Written Communications (updated 7/2/25) — Cupertino City Council, July 1, 2025

CC 07-1-2025
Oral
Com
munications
Written
Comments
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Rhoda Fry <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:09 PM
To: City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: Oral Comms 7/1/2025 Terrace Apartments
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.

Dear City Council,
Please direct staff to urgently stop the purchase of the Terrace Apartments by the College District.

The District has not been community-minded and has been misleading the public.

Moreover, there are some legal considerations pertaining to this purchase.

Among them,

1. How can the district evict our Cupertino residents under AB1482?

2. How can the district convert this housing site into affordable housing without a say (a vote) by the people of Cupertino per Article 34 of the California Constitution (aka the Public Housing Project Law)? Additionally,

1. The District should have reached out to stakeholders, school districts and city – they did not timely. This is bad-neighbor behavior. Moreover, at the most recent meeting, the chancellor had mentioned that he met “recently” with CUSD – when it fact it was earlier that day. While not a lie, it is disingenuous.

2. The District says they’ll honor leases – while true, it gives people the idea that evicting the residents at the end of their lease is okay. Per AB1482, it is not. The lease just guarantees that the rent won’t go up during a certain time period. The rights of the tenant to not terminate at the termination of the lease.

Leases roll over to month-to-month. Landlords cannot evict residents without cause so that they can rent to someone they like better – in this case, students and staff.

3. The District has stated that the apartment complex is turnkey and that students and staff could move in as early as August or September. Consequently, homes would not need to be taken off the market for remodeling per AB1482.

4. The District messaging has been all over the place in response to Cupertino’s mentioning of prohibiting housing conversions. At one meeting, they said they could just move in all staff and then it would not be a conversion.

5. The District says that the current property owner has space in their other complexes in the community where residents could move to. While this is true – the rents at the other apartments are 15 to 25 percent higher, making it infeasible for our residents to remain in our City and school districts.

6. The District has failed to respond to a PRA requesting justification for the purchase price of the complex. The District intends to pay about $700K per unit vs the $400K per unit paid for a similar complex in Cupertino. The District is paying 60 per cent more than the comparable Villages property as measured by unit and by acreage. This is flagrant misuse of our public funds. The District has also failed to demonstrate what the rents would be and how the rents would be affordable while self-supporting the complex.

7. Early on, the District was looking to build student housing at De Anza College or the Foothill or Sunnyvale campuses. One of the increases in cost they’d face by doing this would be for public safety.

This is one reason the District sought to move the housing off-campus – to avoid paying campus police.

At the same time, the District would avoid paying property taxes on the property that would support 2 public safety. It seems as though the campus police (which is a division of the State police) were able to convince the district that it is their job to provide for public safety and would take that responsibility.

Nevertheless, losing property taxes on that property means that the City will have to subsidize more city services than if the housing had been built on campus - - - and this is exactly what article 34 of the State Constitution is about! Do residents want to pay more in taxes in order to support this housing site. Not giving the residents a voice is TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. On campus housing would at least not remove more land from our City from taxes. We are looking at about losing $700 per unit per month in property taxes!!!!

8. We will lose economic diversity in our community by losing these apartments. Presently there are 67 students who attend our K-12 schools that are less than 0.5mile walk. Not city planner would tell you that it is a good idea to have a housing project that essentially excludes K-12 students with schools that are so close by. The District is being a bully and is misusing public funds.

9. Other college districts have built student housing on campus – and even those within the bay area. And they’d done so with state funding. Our district has been making lame excuses as to why they want this apartment. They could even purchase the aloft hotel, which hasn’t been paying its mortgage – it is closer to public transit and it wouldn’t displace anyone (but it would likely be also subject to article 34 of our state’s constitution).

10. The District claims that they will not be dislocating any section 8 housing. I do not know whether any residents have section 8 vouchers. But I do know that there are nurses and public-school teachers who reside there. We keep on talking about the “missing middle.” We need those homes for our missing middle residents. There are other places within Cupertino where students reside.

I’ll stop here – there’s more.

Thanks – Please use all measures possible to stop this sale.

Regards, Rhoda Fry
3 Lauren Sapudar
From: David Murthy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 12:43 AM
To: David Murthy
Subject: Concerns About Pickleball Curfew and Equipment Requirements at Cupertino Memorial Park
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.

As a proud Cupertino resident of over 40 years and a devoted pickleball player at Cupertino Memorial Park, I am writing to share my concerns regarding the proposed changes to pickleball play at the park.

While I appreciate efforts to address community noise concerns, I believe adding a sound barrier is the best solution and the suggested measures are inequitable and could harm our vibrant pickleball community and local economy.

Pickleball brings substantial revenue to Cupertino. Many players come from neighboring cities, spending money at local restaurants and businesses during their visits. Restricting pickleball hours further or mandating expensive “quiet paddles” would discourage players from visiting Cupertino, leading to a significant loss in revenue.

Adding sound barriers, as successfully implemented in nearby cities like Saratoga and Milpitas, would be a far more cost-effective and fair solution. I strongly support the immediate installation of sound barriers on the wire fences nearest Christensen Drive. This measure would help mitigate noise concerns while allowing the community to continue enjoying this inclusive and healthy activity. Additionally, I believe it is reasonable to enforce noise ordinance measures between 9 PM and 8 AM even though these hours are more restrictive than the leaf blower restriction (leaf blowers can operate as early as 7am per Cupertino ordinance 21-2213).

Further curtailing morning/evening play or requiring expensive gear would alienate players and reduce participation. If the city insists on implementing a “quiet paddles” requirement, a phased-in approach is essential to give players time to budget for this costly transition. It is worth noting that only one other city in the U.S. has adopted such a mandate, and they provide paddles at cost to their community—a model Cupertino could consider. Many players, however, will refuse to pay with these types of paddles, as they offer poor performance and play much differently compared to a standard paddle.

It’s also important to recognize the contributions of Cupertino Pickleball Club (CPC) volunteers, who support the community through early morning activities. They clean the courts and pick up garbage around the area. Moving curfew hours earlier than 8 AM would disrupt their efforts, causing many to leave the park altogether and diminishing the sense of community that makes Cupertino special. 4 The current 9 PM curfew was a compromise that players have already accepted. Asking us to fund additional measures or purchase costly equipment places an undue burden on our community.

Investments in soundproofing the park, such as sound barriers, are a far better solution and would maintain Cupertino’s reputation as a welcoming destination for recreation.

I understand pickleball causes noise, but just a quick Google search shows that pickleball is within the same range as tennis. Noise created by tennis is 40-70 decibels and pickleball is 45 to 70 decibels. Neighbors that occupy homes near tennis courts should be aware that living near a public space has the risk of noise. Additionally, even road noise on Stelling exceeds both pickleball and tennis at 70-80 decibels. It would be unreasonable to ask drivers to stop driving or change their car during certain times to please the few people that choose to live on a road such as Stelling.

Thank you for considering these points, and I urge you to adopt a balanced approach that supports both the pickleball community and local residents.

Sincerely,
David Murthy, Cupertino Resident for 40+ years
1137 Stafford Drive, Cupertino
5 Lauren Sapudar
From: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 7:17 PM
To: Carla Maitland; Deanna Olsen; Paula Norsell; Laura Casas (FHDA); Alexander Gvatua (FHDA); Peter Landsberger (FHDA); Pearl Cheng (FHDA); Terry Godfrey (FHDA); City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney's Office; Tina Kapoor Subject: Article 34 – Cupertino Voter Approval Required for FHDA’s McClellan Terrace Acquisition
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.

Dear City Clerk,

Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming Cupertino city council meeting.

[Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino and FHDA voter and taxpayer]

To: Mayor Liang Chao and Cupertino City Council
CC: FHDA Board of Trustees
Subject: Article 34 – Cupertino Voter Approval Required for FHDA’s McClellan Terrace Acquisition

Dear Mayor Chao and Cupertino City Council,

I am writing to express deep concern regarding the proposed acquisition of the McClellan Terrace property by the Foothill-De Anza Community College District (FHDA) for the purpose of developing low- income housing.

Pursuant to Article 34 of the California Constitution, any development involving the construction, acquisition, or operation of low-rent housing projects by a public entity such as FHDA must be submitted to the voters of the affected jurisdiction—in this case, the City of Cupertino—and receive a majority vote in favor before proceeding. This requirement is clear and binding, and must be followed regardless of the source of funding or the sponsoring agency.

To date, no such ballot measure has been proposed or approved by Cupertino voters regarding this site.

Therefore, FHDA’s acquisition of McClellan Terrace cannot legally proceed without first obtaining voter approval through a ballot measure in accordance with Article 34.

I request that the City of Cupertino formally notify FHDA that any attempt to acquire and develop this property for low-income housing without voter authorization may be a violation of the California Constitution. Additionally, I respectfully request that the City of Cupertino urge FHDA to immediately cease and desist from pursuing the acquisition or any planning steps for development on the McClellan 6 Terrace site until a proper Article 34 vote is held and passes with a majority of Cupertino residents in support.

Cupertino voters deserve transparency, legal compliance, and a voice in determining the future of public housing projects within their community.

Sincerely,
San Rao (writing as a Cupertino and FHDA voter and taxpayer)

On Sunday, March 30, 2025, 5:37 AM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:
[Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino and FHDA resident and voter.]

Dear City Clerk / FHDA Clerk,

Please include this in written communications for the upcoming Cupertino City Council and FHDA board meeting.

Dear Mayor Chao, Cupertino City Council, and FHDA Board Trustees, I am writing to raise concerns about the lack of engagement by FHDA with either the City of Cupertino or with the nearby school parent community and neighborhood around McClellan Terrace.

Nowhere in the FHDA milestone process is there any mention of community or city engagement.

7 8

This appears to be a significant oversight, especially given the growing concerns within the community.

1. Does De Anza/FHDA currently have 322 or more unhoused students?

2. If so, would FHDA prioritize the McClellan Terrace housing (purchased by FHDA) for its currently unhoused student population?

3. If so, should this proposed project be considered with the same level of community input typically required for homeless or unhoused housing projects during site selection and approval?

4. If the proposed FHDA-owned McClellan Terrace housing is intended to serve a sizable number of currently unhoused students, should there be neighborhood meetings to gather community input?

5. The websites linked below document the extent of community engagement conducted by the City of Santa Clara for a housing project for the unhoused. Please also review the community feedback in the second link, which highlights significant concerns. It behooves the city to assure residents that this project will not raise similar issues should FHDA use this as a housing site for the currently unhoused FHDA population.

6. Should the McClellan Terrace project be subject to a similar level of community engagement with nearby school parents and neighborhood residents as the community engagement conducted by the city of Santa Clara for the project below?

Benton and Lawrence | Office of Supportive Housing | County of Santa Clara

Benton and Lawrence | Office of
Supportive Housing | County of Santa
Clara
Benton and Lawrence

https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/migrated/Community%20Engagement%20Report%20L awrence%20and%20Benton.pdf?VersionId=f1tlyb0x37QM_gnXu83Lbe2S.8qxNuNw

I urge the city to send a formal letter to FHDA to halt this McClellan Terrace due diligence process until a city determined level of appropriate engagement with the school parent community, surrounding neighborhoods and the city council has occurred.

Thank you.

Thanks,
San Rao

9 [Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino and FHDA resident and voter] From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Rachelle Sander; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor Subject: BlackBerry Farm festivities are missing on July 4th agenda.

Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 2:53:40 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.
[Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident] Dear City Clerk,
Would you please include the below in written communications for the upcoming Cupertino city council meeting.

Dear Mayor Chao, July 4th sub-committee council members, City Council, Acting Manager Kapoor, Director Sander,
I am delighted to see the July 4th celebrations back. It was a dark night in the city’s history during thanksgiving week of 2023 when then Mayor Wei and the prior council majority defunded July 4th evening celebrations. It was done the week of Thanksgiving. When no residents were in attendance. What was the rush back then to defund it and that too the week of Thanksgiving. Was it to ensure that resident input could be avoided.

I remember then and on many occasions since then being the lone resident voice advocating to bring July 4th evening celebrations event back. It is therefore with great joy that I see the return of July 4th all day celebrations after prolonged and lone advocacy to do so for many meetings now since that dark week of Thanksgiving 2023.

I want to congratulate Mayor Chao, Council member Wang and Vice-Mayor Moore on bringing this back.

I look forward to a grand and stunning July 4th celebration. I urge you to start planning immediately for July 4th 2026 when it will be the 250th year since the founding of our great nation.

With all that said, I am deeply disappointed that the BlackBerry Farm day time festivities are missing in the agenda. Is this an oversight. I hope it is. Please fix the oversight and add back the BlackBerry Farm daytime celebrations to the agenda.

If staff have concerns about limited BBF parking please limit it to residents only and if needed a fixed capacity of advance reservations and not for non-residents.

I look forward to your correcting the agenda to add back the BlackBerry Farm daytime celebrations.
https://www.cupertino.gov/Parks-Recreation/Events/Fourth-of-July Thank you.

Thanks,
San Rao
From: Devendar
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Request for Urgent Action to Implement Resolution No. 25-13918 Date: Friday, June 27, 2025 9:00:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

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

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

While we understand the importance of student housing, it should not come by displacing families who have made Cupertino their home. I kindly urge the Council to move forward with updates to the municipal code—similar to San Francisco Municipal Code Section 317—to protect our city’s rental housing and maintain stability for working families.

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

Warm regards,
Cupertino resident
Devendar
From: LindaVistaTT
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk Cc: Vikram Saxena; [email protected]; [email protected]; Helena Cohen; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Srinivas Raghvendra; [email protected]; Parimal Kopardekar; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Amy Chung; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; James Choi; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Request to Deny Density Bonus Approval for Summerhill Homes Development on Evulich Court Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 10:53:42 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.

Executive Summary
We, the residents, respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny approval of density bonus waiver incentives for the proposed Summerhill Homes development on Evulich Court. Recent devastating wildfires in Southern California and emerging fire safety research demonstrate that the proposed density bonuses—which would allow reduced setbacks and increased building heights beyond R3 zoning limits—create unacceptable fire risks in areas recently designated as Very High Fire Risk zones.

These changes materially alter the public safety profile of the development.

State law under Government Code § 65915(d)(2)(C) provides cities with discretion to deny waivers when they would result in a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety that cannot be mitigated. Given the site's new designation as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by Cal Fire in 2025, combined with topographical vulnerability and limited evacuation routes, Cupertino is on strong legal footing to not approve these waivers based on safety risk.

Background
The subject property on Evulich Court, located on Linda Vista Drive, was originally zoned for 11 single-family homes (R1) and later changed to R3 zoning. Summerhill Homes now proposes to construct 51 townhomes by utilizing California density bonus laws to:

Reduce required setbacks below R3 standards
Increase building heights beyond R3 limits
Critical Context: This neighborhood has recently been designated as Very High Fire Risk under CalFire's updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps, released following the analysis of the devastating January 2025 Eaton and Palisades fires. As documented in the City of Cupertino's own notification letter dated May 23, 2025, the City has received formal notification from CalFire about these recommendations and is required by CA Government Code Section 51175 to adopt the State's Fire Hazard Severity Zone designations by June 24, 2025.

Elevated Wildfire Vulnerability: The Evulich Court development site is particularly vulnerable to wildfire as it backs directly into open space areas including golf course and nature preserves. This wildland-urban interface (WUI) location creates heightened fire risk because:

Open space areas provide continuous fuel loads that can carry wildfire directly to structures
Golf courses and nature preserves often contain dry vegetation during fire season The interface between developed and undeveloped land is where most catastrophic structure losses occur
Key Findings from Recent Fire Research
Structure Density as a Major Fire Risk Factor
The Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) preliminary report on the Eaton and Palisades fires identified structure density as a major risk factor, specifically noting:
"In tightly packed areas, flames leapt from home to home, overwhelming even some fire-resistant structures."
This finding is supported by scientific research from the Fire Safety Research Institute and NIST, which demonstrates that:

Radiant heat transfer from structure fires can cause neighboring structures to ignite Structure-to-structure fire spread significantly impacts loss of life and destruction of infrastructure
Residential structures can catch fire when exposed to fully involved structures located as close as 8 feet from the eaves
CalFire's Updated Recommendations
Following the Eaton and Palisades fires, CalFire and IBHS specifically recommend:
"Use setbacks to maximize the spacing between structures to the greatest extent possible"
Enhanced fire-resistant construction in dense areas
Elimination of "connective fuels" (fences, decks, landscaping) that enable fire spread between structures
These recommendations directly contradict the proposed density bonuses that would reduce setbacks and increase height. The proposed site plan allows minimal side and rear setbacks in a WUI zone, ignoring the core firebreak strategies recommended by fire agencies.

Fast-Moving Fire Risk
Research shows that 78% of structures destroyed in U.S. fires in the first two decades of the 21st century burned in fast-moving fires. The Eaton and Palisades fires rank among the fastest-growing fires on record, demonstrating that when fires move quickly, traditional fire suppression becomes impossible—making structure separation even more critical.

Policy Conflicts and Legal Considerations
California's Contradictory Policies
California has created a fundamental conflict between:

1. Housing density laws that encourage reduced setbacks and increased building height

2. Fire safety requirements that call for maximum structure separation in high-risk areas
These two policies are not harmonized in current law, creating a gray area that cities must resolve using § 65915(d)(2)(C) when life safety is at risk.

Local Authority to Protect Public Safety
California density bonus law specifically states that local governments are not required to grant waivers or density bonuses if they would:
"have a specific, adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact."
In this case, mitigation is not feasible because the hazard stems from the reduced setbacks and increased height demanded by the developer, not design details that can be engineered away.

City's Legal Responsibility as Local Responsibility Area (LRA): As stated in the City's own May 23, 2025 notification letter, Cupertino is designated as a Local Responsibility Area where "the local government, and not the State Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention, is responsible for wildfire protection." This places a direct legal duty on the City Council to prioritize fire prevention and protection measures.

Failure to Fulfill Legal Duty: Approving density bonuses that contradict fire safety science in a newly designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone would constitute a failure to discharge the City's legal responsibility for wildfire protection under CA Government Code Sections 51177-51179.

Specific Concerns for Cupertino

1. Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Risk
The Evulich Court location on Linda Vista Drive, backing into open space areas (golf course and nature preserve), places this development in the highest-risk wildland-urban interface (WUI) zone. Research consistently shows that:

Most catastrophic wildfire losses occur at the WUI where wildland meets developed areas
Open space vegetation provides continuous fuel loads that carry fire directly to structures
Golf courses and nature preserves, despite maintenance, contain seasonal dry vegetation that becomes highly flammable
Increasing structural density in WUI areas compounds fire risk by creating more targets for ignition and enabling rapid structure-to-structure spread due to reduced setbacks.

2. Recent Fire Risk Designation and Legal Timeline
The neighborhood's recent designation as Very High Fire Risk indicates that standard development practices are insufficient. As documented in the City's May 23, 2025 notification letter:

CalFire issued official Fire Hazard Severity Zone recommendations in February and March 2025
The City is legally required to adopt these designations by June 24, 2025 The City "may not reduce the recommended designations or boundaries included on the CAL FIRE maps"
These designations directly impact development standards and fire protection requirements
Approving density bonuses that contradict this recent Very High Fire Risk designation would be inconsistent with the City's legal obligations under state fire safety law.

The change in designation was not known or accounted for during the Housing Element rezoning process in early 2023. Because density bonus entitlements are conditioned on prevailing health and safety standards, this new data materially alters the underlying calculus.

The City is not obligated to apply waivers or incentives under density bonus law when circumstances pose a “specific, adverse impact” on health and safety. The California Government Code explicitly provides that local jurisdictions may deny waivers or concessions when such impacts cannot be mitigated. In this case, the elevated risk is unmitigable under the current proposal, as density itself is the hazard.

3. Insurance Impact on Existing Residents
Insurance companies are increasingly using their own wildfire risk models that consider structure density and separation. Some models now apply a surcharge to all properties within a set radius of high-density nodes, meaning adjacent homeowners will bear financial consequences for a project they did not choose.

The proposed development could:

Increase fire risk ratings for the entire neighborhood
Lead to higher premiums or policy cancellations for existing residents Reduce property values due to increased fire risk

4. Evacuation Concerns
The proposed increase from 11 to 51 units creates significant evacuation challenges:

Wildlife Urban Interface limits the number of exit paths out of the area; Linda Vista drive is the only exit route, and there is no parallel street on the other side of the development.

Potential for evacuation bottlenecks that could prove fatal in fast-moving fires.

Cupertino’s current emergency evacuation modeling was based on low-density projections and does not account for a fivefold increase in residential units on this parcel.

5. Infrastructure Strain
Emergency services and fire suppression resources designed for lower-density development may be inadequate for the proposed high-density configuration under the new very high fire risk designation.

Recommendations
We respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council:

Immediate Action

1. Deny the density bonus application for the Summerhill Homes development based on fire safety concerns related to reduced setbacks and waiver of building height limits.

2. Reduce density of the site: The proposed site had one of the highest increases in permitted density; from R1 (5 DU/acre) to R3/TH (up to 35 DU/acre). The 7x increase in density was approved prior to the designation of the neighborhood as a Very High Fire Risk zone.

Long-Term Policy Development

1. Establish local fire safety standards that guide the interpretation of state density bonus provisions in Very High Fire Risk zones

2. Develop objective criteria for evaluating density bonus applications in fire-prone areas

3. Engage with regional partners to address the conflict between housing production and fire safety
Conclusion
The devastating Eaton and Palisades fires have provided clear evidence that increasing structural density in Very High Fire Risk zones can have catastrophic consequences. The proposed Summerhill Homes development, which relies on density bonuses to exceed safe development standards, directly contradicts current fire safety science and CalFire's updated recommendations.

The City's Legal Duty is Clear: As a Local Responsibility Area, Cupertino bears direct legal responsibility for wildfire protection under CA Government Code Sections 51177- 51179. The City's own May 23, 2025 notification letter acknowledges this responsibility and the requirement to adopt Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designations by June 24, 2025.

We urge the City Council to prioritize public safety over housing production goals and deny the density bonus provisions for this development. Granting density bonuses that increase fire risk in a newly designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone would constitute a failure to discharge the City's legal duty to protect residents from wildfire.

The City has clear discretion to deny waivers that would erode defensible space, vertical separation, and emergency access in a known fire corridor. Cupertino would not be the first city to invoke § 65915(d)(2)(C) in a high-risk area. The state housing laws recognize that public safety must remain a non-negotiable floor.

The lessons learned from Southern California's recent fires must inform our local development decisions to protect our community from similar tragedies.

The choice before the Council is clear: approve a development that contradicts fire safety science and the City's legal obligations, or uphold the community's safety by requiring development that conforms to underlying zoning designed to protect residents in this newly recognized high-risk area.

We trust that the City Council will make the decision that prioritizes the safety and welfare of Cupertino residents and fulfills the City's legal responsibilities as a Local Responsibility Area.

Supporting Research URLs:

CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we- do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones/fire- hazard-severity-zones-maps
IBHS Heat Transfer from Structure Fires Research: https://fsri.org/research/heat- transfer-structure-fires
NIST Structure Separation Experiments: https://www.nist.gov/el/fire-research- division-73300/wildland-urban-interface-fire-73305/structure-separation-experiments CalFire Official Fire Information: https://www.fire.ca.gov/ IBHS Resilient Rebuilding Report: https://ibhs.org/ibhs-news-releases/ibhs-releases- resilient-rebuilding-a-path-forward-for-los-angeles-a-blueprint-for-survivable-and- insurable-homes-and-communities/
Reuters Analysis on LA Fire Speed and Structure Density:
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/CALIFORNIA-WILDFIRE/SPEED/akpeewrodpr/ Scientific American on Fast-Moving Fire Dangers:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/palisades-and-eaton-fires-show-rising- dangers-of-fast-moving-fires/
UCLA Analysis of Altadena Fire Impacts:
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/altadenas-black-community-disproportionately- affected-eaton-fire-report-shows
This letter is based on peer-reviewed fire safety research, CalFire recommendations, and analysis of recent wildfire events. Residents are available to provide additional technical documentation and expert testimony as needed.

Residents who endorsed this email
David Yan [email protected] Columbus Ave Cupertino, CA Dennis Tsao [email protected] 10996 Linda Vista Dr, Cupertino Avinash
Deshpande [email protected] 10956 Linda Vista Dr, Cupertino,CA 95014
Helena Cohen [email protected] 11105 La Paloma Drive. Cupertino, CA 95014
Tsakhi Segal [email protected] 11215 Mount Crest PL, Cupertino, CA 95014
Michu Huang [email protected] 10847 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
DerChang Kau [email protected] 10847 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
Saba Sathya [email protected] 22023 Baxley Court, Cupertino, CA 95014
Selvi Sathya [email protected] 22023 Baxley Court, Cupertino, CA 95014
Srinivas
Raghvendra [email protected] 22004, Baxley Court, Cupertino, CA Malathi
Nagamangala [email protected] 22004 Baxley Ct , Cupertino CA 95014 Parimal
Kopardekar [email protected] 22083 Baxley Ct, Cupertino, CA Akila Natarajan [email protected] 21840 TERRACE DR, Cupertino, CA Sharon, Wu &
Philip Tsai [email protected] 11046 Linda Vista Dr, Cupertino, CA Veronica Lentfer [email protected] 22024 Baxley Court, Cupertino, CA Yiming Chung [email protected] 11096 Linda Vista Dr, cupertino, ca LeeAnn Constant [email protected] 11097 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Stephanie
Constant [email protected] 11056 Linda Vista Dr. Cupertino Ravi Konduri [email protected] 22013 Baxley Ct, Cupertino, CA Andy Constant [email protected] 11097 Linda Vista Dr, Cupertino, CA James Choi [email protected] 11093 Bel Aire Ct, Cupertino, CA 95014 Amit [email protected] 10881 Santa Teresa drive Cupertino Jim Lentfer [email protected] 22024 Baxley Court,Cupertino Jenny Chui [email protected] 11191 Santa Teresa Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014
David Constant [email protected] 11208 Mt. Crest Drive, Cupertino, CA Ying Sosic [email protected] 11137 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA Mary Jo
Gunderson [email protected] 22074 Baxley Ct Cupertino Ca Vikram Saxena [email protected] 11126 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
CC 07-1-2025
Item No. 8
Appoint Negotiator for
10480 Finch Avenue
Written Communications
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Please pull agenda item 8 from consent calendar.

Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 10:33:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Would you please include the below in written communications for the upcoming City Council meeting. Thank you.
[Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident and taxpayer] Dear Mayor Chao, and council members,
Please pull agenda item 8 from consent calendar.

I hope the reason is obvious and does not need explaining. Items of this magnitude need to be discussed and do not belong on consent calendar.

Thank you.

Thanks,
San Rao (representing myself only)
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2025-07-01 City Council Regular Mtg-ITEM8 - Purchase of Finch Ave Property for parkland YES! Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 3:28:43 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.

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.

Yes, there are specific other expenditures it can be used for but LAND is the largest cost and land has become difficult to find in our suburban area.

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

P.S. Jeff Whited’s email sent for the 6-17-2025 Council Meeting Item 16 sounds like a wonderful way to use the land without immense costs. Just a thought.

From: Lisa Warren
To: City Clerk; Liang Chao
Cc: City Attorney"s Office
Subject: Please Include this info in Written Communications for Agenda Consent item 8- City Council regular meeting July 1, 2025
Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 3:51:15 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 Squarcia ,
I request that this email and attachments be made part of Written Communications for the July 1, 2025 meeting. In the event that Consent Item #8 on City Council Agenda for July 1, 2025 regular meeting is 'pulled' from consent for discussion, it is important to have this for public record.

Thank you.

Lisa Warren
previously sent on...

On Monday, June 16, 2025 at 09:40:31 PM PDT, Lisa Warren <[email protected]> wrote:

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

City Council meeting
Ju
ly 1, 2025
10480 Finch Ave
Appoint Negotiators
Subject: Appoint a negotiator for the potential purchase of 10480 Finch Avenue, owned by the Cupertino Union School District, adjacent to Sedgwick Elementary School.

Recommended Action: Appoint the Interim City Attorney
and Acting City Manager to negotiate with the
Superintendent of the Cupertino Union School District or her designee regarding the possible purchase of 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014, Assessor’s Parcel Number
375-40-067, from Cupertino Union School District on terms established by the City Council.

Tonight’s Action
Background
CUSD bought 10480 Finch Ave in 2016 for $5,386,750
Remediation of toxic substances allegedly complete
Property is 1.5 Acres and currently vacant (Zoned R1-6) Situated adjacent to Sedgewick Elementary
CUSD may be interested in “selling” property to City
Discussion
City interest in acquiring the property for park land
purposes
$13.2M park in-lieu fee funds
City Council direction to initiate effort and appoint
negotiators (Acting City Manager & Interim City Attorney) Evaluative work to be performed prior to recommendation Property Location

Property Location

10480 Finch Avenue

Order Necessary Documents (6 to 10 weeks):
• Title Report
• Preliminary Site Assessment
• Appraisal
Closed Session with City Council (Early September)
Begin Discussions with CUSD
Next Steps
Subject: Appoint a negotiator for the potential purchase of 10480 Finch Avenue, owned by the Cupertino Union School District, adjacent to Sedgwick Elementary School.

Tonight’s Action
Thank You!
CC 07-1-2025
Item No. 9
DIALOG Design LP for
City Annex Project
Written Communications
From: Jean Bedord
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Chad Mosley Subject: Agenda Item #9: Fiscal irresponsibility - 10455 Torre Avenue, Dialog Professional Service Contract, City Council, July 1, 2025
Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 3:45:40 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.

Please include in Written Communications:

Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang, I object to this contract on the basis of fiscal irresponsibility. Why would the city authorize $493,243 to do yet another programming and design contract for City Hall Annex, when construction costs for implementing such a design would cost a minimum of $7 million (2023 costs)? The city has already paid $4,450,000 for the building, making the total investment close to $12 million for a mere 5730 sq. ft., which can accommodate only 20- 25% of the space needed as an interim city hall for any renovation/rebuilding of the current city hall. Staff can't function in a construction zone, so staff relocation has to be the first step in addressing our seismically unsafe approximately 24,000 sq. ft. city hall. It will take at least a 1 to 2 years to negotiate a temporary location and make the tenant improvements so staff can function. An interim city hall needs to function for 3 to 10 years depending on construction since renovation of the current city hall will cost a minimum of $20 to $25 million ($7 million for seismic updates, plus required building upgrades to meet current legal requirements).

Council failed to act on 19400 Stevens Creek Blvd, which would have met the city’s space needs for an interim city hall. Thus El Camino Hospital was able to purchase this building for a rock-bottom price of $10.4 million for a 20,000 sq. ft. building that can be renovated for $1-2 million, thus obtaining an asset rather than a lease. Now the city is back to square one. There is very little suitable office space available in Cupertino -- and the city may have to obtain a lease with less flexibility than it would have had by purchasing an asset.

The deficiencies at the current city hall building have been on the council’s radar since at least 2018, with seismic safety issues identified as far back as 2011. The building has been declared seismically unsafe, a concern to both staff members and the public, and identified in the Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report.

Isn't it time to long-time needs of the city instead of wasting money on wishful thinking? I urge the council to reject this agenda item.

Fiscal responsibility advocate,
Jean Bedord
CC 07-01-2025

Item #10

Assembly Bill (AB) 306

Written Communications
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Rhoda Fry <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:22 PM
To: City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: Public Comment July 1, 2025 #10 Assembly Bill #306 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,
Thank you for your opposition to Assembly Bill #306.

We need to trust our building officials to decide what the best building standards are, not the State’s legislature.

Thanks,
Rhoda Fry

CC 07-1-2025
Item No. 12
Public Hearing
Townhome
Development
Written Communications
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: James Lloyd <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:20 PM
To: Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang Cc: Piu Ghosh (she/her); City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney's Office; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk
Subject: public comment re item 12 for tonight's Council meeting Attachments: Cupertino - 20770-20840 Stevens Creek Blvd - HAA Letter - CC.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 City Council,

The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 12 for tonight's Council 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/

Jul 1, 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] CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Dear Cupertino City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation

abide

all

relevant

state

housing

laws

when

evaluating

the

proposed

59-unit

housing

development

project

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”),

state

Housing

Element

Law,

the

California

Environmental

Quality

Act

(“CEQA”),

and

130.

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan

compliant

housing

development

projects

unless

findings

can

made

regarding

specific,

objective,

written

health

and

safety

hazards.

(Gov.

Code,

65589.5,

subd.

(j).)

The

HAA

also

bars

cities

from

imposing

conditions

the

approval

such

projects

that

would

reduce

the

project’s

density

unless,

again,

such

written

findings

are

made.

(
Ibid
.)

development

with

least

two-thirds

its

area

devoted

residential

uses,

the

project

falls

within

the

HAA’s

ambit,

and

complies

with

local

zoning

code

and

the

City’s

general

plan.

Increased

density,

concessions,

and

waivers

that

project

entitled

under

the

DBL

(Gov.

Code,

65915)

not

render

the

project

noncompliant

with

the

zoning

code

general

plan,

for

purposes

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

health

and

safety

standards,

outlined

above.

Furthermore,

the

City

rejects

the

project

impairs

its

feasibility,

must

conduct

“a

thorough

analysis

the

economic,

social,

and

environmental

effects

the

action.”

(
Id.

subd.

(b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 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

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.

the

City

were

deny

the

requested

waivers,

Government

Code

section

65915,

subdivision

(e)(1)

requires

findings

that

the

waivers

would

have

specific,

adverse

impact

upon

health

safety,

and

for

which

there

feasible

method

satisfactorily

mitigate

avoid

the

specific

adverse

impact.

the

City

were

deny

the

requested

concessions,

Government

Code

section

65915,

subdivision

(d)(1)

requires

findings

that

the

concessions

would

not

result

identifiable

and

actual

cost

reductions,

that

the

concessions

would

have

specific,

adverse

impact

public

health

safety,

that

the

concessions

are

contrary

state

federal

law.

The

City,

makes

any

such

findings,

bears

the

burden

proof.

(Gov.

Code,

65915,

subd.

(d)(4).)

note,

the

DBL

specifically

allows

for

reduction

required

accessory

parking

addition

the

allowable

waivers

and

concessions.

(
Id.

subd.

(p).)

Additionally,

the

California

Court

Appeal

has

ruled

that

when

applicant

has

requested

one

waivers

and/or

concessions

pursuant

the

DBL,

the

City

“may

not

apply

any

development

standard

that

would

physically

preclude

construction

that

project

designed,

even

the

building

includes

‘amenities’

beyond

the

bare

minimum

building

components.”

(
Bankers

Hill

150

City

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

section

15332

the

CEQA

Guidelines,

the

project

consistent

with

the

applicable

general

plan

designation

and

all

applicable

general

plan

policies

well

the

applicable

zoning

designation

and

regulations;

the

proposed

development

occurs

within

city

limits

project

site

than

five

acres

substantially

surrounded

urban

uses;

the

project

site

has

value

habitat

for

endangered,

rare,

threatened

species;

approval

the

project

would

not

result

any

significant

effects

relating

traffic,

noise,

air

quality,

water

quality;

and

the

site

can

adequately

served

all

required

utilities

and

public

services.

Furthermore,

the

project

eligible

for

statutory

exemption

from

CEQA

pursuant

130

(Pub.

Res.

Code,

21080.66),

which

was

signed

into

law

June

30,

2025.

Caselaw

from

the

California

Court

Appeal

affirms

that

local

governments

err,

and

may

sued,

when

they

improperly

refuse

grant

project

CEQA

exemption

streamlined

CEQA

review

which

entitled.

(
Hilltop

Group,

Inc.

County

San

Diego

(2024)

99 Cal.App.5th

890,

911.)
CalHDF notes that the City’s Housing Element planned for 145 units of housing on the site, which

included

59 units

planned

affordable

low-income

households.

Pursuant

Government

Code

section

65863,

the

City

must

make

“no

net

loss”

findings

that

the

remaining

sites

its

Housing

Element

site

inventory

are

adequate

accommodate

its

the

Regional

Housing

Needs

Allocation.

These

findings

must

“include

2 of 3

quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing

need

each

income

level

and

the

remaining

capacity

sites

identified

the

housing

element

accommodate

that

need

income

level.”

(Gov.

Code,

65863,

subd.

(b)(2).)

the

City

cannot

make

such

findings

–

other

words,

the

remaining

sites

the

City’s

Housing

Element

site

inventory

cannot

accommodate

the

City’s

housing

need

–

then

the

City

must

identify

and

rezone

additional

sites

within

180

days

ensure

maintains

zoned

capacity

for

its

the

Regional

Housing

Needs

Allocation.

(
Id.

subd.

(c)(2).)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage.

New

housing

such

this

public

benefit;

will

provide

badly-needed

affordable

housing;

will

bring

increased

tax

revenue

and

new

customers

local

businesses;

and

will

reduce

displacement

existing

residents

into

homelessness.

While

one

project

will

solve

the

statewide

housing

crisis,

the

proposed

development

step

the

right

direction.

CalHDF

urges

the

City

approve

it,

consistent

with

its

obligations

under

state

law.

CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased

access

housing

for

Californians

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

2 Lauren Sapudar
From: Rhoda Fry <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:15 PM
To: City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: Public Comment #12 Summerhill
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 read the commentary by “Cupertino for All” that indicated that there has been no opposition to this project.

This is untrue. Specifically, I have heard a number of neighbors who have objected to aspects of this project.

That organization, which I understand has councilmember Fruen as a founder, evidently is not a reliable source of information.

Furthermore, I am very sad to see us losing more retail. In addition to losing sales-tax-revenue, having retail is a quality-of-life issue.

Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry
From: Cupertino ForAll
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Support for Proposed Townhome Development at 20840 Stevens Creek Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 10:05:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and City Councilmembers, Cupertino for All is writing to express strong support for the 59 townhomes at 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd (Item 12 on the City Council agenda.) We believe this project will provide significant benefits such as supporting neighborhood businesses, promoting homeownership for young families, and making progress towards our housing element goals.

Our community has long valued homeownership, but rising costs have pushed this dream out of reach for young families. This townhome development directly addresses this challenge by creating attainable homeownership opportunities for families that find themselves priced out of traditional single-family homes. Moreover, 12 units (or 20%) are reserved for moderate income families providing a housing type that is much needed in our community. This project will expand equity-building opportunities for these families.

Moreover, these families will expand the customer base of the Stevens Creek retail corridor. We all love retail and want as much retail that can be realistically supported.

Brick-and-mortar retail has been hurt by consumer trends such as shopping at Amazon and being able to get delivery at the click of a button at restaurants in surrounding cities.

In order for Cupertino businesses to thrive we need to build homes for the customers who will spend money to support these businesses. Putting a townhome development right in the middle of Stevens Creek retail is the best way to support our local businesses.

Cupertino has been mandated by the state of California to build nearly 5,000 units by 2031. We have only built 76 units in the past two years, which will not get us anywhere close to our goal in this timeframe. This project will create 75% of the units we built in the last two years in just one project. The developer, SummerHill Homes has stated they will be able to break ground as soon as they have their building permits in hand.

Finally, this project is unique in Cupertino because there has not been one neighbor that has shown opposition to this project. How often do we see that?? This is likely because the developer designed a project to fit in with the community character and made project changes to protect the privacy of their fence-line neighbors.

So we urge the City Council to make the easy decision tomorrow (July 1) and approve the actions on Item 12 that were unanimously recommended by the Cupertino Planning Commission. The SummerHill Townhome project will expand homeownership, promote existing retail, and help us meet housing element goals. We enthusiastically support this project.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Cupertino for All
From: Yvonne Strom
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Support for Summerhill Townhouse project (item 12) Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 12:02:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and City Councilmembers, I am delighted to write in support of the Summerhill Townhouse project on Stevens Creek Blvd. It can be challenging to find places to build new housing so this underutilized land is a gem. The location is ideal because it is close to services and transit, and it will not disturb any neighbors.

Cupertino needs more housing, especially for first time home buyers and young families. The townhouse format is a good fit for this purpose. In addition, it is the right size for the neighborhood and could help revitalize local businesses.

I urge the City Council to approve Item 12, the Townhouse project, as recommended by the planning commission. Completing this housing project will be a shining legacy for the City and will welcome 59 new households to Cupertino.

Respectfully,
Yvonne Thorstenson,
Cupertino resident and community volunteer
CC 07-1-2025
Item No. 13
FY 2025-26 Fee
Schedule Update
Written Communications
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Rhoda Fry <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:18 PM
To: City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: Public Comment 7/1/2025 #13 Fees
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.

Dear City Council,
Please put a pause on escalating fees and consider looking at the cost side.

Furthermore, we don’t need resource recovery on all services.

When people get building permits for their projects, it makes our buildings and City safer.

Yes, we should pay fees – but the escalation of fees is out of hand.

Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
2 Lauren Sapudar
From: Nomad Urban <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 12:20 AM
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Chad Mosley Subject: Please NO increasing of existing fees
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.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communication for the 07/01/25 city council meeting agenda item on fee increases.

Subject: Objection to Misleading Staff Report and Unsustainable Fee Increases – Agenda Item 13 (07/01/25) Dear Mayor Chao and Cupertino City Council,
I’m a Cupertino resident writing to express serious concern about the staff report for agenda item 13 on the July 1st agenda. While the report states that “no new fees are proposed” for departments such as planning, building, and engineering, it fails to clearly disclose that most existing fees are increasing by 9.7%. That’s a substantial and recurring increase, and presenting it without transparency is deeply misleading to the public.

I urge the Council to require a revised report that clearly outlines department-by-department increases in actual dollar amounts. The language used in the current report minimizes the impact and misleads both residents and policymakers.

These increases are tied to the cost recovery policy adopted in 2024 and are largely driven by rising employee benefit costs like pensions and healthcare. This is not a one-time issue—it’s an annual, compounding burden that I and many others believe is not sustainable.

Rather than approving another near-10% increase on residents, I believe the Council should revisit the 2024 cost recovery policy and consider rolling it back. There should be a serious exploration of alternative ways to fund employee-related costs without passing them directly to residents year after year. A proper study comparing Cupertino’s absolute fee levels—not just the percentage increases—with those in neighboring cities like Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and San Jose is essential. We need to understand where Cupertino stands, especially for individual line-item fees, and identify areas where our residents are paying more than their counterparts elsewhere.

If these increases must happen, then cost shifts should be prioritized away from residents and toward non- resident users, commercial operations, or rental groups that use city services and facilities. And if none of that is workable, then we need to look seriously at restructuring staffing—possibly reducing full-time roles and transitioning to contract-based positions to ease the long-term cost burden on the city.

I respectfully ask that you delay action on this item until these issues are addressed in a clear and revised staff report. This issue matters deeply to me, and I know many others in our community are paying attention.

Decisions like this will certainly shape how I vote in 2026.

Thank you,
Urban Z
Cupertino Resident
3 Lauren Sapudar
From: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 5:52 PM
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2025-07-01 City Council Regular Mtg-ITEM13 FY2025-26 Fee Schedule UPDATE-TOO MUCH!
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.

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

Dear City Council and StaƯ,

REQUESTS:
#1-Update all Nexus Studies ASAP . (See my comments below regarding this.) The City must update all it’s Nexus Studies ASAP! Prices have gone sky high, even since just 2020 much less 2015!

#2-Find a way to reduce the cost of some permits for safety issues to encourage people to get the permits such as for water heater replacement and fence exceptions.

Sincerely,
Peggy GriƯin

P .S. These are my questions and concerns regarding some of the proposed fee increases.

ATTACHMENT B – FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule B – Engineering Fees (Redline) When reading the proposed fee changes in Schedule B it feels like the residents are paying the brunt of the costs when

PAGE1 – Everything on this page is proposed to increase 9.7% due to labor costs (StaƯ Report)!

Q1: Yet, there is NO INCREASE to Transportation Impact Fees! Why? Update the Nexus Study!

PAGE3 – Park Land Dedication in-Lieu Fee
I’ve read the ﬁne print below the table. The fee is based on “appraised values of land sales” . Looking at FY 2024-25 and FY 2025-26 NO CHANGES in land values occurred!

4 Q1: “Appraised values” – Is this the land value after only sales or does it include transfers of land/property at lower prices?

Q2: Our home values, yes, even the land values according to the County Tax Assessor continue to go up every year on our property taxes. Why does it not increase here?

Q3: Why is this fee not updated at the same time as all other fees?

ATTACHMENT C – FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule C – Planning Fees (Redline) EVERY entry for Planning Services is proposed to increase 9.7% or more! This impacts home improvements, remodels, and permits for fences, etc. Then on top of these individual increases, the overall Planning Department Review fee is 20% of the total Plan Check and Inspection fees!

NOTE: When prices are too high for doing required home maintenance and improvements legally, people will not get the required permits! This is a safety issue and a potential loss of any income at all to the city.

EXAMPLE: $5,126 for a fence exception for R1 and R2!
EXAMPLE: Preliminary Application Review for diƯerent sized development plans seems to weight the cost more heavily the lesser the # of units.
- 6 units can cost either $9.627.00 or $14,862.00. I’m not sure which applies - There is a big diƯerence between 50 units and 3,000 units yet they both cost $21,451.00.

Again, this Schedule D only increases the Housing Mitigation In-Lieu Fees by 2.7% (CPI) because the fees are based on VERY OLD Nexus Studies
- 2015 and the 2020 Non-Residential Nexus Analysis by Keyser Marsten - 2015 Nexus Study

5 The City must update all it’s Nexus Studies ASAP! Prices have gone sky high, even since just 2020!

6 Lauren Sapudar
From: Srividya Sundaresan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 4:39 PM
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Chad Mosley Subject: Agenda Item 13 (07/01/25)
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.

Dear City Clerk,

Please include the below in written communication for the 07/01/25 city council meeting agenda item on fee increases.

Subject: Objection to Misleading Staff Report and Unsustainable Fee Increases – Agenda Item 13 (07/01/25)

Dear Mayor Chao and Cupertino City Council,

I’m a Cupertino resident writing to express serious concern about the staff report for agenda item 13 on the July 1st agenda. While the report states that “no new fees are proposed” for departments such as planning, building, and engineering, it fails to clearly disclose that most existing fees are increasing by

9.7%. That’s a substantial and recurring increase, and presenting it without transparency is deeply misleading to the public.

These increases are going to place an enormous financial burden on residents who already pay heavy fees for any activity that requires city approval such as a home remodeling. We have been shocked by the high fees imposed on us at every stage of our planning and approval process for a home remodel. To have such fees go up by almost 10% is quite inconceivable.

A proper study comparing Cupertino’s absolute fee levels—not just the percentage increases—with those in neighboring cities like Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and San Jose is essential. We need to understand where Cupertino stands, especially for individual line-item fees, and identify areas where our residents are paying more than their counterparts elsewhere.

If these increases must happen, then cost shifts should be prioritized away from residents and toward non-resident users, commercial operations, or rental groups that use city services and facilities. Since the need for increased revenues largely comes from staff compensation needs, we also need to look seriously at restructuring staffing—possibly reducing full-time roles and transitioning to contract-based positions to ease the long-term cost burden on the city.

Thank you,
Srividya Sundaresan
Cupertino Resident
From: Venkat Ranganathan
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Comments regarding staff Report and Unsustainable Fee Increases – Agenda Item 13 (07/01/25) Date: Friday, June 27, 2025 6:18:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communication for the 07/01/25 city council meeting agenda item on fee increases.

Dear Cupertino City Council,
I am Venkat Ranganathan, a long time resident of the city of Cupertino.

I urge you to delay action on Agenda Item 13. While the staff report claims there are no new fees being imposed, it obscures a nearly 10% increase in existing fees across planning, building, and engineering.

These increases stem from the 2024 cost recovery policy and make this an annual, compounding burden. The Council should reconsider the policy and explore sustainable alternatives, including comparisons with neighboring cities and identifying other avenues for shifting the costs.

Please require a revised report with clear, department-wise dollar increases before proceeding.

Thanks
Venkat
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Misleading staff report for agenda item on resident fee increases.

Date: Thursday, June 26, 2025 11:56:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
+ City Clerk. Thanks.

Thanks,
Santosh Rao
Begin forwarded message:

On Thursday, June 26, 2025, 8:59 AM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Clerk,
Would you please include the below in written communication for the upcoming city council meeting.Thank you.
[Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident.] Dear Mayor Chao and Cupertino city council,
I wish to raise a strong objection and concern on the misleading staff report for agenda item 13 on the 07/01/25 city council meeting.

The staff report states “no new fees are proposed
” for many of the sections such
as planning, building, engineering etc.
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?
M=F&ID=14319557&GUID=8497FFF7-2F5C-4F02-A965-F16FD3CBC240 To the casual reader this may appear as satisfactory. The staff report does not highlight that existing fees are rising 9.7% in most cases.

Please require that the staff report do a transparent disclosure of the fee increases in existing fees by department. Stating no new fees are proposed is misleading at best and deceptive to the casual reader frankly.

I am including the last column from the redline reports to show the % annual fee increases from each of the departments below.

I urge city council to please continue this item till a revised staff report is produced that does not mislead council and residents with irrelevant and misleading statements such as “no new fees are proposed” and instead lists the fee increases by department.

These fee increases are a result of the user cost recovery policy that was adopted in 2024 by then council.

These fee increases are due to rise in employee costs driven by healthcare and pensions. The increases are not one time. They will recur annually at or higher than the current increase. An increase of 9.7+% annually is unsustainable for residents.

1. I urge you to reject these fee increases, and instead agendaize an item to rollback the user cost recovery policy passed in 2024.

2. Please instead study alternate ways of covering employee costs without passing them directly onto residents.

3. Please ask for a like for like comparative fee schedule for the same items from neighboring cities such as Saratoga, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, San Jose. Not the like for like increases but actual and absolute fee comparison for each department and line item fees.

Please ask staff to explicitly identify where Cupertino absolute fees for line items are higher than neighboring cities (not picking the highest as the comparison).

4. Please explore ways to pass these costs onto other areas such as commercial or rentals or non-resident fees rather than directly onto residents.

5. Lastly if you are unwilling or unable to do any of the above please agendaize a study of the staffing currently in the city and take action to reduce full time staffing and replace with contract roles to reduce the cost of pensions and healthcare on the city.

It is not sustainable to hike fees 9.7+% annually on residents. Please postpone approval on this item until the above actions are first taken. I will vote based on this issue in 2026 and I hear likewise from the residents I talk to. I fully expect residents will be kept informed of the council members that vote to increase fees on residents annually 9.7% or higher so that they can vote accordingly in 2026.

Thank you.

Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only)
From: Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Chad Mosley Subject: Objection to Misleading Staff Report and Unsustainable Fee Increases – Agenda Item 13 (07/01/25) Date: Thursday, June 26, 2025 12:30:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communication for the 07/01/25 city council meeting agenda item on fee increases.

Subject: Objection to Misleading Staff Report and Unsustainable Fee Increases – Agenda Item 13 (07/01/25)
Dear Mayor Chao and Cupertino City Council,
I’m a Cupertino resident writing to express serious concern about the staff report for agenda item 13 on the July 1st agenda. While the report states that “no new fees are proposed” for departments such as planning, building, and engineering, it fails to clearly disclose that most existing fees are increasing by 9.7%. That’s a substantial and recurring increase, and presenting it without transparency is deeply misleading to the public.

Rather than approving another near +10% increase on residents, I believe the Council should revisit the 2024 cost recovery policy and consider rolling it back. There should be a serious exploration of alternative ways to fund employee-related costs without passing them directly to residents year after year. A proper study comparing Cupertino’s absolute fee levels—not just the percentage increases—with those in neighboring cities like Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and San Jose is essential. We need to understand where Cupertino stands, especially for individual line-item fees, and identify areas where our residents are paying more than their counterparts elsewhere.

If these increases must happen, then cost shifts should be prioritized away from residents and toward non-resident users, commercial operations, or rental groups that use city services and facilities. And if none of that is workable, then we need to look seriously at restructuring staffing—possibly reducing full-time roles and transitioning to contract-based positions to ease the long-term cost burden on the city.

Thank you,
Yuva Athur
Cupertino Resident
From: Ajith Dasari
To: Tina Kapoor; City Council; City Clerk; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Chad Mosley Subject: Objection to Misleading Staff Report and Unsustainable Fee Increases – Agenda Item 13 (07/01/25) Date: Friday, June 27, 2025 1:21:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communication for the 07/01/25 city council meeting agenda item on fee increases.

If these increases must happen, then cost shifts should be prioritized away from residents and toward non-resident users, commercial operations, or rental groups that use city services and facilities. And if none of that is workable, then we need to look seriously at restructuring staffing—possibly reducing full-time roles and transitioning to contract-based positions to ease the long-term cost burden on the city.

Thank you,
Ajith
Cupertino Resident
From: Vidya Gurikar
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Proposed Fee increases
Date: Thursday, June 26, 2025 2:39:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communication for the 07/01/25 city council meeting agenda item on fee increases.

Subject: Objection to Misleading Staff Report and Unsustainable Fee Increases – Agenda Item 13 (07/01/25)
————
Dear Mayor Chao and Cupertino City Council,
I’m a Cupertino resident writing to express serious concern about the staff report for agenda item 13 on the July 1st agenda. While the report states that “no new fees are proposed” for departments such as planning, building, and engineering, it fails to clearly disclose that most existing fees are increasing by 9.7%. That’s a substantial and recurring increase, and presenting it without transparency is deeply misleading to the public.

I urge the Council to require a revised report that clearly outlines department-by-department increases in actual dollar amounts.

I respectfully ask that you delay action on this item until these issues are addressed in a clear and revised staff report.

Thank you,
Shrividya Gurikar
Cupertino Resident
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; Kristina Alfaro; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Chad Mosley; City Clerk Subject: Re: Misleading staff report for agenda item on resident fee increases.

Date: Friday, June 27, 2025 11:08:22 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Would you please include the below in written communications for the 07/01/25 city council meeting on user fee increase agenda item.
[Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident] Dear Mayor Chao and City Council members,
I am writing to request that you continue/postpone the user fee agenda item to a further out date and instead ask staff for more data along the lines below. Next week is the week of July 4th and attendance from residents will be light. Please do not discuss an item with such a major impact on residents at a time when attendance may be light due to a holiday week.

Further I am including snapshots from the informational memo published today (06/27/25) of the fee hikes passed last year in 2024. You can see the last column across the board on the below. The fee increases in 2024 were mind boggling and it is being followed up by another

9.7% fee hike. This is not sustainable and is broken.

Please ask staff for a line by line item level fee comparison with smaller neighboring cities comparable to us. Los Altos, Saratoga. Los Gatos etc.

Please ask staff to produce a table of what the hikes would have been if the cost recovery policy had not been adopted.

This cost recovery policy from 2024 is breaking the backs of already over taxed residents. It is a huge burden. I implore you to rollback the cost recovery policy and take a fresh look at this whole area. Residents considering a remodel are often those who have lived decades in their home which is in need of repairs or improvements. Many may be seniors and on the verge of retiring or retired. Indeed of the 6 - 8 remodels I know of in the past 12 months almost all fit that bill. The other category are new residents who just bought a home and are looking to remodel. These are already burdened with a huge cost basis for the purchase and a huge tax basis for property taxes.

Residents cannot bear the brunt of employee healthcare and pension costs while you give developers $77M fee waivers.

Please do not keep this agenda item for 07/01/25. Please postpone this item till a holistic study is done on the above areas.

Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident) On Thursday, June 26, 2025, 8:59 AM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:

The staff report states “no new fees are proposed” for many of the sections such as planning, building, engineering etc.
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?
M=F&ID=14319557&GUID=8497FFF7-2F5C-4F02-A965-F16FD3CBC240 To the casual reader this may appear as satisfactory. The staff report does not highlight that existing fees are rising 9.7% in most cases.

I am including the last column from the redline reports to show the % annual fee increases from each of the departments below.

These fee increases are a result of the user cost recovery policy that was adopted in 2024 by then council.

1. I urge you to reject these fee increases, and instead agendaize an item to rollback the user cost recovery policy passed in 2024.

2. Please instead study alternate ways of covering employee costs without passing them directly onto residents.

Please ask staff to explicitly identify where Cupertino absolute fees for line items are higher than neighboring cities (not picking the highest as the comparison).

4. Please explore ways to pass these costs onto other areas such as commercial or rentals or non-resident fees rather than directly onto residents.

Thank you.

Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only)
CC 07-1-2025
Item No. 16
Study Session -
Oversized Vehicle
Parking
Written Communications
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Rinal Shah <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 12:37 PM
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject: City Council Meeting | Oversized Vehicle Parking Regulations Attachments: Aloft Cupertino_Comments on Oversized Vehicle Parking (1).pdf 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.

Dear City Clerk,

Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting.

We are writing to express our concerns regarding the current regulations and proposed updates related to oversized vehicle parking in the City of Cupertino. As the owner and manager of Aloft Cupertino, located at the corner of De Anza Boulevard and Alves Road, we believe it is important to provide feedback on policies that directly impact the perception, safety, and economic health of our community.

At present, the presence of RVs parked for extended periods along Alves Road—directly in front of our hotel— creates an ongoing concern for our guests and impacts our business. These vehicles contribute to a perception that the area resembles a trailer or RV park, which can give visitors the impression that the location is unsafe.

We have received the following feedback from guests:
 “The line of RVs and campers along Alves is disconcerting.”  “If you have guests checking in late, there is no available parking—only street parking, which is almost entirely taken up by RVs. It's unsafe to walk that far to the hotel at night with luggage.”  “Location is iffy with RVs parked across the street and no gated parking for your own car.”  “Normally I wouldn’t give this much thought, but there were half a dozen RVs parked along the hotel entrance that appeared to have been there for a while.” In light of these concerns, we respectfully request that the City Council consider a complete ban on parking oversized vehicles within 600 feet of commercial zones. We believe this policy would protect local businesses, improve the visual environment, and help foster a safe and welcoming atmosphere for both residents and visitors.

Of the three options currently recommended by staff, we support Option 2, which would allow only City residents—with a City-issued permit—to park oversized vehicles on public streets for a maximum of 72 hours.

Furthermore, we advocate for an additional provision requiring these vehicles to be moved at least 1,500 feet from their previous location after the 72-hour period, and to remain at the new location for at least 72 hours before returning. This would help address the common tactic of RV owners minimally relocating their vehicles to avoid enforcement—a practice we observe regularly on Alves Road.

Thank you for your time and for considering our perspective. We appreciate your service and dedication to maintaining a thoughtfully planned, vibrant community.
2 Best Regards,

Rinal Shah
VP of Operations
Aloft Cupertino

3 Lauren Sapudar
From: Liang Chao
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 12:08 AM
To: Santosh Rao; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Re: RVs parked outside Aloft Cupertino
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Please include this in the written communication for the 7/1 council meeting. Thanks! Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192

From: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 8:02 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: RVs parked outside Aloft Cupertino

This mail was received by PC today. The sender may have intended to send this to council as the item has already been heard at PC on 06/24/25.

Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
[email protected]

From: Nicklaus Meier <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 10:58 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>; Deborah <[email protected]> Subject: RVs parked outside Aloft Cupertino

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.

4 To Whom It May Concern,

For the past 18+ months, there have been several RVs parking on Alves Dr. in front of Aloft Cupertino. Our guests do not feel safe and this is an eyesore. We are worried that if nothing is done about this, these small problems can become bigger problems as we have seen in other Bay Area cities. We have gotten several bad reviews as well due to this. Two of them are linked below. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Check out this review of Aloft Cupertino on Google Maps https://goo.gl/maps/ZNRLjzuA5TYbHWKX7

Check out this review of Aloft Cupertino on Google Maps https://goo.gl/maps/9gksn92N9e7PFL3m6
Nick Meier, CHRM
Chief Revenue Officer
Shashi Hospitality Group
10200 North De Anza Blvd.

Cupertino, CA 95014
Cell: 702-810-7275
[email protected]
Shashi Hotel Mountain View | The Nest Hotel Palo Alto
Aloft Cupertino | Aloft Sunnyvale | Aloft San Jose Cupertino 5 Lauren Sapudar
From: Santosh Rao
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 8:02 PM
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Fw: RVs parked outside Aloft Cupertino
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This mail was received by PC today. The sender may have intended to send this to council as the item has already been heard at PC on 06/24/25.

Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
[email protected]

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.

To Whom It May Concern,

Check out this review of Aloft Cupertino on Google Maps https://goo.gl/maps/ZNRLjzuA5TYbHWKX7

Check out this review of Aloft Cupertino on Google Maps https://goo.gl/maps/9gksn92N9e7PFL3m6
Nick Meier, CHRM
Chief Revenue Officer
6 Shashi Hospitality Group
10200 North De Anza Blvd.

Cupertino, CA 95014
Cell: 702-810-7275
[email protected]
Shashi Hotel Mountain View | The Nest Hotel Palo Alto
Aloft Cupertino | Aloft Sunnyvale | Aloft San Jose Cupertino From: Peggy Griffin
To: Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Floy Andrews
Cc: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: 2025-07-01 City Council Meeting-ITEM 16 Study Session on Parking - NOTICING ISSUE Date: Sunday, June 29, 2025 4:54:09 PM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore and City Attorney Floyd,

Please know that I am FOR the requirement to move a vehicle a noticeable distance after 72 hours. That said, I’m concerned with the wording of Agenda Item #16 because it implies that it will only impact oversized vehicles when in reality it has the potential of impacting ALL VEHICLES parked on public streets. “Section 11.24.130 Prohibited for More than Seventy-Two Hours” applies to all vehicles
, even cars.

During the Planning Commission meeting on 6-24-2025 a man named “Gopal” wanted to speak about parking related to ADUs. Right now, there are many cases where only minimal if any parking is required for new developments. With people parking on the street and working from home, it is conceivable that they would park their cars for extended periods. To have an open discussion with input from people, they need to know that it could impact them too, even if they don’t have an oversized vehicle.

Maybe the “Subject” can be modified someway?

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2025-07-01 City Council Meeting-ITEM 16 Study Session on Parking - USE CASES TO CONSIDER Date: Sunday, June 29, 2025 5:34:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, City Councilmembers and Staff,

I will not be able to attend the study session so I’m providing my input in advance. I’m glad the city has decided to fix our parking regulations to close loopholes and make them enforceable yet not punish Cupertino residents or making it more difficult for them.

Just for disclosure purposes, my husband and I are long-time RV owners (20 years) and have rented them before owning so I have some insight on how/what a resident RV owner might need to do on a city street, especially in front of their home or while traveling visiting other cities.

I made a list of all the large vehicles I see around our neighborhood from time to time. Ideally, the proposed changes should cover these cases with the desired effect, whatever that be.

TYPES OF VEHICLES AROUND TOWN
Plumbers, electricians, gardeners, construction and remodeling vehicles Delivery trucks (FedEx, Amazon, UPS, furniture/moving vans, 18-wheelers) Shuttle vans, Hopper vans, Apple vans
RVs
Long vans (over 20 ft) – either a Class-B RV or a work van Long bed pickup trucks
Buses
Boat trailers
Trailers

USE CASES – SITUATIONS TO CONSIDER WHERE RVs FOLLOW EXISTING RULES Some situations where a resident of Cupertino would need to park their RV or boat or trailer for more than 2 hours on a city street (in front or near their house):

Preparing to leave early the next day – Often they connect the car they will be towing behind the RV the night before and have the RV plus car parked in front of their house ready to go in the early morning.

An RV is stored elsewhere and is brought from storage to the home to load up. It often takes all day/multiple days to load up and prep the RV. The RV probably then stays in front overnight for an early start the next day. Usually, we store RVs empty.

The RV is stored in the backyard but needs to be moved so workers can have access, room or prevent damage. This isn’t always planned. It can happen on the weekend. It can happen when workers from your neighbor’s house need you to move it.

RV is rented for a family vacation – loading an empty RV can take at least a day. Often they wait until the next morning to leave.

Family or friends who are traveling in an RV come to visit.

The resident has a business and does not have room to park the vehicle.

This gets dicey considering that now days developers are not providing adequate parking.

Some newer developments are shortening the length of parking spaces from 20 ft to 18 ft which don’t allow some trucks or vans to be parked on-site in a parking space.

USES CASES – SITUATIONS TO CONSIDER THAT ARE AN ISSUE
A owner of an oversized vehicle such as an RV parks on the street for more than 72 hours in the same location without moving it – whether they are a resident or not.

A car owner that parks their car on the street in the same location for more than 72 hours without moving it– whether they are a resident or not.

Huge commuter buses parked on the east side of Bandley between Stevens Creek Blvd and Alves parked for hours. It’s dangerous because cars coming out of the Marina parking lot cannot see around them and the cars turning onto Bandley from Stevens Creek cannot see the cars coming out of the driveways.

Large number of oversized vehicles congregating in one area over an extended period of time, beyond 72 hours without moving.

IMPORTANT NOTES ON REVOKING ACCESS
If you choose the issuance of permits, the city can always revoke a permit if the rules are not followed.

If you choose to enter vehicles in some type of database, the vehicle can be flagged as not following the regulations and therefore equivalent to revoking its ability to park on the street.

I’ve heard comments like “Well, we only enforce our laws if there is a complaint.” Implying that it’s okay to disobey our laws so long as nobody reports you! This attitude leads to people not obeying other laws and the problem grows.

REQUEST:

When you look at changing the city’s vehicle parking ordinances, please keep these in mind and make sure the desired outcome is obtained for these various situations without punishing Cupertino residents who follow our laws. Please make the resulting vehicle parking ordinances fit reality. When laws don’t make sense, people ignore them.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

From: Yvonne Strom
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Comment on possible updates to oversized vehicle parking restrictions (item 16) Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 2:06:24 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.

Esteemed members of the Cupertino City Council,
I am writing about the July 1 Study Session (item 16) involving possible updates to oversized vehicle parking restrictions. The Cupertino planning commission has recommended a permit system but the plan is unwieldy for law enforcement, ineffective, and a burden for Cupertino residents.

The permit plan for RVs will not work because more and more people have found no other option for affordable housing. How will enforcement be better with an expensive permit plan? People still need a place to sleep at night.

Instead of a permit system I suggest that more research is needed. For example, what are the best practices for smaller cities to manage the unhoused? Could RV parking only be restricted in certain over-utilized areas, like where the most complaints arise? For example, the Rotating Safe Car Park offers overnight parking in church parking lots for people sleeping in their cars. There have been zero complaints from neighbors over the last eight years because the location changes every month. The impact is spread out.

There is so much cruelty in the world right now. Let's work to find a non-punitive solution that will work for everyone.

In community,
Yvonne Thorstenson
Cupertino resident and RSCP volunteer
From: Deborah
To: City Clerk
Subject: July 1, 2025 City Council Agenda; Item #16, 25-14050 Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 11:27:58 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 Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Council Members,
Thank you for reviewing the CMC regarding oversized vehicles in the City.

I know that in other cities, it appears they have designated areas that these vehicles can park, but they they are highly industrialized. Our local businesses have some issues with trailer homes being parked near their entrances as it deters customers from entering or using the business. I am not sure what new rules would prevent this.

Nominally, near some of our hotels some have parked for the regulated amount of time (I believe it’s still 72 hours before they have to move) but you can see how this would hurt hotel business particularly when they have not quite recovered from the effects of the pandemic similar to a lot of our small businesses.

I ask that the business community be considered when making changes to these regulations as it will affect the health of our economy and therefore revenue to the City.

Thank you for your consideration.,
Deb
Deborah L. Feng, MBA
CEO
O. 408 2527054 ext.101
[email protected]
www.cupertino-chamber.org
From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Oversized vehicle parking ordinance from other cities Date: Friday, June 27, 2025 1:45:03 PM
Please add this to the written communication of the 7/1 Council meeting.

The enclosed email thread includes the original agenda request, which contains the information on similar ordinances on parking in other cities.

Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192

From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 11:15 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Agenda Item Request: Minor Modification to Muni Code for Parking

Please add this to the written communication for Item 14 TBD list to provide context of the agenda request.

Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 10:34 PM
To: Floy Andrews <[email protected]>; Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Valenzuela, Neil <[email protected]>
Cc: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Kitty Moore <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Agenda Item Request: Minor Modification to Muni Code for Parking

Adding Vice Mayor, with whom I have discussed some of this.

I looked into the Muni Code for 72-hour parking restriction in Saratoga and Los Altos, who are also under the same Sheriff's Office:

Los Altos's version: "For the purposes of this section, a vehicle or trailer shall be considered to have been parked or left standing for seventy-two (72) or more consecutive hours if it has not been moved at least one thousand (1,000) feet during such seventy-two (72) hour period."
Saratoga's version: "A vehicle shall be considered to have been parked or left standing for seventy-two or more consecutive hours if it has remained inoperable or has not been moved and remained at least one mile from its original parked location for at least twenty-four hours during the seventy-two-hour period." I found Fremont's version is similar to Mountain View's version:

Fremont's version: "any vehicle that has been parked in the same location for 72 hours move at least 1,000 feet from its current location and may not return to the same parking spot for at least 24 hours" (adopted Nov. 2024) Fremont on restriction near residential streets: "Additionally, oversized vehicles, including any attached trailers, vehicles, or loads which exceed 22 feet in length, and/or 6 feet in width and 7 feet in height, are no longer allowed to park on any public street within 100 feet of a residential property line. The ordinance allows for limited exemptions of loading/unloading, emergency vehicles and commercial deliveries. If the oversized vehicle is not moved within 24 hours after receiving a warning notice, the vehicle could receive a citation and will be at risk for getting towed. "
(adopted Nov. 2024)
I realize that restrictions on oversized vehicles are more complicated since we need to consider exemptions to allow construction vehicles etc and we need to define over- sized vehicles. So, in the first version, I would just consider the minor modification on parking violation, which would not require a study session.

For restrictions on oversized vehicles, we would likely need a study session first to get public and council input, which could be considered as a part of the FY 2025-27 Work Program.
===========
Los Altos Muni Code
https://library.municode.com/ca/los_altos/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeId=TIT8VETR_CH8.20STSTPA

8.20.090 - Parking for more than 72 hours.

No person who owns or has possession, custody, or control of any vehicle or trailer shall park such vehicle or trailer upon any street, alley, or public place continuously for more than a consecutive period of seventy-two (72) hours. For the purposes of this section, a vehicle or trailer shall be considered to have been parked or left standing for seventy-two (72) or more consecutive hours if it has not been moved at least one thousand (1,000) feet during such seventy-two (72) hour period.
(Prior code § 3-2.913)

8.20.100 - Removal of vehicles parked more than 72 hours.

Any regularly employed and salaried officer of the police department may remove, or cause to be removed, any vehicle which has been parked or left standing upon a street, highway, or public parking lot for seventy-two (72) or more consecutive hours. (Prior code § 3-2.914)
Saratoga Muni Code
https://library.municode.com/ca/saratoga/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeId=CH9MOVETR_ART9-25PAREAPALHI
9-25.030 - Parking of certain oversize vehicles on residential streets. (a) No person who owns or has possession, custody or control of any commercial vehicle recreational vehicle, boat or trailer, shall park or leave standing such vehicle upon any street in a residential district or abutting any property or area within a residential district for a period of seventy-two consecutive hours or more. A vehicle shall be considered to have been parked or left standing for seventy-two or more consecutive hours if it has remained inoperable or has not been moved and remained at least one mile from its original parked location for at least twenty-four hours during the seventy-two-hour period.
(b) Unattached boats and trailers shall not park or stand upon any public street. (c) For the purposes of this section:
(1) Trailer means a vehicle, other than a motor vehicle, designed for industrial, professional, or commercial purposes, for carrying property on its own structure, and for being drawn by a motor vehicle.
(2) Commercial vehicle shall have the meaning set forth in section 9-10.040; (3) Recreational vehicle means any vehicle used for recreation and designed for human habitation for recreational, emergency, or other occupancy, and not including passenger vehicles.
(Ord. No. 394, § 1(Att. A), 12-7-2022)
9-25.040 - Application of other laws.

The provisions of this Article are in addition to other parking regulations which are or may be imposed by the laws of the State and the provisions of this Code and shall not relieve any person from the duty to observe other and more restrictive provisions of the Vehicle Code or this Code.
9-25.050 - Enforcement of Article.

It shall be the duty of all policemen and Community Service Officers appointed for such purpose and all deputies of the County Sheriff performing police services in the City to enforce the regulations set forth in this Article.

Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 1:37 PM
To: Floy Andrews <[email protected]>; Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Valenzuela, Neil <[email protected]>
Cc: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Request: Minor Modification to Muni Code for Parking

Adding Captain Neil.

Captain,
What do you think about a potential change in parking regulation to require a vehicle to move by 1000 feet after 72 hours? And not return to the same spot within. 24 hours.

This mirrors the regulation in Mountain View.

In terms of implementation, I suppose that this would be complaints based like other Muni code enforcement. So, there is no need to track every parked vehicle. Only a few ones where a complaint is submitted for violating this code.

Thank you.

Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Floy Andrews <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 1:26 PM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>; Pamela Wu <[email protected]> Cc: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Agenda Item Request: Minor Modification to Muni Code for Parking

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 this information, Mayor. I appreciate the research!

From a legal perspective, I believe an updated like this could be implemented in short order.

Curious whether we would need to loop in the County Sheriff’s department? I assume the County Sheriff is the entity that enforces the parking ordinance. I think we should take a quick look at whatever MOU or other agreement the City has with the County.

I would be inclined to mirror Mountain View’s version. I like its simplicity.

Best,
Floy

From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 7:34 PM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Floy Andrews <[email protected]> Cc: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item Request: Minor Modification to Muni Code for Parking

*** EXTERNAL SENDER ***
I learned that the cities around us have revised their Muni Code to address the issue of RV parking and we are lacking behind.

I would like to propose a minor modification to the Muni Code for parking to address the issue that a vehicle could occupy the same section of a public street 24x7 as long as they move the vehicle by 6 inches. This is against the original intent of the Muni Code

11.24.130.

I have included relevant Muni Code sections from Mountain VIew and Sunnyvale, in addition to Cupertino's Muni Code below.

We could consider the two options:

Mountain View's version: Any vehicle must be moved at least one thousand (1000) feet (approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) from its current location and may not return to the same parking spot for at least twenty-four (24) hours after its departure.

Sunnyvale's version: Pushing or moving a vehicle a short distance will not be considered compliance with this section. Additionally, successive acts of parking shall be presumed to be a single act of parking within the meaning of this section when the vehicle is moved merely for the purpose of avoiding the parking limitations prescribed by this section.

I hope that such minor modification could be considered in a timely manner.

Thank you.

Liang

============
Current Cupertino Muni Code

11.24.130 Prohibited for More than Seventy-Two Hours.

No person who owns or has in his possession, custody, or control any vehicle or trailer shall park such vehicle or trailer upon any public street or alley for more than a consecutive period of seventy-two hours.
(Ord. 843, § 6, 1977)

Mountain View Muni Code:

SEC. 19.72. - Seventy-Two (72) hour parking limit—Twenty-Four (24) hour no return. - Any vehicle that has been parked or left standing in the same location or parking spot for seventy-two (72) consecutive hours must be moved at least one thousand (1000) feet (approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) from its current location and may not return to the same parking spot for at least twenty-four (24) hours after its departure.

Sunnyvale Muni Code
§ 10.16.120
Use of streets or public parking facilities for storage of vehicles prohibited.

It is unlawful for any person who owns or has possession, custody or control of any vehicle, including a boat or trailer, to park or leave such vehicle upon any street, alley, or public parking facility for a period of seventy-two consecutive hours or more. The intent of this section is to limit parking of vehicles, boats and trailers to seventy-two consecutive hours. A vehicle or trailer shall be considered to have been parked or left standing for seventy-two or more consecutive hours if it has remained inoperable or has not been moved. An inoperable vehicle is a vehicle that cannot be moved under its own power or a vehicle which cannot operate legally and safely on the highways of the state.

Pushing or moving a vehicle a short distance or attempting to rub away the tire marking will not be considered compliance with this section. Additionally, successive acts of parking shall be presumed to be a single act of parking within the meaning of this section when the vehicle is moved merely for the purpose of avoiding the parking limitations prescribed by this section.
(Ord. 2435-93 § 1; Ord. 2633-00 § 1; Ord. 2925-10 § 1)

Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 8:05 PM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Tom Chin <[email protected]> Cc: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; Serena Tu <[email protected]> Subject: Re: RV parking resources

Yes. Please direct me to county resources.

Below is a question on city code enforcement:

"California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22651(k) and Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) 11.24.130 state that vehicles cannot be parked in the same spot on a public street for more than 72 hours. " But they can move by 6 inches every day and still park in generally the same space? Or they have to move by at least the length of the vehicle so that the same "space" is not occupied by the same vehicle?"

Thanks. Appreciate your attention on this issue of high interest from the community .

Liang

Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192

From: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 5:58 PM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>; Tom Chin <[email protected]> Cc: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; Serena Tu <[email protected]> Subject: RE: RV parking resources

Mayor Chao, we can assist in directing your questions to the County planning office.

Please advice,

Pamela

Pamela Wu
City Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-1322

From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 10:04 AM
To: Tom Chin <[email protected]>
Cc: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; Serena Tu <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RV parking resources

Where are legal RV parking places within Santa Clara County? Other RV parking resources?
Has the Santa Clara County adopted any RV ordinance? Or surrounding cities, like Sunnyvale? (in case the information is readily available to staff)

If we do not wish RVs to occupy our streets, I hope to know where they can park legally with and without RV facilities.

"California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22651(k) and Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) 11.24.130 state that vehicles cannot be parked in the same spot on a public street for more than 72 hours. "
But they can move by 6 inches every day and still park in generally the same space? Or they have to move by at least the length of the vehicle so that the same "space" is not occupied by the same vehicle?

Thanks for the information,

Liang

Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Tom Chin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 8:52 AM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Cc: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; Serena Tu <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RV parking resources

Good morning Mayor Chao,

I have provided answers to your questions regarding RVs below:

Mary Avenue is not specifically designated for RV Parking.

The Rotating Safe Car Park (RSCP) program cannot accommodate RVs at this time. The RSCP provides parking spaces for passenger vehicles on private property. The risk of an RV breaking down or discharging grey or black water is very high. The private property owners are not likely to accept the risk.

California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22651(k) and Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC)

11.24.130 state that vehicles cannot be parked in the same spot on a public street for more than 72 hours. CVC 22651 (k) and CMC 11.24.130 aim to prevent abandoned vehicles from being stored on the street. Neither the CVC nor the CMC specifically prevents RVs from parking on public streets, and unless posted otherwise, all legally parked vehicles can be on public streets. Neither the CVC nor the CMC specify the distance a vehicle must travel to have been considered "moved." While mostly complaint-based, Code Enforcement regularly patrols areas of the city known to have RVs parked to enforce the 72-hour and street sweeping rules. Of all the parking citations issued by Code Enforcement, violations for CVC 22651 (k) and street sweeping are the most common. In FY 24, approximately 280 citations or warnings were issued.

Please let me know if you have additional questions.

Thank you,
Tom

Tom Chin
Emergency Manager
City Manager's Office
TomC@cupertino.
gov
(408) 777-1310

From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2025 11:10 AM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Chin <[email protected]>
Subject: RV parking resources

Given the high interest in RV Parking issue right now, I hope to understand what resources there are for RV parking in Cupertino and surrounding areas or the County.

I heard that Mary Ave is a designated RV parking site?
Does the rotating Safe Parking program accommodate RVs?

I think it's important to reasonably accommodate RV parking to support RV dwellers.

But they do not have the right to occupy the public street 24-7 as their own private parking space.

Thus, I’d like to know what’s the practice in terms of issuing fines when muni codes for street parking or street cleaning are violated.

Thanks,

Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192

From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Written communications on oversized vehicle parking ordinance from PC 06/24/25 meeting.

Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 10:08:14 AM
Attachments: Written Communications (Updated 6252025).pdf Dear City Clerk,
Would you please include the below in written communication for agenda item 16 for the 07/01/25 CC meeting.

Dead Mayor Chao and Council members,
Please find enclosed and linked below the written communications from the 06/24/25 PC meeting on oversized vehicle parking ordinance which you may find to be relevant for agenda item 16 for the 07/01/25 CC meeting.

https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E2&ID=1249178&GUID=D0BBFCF1- A632-4D95-8F58-BC940409EBBB
Thank you.

Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
[email protected]

PC 6-24-2025
Oral
Communications
Written
Communications
From: E. Poon
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: Jennifer Griffin; Rhoda Fry
Subject: Staples site to be developed
Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 6:15:30 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.

Many people would find it helpful to know that they can return packages at Staples. Whole Foods Market is commonly known as a location for returns, but Staples is not.

It would be useful to have Staples eventually take up a location somewhere else in Cupertino, with a smaller footprint.

We just heard that in San Francisco, Nordstrom is returning with a smaller store. Staples could survive well and help the community by planning along the same lines.

The future of retail in Cupertino is really in jeopardy. More ideas are needed, or it will become a Retail desert.

Eventually, the sea of townhouses will not be attractive, as there are not enough essential stores for residents.

In the lot, there is the Fontana Restaurant. I have always wondered why a lovely building like that is vacant. What was the history? It is one of the more interesting- looking buildings around here. It is a pity to have it demolished. Is is really a relatively new building? Why do we waste a nice looking building?
I heard the idea to preserve it as a Club House for the new townhome development. It is a brilliant idea. The developer might object to "losing" land, which might be part of the townhouse development, but they can be creative about land use and make up for it.

For example, they can consider an architectural style called the BackSplit, which is essentially a stacked duplex ( 5 levels with 2 levels for the top unit, 3 levels for the bottom unit) which has a low elevation that looks like a two story high building from the street. It is found in Toronto, Canada, in some neighborhoods. It uses the tri-level concept to stack 5 stories and still maintain a low profile. Such an efficient use of land as the Toronto BackSplit will allow the developer to keep the Fontana Restaurant as the Club House. This distinctive looking building will elevate the style of the entire complex.

We hope the developer will be open to new ideas.

Regards,
Emily Poon
Resident of 18 years
From: Vivek Sagdeo
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Luke Connolly; Emi Sugiyama; Rajiv Chamraj; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Liang Chao Subject: Followup on the public hearing on 20840 Stevens creek Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:20:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
It was quite illuminating to attend the hearing.

As a block leader, I would like to request a hearing with the Scofield block, which is affected by this project.

We had vigorous activity related to Scofield MFU. We had no activity at all for this and let us discuss this before approving.

Mayor, since architectural committee did not wait to hear our feedback, hope that you will be able to discuss it with us before approval.

Vivek
Vivek Sagdeo
block leader
20821 Scofield
From: Susanne Chang
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Santosh Rao; Liang Chao Subject: Cupertino Memorial Park - Pickleball Noise
Date: Thursday, June 12, 2025 6:16:39 AM
Attachments: Pickleball Noise at Cupertino Memorial Park.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.

To: Cupertino City Council and Planning Committee Members Subject: Cupertino Memorial Park Pickleball Noise Issue From: David and Susanne Chang
21143 Christensen Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014
Date: June 12, 2025
Dear Cupertino City Council and Planning Committee Members:

We raised the pickleball noise issues to Cupertino City Council and Planning Committee Members on August 14, 2023 and again January 10, 2025, yet there are no resolutions or improvements made to the issues, Instead, the city has allowed the problem to be further aggravated with no visible progress to alleviate: one more tennis court has been converted into 4 pickleball courts making a total of 8 courts allowing 32 people playing as well as spectators are present. Pickleball games tend to be much louder with players yelling and jeering during the game and certainly afterwards. This has brought even more noise and traffic onto Christensen Drive. Players park cars on the street, ignoring the “Permit Parking” and “No Parking Any Time” signs. Pickup, dropoff, and food delivery cars are constantly circling our formerly quiet street with children - including our grandchildren - playing, and cars speed off recklessly.

The Cupertino Pickleball Club has grown to 1,000+ members, majority of the players are non-Cupertino residents who do not pay property tax to support Cupertino City matters.

Players start playing early in the morning once daylight breaks until the lights turn off at 9:09pm.

This pickleball noise is in violation of the City of Cupertino’s own Municipal Code Chapter 10.48 Community Noise Control, where this sustained level of noise is exceeding the daytime residential and non-residential maximum noise levels of 60dBA. When the hard surface of the pickleball racket connects with the hard surface of the ball, sound waves vibrate rapidly, registering a decibel level of ~70 dBA at 100 feet from the court. Consider how much noise is generated when 32 people are playing at the same time.

Our past and current feedback and complaints from the Memorial Park pickleball courts have yet to be addressed; instead, our physical home, mental health, and general well being as Cupertino residents of over four decades continue to be exacerbated. We request that Cupertino City to set an ordinance in regulating the players using the USA Pickleball quiet category-compliant paddle sanctioned for recreational use, proven to reduce noise by 50 percent. Also to set the starting time at 9am to reduce early morning noise.

Appreciate your response with proposed resolutions; other residents are also sharing similar concerns so we’d like to resolve this respectfully and cooperatively.

Thanks
Susanne and David Chang
From: valerie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 7:11 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: CEQA and traffic impact for McClellan Rd SB 330 project

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: Gill Doyle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2025 1:34 PM
To: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>; Tracy Kosolcharoen <[email protected]>; David Fung <[email protected]>; Seema Lindskog <[email protected]>; Steven Scharf <[email protected]>; Luke Connolly <[email protected]>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <[email protected]>; Emi Sugiyama <[email protected]>; Ravi Kumar <[email protected]>; Karsten Chin <[email protected]>; Denise <[email protected]>; Sarah McLaren <[email protected]>; Veronica Law <[email protected]>; Cathy Tang <[email protected]>; Jinn Su <[email protected]>; Natalie Zhu <[email protected]>; Howard & Janet <[email protected]>; Dean Tatsuno <[email protected]>; chenglei liu <[email protected]>; C F <[email protected]>; Frank's friend <[email protected]>; Grace Hsue <[email protected]>; Sean Leu <[email protected]>; Bindeeya Desai <[email protected]>; Chen Yu Lee <[email protected]>; William H. Kerr <[email protected]>; James Wang <[email protected]>; Ashok Natesan <[email protected]>; Huafei Wang <[email protected]>; Rahul Shinkre <[email protected]>; Chinh <[email protected]>; Meena & Pinaki Mukerji <[email protected]>; Vic Menon <[email protected]> Subject: Tessellations shuttle solution
C
AUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I
live near the school and represent 29 households that have signed a petition that asks the City to deny Tessellations’ request for permission to operate a high school at the old Regnart Elementary site.

I
n December 2023 Tessellations was granted a Conditional Use Permit that allowed it to teach preK through 9. Tessellations promised to move grade 9 to a separate campus in the fall of 2025. Quoting Tessellations: ”Note . . . that high school will only be 9th grade on the current campus, and only for one year. In future years, we plan to move the high school to another site, so from then onward the current campus will be PK-8th. ” [“Tessellations Project Description for Cupertino Planning Division” (November 2023)] Tessellations got permission to teach a maximum of 300 students at the Regnart site and told the City Council that it wasn’t interested in adding more students. Again quoting Tessellations: “In terms of our philosophy on the school, we don’t really want any more than 300 students just for our emotional safety and comfort . . . There’s social evidence that that’s a really great number to stay at in terms of the population knowing each other. ” [Co-founder Grace Stanat at City Council meeting 12/5/23] Tessellations is applying now for a revised Conditional Use Permit that would allow it to grow to 425 students. It’s asking for permission to add grades 10, 11, and 12. Despite these plans to grow the school, Tessellations says that it will keep its staff at its current max of 85.

Whe
n Tessellations opened in 2023 it had 141 students. Today it has 268 students and plans to grow to 425. There are traffic and parking problems today that will only get worse when another 125 cars are added to the morning drop off and afternoon pick up.

Remember: Tessellations is not a neighborhood school. Nearly all of its students come from outside the area and must be driven to school or will drive themselves.

Bef
ore the City considers allowing the school to expand, residents around the school would like to see the City and school address existing traffic and parking problems.

Tessellations itself has come up with a great idea that it should be encouraged to pursue.

The school has talked about having parents drop off and pick up their kids at an improvised shuttle station — New Life Church, for instance. The school would then shuttle the children in its minivans between this shuttle station and the Regnart campus. The residents near the school like this idea and hope that the City will encourage Tessellations to pursue it.

Tessellations’ application for a revised CUP requires that a traffic study be done. When that happens in the fall, Tessellations’ shuttle program should be considered as one very good option to ﬁxing both traffic and parking problems at the school. (The current CUP includes a provision that requires Tessellations to implement a shuttle service in the event that the City's Director of Community Development deems parking around the school to be a nuisance.)
- Gil
l Doyle (7952 Folkestone Drive)
PC 6-24-2025
Item No.2
Oversized
Vehicle
Oridinance
Written
Comm
unications
From: Ravi Kiran Singh Sapaharam
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Support for RV Rental Ban Policy in Cupertino
Date: Sunday, June 22, 2025 8:30:00 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 Planning Commission,
I am writing to express my support for a policy in Cupertino similar to San Jose’s recent ban on renting RVs to unhoused residents for use as homes, as outlined in the San José Spotlight article (https://sanjosespotlight.com/san- jose-bans-homeless-people-renting-rvs/).

I believe this policy is necessary to address the challenges posed by “vanlording,” where individuals rent out often inoperable RVs to unhoused people, leading to unsafe and unsanitary conditions on public streets and private properties. This practice burdens businesses, property owners, and residents while exploiting vulnerable individuals. A clear policy would enable Cupertino to maintain community safety and cleanliness, similar to San Jose’s approach.

However, I strongly urge the city to pair this policy with compassionate solutions for unhoused residents. Cupertino should expand safe parking programs with adequate sanitation and support services or partner with Santa Clara County to provide housing resources. Without these alternatives, we risk displacing people without viable options.

Thank you for considering my input.

Sincerely,
Ravi Kiran Singh

Cupertino Resident
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2025-06-24 Planning Commission Mtg ITEM2 - Vehicle Parking Ordinance QUESTIONS Date: Sunday, June 22, 2025 4:48:50 PM
Attachments: image002.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Dear Planning Commission and Staff,
Just for disclosure purposes, my husband and I are long-time RV owners (20 years) and have rented them before owning so I have some insight on how/what a resident RV owner might need to do on a city street, especially in front of their home or while traveling visiting other cities.

Thank you for providing additional information and data regarding the RV parking situation. It is very informative and eye opening, especially having examples of how our existing laws are rendered ineffective by the actions of some RV owners.

I have several questions regarding the STAFF REPORT:

Q1…It’s proposed to add a definition of “oversized vehicles” in Muni Code Section 11.28.010.

Q1: What would the definition of “oversized vehicle” look like? Q2…Question regarding our existing Muni Code Section 11.28.020 According to Section 11.28.020 it is unlawful to live or sleep in ANY vehicle parked on the street.

Q2:

Why is Section 11.28.020.A not enforced now?
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2025-06-24 Planning Commission Mtg ITEM2 - Vehicle Parking SITUATIONS TO CONSIDER Date: Sunday, June 22, 2025 5:14:21 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.

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

When reading these proposed options I made a list of all the large vehicles I see around our neighborhood from time to time.

Ideally, the proposed changes should cover these cases with the desired effect, whatever that be.

Types of vehicles around town:

RVs
Long vans (over 20 ft) – either a Class-B RV or a work van Long bed pickup trucks
Shuttle vans, Hopper vans, Apple vans
Buses
Delivery trucks (FedEx, Amazon, UPS, furniture/moving vans, 18-wheelers) Boat trailers
Trailers
Plumber, electrician, gardeners, construction vehicles
Some situations where a resident of Cupertino would need to park their RV or boat or trailer for more than 2 hours on a city street (in front or near their house):

Preparing to leave early the next day – Often they connect the car they are towing behind the RV the night before and have the RV plus car parked in front of their house ready to go in the early morning.

An RV is stored elsewhere and is brought from storage to the home to load up. It often takes all day to load up and prep the RV. The RV probably then stays in front overnight for an early start the next day.

RV is rented for a family vacation – loading an empty RV can take a day. Often they wait until the next morning to leave.

Family or friends who are traveling in an RV come to visit.

The resident has a business and does not have room to park the vehicle.

This gets dicey considering that now days developers are not providing adequate parking.

Some newer developments are shortening the length of parking spaces from 20 ft to 18 ft which don’t allow some trucks or vans to be parked on-site in a parking space.

REQUEST:

When you look at changing the city’s vehicle parking ordinances, please keep these in mind and make sure the desired outcome is obtained for these various situations. Please make the resulting vehicle parking ordinances fit reality. When laws don’t make sense, people ignore them.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2025-06-24 Planning Commission Mtg ITEM2 - Vehicle Parking Ordinance COMMENTS Date: Sunday, June 22, 2025 5:47:25 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 AND ANY ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM.

Dear Planning Commission and Staff,
I’m glad the city is revising it’s parking ordinance and addressing some of the issues the city has been encountering.

1. I agree that once the 72 hours are expired, the vehicle should move 1500 ft away for at least 72 hours.
a. That said, I think there should be a way a resident can get an extension.

2. Permits…I do not support requiring residents to have to get a permit every time they need to park their RV on the street.
a. The times when this is needed are not always planned and can happen when the city is closed (weekends, holidays, evenings).
b. It would require more staff time and overhead which results in more taxpayer money being wasted.
c. It would require more time for the resident.

3. Some provision is needed to allow friends and/or family that are traveling in an RV to visit and park on the street.

4. Some provision is needed to allow visitors in RVs to visit and shop in Cupertino.

In Campbell, on Dell Avenue, near the perk ponds which is a large commercial area with lots of parking, they installed signs restricting the heights of the vehicles overnight. Maybe in troubled areas, the city could do the same?
Q: What are other cities doing to solve this problem?
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Jean Orr
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: RV Parking
Date: Sunday, June 22, 2025 8:47:09 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.

Re: Planning Commission Meeting; June 24, 2025
Item 2; RV Parking Regulations Proposal:

We own an RV and only park it in the road, in front of our house, when getting it packed and ready for a trip.

We think that short term parking should be permitted on the public road.

Keep this in mind when making any proposal for parking restrictions.

Thanks you
From: Mark Wright
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Oversize Vehicles opinion
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 11:51:44 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.

Hi
On the matter of oversized vehicle control in parking lots, my suggestion is to Limit parking to a specified time. E.g. 72 hours as is same for parking cars on streets. Then ticket, then tow.

Mark Wright
10620 Culbertson Dr.

Cupertino
CA95014
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: 6/24/2025 Planning Commission Agenda Item #2
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 2:03:18 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 Commissioners,

Regarding 6/24/2025 Planning Commission Agenda Item #2
Please do not consider doing parking permits.

It puts a lot of time and money stress on residents and extra overhead for staff.

It seems that one of the issues is that code enforcement is not adequately responding to resident complaints.

This is an area upon which we can improve.

Another thing that I’d like you to consider is that our storm drains lead straight to the bay.

Many people don’t realize this. Although I have no evidence that people have been dumping effluent into our storm drains, the more people who reside in their vehicles, the greater the possibility of it happening. Note that the City of Santa Clara storm drains go to the sewage treatment plant.

I don’t know who is responsible for painting our storm drains, but having looked at a few this week when I was walking around town, it looks like they could use some sprucing up. Maybe we need a paint that doesn’t fade? Below is an image of one of the better-looking ones on my walk.

Regards, Rhoda Fry

From: Jean Bedord
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk
Cc: Chad Mosley
Subject: Agenda Item #2 Oversized Vehicle Parking, Planning Commission, June 24, 2025 Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 2:41:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include in Written Communications
---------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Commission,
I am writing to oppose the options presented in the staff report. First of all, this is not included in the city work plan or received direction of the council as a whole, thus violating the Municipal Code requiring council to approve any council member's request that exceeds two hours of staff time. Who directed "staff" and who is this unknown Deputy City Manager who wrote the report?
Secondly, though this report is an improvement from the original report which suddenly appeared on the April 22, 2025, Planning Commission agenda, it proposes a punitive permit system that would be cumbersome and expensive to implement. Permits would cost approximately $50 each. The recommended option would require residents with recreational RVs to obtain a permit every 72 hours AND move their vehicle 1500 feet. Residents would be subject to the same enforcement as unsheltered RV residents. Is the city prepared to operate a permit system 24/7 so weekends and evenings are covered? City hall operates 8 to 5 Monday through Friday and there is already a staff shortage. Directors’ names are not on this report, but staff time would be required to enforce such a policy, instead of providing services to residents. Money spent on signage is better spent on improving resident services.

The staff report fails to address the overall issue of the ongoing challenge for unsheltered residents. It focuses on punitive actions which impact both residents with recreational vehicles as well unhoused residents. Context is missing. It cites 200 complaints about oversized vehicles in the past year. But how many vehicles are actually involved? Perhaps as few as 10-20 vehicles? What are the demographics? How many are “working poor” who have to live close to their work? What outreach has been done to the occupants of these vehicles? Due to lack of affordable housing, “vehicle lodging” is a reality until more permanent housing is available.

Shouldn't overnight parking be addressed within the broader context of unhoused residents which include (1) Tents, (2) Cars/vans and (3) RVs/Trailers? Mountain View has Safe Parking programs
which differentiate between cars/vans which can be
accommodated in church parking lots, and RVs in commercial areas which can provide more space and waste disposal services. Cupertino has neither. The Prince of Peace Lutheran Church in Saratoga does NOT accommodate RV’s (an error in the staff report). How are other similar jurisdictions managing unhoused residents? The San Mateo City Council adopted a “compassionate approach” to enforcing its ban on people sleeping in vehicles, prioritizing outreach and services before citations.

I urge you to take the compassionate approach to provide outreach and services to address the underlying issue, rather than a punitive approach which also impacts residents who have recreational vehicles, as well as their visitors who should be allowed to park (with homeowner permission) in residential areas without the hassle (and expense) of a permit system. Cupertino can do better.......

Housing and Community advocate,
Jean Bedord
From: Venkat Ranganathan
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Input on Oversized Vehicle Parking
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 2:48:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission Members,
This is Venkat Ranganathan, a long time Cupertino resident.

Thank you for your continued efforts to address the growing concern around oversized vehicle parking in Cupertino.

I support the direction outlined in Option 1 of the June 24 staff report, which proposes requiring a City-issued permit to park oversized vehicles on public rights-of-way, along with mandatory 1500-foot relocation every 72 hours. This strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of residents, enforcement feasibility, and community aesthetics.

However, I urge the Commission to strengthen this option further through two key amendments:

1. Restrict permits to 3 per month per vehicle rather than 5. The current proposal allows oversized vehicles to legally occupy public streets for up to half the month. Reducing this to 3 permits ensures such parking remains transitional, not semi-permanent.

2. Establish designated zones for oversized vehicle parking—especially in commercial or less trafficked areas—rather than allowing dispersed parking throughout the city.

Without clear zones, enforcement becomes difficult and neighborhoods may still see clustering despite the permit requirement.

Additionally, while daytime and short-term exceptions (2 hours during the day, 1 hour at night) offer flexibility, these should not become loopholes for routine overnight dwellers.

With the suggested improvements, Cupertino can better manage public space while respecting occasional residential use.

Thank you for considering this feedback.

Sincerely,
Venkat Ranganathan
Get Outlook for Android
From: Greg Endom
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Over-sized Vehicle Parking City of Cupertino
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 3:08:40 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.

Chair Rao:

I received your email to Amy Chan, who forwarded it to
me. I represent the ownership of the Marina Plaza
Shopping Center, specifically with respect to its planned redevelopment of the Marina Plaza Shopping Center
property into a mixed-use residential and retail project.

In response to your request for commentary related to
the current oversized parking of vehicles on Alves
adjacent to the Marina Plaza center, I can offer you
these thoughts…
While the current parked vehicles and their residents
have not caused any material problems or generated
concerns/complaints that the center ownership is aware
of, the long-term viability of this type of parking pattern is in question at this location.

When the redevelopment of the center occurs, the
construction activities and changes to the property during its redevelopment will not be conducive or most likely
allow for this type of long-term parking. Once the
redevelopment is complete, I would envision Alves being more conducive to bicycle lanes and parallel parking for the retail tenants, customers, and visitors to the
residential units being planned at the site. The nature and use of Alves after the planned redevelopment will be substantially different from its current level of activity.

The new mixed-use project envisions an activation and
upgrade of this secondary street into a more pedestrian- friendly and neighborhood-welcoming thoroughfare.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments.

Sincerely,
Marina Plaza Shopping Center
/s/ Greg Endom
By: Greg Endom
Project Manager
Greg Endom
925-550-8082
DRE# 00766333
From: Ram Sripathi
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Rv parking menace
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 3:31:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello planning commission
We are seeing a rampant use of rv parking behind target in Cupertino. They park in and around the xyz hotel.

I’m a long time resident of Cupertino and pride our city. But allowing these rvs that don’t belong to Cupertino and the occupants don’t contribute to cupertinos welfare or well being. I’d say strongly that they are a menace and should be asked to leave and further not allow any rv parking in public spaces.

It’s a menace because they slowly start dirtying the surrounding and because they don’t want to leave for fear of losing the spot , start doing things like throwing garbage, emptying water, lounging around etc.

They also probably hurt the hotel xyzs look and that impacts the city revenue .

If we continue to allow there maybe other spots people will park. We should further go ahead and pass an ordinance banning Rv parking.

I hope the commission listens to its loyal long resident citizens and does the right thing.

Thanks
Ram Sripathi
Cupertino resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: Deborah
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Oversized Vehicle Parking Ordinance
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 3:39:35 PM
Attachments: CCHC New logo Signatures-02.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.

Hello Planning Commissioners,
Thank. You for reviewing the CMC regarding oversized vehicles in the City.

I know that in other cities, it appears they have designated areas that these vehicles can park, but they they are highly industrialized. Out local businesses have some issues with trailer homes being parked near their entrances as it deters customers from entering or using the business. I am not sure what new rules would prevent this.

Nominally near some of our hotels some have parked for the regulated amount of time (I believe it’s still 72 hours before they have to move) but you can see how this would hurt hotel business specifically, particular when they have not quite recovered from the effects of the pandemic like a lot of our small businesses.

I just ask that the business community be considered when making changes to these regulations as it will effect the health of our economy and therefore revenue to the City.

Thank you for your consideration.,
Deb
Deborah L. Feng, MBA
CEO
O. 408 2527054 ext.101
[email protected]
www.cupertino-chamber.org

From: Rinal Shah
To: Santosh Rao; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Benjamin Fu; Chad Mosley; Daniel Degu
Cc: Dipesh Gupta; Manish Gupta
Subject: Re: Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session: Oversized Vehicle Parking Regulations – June 24 Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 3:53:51 PM
Attachments: Aloft Cupertino_Comments on Oversized Vehicle Parking.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 Members of the City Planning Commission -
Please find our comments/feedback on the City of Cupertino's parking regulations for oversized vehicles.

Thank you for your time and for considering our perspective.

Best Regards,
Rinal
Rinal Shah
VP of Operations
Aloft Cupertino
From: Daniel Degu <[email protected]
>
Date: June 23, 2025 at 11:59:10 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session: Oversized Vehicle Parking Regulations – June 24

Hi Dipesh,
The Planning Commission will hold a study session on Tuesday, June 24 at 6:45pm in Cupertino Community Hall to discuss potential updates to the City’s parking regulations for oversized vehicles on public streets. During the meeting, the Commission will review and consider multiple options presented by City staff and may choose to recommend one of the proposals for City Council consideration in a future ordinance.

The staff report is attached for your reference, should you wish to learn more. Public input is welcome. You may:

Attend the meeting in person or via teleconference
Share your feedback by emailing Planning Commission Chair Santosh Rao at [email protected] or the full commission at [email protected].

For additional details, please refer to the attached documents.

Daniel Degu
Economic Development Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
W:(408)777-3233/C:(669)251-1804

From: Ty Bash <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 4:53 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>
Subject: RV ordinance

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 commission,
My name is Ty Bash and I am the operations manager at Happy Days. Since we opened our doors in 2001, we at Happy Days have provided early childhood education for infants, preschoolers and kindergarteners to families in the Cupertino community.

As we have recovered from Covid restrictions, the challenges of remote work and return to work are compounded by challenges of the people living in RVs in front of our school. On a daily basis one could ﬁnd an RV or two parked in front of our school, or across the street in front of the Target parking lot. Many addition RVs are parked along Alves, behind Target. Perspective parents frequently inquire about the status of the vehicles, while we can only assume that others are altogether deterred and do not come in. Fortunately, we have not had an incident with those who occupy the RVs, but the fear of the parents, children and our employees is real.

While we empathize with plight of the RV residents, other resident solutions must be found. We are happy that the mayor is looking into addressing the situation and are in full support of legislation that will restrict RV parking on public streets.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

From: Nicklaus Meier
To: Deborah; Santosh Rao; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject: Re: Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session: Oversized Vehicle Parking Regulations – June 24 Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 5:25:51 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, Deb, for including Aloft Cupertino in this discussion.

Hi Santosh,
For the past 18+ months, there have been several RVs parking on Alves Dr. in front of Aloft Cupertino. Our guests do not feel safe and this is an eyesore. We are worried that if nothing is done about this, these small problems can become bigger problems as we have seen in other Bay Area cities. We have gotten several bad reviews as well due to this. Two of the are linked below. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Check out this review of Aloft Cupertino on Google Maps https://goo.gl/maps/ZNRLjzuA5TYbHWKX7
Check out this review of Aloft Cupertino on Google Maps https://goo.gl/maps/9gksn92N9e7PFL3m6
Nick Meier, CHRM
Chief Revenue Officer
Shashi Hospitality Group
10200 North De Anza Blvd.

Cupertino, CA 95014
Cell: 702-810-7275
[email protected]

Shashi Hotel | The NEST Palo Alto
Aloft Cupertino | Aloft Sunnyvale | Aloft San Jose Cupertino On Tue, Jun 24, 2025, 1:12 PM Deborah <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Nick,
I thought you and your folks might want to weigh in here by either attending the study session below and/or submitting your comments via both or either of the emails listed below. I will be submitting my comments to the planning commission email address.

Deb
Deborah L. Feng, MBA
CEO
O. 408 2527054 ext.101
[email protected]
www.cupertino-chamber.org
Begin forwarded message:

From: Daniel Degu <[email protected]>
Subject: Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session: Oversized Vehicle Parking Regulations – June 24 Date: June 23, 2025 at 11:36:39 PM PDT
To: Deborah <[email protected]>
Hi Deb,
The Planning Commission will hold a study session on Tuesday, June 24 at 6:45pm in Cupertino Community Hall to discuss potential updates to the City’s parking regulations for oversized vehicles on public streets. During the meeting, the Commission will review and consider multiple options presented by City staff and may choose to recommend one of the proposals for City Council consideration in a future ordinance.

The staff report is attached for your reference, should you wish to learn more. Public input is welcome. You may:

Attend the meeting in person or via teleconference
Share your feedback by emailing Planning Commission Chair Santosh Rao at [email protected] or the full commission at [email protected].

For additional details, please refer to the attached documents.

Daniel Degu
Economic Development Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
W:(408)777-3233/C:(669)251-1804

Cupertino City CouncilJuly 1, 2025

Cupertino City Council
July 1, 2025