Written Communications (updated 11-20-2025) — Cupertino City Council, November 18, 2025

CC 11-18-2025
Oral
C
ommunications
Writt
en Comments
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; Floy Andrews; City Clerk Subject: Suspend Use of Consent Calendar and Restore Residents’ Right to Pull Items without reliance on a council member.

Date: Thursday, November 13, 2025 10:19:09 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.

[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Subject:

Request to Suspend Use of Consent Calendar and Restore Residents’ Right to Pull Items
Dear Mayor Chao, Council Members, and ICM Kapoor,
Until 2023, Cupertino residents had the right to pull any item from the consent calendar themselves, including during the City Council meeting. The previous Council majority removed that right by amending the Council Procedures Manual, forcing residents to depend on a Council Member to act on their behalf.

Given recent Council actions on Mary Avenue Villas, residents no longer have confidence that Council Members will reliably represent their requests to pull items from consent calendar.

I urge you to immediately stop using the consent calendar until the Council Procedures Manual is amended to restore the public’s full right to pull consent calendar items at any time without going through a council member, and to be able to do that

before or during
the meeting, exactly as allowed prior to 2023.

Please issue an amended agenda for the November 18, 2025 meeting that:

1. Removes all items from the consent calendar, and

2. Adds an item to restore residents’ right to pull consent calendar items at any time, including during the meeting.

Restoring this right is essential to ensuring transparency, accountability, and public trust in city government.

Thanks,
San

Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: SB 330 Retail to Housing Sites on Stevens Creek Blvd. (Retain Retail) Date: Thursday, November 13, 2025 4:59:48 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council:
(Please include the following as public input for the City Council meeting on 11/18/25) After the Planning Commission meeting from 11/12/25, it has become apparent that there are a number of SB 330 projects on Stevens Creek Blvd. that are upcoming. I think there are four active ones. It is hard to keep Up with them. Toll Brothers had little to no public outreach which is very concerning. We have lots of Our city retail vanishing, thanks to SB 330 and the city's housing element, and the public can't even do anything about it because there are no meetings or public outreach.

I think it is important, as we go forward with these SB 330s, that the developers have meetings with The public. There need to be better plansets available to look at. Even if the developer made a sketch By hand it would be a better plan that what we have now, that no one can look at the plans. They are apparently a secret? No one could see the required 64 foot set back that became a nine foot set back on Richfield that the neighbors on Richfield were complaining about in the Planning Commission meeting Last night because there was no map. Vague is not even a word. There was no map etc.

This is why there must be community meetings. The assembly author of the SB 330 housing bill did not want The public to see any plans. SB 330 tries to hide plans from the public with only five meetings.

That does not mean we must have no meetings. We need public meetings on these SB 330 sites.

I feel like developers are taking over the city and taking our retail and parking and building on top Of contaminated sites.

One other situation that has emerged from the 11/12/25 Planning Commission meeting is that Retail needs to be retained onsite the retail complex where the SB 330 housing is going as long As possible. The city is losing valuable retail tax dollars every time these retail centers are stripped Of their retail. The retail is removed and the shopping center sits empty for eons until something is Built on it. Empty land is worth more when it is empty. This does not help the city which gets revenue From its retail locations. If that retail is torn down, the city gets nothing forever.

We have all the retail torn down at Vallco/The Rise. Look at all the revenue that has been lost since The mall was torn down in 2018. What about the empty lot on Mary where the jewelry store was kicked Out? That was a lovely building. Top notch. Occupied. Great location. Excellent retail site. Now it Is empty in a contested battle about a building that was not built and underground parking that was Promised, but lost.

In the upcoming SB 330s, please make sure retail is kept on the site as long as possible to keep that City retail money coming in. Encourage the developer to keep retail on site and to encourage current Retail owners to stay and tell them the city will help relocate the retailer in the city. No one expects a developer to care about the retail on the site they are buying. But, the city should care About the retail and what it means to the city and residents. The Falafel shop lost to San Jose Or the long term beauty salon Madame Soong's may be small retail, but they are still valued by The community and provide income to the city.

Can the retail be kept in place on the retail location by the city? How does the city do that? Only do tear down of retail right before the housing construction is to start.

SB 330 is a difficult housing bill to deal with. It came with no instructions and it is hostile to Cities and residents and retail. It crept in when the spectre of the Builders Remedy, which is a product of wild runaway absurdities, arose last year. Distinguishing between the two is difficult, but now that these projects have landed on being labelled SB 330s, we have to deal with the fallout.

That fallout can be better remedied if we have community meetings about the SB 330 projects along Stevens Creek Blvd., better plansets of proposed construction available for the public to Look at and the city is able to encourage or demand existing retail is retained on proposed SB 330 building sites until shovels are in the ground and buildings ready to go up.

Our residents deserve this and also need to be reassured they are not being ignored as SB 330 Tries to consume all retail in Cupertino which is what it feels like now.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]; City Council
Subject: Fwd: Housing Projects Being Heard in December, 2025 Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 10:07:11 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 following as public input for the November 18, 2025 City Council meeting.

Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Housing Projects Being Heard in December, 2025 From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2025, 10:04 PM
To: [email protected],[email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear City Council:
(Please include the following as public input for the November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting).

I don't think we should be hearing housing projects in December at the December 16, 2025 City Council meeting. This is too close to the holiday shutdown schedule. This is precipitated By the issues with the United Housing project and the potential contamination on the site.

It was brought out in the Planning Commission meeting that there are some very concerning Issues with contamination on the site. I was in the audience of the Planning Commission, But I can honestly say I did not understand fully what was going on in the contamination discussion. I could not understand the state laws that are letting sites getting building permits when the site seems to have contamination issues.

I am very concerned that CEQA is being thrown aside and contamination on building sites Is not being addressed. We need more time to understand these dangerous laws that Are allowing contamination to remain on building sites.

Please continue these building projects to January, 2026 so we have more time to Understand these frightening housing laws. I don't understand what happened with CEQA from the Planning Commission.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Housing Projects Being Heard in December, 2025 Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 10:05:15 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.

Dear City Council:
(Please include the following as public input for the November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting).

Please continue these building projects to January, 2026 so we have more time to Understand these frightening housing laws. I don't understand what happened with CEQA from the Planning Commission.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Walter Li
To: City Council; Public Comments
Subject: Formal Notice of Legal and Procedural Violations in Approval of Mary Avenue SB 35 Project Date: Monday, November 10, 2025 2:33:29 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.

To the Cupertino Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council Members, and Interim City Manager:

This letter serves as formal notice that the City’s approval of the Mary Avenue SB 35 project is unlawful and exposes the City, its staff, and elected officials to legal, administrative, and political consequences.

The City Has Violated State and Municipal Law
The proposed development includes land that remains part of the public right-of-way. The City has admitted that no right-of-way (ROW) vacation has occurred. As such, the City has failed to complete the mandatory legal process required to vacate public land, in violation of:
•⁠ ⁠Streets and Highways Code §§ 8320–8325
•⁠ ⁠Government Code § 65402
•⁠ ⁠Cupertino Municipal Code Titles 13 and 19
Specifically, the City lacks:

1.⁠ ⁠A Resolution of Intention to Vacate

2.⁠ ⁠A public hearing with proper notice

3.⁠ ⁠A Resolution of Vacation

4.⁠ ⁠A recorded plat map and legal description

5.⁠ ⁠A Planning Commission finding of General Plan conformity Without these documents, the land remains public and cannot legally be developed. Any permit issued on unvacated ROW is procedurally defective and legally void.

SB 35 Does Not Authorize Development on Public Land
SB 35 (Government Code § 65913.4) does not override foundational land use laws. It assumes the parcel is legally accessible and free of unresolved public easements. The City’s failure to vacate the ROW renders the project ineligible for SB 35 streamlining.

Additional Violations
•⁠ ⁠CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) – Environmental review may have been unlawfully bypassed
•⁠ ⁠Brown Act (Government Code §§ 54950–54963) – No public hearing was held on the disposition of public land
•⁠ ⁠Cupertino Municipal Code – The City violated its own requirements for land abandonment and zoning compliance
Accountability and Consequences
If the City does not immediately suspend the Mary Avenue SB 35 project and cure these violations, it will face:
•⁠ ⁠Legal challenge for unlawful permit issuance
•⁠ ⁠Administrative review for abuse of process
•⁠ ⁠Public records demands and media scrutiny
•⁠ ⁠Political consequences, including ethics complaints, censure, and potential recall of officials who knowingly approved a defective project
This is not a discretionary matter. It is a demand for legal compliance, transparency, and accountability.

We urge the City to:
•⁠ ⁠Suspend all approvals and permits related to the Mary Avenue SB 35 project •⁠ ⁠Disclose the full right-of-way record
•⁠ ⁠Hold a public hearing to review the legal status of the parcel •⁠ ⁠Commit to full compliance with state and municipal law before any further action is taken Whispering Code – Privacy and Non-Retaliation Notice
This demand is submitted under the protection of Government Code §§ 53296–53298 and related whistleblower and privacy statutes. The City is prohibited from disclosing any identifying information to developers or third parties. Any attempt to retaliate or expose concerned parties will violate state law and municipal ethics obligations.

All information presented is based on my best efforts. I personally visited the Santa Clara County property tax office and confirmed that the parcel does not include the ROW.

My actions are solely in service of the Cupertino community. I seek no personal benefit—only lawful compliance, protection of public resources, and integrity in governance.

Sincerely,
Walter Li
Originator of the petition "Halt The Mary Aveune Villas Project at this Unsuitable Location" Working with the neighbors in opposition of the Mary Ave Villas Project [email protected]
408-781-7894
From: Walter Li
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; Public Comments
Subject: Demand to Suspend Mary Avenue SB 35 Project Due to Unlawful Right-of-Way Status and Lack of Required Legal Documents
Date: Monday, November 10, 2025 2:21:11 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.

To the Cupertino City Council,
I am writing to demand the immediate suspension of the Mary Avenue SB 35 project due to a critical and unresolved legal defect: the City has failed to complete the mandatory right-of- way (ROW) vacation process required under California and municipal law.

The Land Remains Public—No Legal Vacation Has Occurred
The City does not possess the legally required documentation to demonstrate that the public right-of-way has been lawfully vacated. Specifically, the following documents are missing:

1.⁠ ⁠Resolution of Intention to Vacate (per Streets and Highways Code § 8320)

2.⁠ ⁠Public hearing notice and record (per Streets and Highways Code § 8322)

3.⁠ ⁠Resolution of Vacation (per Streets and Highways Code § 8324)

4.⁠ ⁠Recorded plat map and legal description (per Streets and Highways Code § 8325)

5.⁠ ⁠Planning Commission finding of General Plan conformity (per Government Code § 65402) In the absence of these documents, the land remains public and cannot legally be developed.

Any permit issued on unvacated ROW is procedurally and legally defective.

SB 35 Does Not Override ROW Law
SB 35 (Government Code § 65913.4) streamlines qualifying housing projects but does not exempt cities from complying with foundational land use laws. It assumes the parcel is legally accessible and free of unresolved public easements. Without a lawful ROW vacation, the project is ineligible for streamlined approval.

Additional Legal and Municipal Violations
•⁠ ⁠California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): If ROW status affects land use or triggers environmental impacts, CEQA review may be required (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.).
•⁠ ⁠Brown Act: Failure to hold a public hearing violates Government Code §§ 54950–54963, which guarantee public access to decision-making.
•⁠ ⁠Cupertino Municipal Code Title 13: Requires compliance with state law for any abandonment or alteration of public right-of-way.
•⁠ ⁠Cupertino Municipal Code Title 19: Prohibits development on parcels lacking legal access or clear title.

Whispering Code – Privacy and Non-Retaliation Notice
This demand is submitted under the protection of California Government Code §§ 53296– 53298 and related whistleblower and privacy statutes. The identity of individuals and groups raising these concerns must remain confidential. The City is legally prohibited from disclosing, transmitting, or otherwise passing any identifying information to developers, contractors, or third parties connected with the Mary Avenue SB 35 project. Any attempt to retaliate against or expose concerned parties will constitute a violation of state law and municipal ethics obligations.

All information presented here is based on my best efforts of findings. I personally visited the Santa Clara County Recording Office and Accessor Office to verify the parcel records, and confirmed that no right-of-way is included in the property.

My efforts are directed toward ensuring lawful compliance, protecting public resources, and upholding the integrity of municipal governance. Even if a public hearing were held, the Mary Avenue SB 35 proposal cannot be deemed a valid project. Under Government Code §§ 65090– 65094 and § 65956, hearings are procedural requirements, but they do not legalize projects founded on unlawful activity. A development that lacks a lawful right-of-way vacation remains invalid, and no statute permits an agency to cure illegality through process alone.

The Responsible Path Forward
I respectfully demand:
•⁠ ⁠Immediate suspension of all approvals and permits related to the Mary Avenue SB 35 project
•⁠ ⁠Full public disclosure of the ROW vacation record
•⁠ ⁠A public hearing to review the legal status of the parcel •⁠ ⁠Compliance with all applicable state and municipal codes before any further action is taken This is not a discretionary request—it is a demand for legal compliance and procedural integrity.

Sincerely,
Walter Li
Originator of the petition "Halt The Mary Aveune Villas Project at this Unsuitable Location" Working with the neighbors in opposition of the Mary Ave Villas Project [email protected]
408-781-7894
From: Sydney Sukuta
To: Sydney Sukuta
Subject: General Public Comment - Invitation to Participate in a Job Fair Date: Sunday, November 9, 2025 1:54:47 PM
Attachments: C-2-C_You_Are_Invited.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.

We are inviting members of the pubic to participate in our upcoming virtual job fair on Friday November 15th 2025. In particular, please encourage the youth who are still exploring career pathways, as careers in photonics and lasers remain elusive thus creating a skills gap in our workforce. They may find this job fair to be inspiring t Virtual Job Fair Sign-up Link: https://freelasercareerexpo.rsvpify.com Best Regards,
[email protected]
sukutafoundation.org/home.aspx

From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley Subject: Mary Avenue Villas
Date: Friday, November 7, 2025 11:30:55 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Interim City Manager Kapoor, Director Mosley, Deputy Interim City Manager Squarcia, and Interim City Attorney Andrews, The residents of Garden Gate neighborhood have significant concern about the Mary Ave Villas development. The Residents deserve transparency since the parcel in question involves publicly owned land.

I respectfully request the following:
• A chronology of all steps taken relating to the right-of-way and parcel creation for the Mary Ave Villas site (including dates).
• Copies of any Council, Planning Commission, or other public agenda items, staff reports, memos, minutes, and recordings addressing the right-of-way or parcel vacation. • Copies of all notices, mailed or posted, and records of community outreach or hearings (including dates and methods of notice).
• The legal and administrative authority relied upon to effect any vacation or parcel creation, and the staff member(s) who executed those actions.
• Any prior City correspondence or internal memos referencing the vacation of public right-of- way for this parcel.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Mahesh Gurikar
Resident of Garden Gate Neighborhood
From: Walter Li
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; Public Comments
Subject: Fwd: Invasive Mosquito Species Detected Near Cupertino Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 4:24:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

What is Cupertino prepared to do with respect to deterrents, prevention, elimination, etc.? Any spraying program for the neighborhood? Any clean up program of drain blockages to make sure there are no standing waters? Please expand with your inputs.

Walter Li
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: City of Cupertino <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 3:11 PM
Subject: Invasive Mosquito Species Detected Near Cupertino To: <[email protected]
>
Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.

City of Cupertino
Invasive Mosquito Species Detected Near
Cupertino
Invasive Mosquitoes Alert
Dangerous and invasive, day-biting mosquitoes that can spread diseases to people have been detected in a new area of the county in Cupertino, at the borders of Saratoga and San José near the intersection of Rainbow Drive and S. Stelling Road.

This new detection means these mosquitoes are spreading into more neighborhoods and are growing in numbers.

Why this matters:

Aedes aegypti are aggressive day-time biters.

They can spread diseases like dengue and Zika. These diseases are not currently spread in the county, but the risk grows as these mosquitoes spread and grow in numbers.

Unlike common mosquitoes that lay eggs in standing water like puddles, these lay eggs in containers like flowerpots, pet bowls, and backyards.

They are small (about ¼ inch) with black and white stripes on their body and legs.

What you can do:

Report mosquito bites that happen during the day immediately: (408) 918-4770 or [email protected]
Email photos of mosquitoes that have black and white stripes. By reporting or emailing, please include the address or nearest cross streets where the mosquito was found or where you were bitten during the day.

Learn more about this mosquito at vector.santaclaracounty.gov/DangerousMosquitoes Cupertino
cupertino.gov

city of Cupertino
City of Cupertino, California
Website | 408.777.3200
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Manage Preferences | Help

This email was sent to [email protected] using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California · 10300 Torre Avenue · Cupertino, CA 95014-3202

From: Michael Chang
To: Kirsten Squarcia; Liang Chao; City Clerk
Subject: Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues
Date: Thursday, November 13, 2025 10:49:45 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.

Good morning Kirsten,
Many thanks — yes, I most certainly would.

If you require any additional information, please let me know! Many sincere thanks again,
Michael
From: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Sent:

Thursday, November 13, 2025 9:12 AM
To:

Michael Chang <[email protected]>; Liang Chao <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:

RE: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues
Good morning Michael,
It was nice to meet you at the Mayor’s Chat on Monday. Thank you for your comments.

Would you like these included with the written communication in the next City Council meeting?
Regards, Kirsten
Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk

City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: Michael Chang <[email protected]>
Sent:

Thursday, November 13, 2025 5:31 AM
To:

Liang Chao <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject:

Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues
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.

Along with a brief summary of the location/issues we're experiencing.

Many thanks, and best regards,

Michael Chang

From: Michael Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 5:29 AM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues

And here is a sample video of a slowly-moving vehicle, and how much noise is emitted.

From: Michael Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 5:26 AM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues

Attached are some pictures of the traffic sign erected by the City of Cupertino.

From: Michael Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 5:23 AM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues

Good morning,

I'm not sure if my earlier email was received, so I will re-send with incremental attachments. I would be most appreciative if the issues raised during our gathering on Monday November 10, 2025 could be raised and addressed by Council.

Please find attached my most recent letter sent on October 23, 2025.

Many thanks,

Michael
From: Michael Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2025 7:09 PM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues

Dear Mayor Chao,

Please accept this re-sent email detailing noise and traffic concerns regarding Morro Bay Terrace at Arroyo Village in Cupertino.

If possible, I would like this concern tabled at a Council Meeting, and would be more than happy to attend (along with others, if permitted) to provide additional details. The public is using Morro Bay at all hours to cut through to Stevens Creek — and the speed bump noise is persistent
, and often is extremely loud in the middle of the night, when there are no restrictions for trespassers.

Attached are copies of my original signed letter, a PDF summary, and a short movie of a slow- moving vehicle. The Association for Westport has been negligent and refused to do anything to mitigate this — please see a copy of a letter from our HOA Property Management company — and this situation is both a constant noise disturbance and a safety issue for our family and residents in this community.

Many thanks for providing a forum tonight for expressing our concers, and to the City of Cupertino and Staff for diligently helping and following up on this issue.

With thanks and best regards,

Michael Chang
From: Michael Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 8:59 AM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues

Dear Mayor Chao,

We are writing to follow-up with an ongoing complaint regarding traffic and noise from vehicles constantly using Morro Bay Terrace as a shortcut by those living in the Glenbrook Apartments, and by many more driving down Mary Avenue.

On or around September 15, 2025, a new traffic sign (indicating no cross-through traffic) was erected at the entrance to Morro Bay Terrace (towards Mary Street). This one sign was a most-welcome effort by the City, but it unfortunately has had little to no effect on the usage Morro Bay as a shortcut to get to Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Many months ago, due to speeding concerns, hard rubber speed bumps were installed, one set of which is approximately 20 feet from our home. While these were intended to cause traffic to slow down, they have resulted in a tremendous increase in noise disturbance throughout the day and night as many simply do not slow down and many others continue to speed through this laneway. I have been told by our Property Management (Dawn Emerson, [email protected]) that these speed bumps were installed by the Westport Senior Apartments Association, and that this Association will not mitigate the current noise issue unless directed to do so by the City of
Cupertino.

On some days, the noise from this traffic and these speed bumps can start as early as 2:00 am, with a steady procession of cars usually occurring by early morning. Given the daily vehicular volume, noise, speed, and safety issues, we therefore are again writing to request your assistance towards mitigating these concerns. Our belief is that these speed bumps are a noise disturbance, especially with today’s much heavier EVs, and that with reduced (or eliminated) shortcut traffic, better signage (e.g., stop signs and speed limits), and actual enforcement, the set of speed bumps directly across from our home and adversely impacting our family can be removed.

We have included an additional brief 2 page summary of our location, the speed bumps in question, and the new signage that has been recently installed (but completely ignored). If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us – any help that you could again provide in this matter would be sincerely appreciated.

Sincerely,

Michael and Kah Chang
408-204-2853 (C)
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 10:50 AM
To: Michael Chang <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues

Thank you for writing with more details about the situation.

This is very helpful.

I have forwarded it to the city staff.

They will look into it and respond.

But the staff is busy tracking many issues. Just in case you didn't hear from them, feel free to pin me again to get updates.

Regards,

Liang

Liang Chao
Mayor

City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192

From: Michael Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 9:18 AM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Subject: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues

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,

As new homeowners living at 21300 Dana Point Lane, Cupertino, CA (Arroyo Village), it was a pleasure meeting you at your monthly Mayoral Chat on July 14, 2025. To follow up with our brief conversation that evening, we are writing to you regarding traffic noise and speed complaints on Morro Bay Terrace.

Within our small townhome community, Morro Bay Terrace constantly is being used as a 'short-cut' for those living in the Glenbrook Apartments, and for many more driving down Mary Avenue. We have found these drivers to be quite aggressive at times, and it seems that newly-installed speed bumps (and the lack of any posted speed limits or stop signs) have done little to deter speeding of some vehicles.

Moreover, with the recent addition of these speed bumps, the daily noise has dramatically increased as speeders and heavy vehicles cross over these bumps.

I have spoken with my nearby neighbor at 21300 Point Reyes Terrace (who also shares our concerns and complaints), as well as our Property Management (Dawn Emerson, who can reached via email at [email protected]), and have been told that there have been similar complaints in the past from those living in the Westport Senior Apartments nearby.

We have included an additional brief 3 page summary of our location, the speed bumps in question, and a short sample video of the noise generated by these speed bumps by one slower-moving vehicle for your reference. If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us - any help that you can afford in this matter would be sincerely appreciated.

SIncerely,

Michael and Kah Chang
408-204-2853

From: Michael Chang
To: Liang Chao; City Clerk
Subject: Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues
Date: Thursday, November 13, 2025 5:31:58 AM
Attachments: 2025-10-23-ArroyoVillage-MorroBayTerrace.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.

Along with a brief summary of the location/issues we're experiencing.

Many thanks, and best regards,
Michael Chang
From: Michael Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 5:29 AM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues

And here is a sample video of a slowly-moving vehicle, and how much noise is emitted.

Attached are some pictures of the traffic sign erected by the City of Cupertino.

Good morning,
I'm not sure if my earlier email was received, so I will re-send with incremental attachments. I would be most appreciative if the issues raised during our gathering on Monday November 10, 2025 could be raised and addressed by Council.

Please find attached my most recent letter sent on October 23, 2025.

Many thanks,
Michael
From: Michael Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2025 7:09 PM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues

Dear Mayor Chao,
Please accept this re-sent email detailing noise and traffic concerns regarding Morro Bay Terrace at Arroyo Village in Cupertino.

Many thanks for providing a forum tonight for expressing our concers, and to the City of Cupertino and Staff for diligently helping and following up on this issue.

With thanks and best regards,
Michael Chang
From: Michael Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 8:59 AM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues

Dear Mayor Chao,
We are writing to follow-up with an ongoing complaint regarding traffic and noise from vehicles constantly using Morro Bay Terrace as a shortcut by those living in the Glenbrook Apartments, and by many more driving down Mary Avenue.

Sincerely,
Michael and Kah Chang
408-204-2853 (C)
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 10:50 AM
To: Michael Chang <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues

Thank you for writing with more details about the situation.

This is very helpful.

I have forwarded it to the city staff.

They will look into it and respond.

But the staff is busy tracking many issues. Just in case you didn't hear from them, feel free to pin me again to get updates.

Regards,
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor

City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Michael Chang <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 9:18 AM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Subject: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues

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,
As new homeowners living at 21300 Dana Point Lane, Cupertino, CA (Arroyo Village), it was a pleasure meeting you at your monthly Mayoral Chat on July 14, 2025. To follow up with our brief conversation that evening, we are writing to you regarding traffic noise and speed complaints on Morro Bay Terrace.

Moreover, with the recent addition of these speed bumps, the daily noise has dramatically increased as speeders and heavy vehicles cross over these bumps.

On some days, the noise from this traffic and these speed bumps can start as early as 2:00 am, with a steady procession of cars usually occurring by 7:00 am. Given the daily vehicular volume, noise, speed, and safety issues, we therefore are writing to request your assistance towards mitigating these concerns. (For instance, the lack of posted speed limits and the excessive noise due to these speed bumps would, perhaps, be under the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino, and therefore a better solution might be to remove the speed bumps, and to install posted speed limits (and stop signs if possible) near the Terrace road crossings.) We have included an additional brief 3 page summary of our location, the speed bumps in question, and a short sample video of the noise generated by these speed bumps by one slower-moving vehicle for your reference. If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us - any help that you can afford in this matter would be sincerely appreciated.

SIncerely,
Michael and Kah Chang
408-204-2853

From: Michael Chang
To: Liang Chao; City Clerk
Subject: Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues
Date: Thursday, November 13, 2025 5:29:43 AM
Attachments: 2025-08-10-SpeedBump2-IMG_0272.mp4
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.

And here is a sample video of a slowly-moving vehicle, and how much noise is emitted.

From: Michael Chang <[email protected]>
Sent:

Thursday, November 13, 2025 5:26 AM
To:

Liang Chao <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject:

Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues
Attached are some pictures of the traffic sign erected by the City of Cupertino.

From: Michael Chang <[email protected]>
Sent:

Thursday, November 13, 2025 5:23 AM
To:

Liang Chao <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject:

Fw: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues
Good morning,
I'm not sure if my earlier email was received, so I will re-send with incremental attachments.

I
would be most appreciative if the issues raised during our gathering on Monday November 10, 2025 could be raised and addressed by Council.

Please find attached my most recent letter sent on October 23, 2025.

Many thanks,
Michael
From: Michael Chang <[email protected]>
Sent:

Monday, November 10, 2025 7:09 PM
To:

Liang Chao <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject:

Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues
Dear Mayor Chao,
Please accept this re-sent email detailing noise and traffic concerns regarding Morro Bay Terrace at Arroyo Village in Cupertino.

Many thanks for providing a forum tonight for expressing our concers, and to the City of Cupertino and Staff for diligently helping and following up on this issue.

Thank you for writing with more details about the situation.

This is very helpful.

I have forwarded it to the city staff.

They will look into it and respond.

But the staff is busy tracking many issues. Just in case you didn't hear from them, feel free to pin me again to get updates.

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.

Moreover, with the recent addition of these speed bumps, the daily noise has dramatically increased as speeders and heavy vehicles cross over these bumps.

SIncerely,
Michael and Kah Chang
408-204-2853

From: Michael Chang
To: Liang Chao; City Clerk
Subject: Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues
Date: Thursday, November 13, 2025 5:28:02 AM
Attachments: 2025-08-22-ArroyoVillage-MorroBayTerrace.png 2025-09-15-CityOfCupertino-JenniferChu.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.

Here is some additional information that I was informed of (screen snapshots).

Attached are some pictures of the traffic sign erected by the City of Cupertino.

Please find attached my most recent letter sent on October 23, 2025.

Dear Mayor Chao,
Please accept this re-sent email detailing noise and traffic concerns regarding Morro Bay Terrace at Arroyo Village in Cupertino.

Many thanks for providing a forum tonight for expressing our concers, and to the City of Cupertino and Staff for diligently helping and following up on this issue.

Thank you for writing with more details about the situation.

This is very helpful.

I have forwarded it to the city staff.

They will look into it and respond.

But the staff is busy tracking many issues. Just in case you didn't hear from them, feel free to pin me again to get updates.

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.

Moreover, with the recent addition of these speed bumps, the daily noise has dramatically increased as speeders and heavy vehicles cross over these bumps.

SIncerely,
Michael and Kah Chang
408-204-2853

From: Michael Chang
To: Liang Chao; City Clerk
Subject: Re: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues
Date: Thursday, November 13, 2025 5:27:29 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.

Attached are some pictures of the traffic sign erected by the City of Cupertino.

Please find attached my most recent letter sent on October 23, 2025.

Dear Mayor Chao,
Please accept this re-sent email detailing noise and traffic concerns regarding Morro Bay Terrace at Arroyo Village in Cupertino.

Many thanks for providing a forum tonight for expressing our concers, and to the City of Cupertino and Staff for diligently helping and following up on this issue.

Thank you for writing with more details about the situation.

This is very helpful.

I have forwarded it to the city staff.

They will look into it and respond.

But the staff is busy tracking many issues. Just in case you didn't hear from them, feel free to pin me again to get updates.

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.

Moreover, with the recent addition of these speed bumps, the daily noise has dramatically increased as speeders and heavy vehicles cross over these bumps.

SIncerely,
Michael and Kah Chang
408-204-2853

From: Michael Chang
To: Liang Chao; City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Arroyo Village Noise and Traffic Issues
Date: Thursday, November 13, 2025 5:24:40 AM
Attachments: 2025-10-23-MichaelChang-LetterToMayor.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.

Please find attached my most recent letter sent on October 23, 2025.

Dear Mayor Chao,
Please accept this re-sent email detailing noise and traffic concerns regarding Morro Bay Terrace at Arroyo Village in Cupertino.

Many thanks for providing a forum tonight for expressing our concers, and to the City of Cupertino and Staff for diligently helping and following up on this issue.

Thank you for writing with more details about the situation.

This is very helpful.

I have forwarded it to the city staff.

They will look into it and respond.

But the staff is busy tracking many issues. Just in case you didn't hear from them, feel free to pin me again to get updates.

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.

Moreover, with the recent addition of these speed bumps, the daily noise has dramatically increased as speeders and heavy vehicles cross over these bumps.

SIncerely,
Michael and Kah Chang
408-204-2853

From: j w
To: City Clerk
Cc: City Council
Subject: Re: time sensitive!Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the "political prisoner/hostage"/Fair Treatment from the City
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 2:47:38 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 confirm it is published. Thank you!
From: j w <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 4:55 PM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Subject: time sensitive!Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the 'political prisoner/hostage'/Fair Treatment from the City lease 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: Vikram Saxena
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.

Cc: City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office
Subject: Request for Clarification on Density Bonus Waivers – Evulich Court Development Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 2:19:59 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 of Cupertino Planning Staff and City Council Members, I am a Cupertino resident writing about the proposed housing development on Evulich Court (near Linda Vista Drive). The developer, SummerHill Homes, is requesting density bonus waivers under state law to exceed R3 zoning standards for height and setbacks. I and my fellow neighbors seek clarification on how these waivers will be evaluated, given the unique circumstances of this site.

Background
The Evulich property was rezoned in 2023, to R3 standards of roughly 30-foot height, and setbacks (20ft front/rear 10ft side for the first floor) . The current proposal for 51 townhomes exceeds those assumptions by invoking California’s Density Bonus Law, which allows additional units and modifications to local standards.

Why This Site is Different
Fire Risk: In 2025, CAL FIRE designated this area a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Tighter spacing and taller buildings could worsen fire spread and evacuation challenges.

Location and Transit: Unlike sites along Stevens Creek or near transit corridors, Evulich Court is a cul-de-sac in a car-dependent neighborhood. The neighborhood has reduced outlets since it backs into open spaces, does not have access roads on all sides and has limited nearby services.

Access and Infrastructure: All traffic, emergency access, and evacuation would funnel through one short, narrow street.

These factors were not fully known or considered when the Housing Element rezoned the site.

Key Questions for the City

1. Has the city documented the specific adverse impacts of construction in a very high severity fire zone which does not honor setbacks and height limits?

2. Public Safety Exception: State law allows denial only for “specific, adverse impacts” to health or safety. How is this defined in practice, and can wildfire associated with a very high fire risk area and evacuation risks with a neighborhood backing into wilderness and hence with reduced outlets qualify?

3. Safety Standards: Will Fire Department and Public Works staff formally evaluate whether reduced setbacks or extra height compromise fire code, road access, or evacuation?

4. Public Input: Since waivers are considered ministerial entitlements, what opportunities remain for residents to contribute local knowledge on safety and traffic?

5. City Discretion vs. State Mandate: What is the scope of the city's discretionary powers when it comes to reviewing these requests?
Closing
I support Cupertino’s housing goals. My concern is ensuring that state housing mandates do not override basic safety and infrastructure standards, especially at a site with limited access and high wildfire risk. Clear answers on the City’s authority and review process will help residents engage constructively.

Thank you for your time and service.

Sincerely,
Vikram Saxena
11126 Linda Vista Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014
From: Walter Li
To: City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor Subject: Mary Ave Project -- Brown Act Violation Summary Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 12:01:29 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 11/18/25 council meeting for items not on agenda.

Brown Act Violation Summary – Mary Avenue Project
The City of Cupertino committed multiple Brown Act and procedural violations in its handling of the Mary Avenue parcel.

Across each major decision, staff made material land-use determinations without public direction from the dais, violating both the Brown Act’s open-meeting requirements and the state-mandated procedures for housing, surplus land, and right-of-way actions. ⸻

1.⁠ ⁠Switching From Ground Lease to Sale Without Council Direction The City changed the project structure from a ground lease to a full sale of public land without any public agenda item, discussion, motion, or vote.

This constitutes a Brown Act violation because:
• Disposition of public property requires discussion and approval in an agendized open session.
• Staff cannot unilaterally alter terms of disposition without legislative action. ⸻

2.⁠ ⁠Reclassifying SB 35–Approved Land Back to “Surplus” Without Authority The Mary Avenue parcel was already committed to housing under SB 35 (Gov. Code § 65913.4).

Despite this, staff treated the parcel as if it could be designated “surplus land” after approval —a legal impossibility.

Brown Act implications:
• No agenda item or vote authorized staff to reclassify the land. • Staff’s behind-the-scenes reclassification is an undisclosed policy decision requiring public approval.
⸻

3.⁠ ⁠Right-of-Way (ROW) Vacation Initiated Without Council Action Staff acted as if the public ROW could be vacated, even though:
• There was no council direction,
• No public hearing,
• No resolution of vacation,
• No agendized item.

Under the Brown Act, ROW vacation must be initiated and approved in open session, not through staff discretion.
⸻

4.⁠ ⁠No Council Action Declaring the Parcel Surplus
State law requires a formal council vote to declare any public property “surplus.” Cupertino never:
• Agendized this action,
• Held a hearing,
• Adopted a surplus resolution.

Yet staff proceeded as if the parcel had been declared surplus.

This is both a Brown Act violation and a Surplus Land Act violation. ⸻

5.⁠ ⁠No Public Notice or Community Process for ROW Vacation or Surplus Actions For any ROW vacation, surplus designation, or exemption, the City must:
• Publish notice,
• Mail notice to neighbors,
• Allow public comment,
• Adopt findings in open session.

The City did none of these steps.

Because these actions were taken administratively without council authority, they violate both:
• The Brown Act, and
• Procedural requirements under Streets & Highways Code and the Surplus Land Act.
⸻

6.⁠ ⁠No Notification to HCD as Required by State Law
When dealing with surplus/exempt surplus land, SB 35 parcels, or project modifications impacting affordability or land disposition, the City must notify HCD.

Staff never:
• Agendized the issue,
• Informed the Council,
• Logged a notice to HCD.

This represents both:
• A violation of state law, and
• A Brown Act violation because the decision not to notify HCD was never taken publicly.
⸻

7.⁠ ⁠Failure to Publish a Notice of Availability (NOA)
For surplus or exempt surplus land, the City must publish a Notice of Availability (NOA).

Cupertino published no NOA:
• No agenda item,
• No publication,
• No council authorization.

Yet staff acted as if they were proceeding under surplus land procedures.

This is a clear Brown Act breach.
⸻

8.⁠ ⁠Failure to Notify Affordable Housing Developers and Agencies Under the Surplus Land Act, the City must notify:
• Qualified affordable housing developers,
• Local housing authorities,
• Regional affordable housing providers.

Cupertino did none of these required notifications.

The decision not to provide legally required notice was never agendized or approved, making it an additional Brown Act violation.
⸻
Overall Conclusion
Cupertino staff took major discretionary actions affecting public land, right-of-way, and state- approved housing without:
• Agenda items
• Public notice
• Council direction
• Required state notifications
• Required public findings
This is a systemic Brown Act violation, compounded by violations of:
• SB 35
• The Surplus Land Act
• The Housing Accountability Act
• Streets & Highways Code procedures for ROW vacation From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk; City Council; Rachelle Sander; Tina Kapoor Subject: CSC and Cupertino Memorial Park public tennis court requests.

Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 8:15:21 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for 11/18/25 council meeting.

Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino taxpayer, voter, resident) Begin forwarded message:
[Writing on behalf of myself only as Cupertino taxpayer, resident, voter and CSC member]
Dear All,
I am writing to request the resumption of city Public Works cleaning and maintenance of CSC as it used to in the past. Currently Public Works maintains public park courts and Lifetime maintains CSC courts including trash removal.

The maintenance by city Public Works is superior to Lifetime and I request the city to resume the same for CSC. CSC is a paid facility. Members pay $400 - $500 annual fees. There is no reason that free users of public park courts should get better service than those paying $500 annually.

I also request that zero dollars be spend on anything to do with pickleball which is free and not charged for. CSC has not replaced the gates at the lobby front desk leading to gate crashers. CSC needs to repair and fix nets and court cracks. We are requesting lights for CSC courts 16 - 18. We are requesting better fence backdrop that screens headlights better. Given we at CSC are a paid facility we need to get priority and investments rather than any free users of Memorial Park pickleball especially given 90+% of users are non-residents. I also encourage P&R to conduct an id verified census of those playing pickleball at Memorial Park by starting a use pass system. It will be revenue accretive to the city and will yield a clear catalog of who is using city facilities and how many of those are non- residents.

Lastly I encourage P&R to research San Francisco where park courts use is limited to residents. Other cities have similar use limits. Most recently Carmel has prohibited pickleball. Please add a pickleball ordinance to the CWP TBD list to consider following the actions of Carmel and banning pickleball in Cupertino.

Cupertino tax dollars need to be applied towards serving Cupertino resident especially for highly in demand facilities such as tennis courts. If you believe grants obligate you to serve non-residents please research San Francisco and how they do not have the same obligation and can limit public park courts use to residents only.

Thanks,
San Rao (writing as a Cupertino taxpayer, voter, resident and CSC member with tax dollars funding city facilities)

CC 11-18-2025
Item No. 8
Ratifying accounts
Payable for the periods
ending October 10 and
October 24, 2025
Written Communications
From: Jean Bedord
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk Subject: Agenda Item #8: Legal Services - Legal services, Accounts Payable, Nov. 18 , 2025 City Council Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 2:33:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include in the public record for this meeting
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang, In reviewing the payment register for October, I even more dismayed by the bills for legal services provided by the contract city attorney, Floy Andrews of Aleshire & Wynder, both this month and previous months. Here's the amounts:
* $ 22,858.50
February services paid in March - partial month after Chris Jensen left * $ 74,775.60
March services paid in April
* $150,495.50
April services paid in July
* $113,650.20
May services paid in July
* $134,907.65
June services paid September
* $124,359.45
July services paid October
* $99,757.73
August services paid October - No council meetings
* ????
September services
* $720,804.53 of known expenses for legal services for slightly over 6 months of legal work. This does not
include the $20,000 for the private investigator hired to investigate the former city manager (insufficient evidence).

At this rate, the contract city attorney's firm will bill well over $1 million to the city of Cupertino for legal services. The city also engages other law firms for their specialized expertise, and has a senior associate city attorney on staff so the total for legal services is even higher.

The entire city attorney budget for FY2025-2026 is :$1,524,970 which includes the senior assistant attorney, a management analyst, other contract services, benefits and office expenses. The
actuals for FY2024-25 were $1,756,201 which exceeds
the FY2024-25 budget of $1,484,229 by $271,972, with the overage in contract services.

Mayor Chao is responsible for signing off on these legal bills; she is also responsible for scheduling meetings which the interim city attorney attends on billable time. Here are some of the contributors to these excessive billings:
* Overly long council meetings
* Numerous closed sessions, even if the item is an just an update * Special meetings, such as the Measure A endorsement letter * Questionable legal advice, i.e. the jurisdictional authority over DeAnza College and their purchase of the McClellan Terrace Apartments, and Builder's Remedy projects, and most recently demands to the Cities Association * Excessive redaction of PRAs (Public Record Action)
Council
members should be provided with the Monthly Billing Summary on a more timely basis than Accounts Payable. I urge Vice-Mayor Moore and other members of council to more closely examine the cost of legal services by Aleshire & Wynder, providing feedback to Mayor Chao on how these could be reduced.

Resident concerned about fiscal responsibility,
Jean Bedord
CC 11-18-2025
Item No. 9
Adopt a maximum rate
schedule for Rate Period
Six with Recology
Written Communications
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Please pull agenda item 9 from consent calendar.

Date: Thursday, November 13, 2025 2:11:30 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.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include in written communications for agenda item 9 for the 11/18/25 city council meeting.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Dear Mayor Chao and Council members,
Please pull agenda item 9 from the consent calendar for the 11/18/25 council meeting.

A 4.39% rate increase on Cupertino residents, or any rate increase on residents, should never be placed on consent. Residents are not an unlimited source of revenue, and we cannot continue absorbing rate hikes, fee increases, and tax increases from multiple directions.

I ask that you work to reduce fees and rates rather than raise them. Voters did not elect you to approve increases through the consent calendar, especially when they directly affect the cost of living.

Please pull agenda item 9 and work to minimize or eliminate rate increases. Residents should not bear the weight of personal environmental priorities. The focus should be on affordability and keeping living costs manageable.

Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) CC 11-18-2025
Item No. 13
OpenGov Budget
Format Review
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council 11/18 Item #13 Budget Format
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 1:08:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
From what I can tell, the City operates four recreational businesses:
the sports center,
the golf course,
the blackberry farm pool/picnics, and
the senior center.

1. Can you please track all of these entities separately in open gov? For a short time, I was able to do this, but don’t seem to be able to do it anymore.

2. Please keep in mind that when there have been studies to get rid of the golf course, the golf course enterprise fund has been charged for that expense. That hurts the perceived bottom line of the golf course.

Only the first two, sports center and golf course, are run as enterprise funds. In the past, the golf course and pool/picnics were together in a single enterprise fund. At some point, pool/picnics were split out – it is a good thing to track the golf course on its own. However, pool/picnics were no longer being tracked as an enterprise fund. Similarly, I think that the senior center might have also been an enterprise fund, which was later disbanded. I wonder why half of the entities are not being run as enterprise funds.

I had asked multiple times at the audit committee that we be able to track these four “businesses” in open gov. After a while, I was able to do this. But I don’t see any way how to track the four of them anymore. Also, the Blackberry Farm enterprise fund was renamed, per my request, to include “golf” so we all know what we’re talking about. Thank You for that.

Regards,
Rhoda Fry
CC 11-18-2025
Item No. 15
Approval of City
Manager Employment
Agreement
Written Communications
From: Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2025-11-18 City Council Meeting CONSENT ITEM 15 City Manager Contract-POSTPONE Missing Docs Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 12:13:10 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 AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM.

Dear City Council,
I am asking you to postpone this item because there is no information to base this decision! The agreement and the resolution are not included in this agenda.

These missing documents tend to be long and it should not be acceptable to include them at the last minute in Supplemental Reports or Desk Items! Maybe the Council has seen them but the public has no clue what they contain.

REQUEST: Please postpone this item until all the documents can be included as part of the published agenda.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: comments city council meeting 11/18 - item #15 Date: Sunday, November 16, 2025 6:12:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
comments city council meeting 11/18 - item #15

Dear City Council,
I read in the staff report that attachments for #15 would be available on the day of the meeting.

This is unacceptable. How can your constituents timely revue the agenda item properly before the meeting? I don’t have any specific comments regarding this item and am thrilled that Tina will becoming City Manager in an official capacity. However, I think not providing materials timely is a major procedural lapse.

Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry
CC 11-18-2025
Item No. 16
Potential sale and
appointment of
negotiator for Mary Ave
property
Written Communications
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk; City Council; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Luke Connolly; Gian Martire; City Attorney"s Office Subject: Compliance and policy concerns with Mary Ave city handling of parcel.

Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 1:07:09 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 for 11/17/25 council meeting for items not on agenda. [Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino taxpayer, voter, resident.] Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, and ICM Kapoor, Please see my comments below. Residents will keep raising these issues until the City explains them clearly.

I appreciate your review of the ground lease risks. If that review changed the direction, the public must be told. Closed-session outcomes that shift policy need a public summary.

Lack of disclosure raises Brown Act concerns. Residents already see problems with the failure to vacate the public right-of-way and the lack of required findings and hearings on surplus or exempt surplus land.

These issues cannot be moved forward on the consent calendar. Major decisions require open explanation. Public trust depends on this.

We need clarity on who recommended the ground lease. We need to know when the decision was made. We need to know whether it came from prior or current leadership. We need to know which departments were involved. The public needs facts and corrective steps if errors occurred.

We also need to know who authorized turning a roadway into a parcel without noticing, hearings, right-of-way vacation, or surplus land findings. Please confirm how HCD was notified. Please confirm whether a NOA was issued. Please state when the public can see responses. These steps must follow the legal order.

Each lapse compounds the next. Accountability is required.

This is now a compliance issue, in addition to a policy issue.

Please address these lapses openly. Please correct past omissions. Please agendize each remaining step so the process is legal, transparent, and impartial.

Please also hold study sessions with commercial real estate operators in the skilled nursing asset class. This asset class has significant challenges. The City needs to understand the operating risks. The City needs to understand the financing risks. The City needs to know the track record of similar facilities and their long-term viability. Skilled nursing and specialized care are among the hardest asset classes to finance and operate successfully. https://www.sokolovelaw.com/blog/nursing-home-graveyard/ This parcel is currently a roadway. Before moving forward, the City has an obligation to study comparable assets. The City must understand what happens if an operator fails, if the asset enters bankruptcy, or if no operator is willing to take over. The City must consider what happens if a failed operator seeks to convert the facility to general housing. The City must consider what precedent this sets for nearby land on the same roadway. Residents are concerned about the risk of using a bike-lane project as a path to bypass surplus land rules and transfer public land under the label of 100% affordable housing, only to see it converted later.

These questions are serious. The City must study the asset class before taking further steps.

Please pause and fully review the long-term viability of this use.

Thank you.

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

Begin forwarded message:

On Sunday, November 16, 2025, 11:02 PM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the 11/18/25 city council meeting.
[Writing on behalf of myself as a Cupertino taxpayer, resident and voter] Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, ICM Kapoor, CAO, I am following up on agenda item 16.

I wish to bring to your attention the below CA Govt Code. ———————————-
CA Govt Code § 54221 (2024)
b) (1) “Surplus land” means land owned in fee simple by any local agency for which the local agency’s governing body takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency’s use. Land shall be declared either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land,” as supported by written findings, before a local agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency’s policies or procedures. A local agency, on an annual basis, may declare multiple parcels as “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land.”
———————————-
Please provide the written findings and the public meeting date, agenda, minutes where the above occurred. If the land was declared surplus or exempt surplus absent the above process please assess if this is a violation of the above state law and potentially also a violation of the Brown Act.

I urge council to enforce CA govt code is followed and and further take action to ensure CM, department directors and staff are being held accountable to follow state laws and Brown Act and also publish clearly artifacts from the same as attachments should you choose to pursue agenda item 16 but still pull from consent calendar.

Further please do not spend city money on CAO billing hours on this matter if state laws have not been followed to vacate public right of way land and deem surplus or exempt surplus.

The public is a key stakeholder in decisions like these. Land cannot be vacated or deemed surplus or exempt surplus without public noticed meetings and sufficient community input at council hearings.

Thanks,
San Rao (Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino taxpayer, voter, resident)
On Wednesday, November 12, 2025, 11:11 PM, Santosh Rao
<[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting for agenda item 16.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Subject: Request to Pull Agenda Item 16 from Consent Calendar for 11/18/25 City Council Meeting
Hello Mayor Chao, Council Members, ICM Kapoor, Attorney Andrews,
I respectfully request that Agenda Item 16 be pulled from the consent calendar for the November 18, 2025 City Council meeting so that it can be discussed in open session.

There are significant unanswered questions about the parcel’s legal status. It appears that the public right of way associated with this property has not been formally vacated through the required public hearings or a resolution of intent. Without that process, it is unclear whether this parcel was legally created in accordance with state law and city procedures.

If the right of way has not been vacated, it raises serious implications for the validity of the parcel and any potential sale. The City should clarify whether clear title can be conveyed or if the property would remain encumbered as a result.

This issue warrants full Council discussion, not approval on consent.

The agenda materials should include all documents and actions related to the parcel’s formation, including any right of way vacations, planning or council actions, and staff determinations of General Plan conformance.

Given the potential procedural and legal implications, open discussion would demonstrate transparency, ensure compliance with state and city requirements, and maintain public trust.

Thank you for your attention to state and local law conformance and ensuring the city is completely transparent with Cupertino residents and voters. Please ensure there are no short cuts to giving public land away to anyone. This is taxpayer land and taxpayers must be fully involved in the process including consideration of CA Article 34.

Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk; City Council; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Luke Connolly; Benjamin Fu; Gian Martire; City Attorney"s Office
Subject: Re: Please pull agenda item 16 from consent calendar for the 11/18/25 city council meeting.

Date: Sunday, November 16, 2025 11:03:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the 11/18/25 city council meeting. [Writing on behalf of myself as a Cupertino taxpayer, resident and voter] Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, ICM Kapoor, CAO, I am following up on agenda item 16.

A local agency, on an annual basis, may declare multiple parcels as “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land.”
———————————-
Please provide the written findings and the public meeting date, agenda, minutes where the above occurred. If the land was declared surplus or exempt surplus absent the above process please assess if this is a violation of the above state law and potentially also a violation of the Brown Act.

Further please do not spend city money on CAO billing hours on this matter if state laws have not been followed to vacate public right of way land and deem surplus or exempt surplus.

The public is a key stakeholder in decisions like these. Land cannot be vacated or deemed surplus or exempt surplus without public noticed meetings and sufficient community input at council hearings.

Thanks,
San Rao (Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino taxpayer, voter, resident) On Wednesday, November 12, 2025, 11:11 PM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting for agenda item 16.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Subject: Request to Pull Agenda Item 16 from Consent Calendar for 11/18/25 City Council Meeting
Hello Mayor Chao, Council Members, ICM Kapoor, Attorney Andrews, I respectfully request that Agenda Item 16 be pulled from the consent calendar for the November 18, 2025 City Council meeting so that it can be discussed in open session.

Without that process, it is unclear whether this parcel was legally created in accordance with state law and city procedures.

This issue warrants full Council discussion, not approval on consent. The agenda materials should include all documents and actions related to the parcel’s formation, including any right of way vacations, planning or council actions, and staff determinations of General Plan conformance.

Given the potential procedural and legal implications, open discussion would demonstrate transparency, ensure compliance with state and city requirements, and maintain public trust.

Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: comments city council meeting 11/18 - item #16 Date: Sunday, November 16, 2025 6:45:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
comments city council meeting 11/18 - item #16
Dear City Council,
Given the amount of concerns raised for the property sale at Mary, I am surprised to see this item on the consent calendar.

Many residents have raised questions about the processes used to get to this point, like whether the roadway was properly vacated and whether it is now zoned for housing. In the interest of transparency and so that residents understand and trust the process, can you please pull this item?
Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry
From: Walter Li
To: City Council; City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu; City Clerk Subject: Pull Agenda Item 16. Illegal Precedent Cannot Be Rectified — Project Must Be Withdrawn Date: Thursday, November 13, 2025 11:20:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Chao, Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, City Attorney Andrews, and City Clerk,
Please pull Agenda Item 16 from the consent calendar for the November 18, 2025 meeting and bring it forward for open discussion.

The City cannot authorize negotiations or sale of the Mary Avenue parcel (APN 326-27-053) because the project rests on an illegal precedent that cannot be rectified. The property includes public right of way that has not been vacated under the California Streets and Highways Code §§8320–8325, which require a Resolution of Intention, public notice, and a public hearing before any vacation can occur. Without those actions, the parcel’s formation and title remain legally defective.

Further, the City has failed to comply with the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code §§54220–54234).

State law requires declaring the land surplus or exempt surplus and completing the mandated offer process before any consideration of sale. Proceeding without this step violates state law and exposes Cupertino to enforcement action by HCD.

Residents have a right to participate in deciding whether public right of way should be vacated and, if so, whether it should be sold. These are not administrative details but fundamental questions of public ownership and due process. Cupertino has already missed the statutory deadlines for public hearings required under the Streets and Highways Code. Because those deadlines have passed without lawful action, the project is no longer valid and must halt immediately.

Attempting to push this project through would establish an illegal precedent that undermines public trust and cannot be cured retroactively.

We therefore demand that Agenda Item 16 be pulled and that the project be withdrawn in its entirety. Cupertino residents expect transparency, compliance, and respect for the law — not attempts to normalize unlawful practices.

Sincerely,
Walter Li
Originator of the petition "Halt The Mary Aveune Villas Project at this Unsuitable Location" Working with the neighbors in opposition of the Mary Ave Villas Project [email protected]
408-781-7894
---
Appendix: Relevant Statutory Requirements and Missed Deadlines •⁠ ⁠California Streets and Highways Code §8320 — Requires adoption of a Resolution of Intention to vacate a street or right-of-way.
•⁠ ⁠§8322 — Requires public notice of the proposed vacation. •⁠ ⁠§8324 — Requires a public hearing before adoption of any resolution of vacation. •⁠ ⁠§8325 — States that until these steps are lawfully completed, the right-of-way remains public and cannot be sold or transferred.

Because Cupertino did not issue a Resolution of Intention, provide notice, or hold the required hearing within the statutory timelines, the City has missed the dateline for lawful action. The parcel therefore remains public right-of-way, and any attempt to treat it as a valid project is void.

From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: City Council; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor Subject: Mary Avenue APN 326-27-053
Date: Thursday, November 13, 2025 8:32:13 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Clerk,
Please include this in the official record for the Nov 18, 2025 city council meeting.

Thank you.
———
Dear Councilmembers,
I am submitting this written objection regarding Agenda Item 16 titled:
“Consider the potential sale of and appoint a negotiator for City-owned property along Mary Avenue (APN: 326-27-053).”
The City’s handling of this matter is illegal, noncompliant, and cannot be “corrected” after the fact.
⸻
1⃣ Violation of the Streets & Highways Code (§§ 8300–8363) Under state law, a public right-of-way cannot be sold, negotiated, or transferred until the City has:
• Adopted a Resolution of Intention to vacate,
• Provided mailed and published notice, and
• Held a public hearing followed by a Resolution of Vacation.

Cupertino has completed none of these required steps. Therefore, any negotiation or sale of the Mary Avenue right-of-way is void and without legal authority.

The City cannot retroactively “cure” the absence of a vacation hearing or resolution. ⸻
2⃣ Violation of the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code §§ 54220–54234) Before the City can dispose of any property, it must first declare it “surplus” or “exempt surplus” by formal resolution and follow the state-mandated offer process.

Cupertino has not done so.

Any negotiation or transfer prior to compliance constitutes a violation of the Surplus Land Act and exposes the City to enforcement by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
⸻
3⃣ Violation of the Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.) The City’s agenda description concealed the true nature of the transaction by calling it “City- owned property” instead of disclosing that it involves public right-of-way.

This omission deprived the public of meaningful opportunity to understand or comment, violating the Brown Act’s transparency and notice requirements.

However, this violation cannot be cured after the fact — because the underlying action (negotiating or disposing of public right-of-way without proper authority) is illegal in substance, not merely in procedure.
⸻
4⃣ Statement of Legal Invalidity
The City’s handling of the Mary Avenue property is wrong, unlawful, and violates its own municipal procedures and state law.

Cupertino cannot “slide into” legal status or claim compliance retroactively.

The entire action is null and void because the City lacked lawful authority from the outset. ⸻
5⃣ Requested Action
I hereby request that the City:
• Withdraw and nullify all actions and negotiations related to Agenda Item 16 and APN 326- 27-053;
• Cease any further disposition activity until full statutory compliance is achieved through proper hearings and resolutions; and
• Disclose all communications, maps, and agreements related to this parcel for public review.

Please include this letter in the official record of the City Council meeting.

Respectfully,
Mahesh Gurikar
Cupertino Resident
[email protected]
From: Griffin
To: City Council; Floy Andrews; Tina Kapoor
Cc: City Clerk; Public Comments
Subject: 2025-11-18 City Council Meeting-PULL ITEM 16 Sale of Mary Ave Date: Thursday, November 13, 2025 12:08:53 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 AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Council and Staff,
Please PULL CONSENT ITEM #16, the possible sale of the Mary Avenue property. I find it appalling that as heated as this project is that you would even consider hiding it under CONSENT! In the last City Council meeting City Attorney Floy said that the city had not vacated Mary Ave. Now, that’s exactly what you propose to do! All along the city has said “we will maintain ownership”, “it’s forever”, etc then you turn around and do this UNDER CONSENT?!?! This is public property and the decision to even consider putting it up for sale should be discussed in public, not wisked under the rug by using the Consent Calendar.

Please pull item #16 and have a proper presentation and discussion.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk; City Council; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Luke Connolly; Benjamin Fu; Gian Martire Subject: Please pull agenda item 16 from consent calendar for the 11/18/25 city council meeting.

Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 11:12:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting for agenda item 16.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Subject: Request to Pull Agenda Item 16 from Consent Calendar for 11/18/25 City Council Meeting
Hello Mayor Chao, Council Members, ICM Kapoor, Attorney Andrews, I respectfully request that Agenda Item 16 be pulled from the consent calendar for the November 18, 2025 City Council meeting so that it can be discussed in open session.

Given the potential procedural and legal implications, open discussion would demonstrate transparency, ensure compliance with state and city requirements, and maintain public trust.

Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) From: Rachel Rose
To: City Clerk; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Re: Pull Agenda Item 16 from Consent Calendar
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 1:50:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I apologize, I mistakenly added more to that email than intended. Here’s what it should have said:

Hello City Clerk, Please include the following in written communications for the 11/18/25 City Council meeting.

Hello Mayor Liang Chao, Vice-Mayor Kitty Moore, Cupertino Council Members, City Manager Tina Kapoor, I request that agenda item 16 be pulled from the consent calendar so there is explicit council discussion with public comments for it. I have read the supplemental report. It says the City used exemptions to bypass normal procedures to call the parcel surplus or exempt surplus. This was not noticed to the public. This was not put on any council agenda. No proper information on this was given to the public or Council. No Council vote was taken explicitly to approve the use of this exemption so as to be skipping public engagement and written findings to deem this as surplus. This may be a violation of the Brown Act. Under California Government Code § 54221 (2024), land cannot be declared surplus or exempt surplus without proper public meetings and written findings. Please provide these documents. In April 2025, the City approved this parcel for the SB-35 Mary Ave Villas project. Its use is already assigned. It is not surplus land. Public notice, hearings, and community input are required before vacating land or using exemptions to bypass normal procedures to declare it surplus or exempt surplus. Please follow state laws and brown act. All actions must be noticed as directed by a vote of council especially something such as deeming land surplus.

Thank you,
Rachel Rose
US Citizen and registered voter
Glenbrook Apartment resident since 2019
Against further development of Mary Ave
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 1:36 PM Rachel Rose <[email protected] > wrote:

Hello City Clerk, Please include the following in written communications for the 11/18/25 City Council meeting.

Please provide these documents. In April 2025, the City approved this parcel for the SB-35 Mary Ave Villas project. Its use is already assigned. It is not surplus land. Public notice, hearings, and community input are required before vacating land or using exemptions to bypass normal procedures to declare it surplus or exempt surplus. Please follow state laws and brown act. All actions must be noticed as directed by a vote of council especially something such as deeming land surplus.

Brown act violations:

1. They went from ground lease to sale. Not directed from dais.

2. Went from land approved for SB-35 back to surplus land. Not allowed. No direction from dais.

3. No vacation of public right of way. Not directed from dais.

4. No actions to deem parcel as surplus. Not directed from dais.

5. No actions to community notice vacation, deem surplus, or exempt surplus or exemption of the process to deem. Not directed from dais.

6. No notification to HCD. Not directed from dais.

7. No publication of NOA. Not directed from dais.

8. No notification to other affordable housing agencies. Not directed from dais.

Thank you,
Rachel Rose
US Citizen and registered voter
Glenbrook Apartment resident since 2019
Against further development of Mary Ave
From: B Nataraj
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Pull Agenda item 16 from Consent Calendar
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:47:37 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello City Clerk,
I request that agenda item 16 be pulled from the consent calendar so there is explicit council discussion with public comments for it.

Regards,
Nataraj

From: manju lnu
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Remove Agenda Item 16 from Consent Calendar
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:09:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello City Clerk,
Please include the following in written communications for the 11/18/25 City Council meeting.

Hello Mayor Liang Chao, Vice-Mayor Kitty Moore, Cupertino Council Members, City Manager Tina Kapoor,
I request that agenda item 16 be removed from the consent calendar so there is explicit council discussion with public comments for it.

I have read the supplemental report. It says the City used exemptions to bypass normal procedures to call the parcel surplus or exempt surplus. This was not noticed to the public.

This was not put on any council agenda. No proper information on this was given to the public or Council. No Council vote was taken explicitly to approve the use of this exemption so as to be skipping public engagement and written findings to deem this as surplus. This may be a violation of the Brown Act.

Under California Government Code § 54221 (2024), land cannot be declared surplus or exempt surplus without proper public meetings and written findings. Please provide these documents.

In April 2025, the City approved this parcel for the SB-35 Mary Ave Villas project. Its use is already assigned. It is not surplus land.

Public notice, hearings, and community input are required before vacating land or using exemptions to bypass normal procedures to declare it surplus or exempt surplus.

Please follow state laws and brown act. All actions must be noticed as directed by a vote of council especially something such as deeming land surplus.

Thank you,
Manju
From: Jean Schwab
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Pull Agenda item 16 from Consent Calendar
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 8:37:20 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.
Subject: Pull Agenda Item 16 from Consent Calendar
Hello City Clerk,
Please include the following in written communications for the 11/18/25 City Council meeting.

I have read the supplemental report. It says the City used exemptions to bypass normal procedures to call the parcel surplus or exempt surplus. This was not noticed to the public. This was not put on any council agenda. No proper information on this was given to the public or Council. No Council vote was taken explicitly to approve the use of this exemption so as to be skipping public engagement and written findings to deem this as surplus. This may be a violation of the Brown Act.

Under California Government Code § 54221 (2024), land cannot be declared surplus or exempt surplus without proper public meetings and written findings. Please provide these documents.

In April 2025, the City approved this parcel for the SB-35 Mary Ave Villas project. Its use is already assigned. It is not surplus land.

Public notice, hearings, and community input are required before vacating land or using exemptions to bypass normal procedures to declare it surplus or exempt surplus.

Please follow state laws and brown act. All actions must be noticed as directed by a vote of council especially something such as deeming land surplus.

Thank you,
Jean and Christopher Schwab
10353 Mary Ave
Cupertino, CA
Sent from my iPad
From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Agenda item 16 on Consent Calendar -City Council Meeting on 11/18/2025 Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 7:37:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello City Clerk,
Please include the following in written communications for the 11/18/25 City Council meeting.
—————
Hello Mayor Liang Chao, Vice-Mayor Kitty Moore, Cupertino Council Members, City Manager Tina Kapoor,
I request that agenda item 16 be pulled from the consent calendar so there is explicit council discussion with public comments . It appears City has used certain exemptions to bypass normal procedures to call the parcel surplus or exempt surplus.

However, This was not noticed to the public, This was not put on any council agenda, No proper information on this was given to the public or Council and No Council vote was taken explicitly to approve the use of this exemption so as to be skipping public engagement and written findings to deem this as surplus. This may be a violation of the Brown Act.

Under California Government Code § 54221 (2024), land cannot be declared surplus or exempt surplus without proper public meetings and written findings.

Can City provide these documents?
In April 2025, the City approved this parcel for the SB-35 Mary Ave Villas project. Its use is already assigned. It is not surplus land until proper procedures are followed and fully documented.

Public notice, hearings, and community input are required before vacating land or using exemptions to bypass normal procedures to declare it surplus or exempt surplus.

Please acertain the city follows state laws and Brown act. All actions must be noticed as directed by a vote of council especially something such as deeming land surplus.

Again, I request Agenda item 16 to be removed from the consent calendar.

Thank you,
Mahesh Gurikar
Cupertino Resident
From: Vidya Gurikar
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Agenda item 16 on Consent Calendar -City Council Meeting on 11/18/2025 Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 7:31:53 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.

Under California Government Code § 54221 (2024), land cannot be declared surplus or exempt surplus without proper public meetings and written findings. Can City provide these documents?
In April 2025, the City approved this parcel for the SB-35 Mary Ave Villas project. Its use is already assigned. It is not surplus land.

Public notice, hearings, and community input are required before vacating land or using exemptions to bypass normal procedures to declare it surplus or exempt surplus.

Please action the city follows state laws and Brown act. All actions must be noticed as directed by a vote of council especially something such as deeming land surplus.

Again, I request Agenda item 16 to be removed from the consent calendar.

Thank you,
Shrividya Gurikar
Cupertino Resident
From: Aref Shaikh
To: Tina Kapoor; City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Pull Agenda Item 16 from Consent Calendar
Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 10:11:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello City Clerk,
Please include the following in written communications for the 11/18/25 City Council meeting.

I have read the supplemental report. It says the City used exemptions to bypass normal procedures to call the parcel surplus or exempt surplus. This was not noticed to the public.

Under California Government Code § 54221 (2024), land cannot be declared surplus or exempt surplus without proper public meetings and written findings. Please provide these documents.

In April 2025, the City approved this parcel for the SB-35 Mary Ave Villas project. Its use is already assigned. It is not surplus land.

Public notice, hearings, and community input are required before vacating land or using exemptions to bypass normal procedures to declare it surplus or exempt surplus.

Please follow state laws and brown act. All actions must be noticed as directed by a vote of council especially something such as deeming land surplus.

Thank you,
Aref Shaikh
CC 11-18-2025
Item No. 18
City Manager's First
Quarter Financial
Report for FY 2025-26
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: RE: comments city council meeting 11/18 - item #18 Date: Sunday, November 16, 2025 7:11:50 PM
Attachments: MonthlyLocalAllocationCities (5).xlsx
CAMPBELL.xlsx
RevenueTaxSharingAgreementReportedByJurisdictions.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 Council,
Can you explain how we are beginning the first quarter with $182M and ending it quarter with $155M?
That does not look like things are going in the right direction. Can you explain? I went to opengov and it seems to me that the anticipated sales-tax-revenue is too high.

I would like to understand how the City determined the anticipated sales-tax revenues for 2025/26.

Previously, revenue from tax-sharing agreements with Apple and Insight, see third attachment, were rolled into sales-tax-revenue, so there was no transparency as to how much income we were deriving from these agreements. We all know that the Apple agreement has been terminated. But what about Insight? Please explain how we have anticipated the revenue drop from the loss of that agreement? I haven’t attended all council meetings, but I have not seen mention of the loss of that income.

In looking at CDTFA data, there have been zero sales-tax income distributions from the state since May 2025. The first attachment is a report that I generated from the CDTFA (I removed the pennies and added commas for the thousands). By comparison, see the second attachment shows the City of Campbell. So you can see that there are six months of zero income for Cupertino where Campbell has these fields populated. There is some explanation on page 11, but can you please provide some more color here? We don’t have transparency on a full six months of data! In detail, why is this happening? And, what do we anticipate that the numbers should be?
According to open gov, it is expected that sales-tax-revenue will rise – I am not that optimistic. Please explain more.

I am glad that we’ll probably have a good year for TOT (hotel tax revenue) with the football superbowl and the big soccer matches coming, but that will be a one-time revenue opportunity.

Finally, please go through the CIP project status line-by-line, I think that there are some opportunities for savings there.

Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry
Monthly Payments to Cities and Counties from the 1% Local Sales and Use Tax Fiscal Year Fiscal Year To Jurisdiction Id Jurisdiction Type Jurisdiction Year To Date Distributed July Distributed August Distributed September Distributed October Distributed November Distributed December Distributed January Distributed February Distributed March Distributed April Distributed May Distributed June 2,025 2,026 43,008 City CITY OF CAMPBELL 4,202,304 1,095,658 1,093,795 1,083,720 929,130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,024 2,025 43,008 CITY CITY OF CAMPBELL 12,174,319 1,158,679 686,623 1,177,505 849,733 798,746 1,217,670 914,175 1,192,209 1,166,341 868,448 1,000,008 1,144,182 2,023 2,024 43,008 CITY CITY OF CAMPBELL 13,794,040 1,105,859 1,845,568 1,258,678 1,026,086 943,577 1,102,186 899,048 1,145,841 1,198,227 890,060 1,181,796 1,197,115 2,022 2,023 43,008 CITY CITY OF CAMPBELL 14,178,457 1,066,913 1,181,513 1,069,713 878,886 2,353,671 1,053,799 837,054 1,754,697 1,062,095 732,708 991,403 1,196,005 2,021 2,022 43,008 CITY CITY OF CAMPBELL 12,540,972 1,164,314 1,116,205 1,100,865 1,005,741 978,670 1,007,941 828,731 1,291,048 932,122 804,373 1,209,022 1,101,940 2,020 2,021 43,008 CITY CITY OF CAMPBELL 10,311,292 1,042,598 345,868 825,696 759,450 1,117,344 1,094,391 822,772 793,539 933,761 827,109 815,201 933,562 2,019 2,020 43,008 CITY CITY OF CAMPBELL 11,274,100 999,645 1,104,557 1,077,479 1,003,849 875,813 1,075,325 996,692 1,106,564 1,018,338 684,911 256,172 1,074,757 2,018 2,019 43,008 CITY CITY OF CAMPBELL 12,089,090 1,023,182 787,549 903,427 1,162,183 1,051,242 1,086,070 1,034,677 1,135,694 999,066 948,947 891,012 1,066,041 2,017 2,018 43,008 CITY CITY OF CAMPBELL 11,581,473 763,400 1,017,800 1,026,333 763,400 1,017,800 1,233,366 844,900 1,126,400 868,698 705,300 1,286,027 928,049 2,016 2,017 43,008 CITY CITY OF CAMPBELL 11,226,435 779,500 1,039,200 988,272 751,700 1,002,400 1,091,656 799,700 1,066,400 1,042,767 687,100 916,000 1,061,741 2,015 2,016 43,008 CITY CITY OF CAMPBELL 9,093,891 575,900 767,700 800,554 578,000 770,500 697,187 604,100 805,400 854,292 699,600 932,800 1,007,858 2,014 2,015 43,008 CITY CITY OF CAMPBELL 8,246,585 549,700 733,000 861,898 596,600 795,500 613,582 542,900 724,000 837,498 522,700 697,000 772,207 2,013 2,014 43,008 CITY CITY OF CAMPBELL 7,741,498 539,000 718,700 660,065 546,800 729,100 732,130 528,500 671,600 670,576 486,500 648,700 809,827 2,012 2,013 43,008 CITY CITY OF CAMPBELL 7,282,555 496,700 662,200 635,150 510,100 680,100 665,467 507,500 582,000 728,118 477,300 636,400 701,519 2,011 2,012 43,008 CITY CITY OF CAMPBELL 7,108,219 432,700 577,000 744,938 409,400 545,900 864,860 484,800 646,400 626,092 426,600 568,800 780,729 2,010 2,011 43,008 CITY CITY OF CAMPBELL 6,170,818 412,900 550,500 509,107 408,200 544,200 614,204 460,500 614,000 457,134 379,500 556,600 663,973 Monthly Payments to Cities and Counties from the 1% Local Sales and Use Tax Fiscal Year Fiscal Year To Jurisdiction Id Jurisdiction Type Jurisdiction Year To Date Distributed July Distributed August Distributed September Distributed October Distributed November Distributed December Distributed January Distributed February Distributed March Distributed April Distributed May Distributed June 2,025 2,026 43,012 City CITY OF CUPERTINO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,024 2,025 43,012 CITY CITY OF CUPERTINO 30,780,219 2,754,189 3,514,685 3,019,206 2,928,166 4,162,661 3,608,349 3,583,607 5,229,755 1,047,627 931,973 0 0 2,023 2,024 43,012 CITY CITY OF CUPERTINO 42,577,437 6,890,320 1,923,500 2,321,556 2,294,475 5,553,836 2,936,033 2,991,681 6,516,867 2,670,040 2,799,495 3,383,744 2,295,890 2,022 2,023 43,012 CITY CITY OF CUPERTINO 41,252,088 3,997,728 2,231,080 3,220,488 3,300,624 4,285,808 6,275,186 6,266,361 0 2,586,568 2,704,427 3,681,671 2,702,148 2,021 2,022 43,012 CITY CITY OF CUPERTINO 57,475,110 5,879,872 2,241,382 4,057,661 3,940,940 4,321,103 4,646,823 4,945,601 11,215,971 4,016,080 4,138,655 4,605,134 3,465,888 2,020 2,021 43,012 CITY CITY OF CUPERTINO 58,225,876 2,348,482 7,822,915 2,733,133 5,956,700 3,976,588 3,091,130 8,922,549 7,277,453 2,422,406 5,623,498 3,916,467 4,134,556 2,019 2,020 43,012 CITY CITY OF CUPERTINO 35,468,863 1,921,154 3,858,159 2,570,373 5,389,864 952,154 2,686,399 4,753,963 5,479,333 687,693 1,262,318 4,314,492 1,592,961 2,018 2,019 43,012 CITY CITY OF CUPERTINO 31,799,696 2,075,409 2,851,069 2,453,786 2,476,533 4,414,735 3,226,075 3,352,444 3,095,837 1,939,786 2,007,724 1,112,236 2,794,064 2,017 2,018 43,012 CITY CITY OF CUPERTINO 32,881,731 1,739,800 2,319,800 3,460,177 1,848,800 2,465,100 4,064,251 2,577,700 3,261,200 4,893,131 1,814,100 2,403,083 2,034,589 2,016 2,017 43,012 CITY CITY OF CUPERTINO 29,166,865 1,859,500 2,479,200 2,277,383 1,973,500 2,631,200 2,172,281 2,029,600 2,706,000 4,287,362 1,590,700 2,120,800 3,039,339 2,015 2,016 43,012 CITY CITY OF CUPERTINO 23,022,265 1,179,000 1,571,900 3,365,382 1,634,300 2,179,200 1,862,615 2,027,500 2,703,200 202,679 1,543,800 2,058,400 2,694,289 2,014 2,015 43,012 CITY CITY OF CUPERTINO 21,214,591 1,211,000 1,612,100 1,492,016 1,145,200 1,526,900 3,434,985 1,524,400 2,032,400 3,254,391 1,197,000 1,596,000 1,188,199 2,013 2,014 43,012 CITY CITY OF CUPERTINO 18,775,203 1,225,300 1,587,600 1,646,438 1,412,600 1,883,500 1,010,339 1,692,600 2,256,800 643,255 890,900 1,187,800 3,338,072 2,012 2,013 43,012 CITY CITY OF CUPERTINO 18,887,134 1,164,800 1,553,100 1,522,162 1,093,000 1,457,300 2,641,360 1,401,200 1,868,200 2,364,667 1,146,200 1,528,200 1,146,945 2,011 2,012 43,012 CITY CITY OF CUPERTINO 17,674,875 1,163,300 1,551,100 2,120,998 1,028,400 1,371,200 1,393,220 1,084,400 1,445,900 2,202,322 867,800 1,157,100 2,289,135 2,010 2,011 43,012 CITY CITY OF CUPERTINO 15,153,968 778,400 1,037,900 2,207,641 747,800 1,135,500 2,109,914 840,600 1,120,800 1,672,909 700,800 1,027,800 1,773,904 Revenue Tax Sharing Agreement Reported by Jurisdictions Fiscal Year End Date Jurisdiction Code Jurisdiction
06/30/2024 43012 CITY OF CUPERTINO
06/30/2024 43012 CITY OF CUPERTINO
Name(s) of any parties to the tax revenue sharing agreement Agreement Execution Date Apple Inc 12/19/2013
Insight Consulting Services Inc 12/29/2006
Agreement Termination Date Total dollar amount rebated after the date of execution 12/19/2033 BAZ (Apple Inc) $64,755,499.70
06/30/2025 Insight Consulting Services Inc $7,639,543.05 Total dollar amount rebated during the fiscal year
BAZ (Apple Inc) $0
Insight Consulting Services Inc $595,710.40
Percentage used to determine the rebated amount to each party in the tax share agreement 35%
Insight Consulting Services Inc 25% - 40%
Percentage used to determine rebated amount to any other person that is not a party in the tax revenue agreement 0%
0%
Is information published on the jurisdiction website's homepage as required? Yes
Yes
From: Tracy K
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 18 Comments
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 7:26:34 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
I appreciate the level of detail in the latest financial report. While the 2024-25 financial report looks fine, with revenue coming in above expectations (to note, primarily due to mark to market adjustments) and expenses coming in below, the Q1 2025-26 $21.6M deficit raises some questions.

Revenues: How much in sales taxes are we expecting to be returned by CDTFA? Will it be similar to the prior year? Assuming that amount is returned and brings us back to, we still have the $31M in expenses to contend with. Should we be concerned that revenues and expenses are so greatly imbalanced?
Expenses: There is a $3.2M one-time transfer to capital reserves -- which fund is this exactly? Per the latest ACFR we have a $10M capital projects reserve, $24M economic uncertainty reserve, $124K sustainability reserve and a sales tax repayment reserve (although I believe there have since been changes to this fund). Were we somehow using these reserves and need to replenish them, or are we adding to them?
Regardless, I appreciate the level of detail in the report.

Thanks (and writing on behalf of myself only),
Tracy
CC 11-18-2025
Item No. 19
FY 25-27 City Work
Program and TBD List
Written Communications
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2025-11-18 City Council Meeting - ITEM #19 - 1st Quarter City Work Program Update Date: Sunday, November 16, 2025 11:31:39 PM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Councilmembers and Staff, Thank you for this update.

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS
From a resident trying to review these documents, I have a few suggestions that would help:

1. Attachment B - Q1 Dashboard Printout
a. This is really the status of each CWP item. Can this document have the word “Status” in its title in the future?
b. Please add the CWP Item # on each page heading. This would make it faster to find the status of a particular CWP item.
c. The page numbers in the lower righthand corner of each page are wrong. There are multiple pages of the same numbers.

COMMENTS on CWP status
CWP Item #4 – Defensible Impact Fee Nexus Study
Awesome that it’s been started ahead of schedule!
CWP Item #5 – Water Conservation Policies
Q: Turf conversion to what? I hope that artificial turf is not one of the options.

CWP Item #6 – Enhance Senior Services
Q: Step 1.5 “Share results” only mentions with departments, not Council. Can “Council” be added to the words in Attachment B for Step 1.5?
CWP Item #13 – City Hall Retrofit and City Hall Annex
Please split these up into separate timeline steps so they can more easily be followed.

CWP Item #16 – Lowering speed limits
Blaney Ave – they only did part of Blaney Ave.! The part from Stevens Creek Blvd to Homestead, where there actually is a school, was not lowered. Please lower this section of Blaney Ave, too. It is heavily used morning and afternoon.

COMMENTS on TBD List
Staff recommends 6 items be recommended for the “FY 2025-27 CWP, but this IS THE FY 2025-27 CWP”! Q: Is this a typo? Does staff mean the 2027-29 CWP?
IMPORTANT CONCERN…The TBD list is not prioritized so items can be picked without any Council preference. It is a way to by-pass the CWP prioritization.

CONCERN…”Explore Red Light Cameras”, TBD Item #19, should be a regular task to improve safety for Vision Zero. Running red lights endangers pedestrians, fellow drivers and cyclists because drivers tend to increase their speed to run the red light.

CONCERN…TBD Item #10 “Ballot Measure on Retail and Rezoning”…If it is postponed to FY 2027-2029 then how much retail will we loose before then? The city will not put it on a special election due to costs so if this is delayed, it will most probably be placed on the 2028 November election. That’s 3 years.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: 11/18 city council #19 work program message #2 Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 2:21:43 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.

Hi City Council,
The parking lot for the pool/picnics at Blackberry Farm had many large trees that were planted around 2026.

Nearly all of these trees have died and I have brought it up to Parks & Rec in the past who promised they’d be replaced.

I gave up and I doubt that I have asked our current head of Parks & Rec.

When can they be replaced?
Can this be added to the work plan?
Rhoda
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: 11/18 city council #19 work program
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 1:46:16 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.
11/18 city council #19 work program

appendix C #14 it looks like this item recommends considering that the Blackberry Farm Pool/Picnics be tracked as an enterprise fund. I think that this is a good idea as outlined in my earlier comments. I think that we should also consider tracking the Senior Center as an enterprise fund as well. That way the golf course, sports center, pool/picnics, and senior center would all be tracked in enterprise funds to promote transparency.

appendix C #16 please look at the bike racks themselves and determine whether they are safe for kids. I’ve only seen one of these in person at McCellan Ranch and it looks like a child could get stuck in it, putting the child and our city both at risk. I asked the building department whether they were consulted on these at all, and the answer was no. We should engage the expertise of our own building department on city projects.

appendix C #17 regarding looking at the golf course, this has been done so many times. Why again? Keep in mind that each time the golf course gets looked at, the golf course enterprise fund gets charged the cost of doing the studies. Consequently, these studies make the bottom line of the golf course look worse than it actually is. I’d like to understand why this keeps on coming up. We just went through a long and costly cycle of looking at the golf course.

appendix C #20 Let’s please let the dust settle a bit on the housing element before spending more time and money on it.

Thanks,
Rhoda

Cupertino City CouncilNovember 18, 2025

Cupertino City Council
November 18, 2025