Written Communications (updated 11/17/2025) — Cupertino City Council, November 4, 2025

CC 11-04-2025
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
Problems with nanowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area with diverse users Salfetty risks,:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic oEspecially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Qua:llit of llife· i1111111pact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This. area coflinects. families, bikers, school kids, com1ml\lle·rs, bemeen:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of wav to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

Current
As it is, current parking spots fill up with Memorial Park Activities, Westport Development, DeAnza College Students. The loss of 89 parking spaces will create enormous hazards to the public.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
( 4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems with na"owing trafti1c, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area with diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Qualit of life, imi ~tt:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area coirmects ffam1illie1s,, biib!'rs, school kids, commuters be1lwe-e1n1:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
lo\ l~)ZD25
Sign Date Sign Date
S \lSOJ\ T .. :s a o
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

Current
street
width
As it is, current parking spots fill up with Memorial Park Activities, Westport Development, DeAnza College Students. The loss of 89 parking spaces will create enormous hazards to the public.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

Problems wiffl narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian la1ne·s in an area with diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of llife i1mpact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area connec.ts 1famiJlliie·s,, bikers, school kids, commuters be1lwee·1111:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
~ - Date Sign
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net Loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
(4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems with narrowi1ng traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian llanes in an area with diverse users Safe risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks ( ~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of lilfe irnpstt:.

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area co1111rneds, tfam,iillie,s,,, bikers, school kids, commute,rs, betwe~'n:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
Sign
Print Name
Date
Print NameRanjan Desai
10335 Mary Ave
Cupertino CA 95014-1339
,Santa Cruz SPCA
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns aboot vacating public right of way to create the Rarcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
(4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and ·edestrian lanes in an area with diverse users afe1ly risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic a Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

Tlhii1s, arrea conrn:eds families, bikers, schiooll kids, com1ml\lltters between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
~ - -.--- _
Date Sign Date
, tlom tJ s ~ v c.q..1, o (1- ,
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
-
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
(4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems with na1rrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian l1 anes in an area with diverse users
Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
QuaHt of llife, i1m1poct:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

Thi'S airea conmecfis families, bikers, school kids, comIr1r11111rl!e,rs, lbetwe:e'n1:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! p L 1Sv-l51S l) D !'I o .. T ft 11 PR otJ t ' Y.itl 5 ., I I Lv I LL f'-1 oY- uJ o RI< I C,
Sincerely,
Sign Date Sign Date
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concems about vacating public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

Problems wi,th narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes. in an area with diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic a Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of Jirlie1 im~:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area oonirneds; familiest bikers, school kids, commuters lbetwee•fill:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
7 Print Name Print Name t-luci_'.J
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

Current
As it is, current parking spots fill up with Memorial Park Activities, Westport Development, DeAnza College Students. The loss of 89 parking spaces will create enormous hazards to the public.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

Probl'ems wiith narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area with diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This, area <C<Dlfilllilects families, bikers, school kids,, commu~e,rs !between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
Sign Date Sign Date
Print Name PC:::;hµ/
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

Problems with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area with diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of life impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area connects famillfe,s,,. biketirs, school kids, commuters between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
Date Signal Date
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
(4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems with narrowing traffi1c, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area wi1th diverse users Safety risks:
1 . Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic oEspecially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of life impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users. ifhis area connects famiillfe,s,,. bik-e,rs. school kids, commuters between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
Signal Date
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

Pro,bllems with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area with diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic oEspecially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Qw1aflilt!y of life impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users. llh:i1s area connects families, bikers, school kids. commuters, lt>ettween:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino Ci µ~~it;i:'filetrskilrcri--vEK:1-(ib:::!L:ue proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Lif . VOTE NO on this location. I • n't the right place! Sincerely,
1at2SJ. (1-,s
Date
Print Name Print Na
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating pubtic right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

Current
As it is, current parking spots fill up with Memorial Park Activities, Westport Development, DeAnza College Students. The loss of 89 parking spaces will create enormous hazards to the public.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

Problems with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area with diverse users Safety rilsks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks an.d vehicle~ are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks ( ~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quallilt!.y of liife impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area corn:n:ecis families, bikers, school kids,. commilders between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
r • , ·lit~ /.ess 'fol(_
'( O IA_ cl O 'v\ 't r,-e-eJ
1/o-/-et;,
As our repr~ entative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety ana Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! -- • Sincerety,
&0f. i,9
.Sign Date Sign Date_
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concems about vacating public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right--of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

Current
street
width
As it is, current parking spots fill up with Memorial Park Activities, Westport Development, DeAnza .. College Students. The loss of 89 parking spaces will create enormous hazards to the public.

As a community, we are requesting that this .project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens ,Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
( 4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems with narrowi traffiic. buffer, bike, and destrian lanes in an area wi11th diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic a Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks ( ~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of life impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area connects famiHies, bikers,, school kids, commuters between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
10/zr!z;-
Sign / Date
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
(4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems wi1th narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pe'destrian lanes in an area with diverse users Safety riisks,:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic oEspecially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

Tlhii1s; airea 001n rrtectts families, bikers, school kids, commurtte,rs, lbetween:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
Sign
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
__,A :5 re--.s id en ts a~ A Y/ ~ OYL, Av-en LlQ, lu-f... ON-. U--UU(f Ul1'1~ ~,JuJ ~ f»'Loj_~ f . The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way. 0 c , No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
(4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacatting RUblic right of way to create the P-3rcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
(4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area witln1 diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic oEspecially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks ( ~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of life impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users. lhis area connects families, bikers, school ki1ds, commuters between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
__ _,___ 0 ) -3 -;t.-5
Date
Print Name Print Name
U ~ A C, '--~ T-=> /~ 1 1(:::- ND f'l O V G LDcJL ? ~ (2 7"Y, {5~ 1 WG? Atfl.1;2 ~u L.L-'f A ~ 1"1Sr ~Pr«-y f.>..'-Je ~ U~\ ,-)6- 'P~~e:c'(' l I
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns abourt vacating public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
(4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area wi1th. diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic oEspecially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of life impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area connects fam.mes, bikers, sch1ool kids, commuters between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
( o(zo/4 >
Sign Date Sign Date
Print Name ( Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating ~ublic right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts: all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
(4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area with dirverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic a Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks ( ~ 10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of life impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This arrea connects families, bikers, scho.ol kids,, c.ommuters between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
a?(~~ /~~1~r- /4----KSign ~ Date Sign 7
KJ£J-eer1. tjcct-t.l{ocl,, _(J_(;,bQ_~~~r4_cc;_· LL~&_·Lo_t,h_ Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held 'for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
(4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area with diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks ( ~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of Hfe hnR_aet:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area connects families, bikers, school kids, commuters between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
!j ~ L fu_, YYl1::=:

Sign
Print Name
10 -/{} - 2s;-
Date
___.. Rt'--4-<---' t~----""-- ~---¥'-J_~ p -'--{0----'-' g,n'-"-='- th.c...<.....,~- ·~ I L)-l {) -202~ Sign (} Date
rz tii11-hzP P. Stf?PcJp} J/2-. Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating ubHc ri1gh1t of w to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
(4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problent-s with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area with diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
QuaUty of life impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This arrea connects families, bikers, school, kids,, commuters between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
'\...J~-~~ \o1,~1 --::i.-s ______ _
Sig[:7 (J-> Date Sign Date
j~:\h \-· ~<";<\~
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way. !No community hearing was held for residents to voice their com:erns about vacating public right of wa to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

Current
As it is, current parking spots fill up with Memorial Park Activities, Westport Development, DeAnza College Students. The loss of 89 parking spaces will create enormous hazards to the public.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

Problems with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestri1a111 lanes in an area with diverse users Safety ri.sks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of life impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users. 'Jhis area connects families, bikers, school kids, commmers between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
Sign ' Date Sign Date
SttuJTfllU f
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns all>olll1t vacating public ri ht of way to create the l!Qrce,J from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
(4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER -
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area with diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of life imQact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area connects famiHes, bikers, school kids, commuters between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
I0/2-f 2,S--
Sign Date Date
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacati119 public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

Problems with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and edestrian lanes in an area with diverse users Safe!Y risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic a Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quallity of Hie impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users. lhis area connects families, bikers., scli1ool1 kid1S,, coI11i1111uters between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
~} ~AW}
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of way tto create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

Current
As it is, current parking spots fill up with Memorial Park Activities, Westport Development, DeAnza College Students. The loss of 89 parking spaces will create enormous hazards to the public.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

Problems with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area with diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quali~ of life impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area connects famUies, bikeliS, school kids, commuters between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
Sign Date Sign Date
Kiz)S ~)v\\ Pr \[~c,1\\ 'I A-~I f\/.A rf')
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns abol\ltt vacating public right of way to create the arcell from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
(4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area with diverse users Safe~ risks:
1 . Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks ( ~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of life impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area connects families, bikers,, sclilool kids, commuters between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
('\ .. ~· r.\J(\~. -~ 4 ., I \ /A l ' \\\\.V 7 \c , I w'l-f ~~,1 ~--- -S-ig_n _____________ D_a_t_e Sign c:,:.:::-P"
Print Name Print Name
\v/7 /u=n-~
Date
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns abo111rt vacating public right of way to creatte the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

Problems with narrowing, traffi,c, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area wi.th di~erse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic a Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of life impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area connects famUies, bikers,, school1 kids, commuters belwee111:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
.~
Sign Sign
Print Name Print Name
Problems with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and destrian lanes in an area with d1iverse users Safety risks:
1 . Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic oEspecially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of life impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
~
( tGD J tn~
Sign
_2.,c? ..2--J - t I -v I "'----++-----
Date
_-,--
/0- 0 Do/lltaPrint Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating ·public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
,l .a will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

Current
street
width
is, current parking spots fill up with Memorial Park Activities, Westport Development, DeAnza e Students. The loss of 89 parking spaces will create enormous hazards to the public. !_Community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location. 3rrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing , and there are FIVE future developments :II force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:

The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
$85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
,3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
( 4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

From: George Zhu
To: Public Comments
Subject: Oppose Mary Avenue Villas
Date: Saturday, November 1, 2025 9:43:19 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.

Wumengjian Zhu
21346 Rumford Dr
Cupertino, CA 95014
11/01/2025
City of Cupertino
10350 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear City Manager Tina Kapoor, Members of the City Council, and Planning Staff, I am writing as a resident of Cupertino to register my strong opposition to the proposed Mary Avenue Villas Project (APN: 326-27-053) on Mary Avenue, and to request that the City not approve this development in its current form or at this location.

While I fully support the City’s goal of providing affordable housing and recognize the importance of serving our intellectually / developmentally disabled (IDD) community, I believe this site is fundamentally unsuitable, for the following key reasons:

1. Loss of public parking and narrowing of right-of-way The project proposes only 22 on-site parking spaces for 40 units (less than one per unit) but would eliminate a net of 89 public parking spots on both sides of Mary Avenue, and narrow the roadway by 19.5 feet (26 %) to accommodate the build.

This creates a risk of parking overflow into surrounding residential streets and congestion, and reduces flexibility for deliveries, caregivers, visitors, and emergency vehicles.

2. Traffic, safety and functional access concerns
With a narrow road, fewer parking spaces and greater density of occupants (including frequent caregiver or nurse visits for the IDD population), Mary Avenue risks becoming hazardous — for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians alike.

The petition mentions that already turning left onto Lubec St from Mary Avenue is difficult; this project will only worsen the situation.

Emergency access, public works access, delivery trucks and ambulances may all face impediments in this configuration.

3. Environmental hazard: lead contamination
The site has been found to include state-classified hazardous lead waste (680 mg/kg) and a peer-review memo (May 16, 2025) contradicts the developer’s claim that a “one-time excavation and capping” will suffice—rather the peer review recommends ongoing countylevel oversight and long‐term modifications to comply with municipal code.

Given the vulnerability of the projected residents (IDD, extremely low‐income), the risk is unacceptable unless the contamination is fully resolved and monitored.

4. Lack of transparency and insufficient community input The petition contends that the project proponents have delayed the dissemination of key information, and that the public process has been hampered by withheld documents and mischaracterizations of approval status.

For the sake of good governance and public trust, the City must ensure full transparency, robust community engagement and fair representation in decision-making.

5. Over-building & inappropriate site selection
While I support affordable housing, this site appears to be over-built and under-planned: 40 units plus vulnerable population, with limited parking and a narrow street in a primarily residential neighborhood.

A more suitable site within Cupertino should be identified—one that better aligns with traffic, parking, safety, environmental and infrastructure constraints.

What I respectfully request:

That the City delay any approval of the Mary Avenue Villas project until all key issues are addressed: site contamination remediation plan with monitoring assurances, complete parking/traffic impact study, right-of-way and emergency access analysis, and stakeholder/public review.

That the project be relocated to a site better equipped (in terms of street width, parking capacity, traffic flow, environmental condition) to serve this community without creating adverse impacts on the neighborhood.

That the City commit to full transparency in the approval process, with all relevant studies, data and decision-making materials made publicly available in a timely manner, and meaningful public hearings/responses.

That the City ensures the project’s design and implementation meets all codes including §17.04.050(B) of the Cupertino Municipal Code concerning hazardous sites, and that public health/safety are given highest priority—not compromised in the drive to deliver housing.

In sum: I am firmly in favour of affordable housing and support in principle the notion of serving vulnerable populations—but the current proposal for Mary Avenue is not appropriate for the location and, as currently constituted, poses traffic, parking, safety, environmental and transparency concerns for our community.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter and for your service to our city. I trust you will carefully weigh the interests of the broader neighbourhood alongside the housing goals, ensuring that any development approved truly advances the health, safety and welfare of all Cupertino residents.

Sincerely,
Wumengjian Zhu
--
Wumengjian (George) Zhu
From: Ileana Yu
To: Public Comments
Subject: Please build villas on Mary Ave!
Date: Saturday, November 1, 2025 12:46:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi there,
It was brought to my attention that there is a group that is opposing the construction of the villas project on Mary Ave. I do not agree with their concerns, and instead am writing in support of the villas being built. Cupertino is in dire need of affordable housing, and we must do everything possible to build housing in the area and support those with intellectual and developmental disabilities. I live in the neighborhood and fully support the proposal for Mary Ave villas.

Best,
Ileana Yu
From: C C
To: Tina Kapoor
Cc: Public Comments; Chris Satterlee; Chad Mosley; Doug Gor; Rachelle Sander Subject: Sound attenuation update please
Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 7:08:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Tina,
I'm writing again to inquire about the status of the CMP pickleball sound attenuation plans.

Has the engineering assessment taken place? Have you selected the solution deemed the best to mount on the fences?
It's been over 3 months since our last communication. Players who have purchased quiet paddles are reporting that they are wearing out! The leadership team at Cupertino Pickleball Club are being asked by our 900+ members about the timeline. It would be great if we can provide people with an update.

I would like to note in passing that one of our members generously purchased several quiet paddles so the community may try them out (or borrow them to play during quiet hours). The box was left at the bleachers because we did not (do not) have any means of storing them. The entire box of paddles were stolen with a matter of a couple weeks. The same is true of the club squeegee equipment - they are borrowed by tennis players, sometimes damaged and often unreturned. If we can secure access to the shed to store these minimal amount of gear, it would be a great service to the community. I know this matter should hardly be raised to your attention, but we don't have a robust channel of communication, so I'm raising it here.

Thank you,
Cathy
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025, 4:26 PM Tina Kapoor <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Cathy (also councilmembers bcc’d),
Happy to help. Please feel free to contact me with any other concerns. Also, note, we have established a new email address for community members to automatically include the message in written communications for the upcoming council meeting. All you have to do is send the email to: [email protected] (copied here).

Best regards,
Tina
Tina Kapoor
Interim City Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-7607
From: Catherine Chiu <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2025 4:09 PM
To: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>
Cc: Rachelle Sander <[email protected]>; Chad Mosley <[email protected]>; Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Sound attenuation timetable please
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.

This background information is helpful. Thank you.

Best,
Cathy
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025, 3:26 PM Tina Kapoor <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Cathy (moving councilmembers to bcc),
Thank you for your message and for continuing to advocate for the well-being of our neighborhood. I hear your concerns, and I want to offer a clear and respectful update on where things stand.

First, I want to acknowledge the frustration that delays can cause. While we initially anticipated that the installation of the sound attenuating material on the fence would be completed within two weeks, the reality has proven more complex. I learned yesterday that our engineering team has determined that additional evaluation was necessary to ensure the fence meets both structural and sound attenuation requirements. This step is essential to ensure the solution is safe, effective, and sustainable. As a result, while work has begun, the full installation will take longer than originally expected.

I understand that you feel this delay reflects a lack of integrity or transparency. I want to assure you that this is not the case. Our team is working actively to find a balanced and lasting solution—one that allows pickleball to continue in a responsible way while also responding to valid concerns about noise impacts. The projected timeline we provided was overly optimistic but was provided in good faith and in the interest of transparency.

This mitigating measure is part of a compromise which reflects our desire to meet the needs of all residents and the City is committed to this effort.

We value the efforts made by many in your club to adopt quieter equipment, adjust play hours, and encourage goodwill. The permanent striping – another gesture of support by the City - is also underway and is scheduled to be done in August. This partnership is essential to achieving a long-term resolution that works for everyone.

Thank you again for your engagement and your patience as we complete this important work.

Regards,
Tina
Tina Kapoor
Interim City Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-7607
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]; City Council
Subject: Fwd: Objective Design Standards
Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 11:55:08 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 consider the following as public input for the Cupertino City Council meeting.

Thank you!
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Objective Design Standards
From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025, 11:51 AM
To: [email protected],[email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear City Council:
(Please consider this input as public input for Cupertino City Council meeting) I am very concerned about Cupertino going to only Objective Design Standards. The public has
Been subjected to a dictatorial onslaught of high density housing bills in the last seven years.

These bills have been handed down from Sacramento without the public being able to discuss or
Vote on the merit or validity of these bills. These bills have resulted in the people of Cupertino being called names and bullied. If anyone questions what these bills are doing, The public is immediately yelled out and told they are not good enough to live in their neighborhoods.

It is understandable then that these groups saying the city has to use objective design standards Would be met with great skepticism and fear.

I do not think the city should adopt objective design standards. Based on past behavior by the housing
Bill authors and those seeking to limit local control, I am convinced objective design standards are just
Another type of scam from Sacramento to separate the public in each city from their homes.

I do not believe it is in the best interest of Cupertino to adopt objective design standards.

I think it is an attempt to mislead and frighten and take advantage of the public.

This can be the only logical conclusion from the past practices of the housing bill authors who have
Tried so hard for the last seven years to tell the public in California they are no good and Do not deserve to live in this state.

The housing bill authors and members of the California legislature only have themselves to blame.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
Cupertino Resident
From: Linda Stephens
To: Public Comments
Subject: Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 10:52:42 PM
Attachments: icon.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.

No on Mary Avenue Housing project please read
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 10:45 PM
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
To: <[email protected]>
Address not found
Your message wasn't delivered to [email protected] because the address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail.

The response from the remote server was:
550 permanent failure for one or more recipients ([email protected]:550

5.4.1 Recipient address rejected: Access denied. For more information see https://aka...)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Linda Stephens <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc:

Bcc:

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 22:45:35 -0700
Subject: opposing Mary Avenue Housing Project!
Attention Please City Council Members...

Memorial Park has now become a place where local events can be held bringing the residents of Cupertino together as a Community. The renovation of the Oaks shopping center has presented parking challenges already during Community Events held at Memorial Park & DeAnza College. What about the high rise with an additional 136 units left to build? Where are they going to be parking? On Mary Avenue, just like the new residents of the units that have been completed. There was adequate parking when we looked at the plans! This project does not resemble anything that the residents were shown. I went to those meetings. Why was the developer ever allowed to sell half of the property? This is a red flag that developers are making these decisions?
I went on my daily walk in September to Memorial Park, the streets were packed with cars looking for parking, pedestrians, walkers,dog walkers, dog park participants, and meet up cycling groups. There was a Community Event being held at Memorial Park. The cars were stopped in the street on Mary Avenue trying to get onto Stevens Creek as far as the dog park.

Along with cars coming from Stevens Creek, all stopped, no parking spaces for any of these vehicles.. The apartments put up signs and barricades restricting parking.

My husband coming from Millard Lane near the footbridge was forced to exit through Steiling and go out through Homestead to get to Stevens Creek & Foothill. What you don't realize is that many of the residents living here can no longer safely navigate down Mary Avenue to Stevens Creek. We're trapped, in the event of an emergency how will we all be able to exit onto Stevens Creek from Mary Avenue ?
We have encouraged residents from Sunnyvale to walk, and bike over the bridge. This includes Homestead's cross country runners who run to DeAnza College after school. Like many others we walk or ride bikes over this bridge into Sunnyvale, and we welcome them into our City.

Before adding new projects, resolve the Oak shopping center parking issues. The area is already impacted, and limited parking creates a safety risk for residents.

I went to the Cupertino Service yard on Monday to discuss the 7 employee cars that were parked on Millard Lane. No parking available on Mary Avenue for the employees.

Please think about the residents , and the risks associated by narrowing Mary Avenue.

Five residents per unit, who polices this rule? That's a minimum of 2 cars per unit.

Along with caregivers, hospice, physical therapists, occupational therapists, how many cars is that?
The dog park only has two spots designated for their use, will the other spots be used for this project ? We worked hard to get that dog park for the residents. This park is social and full of life in the late afternoon when it provides shade for pets & its owners. A fun & safe place to gather as a Community.

Before adding new projects please resolve the Oak shopping center parking issues . Where is the underground parking that the residents were promised on this project? The area is already impacted, limited parking creates a safety risk for residents and pedestrians.

I purchased my home 38 years ago with the understanding I could exit onto Stevens Creek without risk. My neighbors & myself are apprehensive navigating down Mary Avenue, fearing someone is going to back up into them. We don't need any more cars on the street PLEASE to make things easier on everyone, consider a different location with better parking options. Bubb road behind Union 76 lots of empty buildings rezone the space. There are lots of vacant buildings in Cupertino where orchards once were, rezone and repurpose those buildings before we overbuild Mary Avenue
I am asking you to listen with empathy to the concerns raised by the residents of Cupertino, prioritizing input from our Community.

Sincerely,
Linda Stephens
resident since 1955
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk; City Council; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu; Tina Kapoor; Luke Connolly; Gian Martire; City Attorney"s Office
Subject: Fw: Council hearing to vacate public right of way.

Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 7:01:41 PM
Attachments: street-and-easement-vacations-11-8-13-002.pdf 2010_vacate_public_right_of_way_Draft_resolution.pdf
2010_vacate_public_right_of_way_Staff_report.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 City Clerk,
Could you please include the below in written communications for the upcoming Cupertino council meeting under items not on agenda / Mary Ave Villas.

Thanks,
San Rao
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, voter and taxpayer] CC: CAO to duly note the attached 2013 adopted process by Cupertino public works, past precedent from 2010 by Cupertino public works for vacating public right of way, attached Cupertino city council resolution from 2010 for vacating public right of way and to also duly note the absence of public hearings at city council and no sign of a passed council resolution on vacating public right of way for Mary Ave portion of the street that was vacated with no indication any community hearings occurred.

Begin forwarded message:

On Wednesday, October 29, 2025, 11:10 AM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:
[Writing on behalf of myself only as Cupertino resident, voter and taxpayer] Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council members, Director Mosley, Director Fu, Asst Director Connolly, ICM Kapoor,
Cc: CAO
Would you please share the dates when a Cupertino city council hearing was held to vacate the Mary Ave public right of way and the dates when community hearings occurred and what street noticing occurred prior to the community hearings to vacate the Mary Ave public right of way.

See below for an example from 2010 when a council hearing was held to vacate public right of way. See further below the process to vacate public right of way in Cupertino.
https://cupertino.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?
view_id=18&clip_id=1011&meta_id=49763
https://cupertino.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?
view_id=18&clip_id=1011&meta_id=49764
https://www.cupertino.gov/files/assets/city/v/2/departments/documents/publicworks/engineering/street-and-easement-vacations-11-8-13-002.pdf If the proper process was not followed to vacate the public right of way what is the process to redo the same with a properly noticed community hearing and planning commission, city council hearings.

Thank you.

Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, voter and taxpayer)

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: September 7, 2010
Subject
Vacate a portion of City right of way on Stevens Canyon Road at 22605 Ricardo Road.

Recommended Action
Adopt Resolution.

Discussion
The owner of the parcel at 22605 Ricardo Road petitioned the City to vacate a portion of the existing Stevens Canyon Road right of way adjacent to his property that is no longer needed for roadway purposes. Harold “Bud” Barclay applied to the City of Cupertino requesting that the City consider vacating a portion of the existing Stevens Canyon Road public road right of way.

Once vacated, the area would become part of the Barclay parcel at 22605 Stevens Canyon Road.

On August 3, 2010, Council adopted a resolution of intention to vacate the aforementioned right of way, reserving a public utilities easement and a five-foot wide pedestrian access easement, along Stevens Canyon Road. The City posted and published appropriate notice of that intention, as well as of and the date, time, and place of the public hearing to consider that intention, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8320 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code.

If the City Council finds after due consideration of all of the evidence submitted that the right of way described in the notice of hearing is unnecessary for present or prospective street purposes, then it may adopt a resolution vacating that right of way, reserving and excepting there from a public utilities easement and a five-foot wide pedestrian access easement, pursuant to Section 8324 of the California Streets and Highways Code.

Adoption of the resolution will authorize the City Clerk to record the executed original resolution in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, at which time the area vacated will no longer be a public street or highway, but will contain a public utilities easement and a five-foot wide pedestrian access easement retained by the City.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Glenn Goepfert
Reviewed by: Ralph Qualls
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: Draft Resolution
Map
From: Walter Li
To: City Clerk; City Council; Chad Mosley; Tina Kapoor; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; City Attorney"s Office; Public Comments
Subject: Request for Documentation - Mary Ave Right-of-Way Vacation (Mary Ave Villas) Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 7:36:02 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 Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming City Council meeting.

Subject: Request for Documentation – Mary Avenue Right-of-Way Vacation (Mary Ave Villas) Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, City Attorney’s Office, Interim City Manager Kapoor, Director Mosley, Director Fu, Assistant Director Connolly, and Senior Planner Martiere,
I am writing to request complete documentation showing how the City of Cupertino complied with all required procedures for vacating the public right-of-way along Mary Avenue in connection with the Mary Ave Villas project.

The vacation of a public street or right-of-way is governed by California Streets & Highways Code, Division 9, Part 3 (§§ 8300–8363), also known as the Public Streets, Highways, and Service Easements Vacation Law.

The operative provisions include § 8300, § 8324, § 8325, § 8333, and § 8335.

In addition, the City’s own published Engineering/Public Works procedures—Application for Vacation of a Street or Easement and Street & Easement Vacations—require the following:

1.Adoption of a City Council resolution of intent to vacate.

2.At least 15 days between notice of intent and the Council hearing.

3.A public Council hearing to approve and accept the vacation.

4.Recordation of the Council resolution with the Santa Clara County Recorder.

5.Submission of utility consent letters, title report, and a certified legal description by a licensed surveyor or engineer.

Requested Records
Please provide the following for the Mary Avenue / Mary Ave Villas right-of-way vacation:

1. The City Council resolution of intent to vacate, with adoption date, staff report, and agenda item.

2. The Council hearing date(s), agenda, minutes, and public notices, as required under SHC § 8324.

3. The final Council resolution vacating the right-of-way under § 8335.

4. The recorded certified copy of the resolution filed with the Santa Clara County Recorder, including the instrument or recording number, per § 8325.

5. Confirmation whether the regular or summary process was used, and if summary, how the decision was made to not use the regular process for full public engagement and transparency and why.

6. Copies of all utility consent or reservation letters, title reports, survey/legal descriptions, and related staff reports.

7. A timeline of actions from application acceptance to Council approval, consistent with the City’s stated 6-week (summary) or 12-week (regular) timeframe.

Explanation Request
If any of the above procedural steps were not performed, please identify the legal authority relied upon to vacate the Mary Avenue right-of-way without following Streets & Highways Code §§ 8300 – 8363 and the City’s adopted procedures.

Response Timeframe
Please provide the requested records or written explanation within 10 business days. If additional time is required, kindly specify the completion date. If any record is withheld, please cite the legal basis and provide a privilege log.

The vacation of a public right-of-way directly affects public access and property rights. It is essential that the City demonstrate full adherence to the required procedures and maintain public transparency.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your prompt response.

Best regards,
Walter Li
Cupertino Resident

From: j w
To: Liang Chao; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Cc: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Re: Subject: time sensitive!Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the "political prisoner/hostage"/Fair Treatment from the City
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 4:55:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include in the public record for next meeting----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang, On Monday, November 3, 2025 at 11:27:26 PM PST, j w <[email protected]> wrote:On Monday, October 20, 2025 at 03:51:05 PM PDT, j w <[email protected]> wrote:

Subject: Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and Fair Treatment from the City Dear Mayor,
I would like to share some background and respectfully request that the City treat our situation with the fairness, dignity, and compassion it extends to all residents.

Our family lives at the bottom edge of the city’s economic and social margins. We are doing our best to hold on — even now, part of our roof requires patching every few months just to keep things livable. Years ago, we were misled by an Indian real estate agent, which led to major losses and hardship. Despite this, we took full responsibility and followed the proper path through the City Planning and Building Department. We worked with licensed, experienced professionals to carry out an approved plan for the 2nd time.

Unfortunately, a complaint from the 1st construction — made by someone who has since left their position — led to retaliation on the 2nd one, and lack of the communication as stated below caused more confusion. We did our best to stand up, but over time, we lost everything: the property, our belongings, and the sense of home we built over years as long-standing residents. It felt like persecution. And the pain didn’t stop there — we were falsely labeled, our rights stripped away, and our lives disrupted in ways that had nothing to do with the original matter. These labels have followed us into every corner of life.

It has reached a point so tragic and unjust that criminals were able to attack us, but we could not fight back — not legally, not financially, not even emotionally — because of how the court accepted the City's false narrative. The damage from these untrue labels has led to severe mental and emotional decline for our family. The refusal of the courts to hear our side, to look at the full truth, has left us in a state of hopelessness and fear.

Making things worse, the lack of communication from the City over the past several years has deepened the hardship. We were not able to schedule even a single in-person meeting, despite repeated efforts. One of our elder family members is now immobile, and the sense of isolation and exclusion has been profound. We’ve been forced to pay unnecessary legal fees, not only for the property matter, but also for broader issues where City sanctions were misapplied or extended beyond their scope — even into private disputes, turning what should have been civil into something resembling a political prisoner situation. We’ve had to spend even more money six figure just to settle matters that were never ours to begin with, nothing to do with city, but couldn't defend since city hold as 'prisoner' on all unrelated matter.

We have no place else to turn. We have always believed in the City Council’s mission to support residents. We believe in redemption and renewal. We accepted the outcome the first time and tried to rebuild. But now, I’m asking — from the deepest part of my heart — that you extend that same belief to us.

No one — no matter their flaws — deserves to be forgotten in the system, lost in endless procedures, enduring punishment far beyond what justice requires. Please see us. Please give us the opportunity to be heard and to heal.

We respectfully ask that this be treated as a high-priority matter, and that steps be taken to restore open communication, offer fair support, and ensure no resident is left behind.

Thank you for your time and your service to the people of this City.

Jane for Huang family
4086731820
From: j w
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Re: Request to Prioritize Rebuilding Direct Communication Between City Leadership and Residents Dear [Recipient
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 4:50:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include in the public record for this meeting----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang, Could someone please get back to me on this, or forward it to the City Manager’s Office for a response? I’ve raised this issue several times over the past few years, and we would appreciate an update.
>>>>>>
On Monday, October 20, 2025 at 12:02:03 PM PDT, j w <[email protected]> wrote:

We would like to express our concerns about the ongoing lack of direct communication between residents and the City, including the City Council, in recent years.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, it was common to see the Mayor and City Manager walking around in front of City Hall, engaging openly with residents. The City Manager also maintained open office hours almost daily, and City Hall was accessible — doors were not locked, and transparency was part of the everyday culture.

While we understand that the pandemic required changes, those restrictions have long since ended. Yet, the level of public access and face-to-face communication has not returned to pre-COVID standards. We've even seen news reports raising concerns about public employees holding multiple remote jobs simultaneously, which further undermines public trust.

Most concerning is the fact that some long-term residents have not had an opportunity to meet with city leadership in person for years. This disconnect does not reflect the values or mission of the City to serve its community with transparency, accountability, and accessibility.

We respectfully ask that this issue be treated as high priority — and that steps be taken to restore regular, in-person engagement between the City’s leadership and its residents.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Jenny
Huang family
CC 11-04-2025
Item No. 1- Closed Session
Public Employee
Appointment
Consideration
Written Comments
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Kirsten Squarcia; Lauren Sapudar Subject: Closed session agenda item 1 written comments.

Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 4:33:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for closed session agenda item 1 for the 11/04/25 city council meeting:

1. Subject: Public Employee Appointment Consideration; California Government Code
Sections 54954.5(e) and 54957(b)(1); Title: City Manager [Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore and Cupertino city council members, I am writing on agenda item 1. I can only speculate on the agenda since it is closed session but I am assuming this item relates to the appointment of Tina Kapoor as city manager.

I whole heartedly endorse and support the appointment of Tina Kapoor as the next permanent Cupertino city manager.

I urge you to go further and appoint Kirsten Squarcia as Asst City Manager and Lauren Sapudar as city clerk.

Under the leadership of Tina Kapoor there has been a considerable change in staff and resident engagement as well as the tone of council meetings have gotten considerably better.

Under the prior city manager the council meetings were downright rude and disrespectful. I often took council calls on zoom with kids around me. I could not let them watch the mannerisms of the prior city manager as she set a bad example for polite respectful treatment of colleagues, council members and residents.

Under Tina Kapoor all that is a closed chapter. Tina Kapoor puts the job before her personality. She restores respect and pride in the role of the city manager.

Cupertino has great city facilities called Quinlan and Don Brown. Do you know what those names are? They are names of past city managers. Not names of Mayors. Not names of council members. But names of city managers.

The role of city manager is one of great honor. The office of city manager must be treated with respect, service and humility. Tina Kapoor fits the bill perfectly to do that.

Tina Kapoor has improved city written outbound communications such as newsletters. She has stayed engaged on resident issues such as Phar Lap Dr crosswalk safety, Mary Ave Villas, and many more. Tina Kapoor has been striving for the right balance between managing staff bandwidth, city use of resources and meeting resident and council needs and expectations. She maintains a neutral posture across factions with diverse needs and views.

By confirming Tina Kapoor you demonstrate trust in staff and also pave theway to appoint Kirsten Squarcia to asst city manager and Lauren Sapudar to city clerk.

All three have served our city admirably and deserve the roles ahead.

Please promote Tina Kapoor to city manager today. Please agendaize the appointment of Kirsten Squarcia to assistant city manager next.

Thank you.

Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) CC 11-04-2025
Item #3
Presentation from
Toyokawa Sister City
delegation
Written Communications
From: alysa sakkas
To: Public Comments
Subject: 11/4/25 written report for item 1 ceremonial item Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 3:41:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

This is for tonight’s ceremonial item 1.

Cupertino-Toyokawa Sister Cities, Inc. is the nonprofit that nurtures the relationship with Cupertino‘s sister city, Toyokawa, Japan in partnership with the City of Cupertino.

Each year we host a student cultural exchange. We requested time at a city council meeting for the students to give a report to city council. We feel this is an important part of the student program to share their experience representing Cupertino, including the opportunity to practice public speaking lifeskills.

Our organization was additionally requested to give a report to city council. Due to the amount of time allocated, there is insufficient time to do more than an abbreviated student presentation.

We would like to submit the following written report addendum.

In 2025, CTSC executed much of our typical programming for the year:
- Conducted a successful student exchange program sending 16 students and 3 CUSD chaperones to Japan
- Conducted the Cupertino Cherry Blossom festival, which honors our sister city relationship, and shares Japanese arts and culture with the community. A video summary of the event is being produced that will promote the 2026 cherry blossom festival and will be viewable on our YouTube channel in the near future. - Held a (6th annual) Community Bell Ringing for World Peace event in August, which grows larger each year and renews our commitment to world, peace, and observes the anniversary of the bombing of Toyokawa, Japan during World War II - Participation in various community activities such as the Silicon Valley Fall Festival, the California Japan Sister Cities, Network of Northern California, and Japanese Consulate activities
In additional some notable activities unique to this year:
a) We sponsored a candidate in the Northern CA Cherry Blossom Queen program that mentors young women in leadership skills. Our candidate happened to be Cupertino resident, Nanami Sumimoto.
b) We participated in the Mayor’s initiative "Cupertino Stories" event. We produced a short history of our organization that can be viewed at this link on our YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQZ3X7QMpao&t=8s
c) We enjoyed a significant special milestone this year in having a third- generation family member of one the families in Japan participate in our exchange program.
d) We represented the community at the District 5 welcome ceremony of the new Consul General of Japan in San Francisco.

We look forward to continuing our work and thank the City of Cupertino for its support of our programming.

Respectfully submitted,
Alysa Sakkas, President
Cupertino-Toyokawa Sister Cities, Incorporated

CC 11-04-2025
Item #5
Santa Clara Valley Water
District on recent updates
from the district
Written Communications
For City of Cupertino
November 4, 2025
Overview of SCVWD Water Charges & Key Projects
A comprehensive, flexible water system serving over 2 million people Water Utility:
 393 ACRES OF

RECHARGE
PONDS
 142 MILES OF

PIPELINES
 10 RESERVOIRS
 3 WATER

TREATMENT
PLANTS
 3 PUMP

STATIONS
 1 WATER

PURIFICATION
CENTER
Valley Water Groundwater Charge Zones of Benefit
Board Pricing Policy
Summary
• Groundwater charges are
levied within a zone for
benefits received
• All water sources and
water facilities contribute
to common benefit within
a zone regardless of cost,
known as “pooling”
concept
• Helps maximize
effective use of available
resources
• Agricultural water charge
shall not exceed 10% of
M&I water charge
Impact of Shortage
WHAT WOULD WATER SHORTAGE MEAN DURING A FUTURE MULTI-YEAR DROUGHT? During a 6-year drought in 2050:
• All four potential future conditions show some level of water supply shortfall. • Assumptions: Reliance on existing supplies and infrastructure only & water conservation goals are met, including short- term drought reductions. Future supply and demand conditions may vary.

Not investing wisely – or forgoing rate increases – may result in future supply shortages or lower levels of service.

Annual Water
Supply Shortage in AF
(6-year drought in 2050)
Moderately Impacted
Imported Water in AF
Severely Impacted
Imported Water in AF
Supply Shortage Supply Shortage
High Demand: 350,000 316,000
(19,000 GWB) 34,000 278,000(3,000 GWB) 72,000
Stable Demand: 330,000 328,000
(33,000 GWB) 2,000 282,000(11,000 GWB) 48,000
AF: Acre Feet (1 AF equals 325,851 gallons or enough water for 10 people for an entire year) GWB: Groundwater Banking water transfers
Impact of Shortage
Potential Impacts of Lower Levels of
Service:
• Quality of Life
• Economic Impact
• Irrigation for Parks & Trees
• Declining Agricultural Production
• Irreversible Subsidence
Estimated Costs of Water Supply Shortages
(2023$):
• Residential $1.6 – $2.8 Billion
• Agricultural $220 – $280 Million
• Commercial $1.2 – $14.2 Billion
• Subsidence Potentially Billions

COMMUNITY DISRUPTION AND POTENTIALLY STAGGERING ECONOMIC IMPACT RWTP Reliability Improvements
($720 Million)
San Jose Purified Water Program
($2.6 Billion)
Dam Seismic Retrofits/Improvements
($3.4 Billion)
Pacheco Reservoir Expansion
($3.2 Billion)
Additional
Planned
Investments in
Capital Projects
Led by Other
Agencies
• Sisk Dam Raise
– Up to $563M
in 2024 $’s
• Delta Conveyance
Project
– Up to $650M
in 2023 $’s
Infrastructure Repair and Water Supply Investments
Drive Water Rate Projection
Water Supply Master Plan 2050 is nearly finished and includes adaptive management framework to provide Valley Water’s Board with flexibility to make incremental investment decisions and refine them over time.

Project
Suspended
District Managed Water Usage
REFLECTS MORE MODERATE REBOUND FROM 2023 DROUGHT
285
237
200
215
232
216
230
247
224
198 203
219 219 224 225 226 228 229 230 231 232 233
0 25
50 75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 30 FY 31 FY 32 FY 33 FY 34 FY 35 Acre-feet (1,000s)
District Managed Water Usage (TAF)
FY 26 Projection Actuals FY 25 Estimated Actuals
Treated Water
Historic
Drought
Wet Spring
Recent Drought
Groundwater Charge Increase Projection
M&I Groundwater Charge Year to Year Growth %
North County Zone W-2 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 FY34 FY35 Baseline 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 7.0% Scenario w/o Pacheco & with
Expanded Sites 9.9% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% M&I Groundwater Charge Monthly Impact to Average
Household
North County Zone W-2 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 FY34 FY35 Baseline $7.60 $8.35 $9.18 $10.09 $11.09 $12.19 $13.39 $14.72 $16.18 $12.57 Scenario w/o Pacheco & with
Expanded Sites $7.60 $7.76
$8.48$9.26$10.11$8.16$8.71$9.31$9.94$10.61
Note: Does not include any increase that a retailer would layer on top Local Assistance Programs
Multiple Retailers offer
Customer Assistance
Programs (CAP) to help
residents with their water
bills.

Valley Water’s WRAP (Water
Rate Assistance Program) is
budgeted at $1M per year.

Summary
Valley Water’s “era of investment” is driving water charge projection • Needed infrastructure repair coupled with climate change driving planning efforts for investments
• Water charge projection adjusted downward due to Pacheco Project suspension Water Utility Enterprise cost containment measures include:
• Pausing 45 positions district-wide
• Deferring unfunded capital projects (Almaden Calero Canal Phase 2, Alamitos Dam replacement)
• Submitting applications for an additional $1.3B worth of low-cost federal loans for the Dam Safety Project and the Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit Project CC 11-04-2025
Item #11
Municipal Code
Amendments for
California Buildings
Standards Code and Fire
Code
Written Communications
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Benjamin Fu; City Attorney"s Office Subject: Resident Concerns and Recommendations on 2025 Building Code Ordinance Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 10:47:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming council meeting. [Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino talent] Subject: Resident Concerns and Recommendations on 2025 Building Code Ordinance Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Council Members, Interim City Manager Kapoor, and Director Fu,
As a Cupertino resident, I am concerned that the proposed 2025 Building Code ordinance introduces significant new costs and complexity for homeowners who wish to remodel or maintain their homes. While safety and sustainability are important, several provisions create unnecessary burdens that discourage reasonable home improvements. In addition this will raise the cost of housing for tenants as landlords will pass these costs on to tenants Below are key resident impacts and practical alternatives that would maintain safety while reducing burdens on residents:

1. Digital Plan Submittals and Design Professional Requirement Impact: All plans must be digital and often stamped by a licensed design professional, even for modest remodels.

Resident-Friendly Alternative: Permit paper or simple digital submittals for projects under $50,000 without requiring professional stamps unless structural work is proposed.

2. Expanded Inspections
Impact: Added inspections (moisture, energy, fire) and exposure requirements increase cost and delay.

Alternative: Streamline inspections for remodels under 1,000 sq ft and allow certified thirdparty inspectors for small residential projects.

3. Roofing Replacement Mandate
Impact: Replacing more than 50% of a roof within a year triggers full replacement with Class A fire-retardant material—an expensive requirement even outside wildfire zones.

Resident-Friendly Alternative: Exempt Cupertino homes from the Class A mandate. Residents should retain flexibility to use Class B or C roofing materials that meet State fire standards to avoid unnecessary cost burdens.

4. Fireplace Chimney Retrofits
Impact: Any remodel exceeding $1,000 requires installing spark arrestors, even when work is unrelated to the fireplace.

Alternative: Exempt this entirely for remodels.

5. Pool Safety Retrofits
Impact: Existing pools must add alarms or barriers when any home remodel triggers a permit.

Alternative: Require new pool-safety devices only for new or substantially renovated pools, not for unrelated home work.

6. Green Building Certification and Deposits
Impact: Remodels must now include CALGreen checklists, certification, and refundable deposits forfeited if paperwork is late.

Alternative: Exempt this entirely.

7. Seismic Design Restrictions
Impact: The draft bans several standard wall-bracing methods, requiring costlier engineered alternatives.

Alternative: Permit standard bracing methods allowed under the California Residential Code for small remodels and additions.

8. Added Fees and Re-Inspection Charges
Impact: New re-inspection fees and green deposits raise overall project costs.

Alternative: Waive fcorrection fees and remove deposits for single-family remodels.

Requested Actions

1. Amend the draft ordinance to include homeowner exemptions and thresholds.

2. Publish a clear homeowner summary showing how new rules apply to remodels and additions under 1,000 sq ft or $100,000.

3. Provide plain-language guidance explaining when design professionals, green compliance, or special inspections are required.

These adjustments would keep Cupertino safe and sustainable while allowing residents to maintain and improve their homes without excessive cost or delay. If council cannot take these actions please continue the item rather than rush these changes raising costs on residents Alternatively consider directing the item to the Planning Commission for review before it is brought back to city council.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
San Rao (Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino Resident) From: Paul Joseph
To: City Clerk; City Council; Tina Kapoor; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; City Attorney"s Office Subject: Resident Concerns and Recommendations on 2025 Building Code Ordinance Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 4:52:32 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 communications for the upcoming council meeting.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Council Members, Interim City Manager Kapoor, and Director Fu,
As a longtime resident of Cupertino, I am deeply concerned that the proposed 2025 Building Code ordinance would impose substantial new financial and regulatory burdens on homeowners. The increased costs of compliance—combined with added layers of complexity —risk disenfranchising many long-term residents, particularly those on fixed or moderate incomes, who may no longer be able to afford to maintain or upgrade their homes.

While the City’s goals of improving safety and sustainability are important, these measures must be balanced against economic accessibility. Without reasonable flexibility, the ordinance could unintentionally force many homeowners to defer essential maintenance, abandon planned remodels, or ultimately relocate outside Cupertino. This outcome would not only reduce housing stability for existing residents but also undermine the City’s long-standing goal of preserving an inclusive and diverse community.

There is a growing feeling of being completely insensitive to cost of these measures and making living unaffordable in Cupertino.
--
thanks,
Paul
From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: Kitty Moore; Lauren Sapudar
Subject: RE: Item 11 Written Communications Referenced in Motion Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 9:17:35 PM
Thank you Vice Mayor. The material will be included with the written communications and referenced in the minutes.

Kirsten Squarcia Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: Kitty Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 8:43 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>; Lauren Sapudar <[email protected]> Subject: Item 11 Written Communications Referenced in Motion Dear City Clerk,
Below are the referenced potential revisions from the Item 11 motion:

Replacement Text – Section 113, Appeals
(To replace current Section 113 in the Draft Ordinance) SECTION 113 – APPEALS
113.1 General.

In order to provide a means for resolving disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Title or the technical codes adopted herein, there shall be a Board of Appeals. Nothing in this section shall be construed as creating a right to appeal issues outside the Building Official’s jurisdiction. 113.2 Board of Appeals – Creation and Purpose.

A. There is hereby established a Board of Appeals consisting of five members appointed by the City Council. Members shall be qualified by experience and training to pass upon matters pertaining to building construction and code enforcement.

B. The Board shall act in an advisory and technical capacity, hearing and considering appeals from orders, decisions, or determinations made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of the codes.

C. The Building Official shall serve as ex-officio secretary to the Board but shall have no vote. 113.3 Scope of Review.

A. The Board of Appeals shall limit its consideration to whether the true intent of the code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been correctly interpreted, and whether the provisions of the code apply to the particular case.

B. The Board shall not waive code requirements or approve any alternate that lessens minimum safety standards unless such alternate is expressly permitted by the code.
113.4 Decision and Recommendation.

A. After hearing an appeal, the Board shall prepare written findings and a recommended decision setting forth the facts and reasoning supporting its conclusion.

B. The recommendation shall be transmitted to the City Council within ten (10) days following the Board’s action. 113.5 City Council Review and Final Determination.

A. Upon receipt of the Board’s recommendation, the City Council shall schedule the matter for consideration at a noticed public meeting.

B. The Council may affirm, modify, or reverse the Board’s recommendation. The Council’s action shall constitute the City’s final administrative decision.

C. The Council may remand a matter to the Board for additional technical findings as necessary. 113.6 Record of Proceedings.

The Board shall maintain a record of each hearing, including testimony, documents, and findings. Such record shall be forwarded to the City Council and maintained as part of the permanent file for the subject property or permit. 113.7 Effect of Decision.

The City Council’s decision on appeal shall be final and binding upon all departments and officials of the City. Judicial review may be sought in accordance with applicable law.
113.8 Consistency with State Law.

This appeals process shall not modify or create any technical building standard beyond those adopted by the State of California. It is an administrative mechanism consistent with California Building Code §113 and Assembly Bill 130 (2025).

Optional Supplement – Council Interpretive Authority
(Can be added after Section 104.1 in your draft)
104.1.1 Council Interpretive and Policy Authority
The City Council may adopt resolutions or administrative policies clarifying procedures for implementation of this Title.

Such policies shall not establish or amend building standards as defined in Health & Safety Code § 18909, but may guide enforcement priorities, interpretation, and administrative practices to ensure consistency with state law and local needs.

Kitty Moore Vice Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
CC 11-04-2025
Item #12
Municipal Code
Amendments to
Regulate Film Production
Written Communications
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Strengthening Resident Protections in the Film Production Ordinance Date: Saturday, November 1, 2025 4:07:22 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 agenda item 12 the upcoming Cupertino city council meeting on Tuesday November 4th 2025.

Dear City Clerk,
Would you please include the below in written communications for agenda item 12 the upcoming Cupertino city council meeting on Tuesday November 4th 2025. [Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Subject: Strengthening Resident Protections in the Film Production Ordinance To:

Mayor Liang Chao
Vice-Mayor Kitty Moore
Cupertino City Council
Interim City Manager Tina Kapoor
Deputy Interim City Manager Kirsten Squarcia
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, ICM Kapoor, and DICM Squarcia,
I am writing as a Cupertino resident who values peace, safety, and quiet in our neighborhoods. The proposed Film Production Ordinance needs significant changes before it is adopted. As written, it gives too much discretion to staff, allows filming with almost no notice, and creates the risk of serious disturbance to residents.

Two days of notice is not enough, and allowing waivers of noise, notice, and time limits removes the basic protections residents should have. The ordinance should also prohibit helicopters and drones, which can cause major noise, safety, and privacy issues for residents. I urge the Council to revise this ordinance to ensure meaningful community protection and transparency.

Please include the following changes before adoption:

1. Require a minimum of 15 days of advance written notice to residents, businesses, and schools within at least a 2,000 foot radius of the filming location. Further direct staff to permanently stop the use of 300 feet for noticing in any future matters. 300 feet has been a bad idea for the city. It was an anti-resident attempt to suppress public awareness and its continued use is bothersome.

2. Require a public hearing for film permit approvals at the Planning Commission or another public body, not an internal administrative process.

3. Provide residents with a right to appeal any permit that affects their neighborhood.

4. Limit filming hours to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays only. Filming must not be allowed on weekends or public holidays.

5. Use mandatory language throughout the ordinance. The City Manager or designee must not be able to waive noticing, hour limits, or noise limits.

6. Apply Cupertino’s existing noise regulations to all film productions, including generators, trucks, and lighting. Noise compliance must be monitored by City staff.

7. Prohibit filming involving helicopters, drones, or any aerial vehicles or devices in all residential areas and public spaces. These create excessive noise, raise privacy concerns, and are unsafe in dense neighborhoods.

8. Do not allow film production that blocks or alters streets, driveways, or parking in residential areas. Public roads must not be used for commercial filming except in rare cases approved at a public hearing.

9. Require content creators and production companies using private property for any commercial or monetized filming to get a film permit and follow all rules. Private property filming that disturbs neighbors must not be exempt.

10. Limit film permits to no more than two per residential block per year to prevent repeated disturbance in the same area.

11. Require the City to publish all pending and approved film permits on the City website with filming dates, locations, and a contact for residents to raise concerns.

These changes are critical to make the ordinance fair, enforceable, and protective of our community’s peace and quality of life. Filming can still occur, but only in a way that does not harm residents or take away our quiet enjoyment of our homes.

Please strengthen this ordinance before it is adopted. Cupertino residents deserve clear notice, fair process, and strong protection from noise, disruption, and aerial filming activities.

Thank you for your vigilance to protect residents, limit discretionary powers of staff and ensure quality of life and peace and quiet of neighborhoods is primary and paramount in all decision making about current and future regulations in Cupertino.

Sincerely,
San Rao (Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) From: Jean Bedord
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject: Agenda Item # 12 Regulation of Film Production Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 2:27:21 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 in tonight's public input. I can't speak since I'm picking up ballots for the Registrar of Voters
-----------------------------------------------
Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang, and staff, I urge you to unanimously approve this Ordinance as written. Staff has thoughtfully developed the proposal after investigating other cities and will be seeking review from the California Film Commission. Encouraging film production can be beneficial to our local businesses and well as free publicity for the city. Unreasonable restrictions are counter productive. Film producers have choices of locations, and want expeditious approval - time is money!
This ordinance has two major objectives:
(1) Establish a standard procedure to obtain a filming permit, which benefits both staff and the applicants. Staff has already dealt with approximately a dozen filming inquiries on an adhoc basis so their experience shaped this proposed ordinance. (2) Currently the city can't recover its costs because there is no means to establish a fee.

So this ordinance authorizes the City to collect permit fees to recover costs associated with the processing, review, and issuance of film permits. A separate fee schedule will be developed establishing fees comparable to fees in other cities that have an established film permit process.

Council should not be micromanaging this process - it's comparable to obtaining a business license. Staff can handle the permits on a timely basis, and are well aware of the need to involve different departments, depending on the project.

Please approve without undue deliberation - this is a win for the city.

Sensible government advocate,
Jean Bedord
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Public Comments
Subject: 2025-11-04 City Council Meeting-ITEM12 Film Production Regulation-REMOVE 501c4 Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 8:44:11 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Dear City Council and Staff,
In reading the draft ordinance, I request that you modify section 5.51.020 Definitions A. “Charitable…” to REMOVE 501 (c)(4) organizations. These are political in nature and should not be given fee waivers or special privileges.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

5.51.020 Definitions
A. "Charitable or student film" means any filming by (i) a nonprofit organization, which qualifies under Section 501 (c)(3) or (4) of the Internal Revenue Code as a charitable organization; or (ii) an accredited educational institution, and for which no person, directly or indirectly, shall receive a profit from the marketing and production of the film or from showing the films, tapes or photos.

CC 11-04-2025
Item #13
Active Transportation
Plan
Written Communications
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Matt Schroeder; Prashanth Dullu; City Clerk Subject: Please include past resident feedback on ATP that have been entirely omitted by city transportation staff.

Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 3:50:09 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.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications on the ATP agenda item for today. [Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Subject: Resident Feedback and Representation on the ATP Project Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, and Cupertino City Council Members, I wish to bring to your attention the written communications submitted by Cupertino residents and voter families regarding the June 4, 2025, City Council meeting on the ATP project. These are not the usual attendees or frequent speakers at council meetings. The fact that they took the time to write reflects the depth of their concern and how strongly this issue matters to them.

You were elected to represent Cupertino residents and voters. Some of you will again be seeking votes from these same families in 2026. It is clear from their feedback that dismissing or disregarding their views risks losing not only their support but also that of their neighbors and community networks who share their concerns.

A key issue is the lack of bike count data, despite over a decade of investments in bike lane projects. Without such data, it is difficult to justify further spending until a few years of reliable usage data is collected.

Additionally, resident feedback has not been meaningfully incorporated into staff reports or the ATP project’s public outreach materials. The online feedback page, difficult to navigate, especially on mobile devices, cannot serve as the sole channel for public input. The voices of the below residents and families deserve to be heard and reflected in council decisions.

Council members seeking reelection in 2026 should carefully consider whether disregarding the views of these voter families who seek efficient roads for commutes rather than bike lanes that are idle join a multitude of other residents and voters from neighborhoods such as Garden Gate, Linda Vista Drive, McClellan Road, Scofield Drive, and Portal Avenue already upset at council ignoring them.

Is it worth losing their trust and support?
Please honor the trust Cupertino residents have placed in you by ensuring their feedback is respected and by acting in alignment with the community’s input. https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E2&ID=1245860&GUID=90F3618D-91E1- 4E16-A69D-F86AD0183C87

Sincerely,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) From: Ravi Kiran Singh Sapaharam
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Matt Schroeder Subject: Request to Pause Bike Lane Projects and Prioritize Proven Traffic Safety Measures Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 3:40:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, Interim City Manager Kapoor, Director Mosley, Transportation Manager Stillman, and Planner Schroeder,
I respectfully request a two-year pause on all new bike lane and lane reconfiguration projects until accurate bicycle usage data is collected for key routes like De Anza Blvd, Stevens Creek Blvd, and Blaney Ave.

Proposed changes—such as lane reductions, bulb-outs, and turn restrictions— may worsen congestion and affect seniors, parents, and emergency response times.

Please consider focusing instead on proven, data-driven safety measures such as:

Red-light and speed cameras
Coordinated, synchronized traffic signals
Improved signal timing and visibility
These steps enhance safety without increasing congestion or frustration.

Sincerely
Ravi Kiran Singh
Cupertino Resident
From: Greg Shtilman
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Matt Schroeder Subject: Request to Pause Bike Lane Projects and Prioritize Smart Traffic Safety Measures Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 3:35:20 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, Council Members, Interim City Manager Kapoor, Director Mosley, Transportation Manager Stillman, and Planner Schroeder, As a long-time Cupertino resident, I urge the City to defund and cancel all Active Transportation Plan (ATP) bike-lane projects and to place a two-year moratorium on any further lane changes or reconfigurations. During that pause, the City should collect at least two years of reliable bicycle-count data on De Anza, Stevens Creek, Blaney, and other proposed corridors before making permanent changes.

My concerns are practical and safety-driven. The current ATP recommendations - lane removals and narrowing, curb bulb-outs, and no-turn-on-red restrictions - will add congestion, slow emergency response, and make daily life harder for families who rely on cars for school, work, and errands. These changes can also reduce safety by creating unpredictable traffic flow.

I’m also seeing specific issues on the ground:

The separated bike lane on McClellan feels unsafe and unproven. I routinely see cyclists using it the wrong way and pedestrians stepping into the lane. That false sense of security invites a serious collision.

On wider roads with buffered painted lanes, the risk is similar, and confusion is higher.

Wolfe and Stevens Creek already feel gridlocked; more congestion tends to lower safety, not raise it.

Buffered lanes along De Anza appear nearly unused during the day. I have seen a total of one or two cyclists riding along De Anza, and I use it multiple times a day. It’s hard to justify spending here - with uncertain safety benefits - while parts of town still lack basics like sidewalks and lighting.

There are more targeted, data-driven tools that improve safety without sacrificing mobility.

Live speed-feedback signs are inexpensive, widely shown to reduce speeds, and in my experience prompt immediate driver compliance. Coordinated signal timing across major corridors can cut stop-and-go traffic, shorten trips, and reduce idle-time emissions, increasing safety and convenience for everyone. We desperately need investment in the latter along De Anza and Wolfe/Miller corridors.

I respectfully request that the Council:

1. Suspend and defund all ATP-related bike-lane projects.

2. Impose a two-year moratorium on new lane reductions or reconfigurations while collecting and publishing corridor-level bicycle and traffic data.

3. Prioritize citywide safety and flow measures: live speed-feedback signs, and synchronized signals, red-light and speed cameras.

4. Direct near-term funds to proven pedestrian basics where they’re still missing, including sidewalks and lighting.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for focusing investments on solutions that serve all residents.

Sincerely,
Greg Shtilman
From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Matt Schroeder; David Stillman Subject: Modifications to key roads in Cupertino
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 3:25:25 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.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, Interim City Manager Kapoor, Director Mosley, Transportation Manager Stillman, and Planner Schroeder, I respectfully request that the City of Cupertino cancel and defund the current ATP bike lane proposals and pause all new bike lane or lane reconfiguration projects for at least two years until accurate bicycle usage counts are gathered for De Anza Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Blaney Avenue, and other key routes.

The proposed design changes, such as lane reductions, narrowed lanes, bulb-outs, and turning restrictions will seriously disrupt traffic flow and increase congestion on already busy streets. These actions will also impact the ability of seniors, parents, and emergency services to move efficiently through our city.

Instead, Cupertino should emphasize technological and balanced traffic safety improvements, such as:

Red-light and speed enforcement cameras to discourage dangerous driving, Coordinated and synchronized traffic signals to reduce unnecessary idling and cut emissions, and Improved signal timing and visibility for all road users.

These strategies enhance safety without reducing mobility or increasing frustration for drivers.

I urge the Council to redirect funding away from ATP bike lane projects and invest instead in smart, efficient traffic management that truly benefits all Cupertino residents.

Sincerely,
Mahesh Gurikar
Cupertino Resident
From: Ajith Dasari
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Matt Schroeder Subject: Request to Pause Bike Lane Projects and Prioritize Smart Traffic Safety Measures Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 3:12:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Council Members, Interim City Manager Kapoor, Director Mosley, Transportation Manager Stillman, and Planner Schroeder, As a long-time Cupertino resident, I strongly urge the City to defund and cancel all proposed Active Transportation Plan (ATP) bike lane projects and place an immediate two-year moratorium on any further bike lane work until the City collects at least two years of solid data on bicycle counts along De Anza, Stevens Creek, Blaney, and other proposed routes.

The ATP recommendations, including lane removals, lane narrowing, curb bulb outs, and restrictions on right turns on red, will only increase congestion, delay emergency vehicles, and inconvenience working families who depend on cars for school, work, and errands. These measures also risk reducing safety by creating unpredictable traffic flow.

Instead, the City should prioritize modern, data-driven traffic solutions that improve safety without hurting mobility.

This includes installing speeding and red light cameras to deter unsafe driving and synchronizing traffic signals across major corridors to improve travel efficiency and reduce emissions from idling vehicles.

I respectfully request the Council to:

1. Suspend and defund all ATP-related bike lane projects.

2. Impose a two-year moratorium on any new lane reduction or reconfiguration.

3. Implement red light cameras, speeding cameras, and synchronized traffic signals citywide to improve safety and flow.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,
-Ajith
From: J Shearin
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Adopt Planning Commission recommendations for item #13 ATP scoring criteria Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 9:39:22 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.

Please include this letter as part of Written Communications for the City Council meeting.

Dear Mayor Chao and City Councilmembers,
I encourage you tonight to adopt the recommendations of the Planning Commission, built upon the work of the BPC, for the Active Transportation Plan scoring criteria.

These recommendations were agreed to unanimously by the commission and are a thoughtful and appropriate way to evaluate city Active Transportation projects.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
Cupertino resident
From: Helene Davis
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Regarding Item #13 on Tonight"s Agenda
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 9:32:47 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 Members of the City Council,
I encourage you to support and to adopt the planning commission's recommendations on the ATP. They had a thoughtful and in-depth discussion and unanimously voted on edits to the scoring criteria.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Helene Davis
From: louise saadati
To: City Council; Kirsten Squarcia
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Email regarding Nov 4, 2025 City Council Meeting Item 13 Study Session on ATP Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 10:28:15 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 attach this email to the written communication for City Council Meeting for 11/4/25.

Honourable City Council, as you know, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously on recommended edits to the staff proposed scoring criteria for prioritising projects for the ATP.

The City Council should adopt these well thought out
amendments to the staff proposed criteria, unanimously
approved by the Planning Commission. It will enable the city to move forward with projects in an intelligent, inclusive and balanced manner.

Please adopt the amended scoring criteria that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the
Council.

Louise Saadati
40 year resident of Cupertino
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; City Council
Subject: Fw: 11/04/25 Staff report for ATP makes no mention of the hearing at Planning Commission.

Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 9:06:09 PM
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communication for the 11/04/25 city council meeting to ensure planning commission recommendation and motion is made available to council and members of the public.

Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
[email protected]
From: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 8:43 PM
To: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>
Cc: Chad Mosley <[email protected]>; David Stillman <[email protected]>; Liang Chao <[email protected]>; Kitty Moore <[email protected]>; Matt Schroeder <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 11/04/25 Staff report for ATP makes no mention of the hearing at Planning Commission.

Hello Santosh,
We will issue a desk item tomorrow with the updated staff report.

Best,
Tina
Tina Kapoor
Interim City Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-7607
On Nov 3, 2025, at 5:02 PM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Chad, David, Matt, ICM Kapoor,
The staff report for ATP at the 11/04/25 council meeting makes no mention of the Planning Commission hearing or the recommendations. Is there a reason this was omitted?
Will an amended agenda be posted that includes the PC hearing recommendations and details of the motion that was voted on to be sent to council as PC recommendation.

I am including the agenda and minutes with recommendations from the Planning Commission below.

PC Agenda on ATP (09/09/25):
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?
M=A&ID=1249296&GUID=C612785C-7425-4B72-B342-F40612F15CC6 PC Minutes on ATP (09/09/25):
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?
M=M&ID=1249296&GUID=C612785C-7425-4B72-B342-F40612F15CC6 Commissioners provided the following feedback and
recommendations:

MOTION: Lindskog moved to modify the scoring criteria as follows:
• Add a project to make the most high-injury network
intersections with red lights
and stop signs safer using tools such as red light cameras, and modify the scoring
criteria as follows:
• Access Criteria: Change the school proximity score to “fifteen points if within half
mile of a school”. Add “senior housing and senior facilities such as the senior
center” to the metric definition of “Parks and Other
Destinations Proximity”
• Sustainability and Connectivity Criteria: Change
“Sustainability” name to
“Connectivity”. Add ten points if it is within quarter mile of a trail or low-stress
facility like class IV bike lanes, making the total max scores for this section twenty
points instead of ten points.
• Balance Criteria: Focus on impact rather than infrastructure.

Subtract ten points if
a removal of a substantial number (five or more) of parking spaces used regularly
fifty one percent or more of the time. Subtract ten points of it eliminates a car lane
for ten percent or more portion of the project length.
• Fairness Criteria: Delete this criteria, as it is not an objective, measurable measure
of the positive or negative impact of a project, and it will lead to an escalating arms
race of competing public comments and create more
divisiveness and animosity
within the community.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly
amendment to the motion to add
speeding cameras in addition to red light cameras to the first section of Lindskog’s motion.

Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly
amendment to the motion to modify
the “Access” metric, by specifying that the senior center portion should only adhere to
pedestrian criteria.

Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Kosolcharoen proposed a friendly
amendment to the motion
to modify the “Balance” section to change the negative ten points for removing a
substantial number of regularly used parking spaces (five or more) to negative five points,
and changing the negative ten points to negative fifteen points if it eliminates a car lane.

Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Kosolcharoen proposed a friendly
amendment to the motionPlanning Commission Minutes
September 9, 2025
to do a bike count of existing usage as a baseline before starting a project on major
proposed bike infrastructure.

Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao made a friendly amendment
to modify the “Access”
criteria to specify middle schools and high schools.

Lindskog did not accept the friendly amendment.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Scharf proposed a friendly
amendment to the motion to
partner with bicycle education providers to offer routine adult and family education
classes in Cupertino.

Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly
amendment to the motion to keep
the fairness criteria. He withdrew this friendly amendment.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Fung proposed a friendly
amendment to the motion to move
red light runners and speeding section to the end of the motion.

Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly
amendment to the motion to add a
negative score if it caused a no right turn on red to the additional project
recommendations.

Lindskog did not accept the friendly amendment.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly
amendment to the motion to add
prioritize sensor driven pedestrian bicyclist detection to the additional project
recommendations.

Lindskog did not accept the friendly amendment.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly
amendment to the motion to add
“Consider adaptive right-turn-on-red technology where
feasible” to the additional project
recommendations.

Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.

AMENDED MOTION: Lindskog moved and Rao seconded to:

Modify the scoring criteria as follows:
• Access Criteria: Change the school proximity score to “Fifteen points if within onehalf mile of a school”. Add “senior housing and senior facilities such as the Senior
Center” to the metric definition of “Parks & Other Destinations Proximity.” For
pedestrians.
• Sustainability/Connectivity Criteria: Change “Sustainability” name to
“Connectivity.” Add ten points if it’s within one-quarter mile of a trail or lowstress facility like Class IV bike lanes, making the total maximum score for this
section twenty points instead of ten points.
• Balance Criteria: Focus on impact rather than infrastructure.

Subtract five points if
removal of a substantial number (five or more) of regularly used parking spaces
(used fifty-one percent or more of the time). Subtract fifteen points if it eliminates a
car lane for a substantial (ten percent or more) portion of the project length.
• Fairness Criteria: Delete this criterion as it is not an objective, measurable measure
of the positive or negative impact of a project and will lead to an escalating arms
race of competing public comments and create more
divisiveness and animosity
within the community.
• Additional Project Recommendations: Add a project to make the most high-injury
network intersections with red lights and stop signs safer using tools such as red
light and speeding cameras. Consider adaptive right-turn-onred technology where necessary. Conduct a bike count of existing usage as a baseline on major
proposed bike projects. Partner with bicycle education
providers (in addition to
SVBC) to offer routine adult and child education courses in Cupertino.

The motion passed with the following vote:

Ayes: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Fung,
Lindskog. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
[email protected]
From: Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; Matt Schroeder; David Stillman Subject: Request for Moratorium on Bike Lane Projects and Focus on Proven Traffic Safety Solutions Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 6:23:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, Interim City Manager Kapoor, Director Mosley, Transportation Manager Stillman, and Transportation Planner Schroeder, I respectfully request that the City of Cupertino cancel and defund the current ATP bike lane proposals and pause all new bike lane or lane reconfiguration projects for at least two years until accurate bicycle usage counts are gathered for De Anza Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Blaney Avenue, and other key routes.

The proposed design changes, such as lane reductions, narrowed lanes, bulb-outs, and turning restrictions may seriously disrupt traffic flow and increase congestion on already busy streets.

These actions could also impact the ability of seniors, parents, and emergency services to move efficiently through our city.

Instead, Cupertino should emphasize technological and balanced traffic safety improvements, such as:

These strategies enhance safety without reducing mobility or increasing frustration for drivers.

I urge the Council to redirect funding away from ATP bike lane projects and invest instead in smart, efficient traffic management that truly benefits all Cupertino residents.

Sincerely,
Yuva Athur
From: Seema Swamy
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman Cc: Seema Swamy
Subject: Request to Pause and Reassess Bike Lane Projects Under ATP Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 4:37:45 PM
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, Interim City Manager Kapoor, Director Mosley, Transportation Manager Stillman, and Planner Schroeder, I am writing to express my strong concern about the direction of the City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP). I respectfully request that the City cancel and defund any future ATP bike lane projects under consideration and place a two-year moratorium on all future bike lane plans until we have at least two full years of traffic and usage data from De Anza Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Blaney Avenue, and other proposed corridors.

Many of us who live and work in Cupertino rely on our roads daily for commuting, school drop-offs, and errands. The proposed changes, such as lane reductions, removal of right turns on red, bulb-outs, and narrower lanes will only create additional congestion and safety issues without any evidence that they improve cyclist safety or increase ridership.

These projects could also make life harder for seniors, working families, and parents juggling multiple destinations.

It would be far more practical for Cupertino to focus on better traffic signal coordination, road maintenance, and data-driven planning before making irreversible changes.

Responsible governance requires that we first measure actual bike usage and evaluate whether these large-scale investments make sense for our community.

Please act to cancel these projects, preserve traffic flow, and ensure transparency in transportation planning.

Sincerely,
Seema
Seema Swamy
[email protected]
From: Pam Hershey
To: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Council Subject: Request to pause and reassess Bike Lane ProjectsUnder ATP Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 4:31:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members Interim City Manager Kapoor, Director Mosley, Manager Stillman and Planner Schroeder, Today I am writing you to let you know my concern about the direction the City's ATP .

Please request the City to cancel and define this plan and any plan the near future.

The city needs a couple of years to assess tthe traffic and usage data from DeAnza Blvd Steven Creek Blvd, Blaney Ave and any other proposed corridors I rely on these road everyday and without evidence that this will improve cyclist safety or help rideship
does not seem right at this time.

Please cancel these project to preserve traffic flow and transparency in transportation planning.

Regards,
Pamela Hershey
From: Deepa Mahendraker
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Matt Schroeder Subject: Request for Moratorium on Bike Lane Projects and Focus on Proven Traffic Safety Solutions Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 4:04:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

The proposed design changes, such as lane reductions, narrowed lanes, bulb-outs, and turning restrictions may seriously disrupt traffic flow and increase congestion on already busy streets. These actions could also impact the ability of seniors, parents, and emergency services to move efficiently through our city.

Instead, Cupertino should emphasize technological and balanced traffic safety improvements, such as:

These strategies enhance safety without reducing mobility or increasing frustration for drivers.

I urge the Council to redirect funding away from ATP bike lane projects and invest instead in smart, efficient traffic management that truly benefits all Cupertino residents.

Sincerely,
Deepa M
Sent from my iPhone
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Liang Chao; City Council; Tina Kapoor; David Stillman Cc: City of Cupertino Bike and Ped Commission; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Chad Mosley; City Clerk Subject: Driver"s View Obstruction (almost hit people) and ATP Criteria addition Date: Thursday, November 6, 2025 10:20:17 PM
Attachments: Cupertino-Driver Obstruction.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Chao, Council, Interim City Manager Kapoor, Manager Stillman, During Tuesday night’s City Council meeting (Nov. 4, 2025) discussion of Item #13 Study Session on the ATP, I mentioned there was a location on Steven’s Creek Blvd. where my husband and I have almost hit people 4 different times recently. (I had said 3 times.) One was a pedestrian, 2 were people riding bikes on the sidewalk in the wrong direction and the fourth was someone on an battery powered scooter on the sidewalk.

In 3 of the 4 cases, the people are moving quickly on the sidewalk so they cannot be seen from a distance because the view is obstructed. In the case of the pedestrian, the huge utility box was blocking the view of the person walking.

In the time it takes to look left, look right, look left again then start to turn right onto Stevens Creek, the individual is right there. It’s even worse at night when they are wearing dark clothing.

Attached is a map of the exact location and pictures of the driver’s view of the sidewalk when the driver is about to exit the parking lot driveway.

I am writing this in hopes that you can

1. Improve the visibility at this location

2. Add to the ATP Criteria issues with driver visibility of pedestrians and cyclists (safety issue)

3. On future projects, reduce the size and placement of these huge utility boxes NOTE: I’ve copied the Bike-Ped Commission and the Planning Commission to make them aware of this kind of situation so they can hopefully prevent future issues from occurring or minimize the risk. Thank you
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
LOCATION of obstrucƟon to driver visibility:

MaƩress Firm, 20510 Stevens Creek Blvd, CuperƟno, CA 95014

NORTH
wriƟng
SOUTH
#1 – Driver’s view when stopped at the “STOP LINE” in
the driveway.

To the driver’s right is the intersecƟon of Stevens Creek Blvd and De Anza Blvd which is a very busy pedestrian
intersecƟon.

We have almost hit someone 4 different Ɵmes coming
out of this driveway on Stevens Creek because we
cannot see people coming from the intersecƟon. Once it
was a pedestrian, twice a person riding their bike on the sidewalk in the wrong direcƟon and once a person on a
baƩery operated scooter.

Pedestrians, bikes, scooters
#3 - Driver’s view aŌer pulling parƟally out into
the bike lane.
#2– Driver’s view aŌer pulling up blocking the
sidewalk.

CC 11-04-2025
Item #16
Upcoming Draft Agenda
Items Report
Written Communications
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; City Council Subject: Public Comment Opportunity on Future Agenda Items Pursuant to the Brown Act Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 7:21:00 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 City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for items not on agenda for the upcoming city council meeting
[Writing on behalf of myself only as Cupertino resident] Subject: Request for Public Comment Opportunity on Agenda Item 16 (“Future Agenda Items”) Pursuant to the Brown Act
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, ICM Kapoor, City Clerk, CAO, I am writing to request that the City Council take public comment on Agenda Item 16, “Future Agenda Items,” at all regular Council meetings, in accordance with California Government Code Section 54954.3(a), a core provision of the Ralph M. Brown Act.

Section 54954.3(a) requires that members of the public be permitted to address the legislative body on any item appearing on the agenda, before or during the body’s consideration of that item. The agenda item titled “Future Agenda Items”clearly falls within this scope, as it involves Council direction to staff regarding matters for future consideration.

Under Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, which govern Cupertino’s meeting procedures, public comment must precede any direction by the body. Withholding comment on agendized items is inconsistent with both the Brown Act and the City’s procedural standards.

It has been observed that recent meetings have been adjourned without hearing City Manager Reports, Council Reports, or Future Agenda Items. This practice raises compliance concerns under California Government Code Sections 54954.2(a)(1), 54954.3(a), and 54953(a), Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.08.040, and Rosenberg’s Rules Sections IV(A) and VII, all of which require agendized items to be publicly considered, continued, or formally removed. Skipping items or adjourning without disposition denies the public its statutory right to comment.

I respectfully request that the Council ensure:

1. Public comment is permitted on Future Agenda Items at every meeting; and

2. All agendized items, including City Manager Reports, Council Reports, and Future Agenda Items, are either heard, formally continued, or removed by vote before adjournment.

Thank you for ensuring Cupertino’s governance remains consistent with state law and City procedures.

Sincerely,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk Subject: Fw: Public Comment Opportunity on Future Agenda Items Pursuant to the Brown Act Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 11:20:40 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 CAO, ICM Kapoor, Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore,
I am re-iterating below feedback sent previously and observing that items on an agenda must be dealt with in some form.

Please continue the meeting to 4am if needed. Council members can take a page from our great mayors and council members of the past that fearlessly went on to 4am. ————-
It has been observed that recent meetings have been adjourned without hearing City Manager Reports, Council Reports, or Future Agenda Items. This practice raises compliance concerns under California Government Code Sections 54954.2(a)(1), 54954.3(a), and 54953(a), Cupertino Municipal Code
Section 2.08.040, and Rosenberg’s Rules Sections IV(A) and VII, all of which require agendized items to be publicly considered, continued, or formally removed. Skipping items or adjourning without disposition denies the public its statutory right to comment.

Thanks,
Santosh Rao
Begin forwarded message:

On Tuesday, November 4, 2025, 7:20 AM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:

2.08.040, and Rosenberg’s Rules Sections IV(A) and VII, all of which require agendized items to be publicly considered, continued, or formally removed.

Skipping items or adjourning without disposition denies the public its statutory right to comment.

I respectfully request that the Council ensure:

1. Public comment is permitted on Future Agenda Items at every meeting; and

2. All agendized items, including City Manager Reports, Council Reports, and Future Agenda Items, are either heard, formally continued, or removed by vote before adjournment.

Thank you for ensuring Cupertino’s governance remains consistent with state law and City procedures.

Sincerely,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident)

Cupertino City CouncilNovember 4, 2025

Cupertino City Council
November 4, 2025