 330 project, and share the results with the community.

Thank you very much for your attention.
vj
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 6-17-2025 City Council Meeting - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - AB 648 Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 6:30:37 PM
Attachments: Oral Comm-Peggys Slides.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Kirsten and City Clerk Staff,
I plan to speak during Oral Communications tonight (6/17/2025) on Zoom.

I would appreciate
it if you’d display these slides for me when I speak.

Also, please include them as part of Written Communications for this meeting.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

AB 648 – Community Colleges Housing – Overriding Local Zoning within ½ mile of campus

AB 648 exempts the construcƟon of housing that is for faculty and staﬀ, student or university housing from ALL local zoning regulaƟons

IF EITHER:
1 – parcel is within ½ mile radius of a main campus
2 – parcel is within ½ mile radius of a satellite campus that existed before July 1, 2025

CURRENT STATUS
DONE-CA Assembly voted May 27, 2025: YES=63 NO=5 NOT VOTING=11

TBD - CA Senate
June 18 – CA Senate EducaƟon on bills

Senator Josh Becker (DEM) – District 13
Oﬃce in Sacramento: 916-651-4013
District oﬃce: 650-233-2724

AB 648 – Community Colleges Housing – Overriding Local Zoning within ½ mile of campus

From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Cupertino Matters: Housing Element; TONIGHT - City Council, Tues, May 14, 2024, 6:45 p.m., Regular; 5:30 Closed; RECAP-City Council, Tues, May 7, 2024
Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 4:58:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communication for the 06/17/25 city council meeting. [Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident.] Dear City Council members,
I am writing to correct the written communications record raised by Ms Jean Bedord alleging misinformation in the 06/17/25 city council meeting written communications.

Enclosed below is the Cupertino Matters edition of 05/14/24 of which Ms Jean Bedord is the editor.

As Ms Bedord states in her own publication below at the city council meeting of 05/14/24 city council deliberated on agenda item 2 and approved the revised user cost recovery policy to achieve full user cost recovery.

See excerpt below from Cupertino Matters stating the same.

Item No. 2: Fiscal Year 2024-25 Fee Schedule
(continued from May 7, 2024). Annually, city fees
are reviewed and revised. Most of the fees are
adjusted using an index-based metric such as
CPI and labor costs. In light of the city’s
financial challenges, council had also
directed staff to move toward full cost
recovery of services, except for policy related
charges, such as appeals and block parties. A
Credit Card Transaction fee has been added.

Several Planning Division fees have been added
to recover increased demand for review
processes which had been previously subsidized
by the General Fund. If possible, services have
been streamlined and the associated fees
consolidated. Fees for services no longer
provided are eliminated from the schedule. The
total of these fee updates would generate an
estimated $774,680 for the General Fund.
05/14/24 agenda and related docs on user cost recovery policy are below:
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=1191938&GUID=7D2D4C0D-BD0C- 448B-B589-F6A5F59CE2DF
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=12912846&GUID=5CDB0C0F-E57F- 4712-8B66-41244B6F8683
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=12912847&GUID=68B02EE7-EEA9- 457C-A90E-63137DA2DDAF
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=12912848&GUID=171A9210-B539- 4C07-A1CF-4D745526C211
05/14/24 minutes are below:
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1191938&GUID=7D2D4C0D-BD0C- 448B-B589-F6A5F59CE2DF
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only)
Begin forwarded message:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2024, 2:52 PM, Jean Bedord <[email protected]> wrote:

View translation in your browser
Friends,
Budgets at all levels of government are in the news this month.

According to the Mercury News, Gov. Newsom says state has $27 billion budget shortfall, but it can be balanced without raising taxes. This is the proposed budget, which will undergo scrutiny in the Legislature, and will be adjusted even more as revenue and expenditure estimates change over the next few weeks. At the county level, according to San Jose Spotlight, Santa Clara County closes deficit but can’t escape budget cuts. Note the statement: “A key driver of the structural deficit is the slower pace of property tax rolls — the largest source of county discretionary revenue. Fewer home sales and Prop. 13 — which only allows a reassessment when there’s actual change in ownership of property — have had an effect.” This has had a similar impact on Cupertino, due to its lack of development under previous councils.

Meanwhile, the city has released its 640-page proposed budget for FY2023-24. Cupertino may be impacted by state and county budget cuts, but the biggest issue is the loss of $30 million in ongoing revenue due to an administrative decision by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA).

The city reduced expenditures by $15 million, but needed an additional $15 million to address the ongoing structural deficit.

Through a combination of service level reductions, modestly increased property tax revenues and other revenue
improvements, the proposed budget is $146.5 million in expenses, with the General Fund proposed at $89.9 million funded with $89.8 million in revenue, with $0.1 funded from the unassigned fund balance.

UPCOMING - CITY COUNCIL - Tues, May 14,
2024, 6:45 p.m., Special Meeting; 5:30 p.m.,
Closed Session
Agenda and Presentations
Closed Session:

Item No. 1: Conference with legal counsel – existing litigation pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9 (Pacific Autism Center for Education v. City of Cupertino, Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 23CV423995). This regards a deed-restricted property.

Item No. 2: Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9 (City of Cupertino v.

Jennifer Chang, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 21CV380291). This case has been considered at a previous session. It inovlves a follow-on civil action initiated by the city to recover additional money over and above those already recovered from Ms. Chang’s criminal restitution. The judge handling this matter recently decided portions of the case through “summary adjudication” in favor of the city. As readers will recall, these cases stem from the 2018 discovery of an embezzlement scheme run by Ms. Chang when she was still a city employee.

Special Meeting:

Item No. 1: 6th Cycle Housing Element and Associated General Plan Amendments Even though the city has been notified that the revised third draft of the Housing Element meets the statutory state requirements, the city has to adopt the Housing Element and rezone Priority Housing Sites in order to be fully
compliant. There are 36 sites consisting of a total of 62 parcels.

Non-compliance means loss of land use local control–
including ongoing eligibility for the “builder’s remedy” of the Housing Accountability Act, potential exposure to litigation, ineligibility for significant grant funds, and other adverse consequences.

As a result, staff is recommending a plan that would create four new land use designations for higher density, particularly in commercial/residential areas. To encourage development of “missing middle” housing in established single family
neighborhoods, corner lots will be allowed to develop using the standards for duplexes. This is consistent with earlier ADU changes which allowed development of up to two primary units and two ADUs in R1 zoning districts. The plan also commits to reviewing parking standards and parkland dedication fees in order to reduce constraints on housing development. As noted at both the prior council study session in April and the Planning Commission hearing on the topic, any changes would jeopardize certification of the Housing Element.

Item No. 2: Fiscal Year 2024-25 Fee Schedule (continued from May 7, 2024). Annually, city fees are reviewed and revised. Most of the fees are adjusted using an index-based metric such as CPI and labor costs. In light of the city’s financial challenges, council had also directed staff to move toward full cost recovery of services, except for policy related charges, such as appeals and block parties. A Credit Card Transaction fee has been added.

Fees for services no longer provided are eliminated from the schedule. The total of these fee updates would generate an estimated $774,680 for the General Fund.

Item No. 3: Consider accepting the City's Investment Policy.

This
Consent Calendar item was added at the last minute. This policy is reviewed annually. The most recent review and acceptance of the investment policy by the Audit Committee occurred on April 22, 2024, and needs to be formally approved by the City Council.

Changes are minor to comply with state code or to make clearer declaratory statements of existing policy. If the policy is not adopted, then a gap in investment authority will arise leaving the city unable to fully dispose of its assets.

YOU CAN EXPRESS YOUR OPINION: Readers are encouraged
to speak at council meeting, either at Oral Communications on any topic, or on specific agenda items. Speakers have three minutes, and coaching is available! Readers are also encouraged to email individual council members, the council as a whole, the city manager, and the city clerk. Note that emails to city council as a whole are forwarded to the city manager, whereas emails to individual councilmembers are not. Clearly include in your subject line the topic or agenda item on which you are commenting:

These become part of the public record. Contacts at
CupertinoMatters.org/express-your-opinion
City Manager Pamela Wu: [email protected]
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia: [email protected]
City Council: [email protected]
Mayor Sheila Mohan [email protected]
Vice-Mayor J.R. Fruen [email protected]
Councilmember Hung Wei [email protected]
Councilmember Liang Chao: [email protected]
Councilmember Kitty Moore [email protected]
RECAP - CITY COUNCIL - Tues, May 7, 2024,
6:45 p.m., Regular Meeting; 6:00 Closed
Session
YouTube: 2 hr. 22 min. (Meeting adjourned at 9:07)
Agenda and Presentations
The sole action item was Item No. 10: 2024 Legislative Update.

The legislative consultant highlighted the number of new members that will be elected this year, potentially affecting two year legislative bills. The state budget deficit and proposed budget are a moving target. Council discussed the three pieces of legislation that the consultant recommended taking a position, then these were considered individually:
(1) Senate Bill (SB) 1143 (Allen) voted 5-0 to support (2) Assembly Bill (AB) 1779 (Irwin) - Public Safety voted 5-0 to support
(3) Bay Area Affordable Housing Measure (BAHFA) - Affordable Housing garnered more discussion with a substitute motion by Moore to watch, rather than support. The original motion by Councilmember Wei, as amended by Vice Mayor Fruen to support the measure passed 4-1 with Moore voting nay.

CUPERTINO COURIER: May 10, 2024
The front page photo and community brief on page 3 is entitled National Rebuilding Day: Volunteers perform maintenance, repairs at 18 projects. Community Briefs on page 5 are (1) Rebuilding Day, (2) Live Well, Age Well, and (3) Housing Resource Fair on May 30 Agriculture Walk. The sole legal notice is a Bid Invitation for Preventative Maintenance Programs Project.

Warm regards,
Jean Bedord,
Cupertino Matters, Publisher and Editor

P.S. If you have received this from a friend and would like your own copy, go to CupertinoMatters.org to subscribe to our mailing list. If there's something you'd like to see included in Cupertino Matters, please feel free to
email [email protected]
.

NB: Over 50 language translations of the newsletter are available by clicking on the “translate” link at the top of the newsletter, which directs users to a webpage with translation options at the upper right corner.

This email was sent to [email protected]
why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Cupertino Matters · Stevens Creek Blvd. · Cupertino, CA 95014 · USA From: William Jiang
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Cc: Public Comments; City Clerk; Jimmy Tan, P.E.; The Ivy Advisor Subject: Re: Oral Communications Statement for July 17th City Council Meeting Date: Sunday, June 15, 2025 9:55:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Kirsten,
Again, thank you for your reply and information. Thank you for attaching the 6/17 meeting agenda. I got a copy online also. You mentioned,
The June 17 agenda has already been published. "However, you may request that the topic be considered for a future agenda when addressing the Council during the meeting." Yes, I do want to have the topic be considered for the next meeting agenda (for July 1st meeting if possible). So I should request so when I address the Council duing my 3-min time, Right? I will do so then on Tuesday.

Thank you.

Best regards,
William Jiang
On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 10:34 AM William Jiang <[email protected] > wrote:

Thank you for the information, Kirsten! I will do accordingly.

Best,
William
On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 10:25 AM Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected] > wrote:

Good morning William (City Council Bcc’d),

Your comments have been received and will be included with the written communications for the June 17 City Council meeting, under the Oral Communications section. Comments not related to a specific agenda item may be shared during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. Please submit your request to speak at any time before, or within nine minutes after, the Mayor opens the item for public comment. This item will be heard near the beginning of the meeting. The Council meeting begins at 6:45 PM in the Community Hall Council Chamber, located at 10350 Torre Avenue.

The June 17 agenda has already been published and is attached for your reference.

However, you may request that the topic be considered for a future agenda when addressing the Council during the meeting.

Regards, Kirsten

Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225

From: William Jiang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 9:25 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Public Comments <[email protected]>; Jimmy Tan, P.E. <[email protected]>
Cc: The Ivy Advisor <[email protected]>
Subject: Oral Communications Statement for July 17th City Council Meeting

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Respected City Clerk Ms. Kirsten,

My mobile number (for call or texting) is 408-891-7668. You can always use my email to communicate also.

Thank you. Any attention to this issue from you or the city is highly appreciated.

William Jiang
Leslie Yi
CC 06-17-2025
Item No. 8
Accounts Payable
Written Communications
From: Jean Bedord
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office Subject: Agenda Item #8 Accounts Payable, Written Comments on Consent Item, City Council, June 17, 2025 Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 2:23:10 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.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.

City clerk - please include in Written Communications
Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore and Council Members Fruen, Mohan and Wang, I object to this payment register for Aleshire & Wynder for Legal Services. Essentially, the city is providing a "blank check". There is no indication of the services actually provided. What is my taxpayer money paying for? The description is redundant. "Legal Services, March 2025". The dates are already provided, so provide a brief description of what those services are. There are two entries: $64,038.50 and then another for $10,737.00 on the same date as the first entry for a total of $74,775.50. Why? Is this for the private investigator hired by the law firm? This is a lot of billable hours in a single month. What will the bills be for April and May??? By contrast, this is the type of entry that should be provided to taxpayers. Another contract service provider, the County Sheriff, provided an appropriate description: Earth Day 2025 - Sheriff Services, as well another entry which identifies CEEF 5K Run 3/29/25 (documenting that the billing date was different).

Please provide an explanation for these charges. I urge the city to require appropriate documentation before paying any invoices to Aleshire & Wynder. This firm has a reputation for creating opportunities to inflate billable hours, so the council needs to monitor. Shouldn't the council set a Do-Not-Exceed cap on monthly legal expenses?
Concerned taxpayer,
Jean Bedord
CC 06-17-2025
Item No. 11
Amendment to the
Grant Agreement with
Apple Inc.

Written Communications
From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: Melissa Robertson
Subject: FW: I had my hand up for Consent Items! CONSENT ITEM #11 Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 9:34:14 PM
Please include for written communications

Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225

From: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 9:09 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: I had my hand up for Consent Items! CONSENT ITEM #11

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Kirsten,

Please include this email as my communication for Consent Item #11 – Apple Agreement Modification

I am in support of the Apple Grant Amended Agreement. This reallocation of funds and addition of a significant amount of additional funds will improve:

Pedestrian
Bicycle
Vehicle
Traffic in the I-280 and N. Wolfe interchange area.

These funds re-allocation will enable the I-280 interchange reconfiguration to be completed AND improve access to multiple development projects – both existing and in-progress.

Thank you to Chad Moseley, staff and council for making this happen.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

From: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]
>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 8:46 PM
To: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: I had my hand up for Consent Items!

Peggy - I’m very sorry. I did not see your hand raised. My error. Would you like to email comments?
Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225

On Jun 17, 2025, at 7:51 PM, Peggy Griffin <[email protected]> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Peggy
CC 06-17-2025

Item #13

Post-Collection Service
Agreements

Written Communications
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Debbie Timmers <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2025 8:48 PM
To: Public Comments
Subject: Item 13 for the June 17 city council meeting. Item "c" under the 1st recommended action
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 the following in written communications for Item 13 for the June 17 city council meeting Item "c" under the 1st recommended action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, City Councilmembers, and Acting City Manager Kapoor:

As a Cupertino resident with children and grandchildren who also call this city home, I am writing to express my strong support for the staff's recommendation to utilize the SMaRT Station when it is upgraded. This initiative is a meaningful step forward in significantly reducing landfill waste by approximately half through enhanced recycling and waste diversion practices.

Our Climate Action Plan 2.0 set a clear goal of achieving and maintaining an 80 percent waste diversion rate by 2025. Unfortunately, with our current rate still in the 60s, it is clear we are not yet on track.

Addressing waste is crucial, as decomposition in landfills is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, specifically methane, originating from residential, commercial, and municipal waste, especially organic materials like food scraps and yard waste. Taking action now will help us meet our climate goals and ensure a cleaner, healthier future for our community.

I am pleased to see the chart in the staff report that indicates we would be mid-range for the estimated rate impact of processing garbage compared to other cities. It's reassuring to know that cost increases are reasonable and that low-income residents will continue to have access to discounted rates.

For this and for the improved environmental impact, I urge you to approve the staff’s recommendation and take this important step toward a more sustainable Cupertino.

Sincerely,

Debra Timmers

CC 06-17-2025
Item No. 14
Amendments
pertaining to Economic
Development
Committee
Written Communications
From: Alexander Fung
To: Public Comments
Subject: Written Public Comment for June 17, 2025 City Council Meeting Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 7:16:35 PM
Attachments: 25-06-17 Public Comment Regarding Economic Development Committee.pdf Good Evening,
Please see attached for a written public comment for tomorrow's City Council meeting regarding Item 14.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment,
Alex
Alexander Fung
Vice Chair & Sustainability Commissioner
[email protected]

Cupertino City Council
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: PUBLIC COMMENT - SUPPORT FOR SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION REPRESENTATION ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (AGENDA ITEM 14) Dear Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Members of the City Council, Thank you for the opportunity to submit a public comment regarding Agenda Item 14, which introduces Municipal Code amendments to establish composition and terms of office for the City’s reinstated Economic Development Committee. I am submitting this public comment as a Cupertino resident, a Cupertino business owner, and the Vice Chair and Commissioner of the City’s Sustainability Commission.

The City of Cupertino has committed bold climate goals through the adoption of the City’s Climate Action Plan 2.0 on August 16, 2022. These goals are integral to the City’s economic vision, as the City’s Climate Action Plan 2.0 includes multiple actions that require businesses’ participation. The Climate Action Plan calls for the facilitation of energy master planning work around electrification for commercial business owners and large developers (Action ID BE 3.1), the development of a commercial building electrification strategy (Action ID BE 3.2), the implementation of engagement efforts for the commercial sector (Action IDs BE 3.3, 3.4, and

3.7), and the creation of programs to generate interest and secure partnership among local businesses and institutions (Action ID BE 3.9). Business attraction and retention efforts must embrace a forward-thinking approach to climate resilience, infrastructure, and livability.

The Sustainability Commission’s presence on the Economic Development Committee ensures that the City builds an economy that is resilient and aligned with the City’s climate values as we attract and retain businesses. Removing the Sustainability Commission’s seat can send a message that sustainability is optional in economic development efforts.

On June 16, 2025, the Sustainability Commission held a special meeting and unanimously voted to recommend the City Council to consider keeping the Sustainability Commission seat on the Economic Development Committee, while also encouraging the addition of a Planning Commission representative on the Economic Development Committee.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the City Council consider retaining the Sustainability Commission’s seat on the Economic Development Committee, as the City continues to lead with a mindset where economic and environmental stewardship go hand-in-hand. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
Alexander Fung
Vice Chair & Commissioner
Cupertino Sustainability Commission
CC 06-17-2025
Item No.15
Options on
preservation and anti-
displacement of BMR
units
Written Communications
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Nicky Vu
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2025 10:50 AM
To: Kirsten Squarcia; Lauren Sapudar
Subject: FW: BMR Resident
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Kirsten,

I am forwarding a written comment I received regarding my item on June 17, the BMR Anti-Displacement policy.

Best,

Nicky Vu
Senior Housing Coordinator
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-1347

From: June Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:52 PM
To: Nicky Vu <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: BMR Resident

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.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: June Thomas <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 at 08:06:21 PM PDT
Subject: Fw: BMR Resident

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: June Thomas <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 at 09:55:19 AM PDT
Subject: BMR Resident

I have been a resident in Cupertino since July 1984. I moved into my BMR on July 2000 at the Cupertino Park Center 20380 Stevens Creek Blvd., #220, Cupertino, Ca. 2 I have roots here and many friends. I received my AA from De Anza College in the mid-eighties. It would really
be hard for me to move out of the area being a senior.

Hope we can resolve the BMR issues so I can afford to live here. Its home!!!!!

Sincerely
June Thomas
From: Cassandra Magana
To: City Council; Public Comments
Subject: Item 15 Anti Displacement BMR Policy
Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 5:54:02 PM
Attachments: Support%20Letter%20WVCS%20BMR%20.pdf.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.

Dear Mayor Chao and City Council,
Please find attached a letter from West Valley Community Services in support of Agenda Item 15 regarding the BMR Anti-Displacement Policy.

Thank you for your continued leadership.

With Compassion,
Cassandra Magana (She/Her/s/Ella
Manager of Policy & Advocacy
West Valley Community Services, Inc.
10104 Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
Email: [email protected]
direct: (408)-471-6122 Main: 408.255.8033 |
Fax: 408.366.6090
Please donate to help our community members facing hunger and homelessness!

Dear Mayor Chao and Honorable Members of the City Council, On behalf of West Valley Community Services (WVCS), I am writing to express our strong support

for

the

proposed

amendments

Cupertino’s

Policy

and

Procedures

Manual

for

Administering

Deed-Restricted

Affordable

Housing

Units,

also

known

the

Below

Market

Rate

(BMR)

Anti-Displacement

Policy.

WVCS has proudly served Cupertino and the West Valley region for over 50 years. We see ﬁrsthand

the

challenges

our

neighbors

face

when

they

are

displaced

from

stable

affordable

housing,

especially

our

seniors,

families

with

children,

and

individuals

with

disabilities.

The

loss

affordability

protections

for

BMR

units

puts

over

hundred

families

risk

displacement

2040.

This

policy

offers

critical

step

forward

preserve

housing

stability

and

dignity

for

those

who

have

built

their

lives

Cupertino.

We commend the proposed resolution for prioritizing current and recently displaced BMR tenants

the

city’s

waitlist

system

and

for

requiring

landlords

provide

advance

notice

and

relocation

assistance.

The

inclusion

priority

points

for

public

workers

and

those

who

live

and

work

Cupertino

reﬂects

the

community’s

values

and

invests

those

who

serve

and

sustain

the

city.

We are particularly encouraged by the provisions that:
● Establish a clear deﬁnition and protections for displaced BMR tenants and special circumstance

households
,

including

older

adults,

people

with

disabilities,

and

families

with

minor

children.

● Mandate fair relocation payments based on HUD Fair Market Rent standards, ensuring tenants

have

real

support

transitioning

new

housing.

● Create stronger noticing and enforcement requirements to ensure tenants are informed of

their

rights

and

landlords

are

held

accountable.

Housing is more than shelter; it's stability, health, and community. This policy will help prevent the

displacement

low-income

tenants

who

have

contributed

Cupertino

for

years

and

are

risk

through

fault

their

own.

sets

meaningful

precedent

for

other

cities

Santa

Clara

County

grappling

with

expiring

affordability

covenants.

We urge the Council to adopt this resolution and stand with our neighbors who deserve the opportunity

stay

rooted

their

community.

Thank you for your leadership and for considering this important policy.

Sincerely, Sujatha Venkatraman Cassandra Magaña Executive Director Asst. Manager of Advocacy & Public Policy West Valley Community Services West Valley Community Services

CC 06-17-2025
Item No. 16
Potential purchase of
10480 Finch Avenue
Written Communications
From: Lisa Warren
To: City Clerk; City Council
Cc: City Attorney"s Office; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 16- City Council regular meeting June 17, 2025 - 10480 Finch Ave Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 9:41:58 PM
Attachments: LW response to Mayor with CUSD mtg minute info Aug 22 2024 ..... Written Communications for City Council JUNE 3 2025 mtg ITEM 9 - FINCH property.pdf
Written Communications for City Council JUNE 3 2025 mtg ITEM 9 - FINCH property.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.

City Clerk,
Please include this email message in Written Communications for Item 16 of City Council June 17, 2025 regular meeting. (please confirm rcpt) Also please include a full version of the attached documents to this email for the same Item 16, CC Agenda 6/17/25. (please confirm rcpt) Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council Members,
Below, I have included late afternoon information (a response to an email from Mayor Chao on June 3, 2025) to my comments emailed on June 3, 2025 for public record on the NOW Agenda Action Item 16, regarding 10480 Finch Ave Property potential Purchase discussion that was previously item 9 on June 3, 2025 City Council agenda.

I have attached other documents, including one with three emails that were sent in for the June 3, 2025 CC mtg where this item was the Postponed agenda item #9. Emails were from myself, Jeff Whited, and Jennifer Griffin. Please revisit those communications.

Mr. Whited has an excellent idea, and an informed vision for the Finch property. While the school district is wanting to sell the property, students could most certainly benefit from a space as he describes just as all residents could. It would be exciting if CUSD would partner with the city in some way to provide science based learning in a space that he has outlined.

I am so very grateful that a public discussion related to the possible purchase of 10480 Finch Ave by the City of Cupertino is taking place. There were several months where I believe that city was making claims and having no public discussion about this opportunity. I sense, and hope, that CUSD Board majority has the same vision as Mrs. Pestarino did. I applaud her heirs for making efforts to honor her wishes. I encourage the city of Cupertino to do the same.

A ‘PARK’ on the East side of the city, that could be used by all residents that live in the park starved area… and all other residents as well.

The definition of a park can be greatly varied. Let’s get creative and give life to something special and unique to the city. It can, and perhaps should be, ‘simple’.

Thank you.

Lisa Warren
______
I would also like to note that a former Cupertino mayor had, years ago and more than once, suggested on the dais and recorded, that the city purchase 10480 Finch Avenue from CUSD, OR partner with CUSD to create a park on the site. Stating that the east side of the city needed more parks.

Over past years, there have been several 2X2 City/CUSD meetings held that included such an idea.
______
There is a typo in the minutes from CUSD Aug 22, 2024
Correction : It was January 5, 2017 when the property was purchased off market. Close to 7 years, 7 months prior to August 2024 meeting.

Mr. Sheldon gave a brief review of the Finch property:
about 1.4 acres of land next to Sedgwick
the District acquired the property 17 years ago at approximately $5.6M ______
In addition, please be aware that Agenda Item 16 and supporting documents refer incorrectly to CUSD as Cupertino Unified School District and should be corrected on all documents to Cupertino Union School District. Thank you.

Thank you.

Lisa Warren
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Lisa Warren <[email protected]>
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Liang Chao <[email protected]> Cc: City Attorney's Office <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 04:41:54 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 9 - City Council regular meeting June 3, 2025 Thank you for the question, Mayor Chao.

You can refer to the info below which was taken from the minutes of CUSD Board meeting Aug 22, 2024.

You could also hear full presentation and Q & A on the youtube recording of the same meeting.

I have heard more specific statements in the past (going back a decade or more).

It is likely possible to get more 'quotes', but I have no time at this moment.

Lisa Warren

5. DISCUSSION

5.1 Updates on the District's Real Property Matters (
https://youtu.be/cVcqGwjsd2g&t=34m58s)

CBO Jew shared an update on the Luther and Serra leases:
all current tenants accepted the updated District's long-term (LT) lease terms tenants have requested a 10-year lease at their existing spaces at the rate of $3.75/sq. foot, effective July1, 2025
staff will bring the new lease agreements to the Board for approval at a subsequent Board meeting

CBO Jew invited Scott Sheldon and Barry Schimmel from Terra Realty to present options for the Finch property

Mr. Sheldon gave a brief review of the Finch property:
about 1.4 acres of land next to Sedgwick
the District acquired the property 17 years ago at approximately $5.6M

Superintendent Yao shared that:
the District is considering all possibilities for the property the Board has not made any decision on the property
after today's discussion, staff will look to the Board for direction regarding next steps

Mr. Sheldon shared that there are four available options (slide 6):

Option 1 - District Educational or Recreation needs:
examples include CuperDoodle, before and after school programs, sports the lot is currently vacant, so the District will need to consider the initial capital/infrastructure outlay and ongoing operational costs Option 2 - City of Cupertino's needs/parks:
staff have been told by City staff that the City does not have funds to pay for the property
if the property is to be turned into a public park, the District will probably need to donate the land and spend District funds to develop the land Option 3 - Work Force Housing:
to obtain the most efficiency, these would be higher density housing e.g. a minimum of 10 units
economic impacts on the District's financials (slides 7 and 8) - possible issuance of bonds, donation of land, capital infusion
at present, work force housing costs more than its market value case study: Jefferson Union SD in Daly City
Option 4 - Revenue Generation:
highest and best use of the property is residential housing development slide 12 shows the value, pros and cons, and potential revenues from (1) senior project/ground lease; (2) single family project; and (3) townhome project
slide 13 shows the development process the District needs to go through for any of these projects
exchanges and other options
legal provisions as specified by Ed Code, ITS guidelines and Deed of Trusts (slide 15)
Net Net Net (NNN) Lease - tenants responsible for all operating costs; the District just collects the lease payments
whatever the Board decides, Terra recommends the Board NOT to get rid of the asset

the Board asked clarifying questions/commented:
do NNN leases tend to be commercial?
it depends; it's typically commercial
for NNN leases, the District does not need to manage them, whether they be commercial or residential
is a NNN lease a good fit for the Finch property?
the location is not desirable for commercial NNN for neighbors would recommend a residential NNN
when did the City advise us that they have no money for the property? who at the City said there was no money?
in spring just before schools got out
it was communicated by the City Community Development staff, not at the City Council level
if we keep the property as is, what's our expense?
minimal maintenance at the site
state accesses fees if a site is not used as a school; the fee is 1% of the assessed value of the property
what is the history on the purchase of this property?
the original owner presented the opportunity to CUSD
the thought at that time was the District might need more space to add classrooms
would what we did for the Montebello property be applicable to this property as well?
probably, but short-term though
how does residential development affect the prices for the nearby homes? their property value would probably be elevated
slide 13 shows the development process, but we didn't do that for the Montebello property?
Terra staff did the work for the District
if we were to do a trade, does that require a 2/3 Board vote? yes
comment - teacher housing has negative financial impacts for the District comment - perhaps work with the county instead of the City of Cupertino for financing options

four members of the public submitted a comment card on time for this agenda item:

Mark Wright - not present when invited to speak
Jennifer Griffins - expressed the need for a public park at this location; mentioned that the City should have funds to do so
Anjali Sagdeo - not present when invited to speak
Lisa Warren - gave additional history regarding the District's purchase of the Finch property; talked about the need to turn the property into a public park or educational/recreational uses

the Board further commented:

Trustee Madhathil:
keep the discussion ongoing with the City of Cupertino
prefers Option 1 - educational purposes for our kids
Trustee Liu:
wants the District to take action regarding Finch and spend the resulting funds in the classrooms
preference is use the property for District educational; not CuperDoodle, though if there are no educational needs for this property, then use it for recreational purposes e.g. parks
not considering Options 3 or 4
requests the City Manager to consider putting this on the City Council agenda with recent development agreements with the City, project/get generation numbers to see if we need to add to Sedgwick
Trustee Leong:

Option 1 - get analysis with the addition of the Vallco units and what the impact on Sedgwick might be
Option 2 - if the City were to purchase the property, do we have to sell at a discount?
don't believe so, but the District will have to go through an appraisal process
Option 3 - it's too small a site for work force housing Option 4 - open to this option, but try to keep the neighborhood as much status quo as possible
Trustee Chiao:

Option 1 - may not be viable because:

CuperDoodle generates only $2M annually and the other options generate more revenues
the Rise takes about ten years to build, and it's still early in the process to estimate its enrollment impact
the District determines school assignment, and it may be at Collins which is closer to the Rise instead of at Sedgwick
Option 2 - there are news reports that the City is in debt; believe that the City has no money
Option 3 - if there are staff/social needs, look at financing options to lessen the net cost to the District
Option 4 - maintain the area as residential and not commercial Trustee Vogel:

Option 1 - first choice; interested to see the generation numbers Option 2 - second choice; explore with the City for finances; parks are lacking in this area
Option 3 - not interested
Option 4 - third choice if we can do a trade to create additional revenues

Mr. Sheldon added:
there will be developer fees to be collected from the Rise project there were precedents in the past that school districts have gone back to the developers for add-on fees to mitigate the expense of educational experience enhancements such as science labs, media centers

Superintendent Yao commented that staff has enough information from the Board as to next steps and will update the Board in subsequent meetingsOn Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 02:58:36 PM PDT, Liang Chao <[email protected]> wrote:

Removed the Council.

Lisa,
Thank you for sharing the history of this property with us.

Has the wishes of Mrs. Pestarino and her descendants been recorded any where? Perhaps, mentioned in an email or public comment at a school board meeting? Thanks,
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192

From: Lisa Warren <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 2:48 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: City Attorney's Office <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 9 - City Council regular meeting June 3, 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.

Please include this message in Written Communications for Item 9. 10480 Finch Ave Property potential Purchase 6/3/25
Thank you.

Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council members, and Staff,
I attended and spoke at CUSD Board meetings approximately a decade ago when deliberation about the possibility of purchasing 10480 Finch Avenue was taking place.

I have also listened to, CUSD Board members, staff and consultant give presentations and discuss ‘options’ for this property last Fall. I have sent comments via email. Some including pieces of ‘history’ related to how and why the ‘Finch site’ was purchased by the district. CUSD agendas referred such a purchase as ‘Sedgwick Expansion’. The positioning of the school district to acquire the residential portion of a much larger piece of land (originally farmland) that would be used for expanding the districts assets and allow for anticipated growth that would accommodate growing enrollment (Vallco housing, etc.)
The idea was proactive. Bond measure funds were available. The land was purchased.

The property at 10480 Finch Ave. APN 375-40-067, was NOT on the MLS, or Multiple Listing Service. This is verifiable on MLS. The reason that it became available to the school district is that the children/Trustees of the estate reached out to the district to open a dialogue focused on whether the district would be interesting in purchasing that corner adjacent to the school site. The Pestarino trustees were honoring their mother’s hope/wish that the home and property where she lived for so very long, would be used for the benefit of children and education. While I am disappointed that CUSD has chosen to sell the now vacant property, I believe that it would be truly a huge disgrace if the land was not used in a way that Mrs.

Pestarino would be comfortable with.

From: Lisa Warren
To: City Clerk; Liang Chao
Cc: City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Re: Agenda Item 9 - City Council regular meeting June 3, 2025 Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 4:42:09 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.

Thank you for the question Mayor Chao.

You can refer to the info below which was taken from the minutes of CUSD Board meeting Aug 22, 2024.

You could also hear full Q & A on the youtube recording of the same meeting.

I have heard more specific statements in the past (going back a decade or more).

It is likely possible to get more 'quotes', but I have not time at this moment.

Lisa Warren

5. DISCUSSION

5.1 Updates on the District's Real Property Matters (
https://youtu.be/cVcqGwjsd2g&t=34m58s)

CBO Jew invited Scott Sheldon and Barry Schimmel from Terra Realty to present options for the Finch property

Mr. Sheldon gave a brief review of the Finch property:
about 1.4 acres of land next to Sedgwick
the District acquired the property 17 years ago at approximately $5.6M

Mr. Sheldon shared that there are four available options (slide 6):

four members of the public submitted a comment card on time for this agenda item:

the Board further commented:

Option 1 - may not be viable because:

Removed the Council.

Lisa,
Thank you for sharing the history of this property with us.

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 message in Written Communications for Item 9. 10480 Finch Ave Property potential Purchase 6/3/25
Thank you.

I have also listened to, CUSD Board members, staff and consultant give presentations and discuss ‘options’ for this property last Fall. I have send comments via email. Some including pieces of ‘history’ related to how and why the ‘Finch site’ was purchased by the district. CUSD agendas referred such a purchase as ‘Sedgwick Expansion’. The positioning of the school district to acquire the residential portion of a much larger piece of land (originally farm land) that would be used for expanding the districts assets and allow for anticipated growth that would accommodate growing enrollment (Vallco housing, etc.)
The idea was proactive. Bond measure funds were available. The land was purchased.

The property at 10480 Finch Ave. APN 375-40-067, was NOT on the MLS, or Multiple Listing Service. The reason that it became available to the school district is that the children/Trustees of the estate reached out to the district to open a dialogue focused on whether the district would be interesting in purchasing that corner adjacent to the school site. The trustees were honoring their mother’s hope/wish that the home and property where she lived for so very long, would be used for the benefit of children and education. While I am disappointed that CUSD has chosen to sell the now vacant property, I believe that it would be truly a disgrace if the land was not used in a way that Mrs. Pestarino would comfortable with.

I am so very grateful that a public discussion related to the possible purchase of 10480 Finch Ave by the City of Cupertino is taking place.

There were several months where I believe that city was making claims and having no public discussion about this opportunity. I sense, and hope, that CUSD Board majority has the same vision as Mrs. Pestarino did. I applaud her heirs for making efforts to honor her wishes. I encourage the city of Cupertino to do the same.

A ‘PARK’ on the East side of the city, that could be used by all residents that live in the park starved area… and all other residents as well.

The definition of a park can be greatly varied. Let’s get creative and give life to something special and unique to the city. It can, and perhaps should be, ‘simple’.

Thank you.

Lisa Warren

From: Jeff Whited
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: CC mtg June 3 2025 Agenda Item 9 Public Comment Date: Sunday, June 1, 2025 9:31:57 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 Cupertino City Council Member, City Leadership Team member; I am writing to you concerning the possible interest of the City of Cupertino in purchasing the Finch property currently in possession of the Cupertino School District. I wish to offer a suggestion as to what the city might do with the space once it has acquired it (should the city acquire it).

And while I have the brunt of your attention early on in this correspondence, let me say that the development of this land into a public facility can be done in such a way that is economical to construct, practically self-sustaining once constructed, requires less maintenance funds and manpower than a standard “turf and barbecue pit” park facility, and actually becomes less expensive to maintain as the facility matures.

With the west side of Cupertino already rife with outdoor walking and interactive nature trails and facilities (Blackberry Farm, walking trails along the foothills, Stevens Canyon trails and outdoor event facilities, etc.), this is an opportunity for our city to provide the same amenity to the eastern population of the city, within their neighborhood. Therefore I propose that this acre-and-a-half tract of land be transformed into a public space where the citizens of Cupertino, along with groups of Sedgwick Elementary School students, can retreat to in order to become immersed in a natural setting. You can call it a park, but it’s not the typical mow-and-blow park one would see around our city.

This facility would be an exercise in permaculture, a food forrest, a semi-natural setting with guilds (strategic groupings of plants) of flora and any of the fauna that find living with it desirable and sustainable. A meandering, slightly elevated pathway would be the public’s access to and through the facility, with strategically placed table settings and seatings where people can sit and contemplate, meditate, view nature, greet and converse with their neighbors, settle in with friends and family to have a game of Mahjong, chess, dominoes, read a book, or have a connecting conversation. You see, this is not a park for physical recreation, although the walk through it would be a physical exercise, but a retreat for the mind, be it stimulating, contemplative, or restorative in nature.

This facility would also be educational. The flourishing plant guilds would offer botanical suggestions and possibilities, and pathways shaded and cooled by the surrounding trees and the transpiration they provide would remind the public that simple steps are all that is needed to make some progress towards reducing local, and possibly global, temperatures.

With all of the development currently taking place in our neck of the “woods,” in addition to all of the development slated for this area still of the drawing board, I think a balance must be struck, and the transformation of this space into a natural public setting would be the leveling agent needed to do just that.

Thank you for your time,
Jeff Whited
Rancho Rinconada resident
From: Lisa Warren
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Agenda Item 9 - City Council regular meeting June 3, 2025 Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 2:48:24 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 message in Written Communications for Item 9. 10480 Finch Ave Property potential Purchase 6/3/25
Thank you.

I am so very grateful that a public discussion related to the possible purchase of 10480 Finch Ave by the City of Cupertino is taking place.

A ‘PARK’ on the East side of the city, that could be used by all residents that live in the park starved area… and all other residents as well.

The definition of a park can be greatly varied. Let’s get creative and give life to something special and unique to the city. It can, and perhaps should be, ‘simple’.

Thank you.

Lisa Warren
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Purchase of Finch Property
Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 10:00:02 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 Council:
(Please include the following as input for Item 9 on the Cupertino City Council Agenda for June 3, 2025).

I am very happy Cupertino is considering purchasing the Finch Property (adjacent to Sedgwick Elementary School). This is Item 9 in the City Council Agenda for 6/3/25. This is a very Nice piece of property with a huge redwood tree on the property, and it will make a wonderful Park for the area which does not have many parks. It will be a great place to have a neighborhood Park and having it close to the school is an added bonus.

The property is fairly deep into the neighborhood and it will have great use by the folks who Live around the park. The redwood tree is a wonderful addition to the park and will most Likely have a host of bird inhabitants already which will be wonderful to study and observe.

I am so excited to think a new park will come from this purchase of the Finch property! Think Of all the years to come of enjoyment that this park purchase will bring for everyone! Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2025-06-17 City Council Meeting-ITEM #16 - Finch Ave Property Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 11:07:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM.

Dear City Council and Staff,

I support the purchase of the Finch Ave property for the use of Parkland.

Now days more and more development projects are paying parkland fees in-lieu rather than providing actual land for parks OR even worse, getting out of providing the land/fees all together. This is an increasing situation. The fees our city receives need to be used to purchase land to provide much needed parks for new and existing residents and visitors.

The availability of land for parks is becoming less attainable as our area becomes more dense. That said, the City of Cupertino needs to focus on all size parcels, small ones included, to provide park facilities. The park-in-lieu fees were to purchase land for parkland. It also allows improvements to existing parks.

This is an opportunity to purchase land to benefit an area that is lacking in adequate park land.

Please act to correct this situation!

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

Cupertino City CouncilJune 17, 2025

Cupertino City Council
June 17, 2025