Cupertino City Council
February 3, 2026

CC 2-03-2026
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office Subject: February 3 City Council Meeting, non-agenda oral comms, Lehigh and Stevens Creek Quarries Date: Saturday, January 31, 2026 12:49:01 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,
Lehigh and Stevens Creek Quarries

PUBLIC NUISSANCE
I am asking that the City of Cupertino take some action pertaining to the public nuisance of truck traffic in the middle of the night affecting our residents (I am not personally affected). A couple of months ago, I spoke with our District 5 County Supervisor Abe-Koga who said that they’re monitoring the issue. On Thursday, January 29, two Cupertino residents addressed the County Planning Commission with their concerns, which were dismissed without empathy.

They said that the operation is “vested” and there’s nothing that you can do. But I believe there is.

Being “vested” means that the operation is exempt from modern zoning rules that would otherwise dictate hours of operation. It is like being “grandfathered in.” I believe that the new aggregate business is not vested because: 1. It was abandoned for over 10 years. 2. The old equipment was removed and later replaced with other equipment. 3. Lehigh exported rock to Stevens Creek for aggregate processing, further confirming its abandonment of aggregate processing. Aside from the question as to whether the operation is vested, there is the separate issue of public nuisance. Please protect our residents! ANTICIPATED FUTURE TRUCK TRAFFIC FROM LEHIGH’S PERMANENTE QUARRY
Separately, I am concerned about the amount of rock that is being exported. Consider that every truck of exported rock means more imported rock during reclamation, which is now expected to take up to 30 years with 600 trucks a day of trucks, when instead, the quarry should be using available materials onsite for reclamation per the 2012 Reclamation Plan.

STEVENS CREEK QUARRY WISHING TO ANNEX CUPERTINO LAND INTO COUNTY
Regarding Stevens Creek Quarry. At the January 29 Planning Commission meeting, we learned that Stevens Creek Quarry is wanting to have land that is in jurisdictional Cupertino, to be annexed to the County and that LAFCO would be involved. Is our City Council aware of this? I am still awaiting to get information back from the County on this issue.

There are three parcels, owned by Lehigh (aka Heidelberg Cement), that Stevens Creek Quarry intends to include in its reclamation plan. Two of them are in jurisdictional Cupertino and are referred to as “The Licensed Area” in the County’s “Notice of Preparation.” Here are the APNs for land in Cupertino’s jurisdiction, owned by Lehigh, that Stevens Creek Quarry wishes to include in its reclamation plan area: 351-10-017 (40 acres) and 351-10-039 (35.5 acres). Looking at the proposed reclamation plan area, it appears that only a portion of these parcels would be affected. My recommendation is that if the City is considering giving up its jurisdiction, that the lots be split so that only the area outlined in the reclamation area goes to the County.

One 4.4-acre Cupertino parcel is owned by Stevens Creek Quarry 351-10-040 and, its use has been adjudicated by the County under SMARA since an August 2008 agreement (I don’t know whether it is being considered for annexation to the county).

ANTICIPATED FUTURE TRUCK TRAFFIC FROM STEVENS CREEK QUARRY Finally, I’d like you to be aware that the Stevens Creek Quarry is intending to import either

11.7M cubic yards of fill or 20.5M cubic yards of fill AND intends the dig the quarry deeper than is currently allowed. The reason for needing fill for reclamation is to stabilize the overmined quarry walls. You can find more information pertaining to the proposed plans from a variety of linked documents here: https://plandev.santaclaracounty.gov/programs-andstudies/smara/stevens-creek-quarry Regards,
Rhoda Fry
From: Anne Ezzat
To: Public Comments
Subject: Fwd: Item #2 on the Agenda for January 27, 2026 Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 10:56:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Anne Ezzat <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 5:13 AM
Subject: Item #2 on the Agenda for January 27, 2026
To: <[email protected]>
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing in hopes that you will reject the proposed terracing of the yard that abuts the preserve at McClellan Ranch. There are simply too many issues with the proposal. 1) The property borders one of the few open spaces in the city. This project could be damaging to the wildlife and is not appropriate for a riparian area. What sort of environmental study was done to justify this project?
2) Where will the construction equipment and material be staged? Will it be staged at the top of the property to annoy the neighbors? Or will it be placed on city property at the bottom of the hill to annoy residents walking through McClellan Ranch and potentially damage the environment? If the latter, the city should charge rent for the use of their property. 3) The removal of the oaks is particularly problematic because again, older trees will be removed for a construction project. There is no reason to believe that based on the plans, there will be room to replace them. So, they will just pay "in lieu" of fees. 4) The current owners of the property were aware of the limitations of the property when they purchased it. It is my understanding that they have lived in the property, so they have had adequate time to decide to live with the limitations or list it for sale. Modifications to any property should not be done with solely the needs of the owners in mind unless it is a safety issue; in this case, the neighbors and public need to be considered.

For the above reasons and more, I hope that you will reject this proposal.

Best regards,
Brooke Ezzat
From: Kitty Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 7:10 PM
To: Lauren Sapudar <[email protected]>; Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]> Cc: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>
Subject: Trip Report for the 2/3 meeting
Hi,
I think I am required to turn in or state a trip report for the 2/3 meeting according to the Brown Act.

Attached is my report for Oral Communications.

Kitty
Kitty Moore
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: February 3, 2026
Reporting Councilmember: Mayor Kitty Moore
Report Dates: 1/26/26 to 1/30/26
Item Date, Title, and Description:

January 26, 2026. Audit Committee Meeting. The Audit Committee received the OPEB and Pension Section 115 Trust Performance Report for Q2 and received the Q2 Treasurer’s Investment Report. The change in balances since 2022 was discussed with a focus on LAIF and investment strategies along with the new cash management policy in effect. The Committee had a robust discussion on the OPEB and Section 115 Trust Investment Policy and whether to include environmental investment policy language (Environmental and Social Governance, ESG) and whether to add Global Infrastructure as a new investment category. It was noted that the environmental (ESG) investments could be in conflict with Global Infrastructure investments. For example, in reducing fossil fuel investments from an environmental (ESG) policy, Global Infrastructure
could include expansion of fossil fuel production, use, or transport. The Committee received the Internal
Audit and Fraud, Waste and Abuse update and the
proposed Audit Committee Workplan, requesting the
addition of budget auditing.

Per the Brown Act, trips must be reported at the next
Regular Meeting. The following is a trip report:

January 27, 2026. Travel to the 94th U.S. Conference of Mayors in Washington. D.C. View from plane:

City Council Mayor Moore Report
2 January 28, 2026. Jogged very early to the Mall in about 16F temperatures in the snow to snap some photos before the agenda started.

Note: Many of these sessions live-streamed on C-SPAN.

Attended “Opening Plenary Session” followed by Breakout Session: “Mayors Water Council” regarding water and wastewater issues including PFAS and funding reductions particularly in a partisan way regarding infrastructure. “How Cities are shaping Global Affairs” with Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser as Moderator, regarding international partnerships. Participated in televised Press Conference.

City Council Mayor Moore Report
3 “Plenary Lunch” with multiple speakers including Dr. Frank Luntz regarding the Words that Work. Special guest students from West
Point joined us at our table. They had traveled 5 hours to be a part of the conference and visit D.C.
“The State of Federal Housing Legislation” had some
concerning legislation with a carrot and stick approach to cities to take away their CDBG funding.
“AI Powered Cities” breakout session with an AI
overview which included Boston Mayor Michelle Wu.
“Mayors-Only Session: Keeping Mayors Safe” followed
by an “Opening Reception” where a representative from Keep America Beautiful shared their grant opportunities.

January 29, 2026. “Mayors and Business Leaders Plenary Session”, a combined session. One of the
highlights of this session was an
appearance by FIFA President
Giovanni Infantino along with the
World Cup Trophy. The Fifa President
informed us that this year’s World Cup
will be the largest sporting event in
world history. He was presented with a
shirt signed by all of the Mayors and
President Infantino gave a FIFA World
Cup Soccer Ball to the U.S. Council of
Mayors President David Holt.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey was a
surprise speaker who came to speak about
Minneapolis and ICE, receiving two standing
ovations and making national news. There was a
large press conference outside of the conference
room afterwards for him.

Break-out session: “Generosity and Leadership in Times of Crisis” shared information about disaster relief and GoFundme campaigns. World Central Kitchen, which has supported many disaster relief efforts, has been an early aid City Council Mayor Moore Report
4 effort in disasters and has helped teach how to scale up food providers. Mayors from Baltimore, MD and Asheville, NC shared their experiences and offered advice on disaster preparedness.
“America 250” session discussed ways to join in the national semiquincentennial celebration. Several activities for July 4th were presented along with reading the Declaration of Independence and September 11, 25 years later, tribute. We were asked to video an America 250 reflections spot which will be compiled and shared with the cities.
“Healthy and Sustainable Cities”plenary lunch. This had several speakers and some awards from the beverage council. There was a surprise visit from Mayor Frey of Minneapolis who received two standing ovations and had a large press conference afterwards.

Breakout Session: “Cities and and Universities: Building Partnerships for Innovation and Workforce Readiness” This session had an emphasis on university research and how the focus has changed under the current administration.
“Mayors Game Changer – Transforming Cities in Sports and Entertainment” This lively meeting shared information on how cities can become sports and entertainment hubs. Oklahoma City’s rowing
center was highlighted as an example of a transformation of a river which was usually dry, into a rowing and sports complex. The river was dammed to create a long and
narrow reservoir suitable for rowing and facilities were built around it. Arshay Cooper, Author of “A Most
Beautiful Thing” who grew up in a rugged part of
Chicago, and became Captain of the first All-black high school rowing team and now helps youth out through
rowing, spoke about his history and autographed copies of his book.
“Welcome to Washington, D.C. Reception” at the Embassy of the Republic of Singapore. Hosted by the Honorable Lui Tuck Yew, Singapore’s Ambassador to the United States.

City Council Mayor Moore Report
5 After a slightly difficult bus ride due to
heavy snow, we were greeted at the embassy
and provided Singaporean hors d’oeuvres,
music provided by two students of the New
England Conservatory, and two lively
dragons came in and one ate a head of
lettuce hanging from the ceiling from a red
rope. The hosts spoke, along with D.C. Mayor Bowers, and Council of Mayors President Holt thanking and welcoming everyone.

Images inside the Singapore Embassy:

January 30, 2026. “Honoring Leadership in the Arts Plenary Session” This was an awards ceremony for local leadership in the arts which have helped seniors suffering Parkinson’s, inmates; pediatric awards for bringing the arts to hospitalized children, wounded soldiers and veterans, and how doctors are now prescribing arts as part of therapy.
• Arts are a $1.2 Trillion economic activity
• 5% of US GDP
• 5.6 M jobs
• For every $1 invested in the arts there is a $9 return City Council Mayor Moore Report
6 • The NEA budget was restored
• 76% of Americans believe arts are important to them
“Current Issues Relating to FEMA and Disaster Management”. This session was livestreamed on C-SPAN. The session covered an update on the FEMA Review Council: 1) Changed the threshhold for per capita index, 2) Change the cost share, currently at 75%, pushing more costs to states, 3)Block grant proposal to help streamline reimbursements, 4) potential privitization of National Flood Insurance, 5) How to close out prior disaster because some are 10-20 years old and are still on the books, could have a settlement agreement, 6) Future Mitigation Funding. 3 “Wildcards” are 1) parametric insurance such as wind speed, flood level, or earthquake size could trigger an auto payout for instance, 2) Reconsider deductible model with possibly incentives, and 3) Category changes such as public buildings which may not be funded by the Feds. This will be an iterative process.

The return on investment for mitigations is great, for every $1 spent there is an $11 savings in disaster repair costs. Meaning mitigating a home prior to a disaster saves money when a flood or fire strikes.

Next, the discussion moved to the Fix FEMA Act which has 6 elements: 1) elevate it to a Cabinet-level agency, 2) States should play a larger role, including cost share, expend their own funds for mitigations, 3) Permitting reform so that mitigations are not problemmatic, 4) align survivor’s expectations. Have a common application process, 5) Mitigation for resilience. Consider formula-based grants and preapproved lists, and 6) Transparency in regulatory reform. It is recommended to fix the current progrm rather than wait for an overhaul.
“Energy Certainty in American Cities” This was another session which mentioned data centers. The example city was Mesa, AZ. The distance that battery storage may be from a residential area under new safety and battery standards, which are unlike the batteries at the Moss Landing fires of 2025, is 1000.’ Other potential microgrid power sources mentioned besides solar included fuel cells and nuclear.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors Energy Policy Resolutions are due in May for the Annual Conference and energy is a priority.
“Closing Plenary Lunch” This session focussed on housing issues. Former President Bill Clinton provided closing remarks via recorded message which again centered on ICE in Minneapolis.

This session ended with the adjournment of the Council.

Return Travel January 30, 2026.

From: Connie-Comcast Swim5am
To: City Clerk
Subject: 2026-02-03 CC orals - protect immigrants
Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 7:21:37 PM
Attachments: 2026-02-03 CC ORALS-Help Us .docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please add this communication to the Written Record. Connie From Connie's iPhone
1 Feb 3, 2026 Oral Communications
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilmembers, City
Manager, all her in the audience in the room and on
Zoom: My name is Connie Cunningham, Chair, Housing
Commission, speaking for myself only.

It is wonderful to have this time at Council meetings to express information that is important for residents.

The Mercury News today, Feb 3, had an article today
about protest in San Jose on Monday. Under the topic:

Super Bowl LX Week. It was about a protest rally
against ICE immigration raids. The juxtaposition is
jarring.

I have attended and been heartened by rallies and
protests against ICE, and expressing support to
Protect Immigrants.

But I have been afraid recently that California is going to become a target for ICE raids because overall we
are a blue state. And there is the Super Bowl
attracting people from all over the country. Immigrant
workers and sports fans alike can be targeted.
2 Fortunately, I heard about the Santa Clara County
Rapid Response Network RRN Training last month at
our Cupertino Library. It helped a lot to have
knowledge and techniques to use in this scary situation.

That is my reason to be here tonight. This phone
number is the one you call in Santa Clara County to
alert the Rapid Response Network of something that
needs their attention.
408-290-1144
Rapid Response Network offers legal defense,
observation of ICE operations and accompaniment to
ICE appointments.
408-290-1144
you can put the number in your phone
Also I have a few cards to carry with you.

RRN Rebeca Armendariz said, ”Our community is ready.

Every day, we have dozens of new allies and community
members signing up to peak up, to bear witness and to
protect their community from attacks, from ICE,…from
DHS….We‛re ready, and we‛re out there.”

CC 2-03-2026
#8
Mary Ave Villas Project
Written Communications
From: Paul Krupka
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Public Comments Cc: Brian Avery; Lina Meng
Subject: Public Comment – January 27, 2026 – Mary Avenue Public Right-of-Way Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 2:28:38 PM
Attachments: krupka Georgia t 50.png
Cupertino PC re Mary Avenue Villas 012726.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 Planning Commission Members:

Please accept and consider my attached public comment letter during your deliberations on January 27, 2026.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Paul Krupka
Paul J. Krupka, PE
(he/him/his)

KRUPKA CONSULTING
Trusted Advisor | Transportation
650.504.2299
[email protected]

KRUPKA CONSULTING
431 Yale Drive | San Mateo, CA | 94402
650.504.2299 | [email protected] | pkrupkaconsulting.com January 27, 2026
by email only > [email protected] & [email protected] Planning Commission Members
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Public Comment – January 27, 2026 – Mary Avenue Public Right-of-Way Dear Planning Commission Members:

I am supporting Brian Avery, owner of the Glenbrook Apartments, and Lina Meng, a neighbor, both of whom represent the Garden Gate Neighborhood Group, in providing transportation advisory services and a professional opinion on the Mary Avenue Villas Project. Please see my attached letter to the City Council Members, dated December 11, 2025, which presents my opinion that the Mary Avenue Villas Project will have a significant impact on parking, for which appropriate mitigations have not been adequately studied.

I appreciate your consideration.

Sincerely,

KRUPKA CONSULTING
Paul Krupka, P.E.

Owner
Attachment
Cc: Brian Avery (with attachment)
Lina Meng (with attachment)

KRUPKA CONSULTING
431 Yale Drive | San Mateo, CA | 94402
650.504.2299 | [email protected] | pkrupkaconsulting.com December 11, 2025
City Council Members by email only > [email protected] City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Public Comment – Special Meeting on December 12, 2025 – Study Session on the Mary Avenue Project (“Project”)
Dear City Council Members:

I am supporting Brian Avery, owner of the Glenbrook Apartments, and Lina Meng, a neighbor, both of whom represent the Garden Gate Neighborhood Group, in providing transportation advisory services and a professional opinion on the Mary Avenue Villas Project. I offer the following information and comments for your consideration.

Qualifications
I am a registered Civil Engineer and Traffic Engineer in California and have over 40 years of diverse experience across all phases of project delivery, including preliminary assessment, conceptual planning, feasibility analysis, design, and construction. I have demonstrated expertise in transportation, traffic, and transit planning, engineering, and design related to transit-oriented development, transit facilities, parking facilities, roadway and highway improvements, large and small development projects, neighborhood, community, downtown, city, subarea, county, and sub-regional plans, and transit and highway corridors.

Comments
I have visited the Project site and surroundings, observed traffic and parking activities, surveyed peak parking occupancy on Mary Avenue and at Memorial Park, and reviewed recent photographic evidence of related parking conditions during Memorial Park events. I have reviewed the Transportation Study for Proposed Affordable Housing Project on Mary Avenue (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., November 13, 2025, the Memorial Park Specific Plan (City of Cupertino, February 2024), including the Memorial Park Parking Study (City of Cupertino, January 2024), the Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 1 (PlaceWorks, December 2024), and information on current and planned development at De Anza College.

The Project will have a significant impact by removing 89 spaces of public on-street parking on Mary Avenue (95 spaces with recommended Project changes in the aforementioned Transportation Study), amid heavy observed demand for this parking (upwards of 60 percent occupied) during many major events at Memorial Park. This 37+% reduction in on-street parking supply will affect residents who rely on it, spreading parking demand further into residential neighborhoods. This impact was documented in the formal Project application in April 2025. It was acknowledged in the aforementioned Transportation Study. Still, it was seemingly dismissed with this simple conclusion – “With the Project, there would be 152 on-street City of Cupertino City Council Members
December 11, 2025, Page 2
parking spaces…, which would still provide enough spaces to meet the anticipated parking demand…along the project frontage.” The anticipated parking demand noted was only 37 spaces, which reflects a non-Memorial Park event condition.

My peak parking occupancy survey on Saturday, November 1, 2025, found a demand of 42 spaces (17% occupied (42/241)) on Mary Avenue (total parking supply of 241 spaces). The photographic evidence I cited above indicated a demand of approximately 140 spaces (58% occupied) during Memorial Park events. With the Project, this level of demand would equal 96% of the total parking supply (146 spaces).

Other approved and planned developments will exacerbate this significant impact. • Memorial Park enhancements, intended to serve existing and new patrons, will increase parking demand in the neighborhood and on Mary Avenue. While the aforementioned parking study did not include Mary Avenue, it cited “Maintain Current Parking Configuration along Mary Avenue” as a recommended management strategy.
• Completion of the Westport Mixed-Use Project will reduce residential and retail areas, associated vehicle trips, and the total parking supply, but will require accommodating the resulting parking demand off-site along Mary Avenue.
• The replacement of the Flint Center at De Anza College will enhance opportunities for public and on-campus entertainment and increase public reliance on off-site parking on Mary Avenue.

Conclusion
The project's significant impact has not been adequately studied to determine appropriate mitigations.

It is in your community's best interests that you strongly consider doing so.

I appreciate your consideration.

Sincerely,

KRUPKA CONSULTING
Paul Krupka, P.E.

Owner
Cc: Brian Avery
Lina Meng
From: Joshua Safran
To: City Council
Cc: Caitlyn Grady; Tina Kapoor; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Kirsten Squarcia; Lauren Sapudar; City Clerk; Benjamin Fu; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; [email protected]; City Attorney"s Office Subject: Demand Letter to City Council of Cupertino re Mary Avenue Villas Project (February 1, 2026) Date: Sunday, February 1, 2026 11:58:06 PM
Attachments: Demand Letter to City Council of Cupertino re Mary Avenue Villas Project (February 1, 2026).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the City Council,
Please find attached our Request for Compliance with Law and Objections to Unlawful Proposed Approvals for Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737) for Item #8 of the City Council Agenda of February 3, 2026 for due Council consideration and inclusion in the public record.

All the best,
Joshua
Joshua Safran, Esq.

One Almaden Boulevard, Suite 700
San Jose, California 95113
Phone: 510.384.7627
Email: [email protected]
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential, and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, disclosure, distribution, or use of such information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please destroy it and notify the sender immediately.

From: Lina
To: Public Comments; City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment - Agenda Item #8 - Feb 3, 2026 City Council Meeting Date: Monday, February 2, 2026 11:36:00 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mary Ave Villas Project Proposal CEQA Violations; Application no ASA 2025-006 Location APN: 326-27-053
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers.

My name is Lina and I live in the Garden Gate neighborhood. I’m writing because approving this project without environmental review would violate the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA.

CEQA exists for a simple reason: before a city makes a decision that changes the physical environment, it has to actually study the impacts. Exemptions are supposed to be narrow, and the City, not the public, has the burden of proving that an exemption really applies.

Here, the City claims this project is exempt as routine “infill” housing. But that claim ignores what’s actually in the record.

This project would permanently eliminate at least 89 public parking spaces, and possibly more, on a street that already experiences heavy demand. The City’s exemption analysis assumes parking demand of just 37 cars and explicitly ignores peak conditions. That assumption is contradicted by a licensed traffic engineer who documented that parking demand regularly reaches around 140 vehicles, and that this project would push the area close to complete parking failure.

Under CEQA’s “fair argument” standard, that kind of expert evidence alone is enough to require environmental review.

There are other issues too: construction in a narrow former right-of-way, next to a freeway and a park; acknowledged lead contamination in the soil that still requires investigation and remediation; and the loss of public circulation space. None of that is “routine infill.” Even if the City believed an exemption might apply, CEQA forbids using exemptions where there are unusual circumstances, cumulative impacts, or unresolved factual disputes. Those conditions are clearly present here.

Finally, the City’s Notice of Exemption doesn’t even describe the whole project. It leaves out key actions like vacating a public right-of-way and committing City land through a development agreement. CEQA requires agencies to evaluate the whole action, not pieces of it.

For all of these reasons, approving this project as exempt would violate CEQA and expose the City to serious legal risk.

We are simply asking the City to follow the law, do the required environmental review, and make an informed decision. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Lina
Garden Gate Cupertino resident
From: Brian Avery
To: Public Comments; City Clerk
Subject: SERIOUS Request for Compliance with Law, and Objections to Unlawful Proposed Approvals: Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737) Item #8 of the City Council Agenda of February 3, 2026 for due Council consideration and inclusion in the public record.

Date: Monday, February 2, 2026 2:10:13 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.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
My name is Brian Avery and for 47 years I have represented the 1,000 person community at Glenbrook Apartments, 10100 Mary Avenue.

Glenbrook is a nationally award-winning property that my family constructed with our own crews, and manages with 30 of our own employees. I am at Glenbrook each week during the days, nights, and often on weekends. I have witnessed the confrontations that my staff has with:
a. Daily confrontations with De Anza students seeking to avoid buying parking permits at De Anza; and
b. Confrontations with outside parkers within our residential property due to 11 events at the Park next door; and
c. ON A WEEKLY BASIS, there are confrontations with residents who have multiple vehicles in the new Westport Development across the street which is grossly under-parked.......supposedly the local bus system was going to prevent this from happening :)
d. How do you think the future looks for us when the second half of Westport is constructed? Mathematically, this means the Westport population, which shoves overflow parking from an underparked development onto our property, will send us twice the number of confrontations and illegal parking incidents.

Approving the Mary Avenue FREEWAY SOUNDWALL housing project and the removal of 89 parking spaces (which reduces the street width) without environmental review would violate the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA. CEQA exists for a simple reason: before a city makes a decision that changes the physical environment, it has to actually study the impacts. Exemptions are supposed to be narrow, and the City, not the public, has the burden of proving that an exemption really applies. Here, the City of Cupertino claims this project is exempt as routine “infill” housing. But that claim ignores what’s actually in the record.

This project would permanently eliminate at least 89 public parking spaces, and possibly more, on a street that already experiences heavy demand. And the City Council refuses to mathematically project the SIX future demands on Mary Avenue: second half of Westport soon under construction, three future buildings directly across the street at De Anza College, resumption of paid parking at De Anza, and the addition of amenities and usess withing Memorial Park......a very large park that has a very VERY low # of parking stalls after excluding CITY STAFF parking, an RETIREMENT CENTER parking.

The City’s exemption analysis assumes parking demand of just 37 cars and explicitly ignores peak conditions. That assumption is contradicted by a licensed traffic engineer who documented that parking demand regularly reaches around 140 vehicles, and that this project would push the area close to complete parking failure.

De Anza college is building huge new facilities across the street from Mary Avenue:
a. Student Union/Student Services building; and
b. Creative Arts Center building; and
c. A large Events Center which is projected (in writing based on an in-depth study) to have a constant flow of events versus Flint Center that had a very limited number of events.
d. The resumption of PAID PARKING at De Anza College (temporarily abandoned during Covid) means that we will have students who don't like buying parking permits OR paying daily parking rates! You know it! FOR DECADES, we have endured De Anza's growing student population and the use of more parking stalls on Mary Avenue, and even in our property where we have horrible confrontations with young students yelling and acting aggressive as they depart their cars to walk across the street to De Anza.

Under CEQA’s “fair argument” standard, the above expert evidence alone is enough to require environmental review.

Other issues:

1. Construction in a narrow former right-of-way, a few feet from a Freeway Soundwall and a park; and

2. Acknowledged lead contamination in the soil and there is no comprehensive current investigation and
remediation;

3. Loss of public circulation space. None of that is “routine infill.” TWO CONCLUSIONS STARING AT YOU:

A. Even if the City believed an exemption might apply, CEQA forbids using exemptions where there are unusual circumstances, cumulative impacts, or unresolved factual disputes. Those conditions are clearly present here.

B. The City’s Notice of Exemption doesn’t even describe the whole project. It omits key actions like vacating a public right-of-way and committing City land through a development agreement. CEQA requires agencies to evaluate the whole action, not pieces of it.

For all of these reasons, approving this project as exempt would violate CEQA and expose the City to serious legal risk.

GOING FORWARD:

1. You know this is a problematic proposal with legal problems.

2. You know that the City of Cupertino submitted more future affordable units than required by the state of CA.

This was confirmed in a meeting I was in with the City Manager and Council Member at City Hall.

3. We all love affordable housing and you can find a MORE LOGICAL and NON- FREEWAY SOUNDWALL site! For Pete's sake, none of you would take away 89 parking stalls and reduce street width in your own neighborhood ......in the middle of big developments currently under construction, and the City's written plans to expand uses within Memorial Park BUT NOT ADD PARKING STALLS TO A SEVERELY underparked, large park.

4. I am glad to serve on a committee to find a good site for disabled housing. I am a founder of the Housing Industry Foundation, the most successful private charity in Santa Clara County & San Mateo County to supply short term loans to prevent homelessness and renovate emergency shelters, transitional housing, numerous shelters for battered women, etc.https://www.hifinfo.org/ Brian Avery, Property Manager and Managing Partner of Glenbrook Apartments 10100 Mary Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
[email protected]
From: Linnea WICKSTROM
To: Public Comments
Cc: Per Email; Gia Pham; Linnea WICKSTROM
Subject: YES to Mary Avenue Villas
Date: Sunday, February 1, 2026 1:35:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Members of the Cupertino City Council,
Though I cannot attend the Council meeting of February 3rd, I want to add my voice to the many voices of LeadUsHome in asking you to vote YES for the Mary Avenue Villas.

I’m a client of the San Andreas Regional Center, AbilityPath, and Housing Choices and I did speak at the January 21st Council meeting to advocate for the housing proposed for Mary Avenue.

As a person with intellectual and developmental disabilities, I was lucky to move into a studio apartment in Mountain View in 2015. The City of Mountain View, First Community Housing, and Housing Choices gave me the opportunity to begin living independently.

That is a huge step in life, especially for people like me.

On behalf of the 19 people with intellectual or developmental disabilities who we hope will be able to make a home in the Mary Avenue Villas, I ask you to commit to that development.

Thank you
Per Maresca
And Linnea Wickstrom
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: MORE COMMENT on February 3 City Council Meeting, agenda #8 Mary Ave Date: Sunday, February 1, 2026 7:27:44 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
Regarding the Mary Avenue project.

It is my understanding that the money provided from our BMR fund is a loan to this project.

Am I correct?
What are the terms of the loan?
Is there a way to make sure that the repayment terms become more favorable if the project is sold to a for-profit within 55 years?
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office Subject: February 3 City Council Meeting, agenda #8 Mary Ave Date: Saturday, January 31, 2026 4:05:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
I am writing regarding February 3 City Council Meeting, agenda #8 Mary Ave.

1. Mary avenue was going to be on the Planning Commission Agenda prior to this meeting and that meeting was canceled. I just wonder whether we are putting the cart before the horse and needed to complete the Planning Commission Agenda item first before moving forward.

2. I am deeply troubled that after all these meetings, I see that buried in the resolutions, that this project can be sold in 55 years. The land that the City is giving away has value.

And we’re giving it away so that it can be sold at a profit at a future date. That is not okay with me. What can you do to make sure that Cupertino is compensated for the land if the project sells?
C – Draft Resolution excerpt:
“the City deems appropriate which includes, among other things, that the Property will be restricted by a regulatory agreement restricting the Property for affordable housing uses for 55 years to be recorded at the closing under the DDA”

THIS IS IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT
REQUIRING 99 YEARS!!!
WHAT IF THERE IS A LEGAL DISPUTE?
Excerpt see page H-28 (32nd pdf page):
https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Planning/Major-Projects/6th-Cycle-Housing-ElementUpdate#docaccess43dac56f9771852d51ff4f1a89bb0478c6d728c5aa936bc4c8c1d1c327a71cc1 BMR Term. Require BMR units to remain affordable for a minimum of 99 years; enforce the City’s first right of refusal for BMR units and other means to ensure that BMR units remain affordable.

For more information on the 55 years, you might want to read up on California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
(CTCAC) https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/

3. We have had soooo many meetings and this clause has NEVER been mentioned.

Parents who have their young-adult children there will not have the peace of mind that they are set for life. Cupertino cannot manufacture land. What will we do in 50 years? The City cannot manufacture land.

4. It seems that there has been a moving target on this project that has limited the number of organizations that can participate in bringing this project to fruition and that makes me terribly sad. Also, the unannounced loss of parking. And now, that we are giving away land that can be sold off at a profit in 55 years.

Regards,
Rhoda Fry
From: Shaun Fong
To: City Council; Public Comments; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Concerns of City Council ramming through Public Right-of-Way Actions and bypassing Planning Commission Date: Thursday, January 29, 2026 2:40:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the Cupertino City Council, Residents of the Garden Gate neighborhood who are directly affected by the Mary Avenue housing project have repeatedly raised safety and legal concerns at City Council meetings. Unfortunately, many of these concerns have gone unaddressed. It is particularly disappointing that the newly appointed Mayor, whom many of us voted for, has declined to meet with affected residents or engage in substantive dialogue after multiple attempts.

This letter is submitted for inclusion in the official public record as formal notice of potential statutory noncompliance arising from City actions involving public right-ofway (ROW) property associated with the Mary Avenue project.

The issues outlined below raise material questions of law under controlling California statutes and established case law. These are threshold legal matters, not discretionary policy choices.

The City is requested to state its legal position, supported by specific statutory authority and judicial precedent, on the following questions:

1. Rezoning of Public Right-of-Way Prior to Lawful Vacation Whether the City may rezone a public right-of-way to residential or private use prior to a lawful vacation conducted in accordance with Streets and Highways Code sections 8300–8333.

California courts have long held that public streets and rights-of-way are held in trust for public use and may not be diverted, conveyed, or repurposed for private use absent strict statutory compliance. (People v. Russell (1957) 48 Cal.2d 189; County of Los Angeles v. Faus (1957) 48 Cal.2d 672.)

2. Vacation Without Statutory Due Process
Whether a public right-of-way may be vacated without notice, public hearings, required findings, and a determination that the vacation serves the public interest, as mandated by Streets and Highways Code sections 8320, 8324, and 8330.

Courts have held that failure to comply with statutory vacation procedures renders such actions void and subject to judicial invalidation. (City of Sacramento v. Jensen (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 45.)

3. Surplus or Exempt Surplus Designation While ROW Status Persists Whether City-owned land that remains a public right-of-way may be designated as “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land” without first lawfully vacating the right-of-way and without compliance with the Surplus Land Act, Government Code sections 54220–54234, including mandatory notice to and review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Courts have confirmed that sequencing actions to avoid or bypass the Surplus Land Act violates legislative intent and constitutes unlawful circumvention. (California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2024) ___ Cal.App.5th ___.)

4. Disposition of Unvacated or Improperly Rezoned Right-of-Way Whether the City may sell, transfer, encumber, or otherwise dispose of public right-ofway property that has not been lawfully vacated—or that was rezoned prior to vacation—without violating Streets and Highways Code sections 8353 and 8354 and Government Code section 54230.

Municipal actions exceeding statutory authority to convey public streets are ultra vires and void. (City of Los Angeles v. San Pedro Boat Works (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 484.)

5. Pre-Designation or Exclusive Negotiations
Whether the City may engage in exclusive or single-party negotiations concerning public right-of-way property prior to a lawful determination of surplus or exempt surplus status, consistent with Government Code sections 54223 and 54233.

Courts have held that negotiations undertaken prior to lawful surplus designation undermine statutory safeguards and public transparency. (Bell v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 102.)
Each of the above issues presents an independent basis for legal challenge, including, but not limited to, claims for writ, declaratory, and injunctive relief.

Continued action without curing these defects may expose the City to judicial invalidation, mandatory reversal, and statutory penalties.

This letter provides notice of these concerns and preserves all rights and remedies available under California law. Written responses clearly identifying the City’s legal position—supported by specific statutory and case law authority—are respectfully requested for inclusion in the public record.

Sincerely,
Shaun Fong
Garden Gate Resident
From: Walter Li
To: City Council; Public Comments; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Cc: Lina; Brian Avery; Theresa Horng; Shaun Fong; Joshua Safran; Roberta Murai Subject: Notice of Statutory Noncompliance and Preservation of Rights - Public Right-of-Way Actions Date: Thursday, January 29, 2026 12:32:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and Members of the Cupertino City Council,
This letter is submitted for inclusion in the official public record as formal notice of potential statutory noncompliance related to City actions involving public right-of-way (ROW) property.

The issues identified below raise material questions of law under controlling California statutes and case law. They are not discretionary policy matters.

The City is requested to state its legal position, supported by statutory authority and judicial precedent, on the following threshold questions:

1.Rezoning of Public Right-of-Way Prior to Lawful Vacation Whether the City may rezone a public right-of-way to residential or private use prior to lawful vacation under Streets and Highways Code §§ 8300–8333.

California courts have long held that public streets and rights-of-way are held in trust for public use and may not be diverted, conveyed, or repurposed for private use absent strict statutory compliance. (People v. Russell (1957) 48 Cal.2d 189; County of Los Angeles v. Faus (1957) 48 Cal.2d 672.)

2.Vacation Without Statutory Due Process
Whether a public right-of-way may be vacated without noticed public hearings, required findings, and a determination that the vacation is in the public interest, as mandated by Streets and Highways Code §§ 8320, 8324, and 8330.

Courts have held that failure to comply with statutory vacation procedures renders the action void and subject to judicial invalidation. (City of Sacramento v. Jensen (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d

45.)

3.Surplus or Exempt Surplus Designation While ROW Status Persists Whether City-owned land that remains a public right-of-way may be deemed “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land” without first vacating the right-of-way and without compliance with the Surplus Land Act, Government Code §§ 54220–54234, including mandatory notice and review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Courts have confirmed that sequencing actions to avoid or bypass the Surplus Land Act violates legislative intent and constitutes unlawful circumvention. (California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _.)

4. Disposition of Unvacated or Improperly Rezoned ROW
Whether the City may sell, transfer, encumber, or otherwise dispose of public right-of-way property that has not been lawfully vacated, or that was rezoned prior to vacation, without violating Streets and Highways Code §§ 8353 and 8354 and Government Code § 54230.

Municipal actions exceeding statutory authority to convey public streets are ultra vires and void. (City of Los Angeles v. San Pedro Boat Works (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 484.)

5. Pre-Designation or Exclusive Negotiations
Whether the City may engage in exclusive or single-party negotiations concerning public rightof-way property prior to a lawful determination of surplus or exempt surplus status, consistent with Government Code §§ 54223 and 54233.

Courts have held that negotiations undertaken prior to lawful surplus designation undermine statutory safeguards and public transparency. (Bell v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 102.)
Each of the above issues presents an independent basis for legal challenge, including but not limited to claims for writ relief, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. Continued action without curing these defects may expose the City to judicial invalidation, mandatory reversal, and statutory penalties.

This letter provides notice of these concerns and preserves all rights and remedies available under California law. Written responses identifying the City’s legal position, supported by specific statutory and case law authority, are requested for the public record. Previous notices to the City requesting for written responses had met with zero response, zero acknowledgements. Hopefully, under new mayor, this behavior will change.

Sincerely
Walter Li
Long time Cupertino Resident
408-781-7894
From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Mary Avenue Villas
Date: Thursday, January 29, 2026 7:09:17 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 add this to Public Comments for February 3rd City Council meeting.

Thank you.

I strongly oppose City of Cupertino going ahead with the Mary Avenue Villas project despite concerns of residents in the neighborhood.

The Mary Ave Villas project is a financial and legal expisure for the city. These financial and legal risks must be fully studied and assessed. Hi
This project should not move to council until the financial and legal aspects of it are fully studied and the public hears the study results and can participate with input.

As City council members it is your duty to protect the city from financial and legal risks.

Please add to agenda the study sessions for this. Further please consider sending this to planning commission for study sessions and recommendations before sending it back to council for study sessions.

Finally a new council in November 2026 may decide to undo any hurried passing of this right now. Please consider the consequences of that and ensure that if you do proceed that any ground lease contract is written so that it could be terminated at any time and funding clawed back at any time with the recipient of the funding expected to be able to only drawdown on funding in stages and with ability to retract and claw back funding provided.

Please do not rush through approvals on Mary Ave Villas. Please send this first to planning commission for study sessions. Please allow the proceedings of planning commission study sessions to feed into further council study sessions. Please hold additional community meetings that are conducted by the city. I believe the city as the owner needs to hold these meetings and not Charities who are not owners of the land.

Thank you for paying careful attention to the financial and legal liabilities of this project to the city.

Thank you,
Mahesh Gurikar
From: H Krishnapriyan
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk; Luke Connolly; City Council; Public Comments Subject: Concerns regarding the proposed construction on Mary Avenue Parcel(APN 324-27-053 Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 3:41:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi,
I had written earlier in November last year regarding this proposed construction. I write again to express my family's concern regarding this. The area is a busy artery serving residents in this area in getting to the expressways, to schools and access to Memorial park. Narrowing of the road and the loss of parking spaces in the area will have a big impact on the safety and convenience of the residents.

I request that these concerns be addressed before any action is taken.

Regards,
H. Krishnapriyan
21251 Gardena Drive
Cupertino CA 95014
From: Walter Li
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; Luke Connolly; City Council; Santosh Rao; Tracy Kosolcharoen; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Steven Scharf
Subject: The City Has No Legal Authority to Give Public Streets to Private Developers Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 12:30:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council and City Staff,
I am writing to formally object to the City’s attempt to include public street parking areas and portions of a public avenue in a private development proposal. This action is not only inappropriate — it is legally impermissible.

A public street is not ordinary “city land.” Under California law, a street or parking lane is a public right‑of‑way held in trust for the public, not a municipal asset that can be handed to private developers. The City has no authority to convert a right‑of‑way into private development land unless it first meets strict state‑law requirements — requirements that have not been met.

The controlling law is the California Streets & Highways Code, Sections 8300–8363, which governs any attempt to abandon, repurpose, or transfer a public street. These statutes impose mandatory obligations on the City, including public findings that the street is unnecessary for present or future public use. No such findings have been made, and no lawful process has occurred.

Until the City complies with state law — which it has not — the right‑of‑way remains protected public property. It cannot be merged into a developer’s site plan, used to satisfy private project requirements, or treated as a bargaining chip in negotiations.

Attempting to do so raises serious concerns about favoritism, misuse of public assets, and violation of the City’s fiduciary duty to its residents. Public streets exist for public use, not for private enrichment.

I request that the City immediately remove all public right‑of‑way areas from the development proposal and provide a written explanation of the legal authority the City believes it has to include public streets in a private project. If no such authority exists — and none appears to — the City must halt this action.

Residents expect transparency, fairness, and compliance with state law. Anything less undermines public trust.

Sincerely,
Walter Li
Long Time Cupertino Resident
408-781-7894
From: Paul Krupka
To: Public Comments
Cc: Lina Meng; Brian Avery
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - REGULAR MEETING - AGENDA ITEM 8 - FEBRUARY 3, 2026 Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 8:47:22 AM
Attachments: krupka Georgia t 50.png
Cupertino City Council Public Comment_Reg Mtg 020306_Mary Avenue Villas_ ltr 020326.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 Members:

Please accept and consider my attached public comment letter during your deliberations on December 12, 2025.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Paul Krupka
Paul J. Krupka, PE
(he/him/his)

KRUPKA CONSULTING
Trusted Advisor | Transportation
650.504.2299
[email protected]
February 3, 2026

City Council Members
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014

RE:      Public Comment – Regular Meeting on February 3, 2026 – Mary Avenue Villas Project

Dear City Council Members:

I am supporting Brian Avery, owner of the Glenbrook Apartments, and Lina Meng, a neighbor, both of whom represent the Garden Gate Neighborhood Group, in providing transportation advisory services and a professional opinion on the Mary Avenue Villas Project (“Project”). I write today to offer my comments on the Transportation Study for Proposed Affordable Housing Project on Mary Avenue (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., November 13, 2025) (“Transportation Study”). This letter presents my summary qualifications, notes on preparation, comments on this document, and a conclusion.

Qualifications

I am a registered Civil Engineer and Traffic Engineer in California and have over 40 years of diverse experience across all phases of project delivery, including preliminary assessment, conceptual planning, feasibility analysis, design, and construction. I have demonstrated expertise in transportation, traffic, and transit planning, engineering, and design related to transit-oriented development, transit facilities, parking facilities, roadway and highway improvements, large and small development projects, neighborhood, community, downtown, city, subarea, county, and sub-regional plans, and transit and highway corridors.

Preparation

I have visited the Project site and surroundings, observed traffic and parking activities, surveyed peak parking occupancy on Mary Avenue and at Memorial Park, and reviewed recent photographic evidence of related parking conditions during Memorial Park events. I have reviewed the Transportation Study, the Memorial Park Specific Plan (City of Cupertino, February 2024), including the Memorial Park Parking Study (City of Cupertino, January 2024), the Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 1 (PlaceWorks, December 2024), and information on current and planned development at De Anza College.

Comments on the Transportation Study
The parking evaluation describes typical conditions on Mary Avenue during three weekdays and one weekend day in April 2025. It documents the Project’s parking impact on Mary Avenue - a net loss of 89 spaces of public on-street parking, plus the recommended removal of six additional spaces to address a deficiency in driveway sight distance, resulting in a total net loss of 95 spaces on Mary Avenue. This 39% reduction in on-street parking supply

KRUPKA CONSULTING
431 Yale Drive | San Mateo, CA | 94402
650.504.2299 | [email protected] | pkrupkaconsulting.com City Council Members, City of Cupertino, February 3, 2026, Page 2 will directly affect residents who rely on it, spreading parking demand further into residential neighborhoods. It is surprising to me that the analyst simply notes that there “…would still be enough spaces to meet the anticipated parking demand along the Project frontage.” The parking evaluation does not address the parking conditions on Mary Avenue during a major festival at Memorial Park, when the street is effectively inundated with festival parking.

This is insufficient, given that six major festivals and numerous other events are held at Memorial Park each year and affected residents have voiced significant concerns to City staff and officials about the Project's impact in this light. Additional study is required to provide findings that inform the reader, City staff, other review agencies, and decision-makers about the Project’s impact on parking and potential improvements to address it.

I reviewed photographic evidence of parking conditions on Mary Avenue during major festivals and events at Memorial Park on Saturday, August 23, 2025 (Summer Concert Series), Friday, August 29, 2025 (Movies in the Park), September 13, 2025 (Silicon Valley Fall Festival) Saturday, September 20, 2025 (Heritage India Faire Festival), and Saturday, October 29, 2025 (Bay Area Diwali Festival). These sample photos provide drivers’ views of vehicles parked endto-end on Mary Avenue, from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Lubec Street, during these events.

City Council Members, City of Cupertino, February 3, 2026, Page 3 Based on my review, I estimated that approximately 140 vehicles are parked on Mary Avenue during a major festival at Memorial Park. The following table presents this estimate, along with the existing parking conditions from the Transportation Study and the with-Project conditions.

A major festival at Memorial Park has a dramatic effect on parking conditions on Mary Avenue without the Project. The Project impact - reduction in parking supply - creates an unsustainable deficiency that affects residents and visitors alike. Further study and development of alternative improvements are necessary to enable a fully informed decision on the Project.

Other approved and planned developments will exacerbate this Project deficiency.

• Memorial Park enhancements, intended to serve existing and new patrons, will increase parking demand in the neighborhood and on Mary Avenue. Notably, the Memorial Park Parking Study did not include Mary Avenue, even though it provides parking for Memorial Park, and it cited “Maintain Current Parking Configuration along Mary Avenue” as a recommended management strategy.
• Completion of the Westport Mixed-Use Project will reduce residential and retail areas, associated vehicle trips, and the total parking supply, but will require accommodating the resulting parking demand off-site along Mary Avenue.
• The replacement of the Flint Center at De Anza College will enhance opportunities for public and on-campus entertainment and increase public reliance on off-site parking on Mary Avenue.

ESTIMATED PROJECT PARKING IMPACT

TYPICAL AND FESTIVAL CONDITIONS

CONDITION PARKING
SUPPLY
PARKED

VEHICLES

OCCUPANCY
TYPICAL EXISTING 241 37 15%
TYPICAL EXISTING WITH PROJECT 146 37 25%
FESTIVAL EXISTING 241 140 58%
FESTIVAL WITH PROJECT 146 140 96%
Sources:

Typical Conditions - Transportation Study
Festival Condition - Krupka Consulting
City Council Members, City of Cupertino, February 3, 2026, Page 4 Conclusion

The Project creates an unsustainable deficiency that requires further study and development of alternative improvements to allow a fully informed public review and decision-making process.

I appreciate your consideration.

Sincerely,

KRUPKA CONSULTING

Paul Krupka, P.E.

Owner

Cc: Brian Avery
Lina Meng
From: George Zhu
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Clerk
Cc: Lauren Sapudar; Melissa Robertson; Lindsay Nelson; Lakshmi Ramachandran Subject: Safety and Traffic Concerns Regarding Mary Avenue Villas/Charities Housing Project Date: Monday, February 2, 2026 11:32:02 PM
Attachments: attachment1.png
attachment2.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.

Dear City Council Members and Planning Staff,
I am a homeowner in the Mary Avenue neighborhood writing to formally raise safety and traffic concerns regarding the proposed development of Mary Avenue Villas/Charities Housing.

Based on the currently published site plan and location, I would like to highlight the following issues:

1. Critical bicycle corridor
The proposed project is located directly along a heavily used bicycle route connecting the Highway 280 pedestrian/bicycle bridge to De Anza College. This corridor is used daily by commuters, students, and recreational cyclists and functions as an important north-south bicycle connection in the city.

2. Narrowest segment of Mary Avenue
The project site appears to be located at one of the narrowest points along Mary Avenue.

Any roadway narrowing or reconfiguration at this location further constraints an already limited right-of-way and reduces safety margins for all road users.

3. Added traffic at an already congested intersection
The project adds vehicular traffic near the intersection serving the Glenbrook apartment complex, which already experiences high traffic volumes. Introducing additional turning movements and driveway access increases the potential for congestion and conflicts.

4. Forced bicycle merging into mixed traffic
The proposed site plan appears to require bicycles to merge from an existing wellseparated bike lane into a shared roadway with motor vehicles. This transition creates a predictable and unsafe conflict point, particularly given the traffic volumes and proximity to freeway on- and off-ramps. (See attachment 1)

5. Existing collision history at the project location
According to the City of Cupertino’s traffic collision heatmap, this area has already experienced multiple traffic collisions in the past, indicating that it is a known safety concern. Changes that reduce separation between bicycles and vehicles risk worsening an already documented problem area. (See attachment 2)
Given these factors, I respectfully request that these safety and traffic concerns be thoroughly analyzed and addressed before any alterations to the traffic configuration or bicycle facilities on Mary Avenue are approved. At a minimum, the project should demonstrate that bicycle and pedestrian safety will be maintained or improved relative to existing conditions.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these important public safety issues.

Sincerely,
Wumengjian (George) Zhu
Mary Avenue Neighborhood Homeowner
--
Wumengjian (George) Zhu

From: Debbie Katz
To: Public Comments; City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment-Agenda Item #8- Feb. 3, 2026
Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 2:49:04 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.

Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers,
My name is Debbie Katz, and I live on Anson Avenue. I’m here to speak about the Disposition and Development Agreement, the DDA.

This agreement is not a formality. It is a binding contract that commits the City to convey public land, vacate public rights-of-way, provide financial assistance, and limit its future discretion, all for this one project.

That is a problem, because those commitments are being made before the City has lawfully completed CEQA review, surplus land compliance, or right-of-way findings.

California courts are very clear: a city cannot tie its own hands or predetermine approvals while claiming it is still “considering” them.

That is exactly what this agreement does.

There’s more. The DDA provides for the transfer of public land to a single, preselected developer without any competitive process and without identifying any legal authority that allows that. The record contains no appraisal, no fair-market-value analysis, and no findings showing that the public is receiving proportional value.

That raises serious concerns under the California Constitution’s prohibition on gifts of public assets.

Affordable housing can serve a public purpose, but that does not excuse the City from showing its work. Here, there are no findings explaining why these concessions are fair, necessary, or lawful.

Because of these defects, the DDA is invalid and should not be approved.

Thank you.

Debbie Katz
From: Paul Krupka
To: Public Comments
Cc: Lina Meng; Brian Avery
Subject: Re: PUBLIC COMMENT - REGULAR MEETING - AGENDA ITEM 8 - FEBRUARY 3, 2026 Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 2:24:34 PM
Attachments: krupka Georgia t 50.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.

Excuse my mistake! I meant February 3, 2026!
Paul J. Krupka, PE
(he/him/his)

KRUPKA CONSULTING
650.504.2299
sent by iPhone
On Feb 3, 2026, at 8:44 AM, Paul Krupka <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Council Members:

Please accept and consider my attached public comment letter during your deliberations on December 12, 2025.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Paul Krupka
Paul J. Krupka, PE
(he/him/his)

KRUPKA CONSULTING
Trusted Advisor | Transportation
650.504.2299
[email protected]
<krupka Georgia t 50.png>
<Cupertino City Council Public Comment_Reg Mtg 020306_Mary Avenue Villas_ ltr 020326.pdf>
From: [email protected]
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Cc: City Clerk; Video Department
Subject: RE: Slides for Feb 3 Council meeting.

Date: Monday, February 2, 2026 4:19:11 PM
Attachments: City Council 2-3-26-compressed.pptx
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 you go.

Thanks,
orrin
From: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 3:18 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Video Department <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Slides for Feb 3 Council meeting.

Hi Orrin,
Yes, you can run your own slides from the podium presenter. Would you be able to arrive a bit early to test your laptop and/or USB drive? I’ve copied the video team to coordinate the equipment test. Also, would you mind emailing your slides to the City Clerk as well? We can serve as a backup in case any issues arise.

Thanks, Kirsten
Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 10:50 AM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Slides for Feb 3 Council meeting.

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

Kirsten,
Is there any way for me to run my slides from the podium? With my own laptop? I will be going through a few fast and hate the “next slide” delay.

Best,
Orrin
P roje ct Background
Today’s P lan
◼39 Units of affordable hous ing plus manage r’s unit
◼19 Units targe te d for Adults with Inte lle ctual and De ve lopme ntal Dis abilitie s ( I/ DD)
◼Us e s “ s urplus land” to re duce cos ts
Re s pons e to Com m unity Is s ue s
89 Unused parking spaces
Safer traffic speeds
Buffered Bike Lanes
Critical Housing Element Site
Needed IDD Housing
Site remediation
Added Sidewalk for Ped Safety
Mary Avenue housing
It should be an Easy Choice
Unus e d by the Traffic and P arking Study
Unus e d by Google Earth P ro s tre e t vie ws
Unus e d by the Tim e Laps e Vide os
Thank you for
your support
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Lauren Sapudar
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: RE: Peggy"s Slides for ITEM 8 - Mary Ave UPDATED AGAIN SLIDE Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 8:17:36 PM
Attachments: Peggys Slides-ITEM8 Mary Ave UPDATED.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Lauren,
I messed up. I included the same old slide. Attached is the UPDATED slide.

Thank you for your help.

Peggy
From: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 8:02 PM
To: 'Lauren Sapudar' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'City Clerk' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Peggy's Slides for ITEM 8 - Mary Ave UPDATED SLIDE Hi Lauren,
I’d like to use this slide instead based on what was just provided. Thank you!! Peggy
From: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 7:58 PM
To: 'Lauren Sapudar' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'City Clerk' <[email protected]>
Subject: Peggy's Slides for ITEM 8 - Mary Ave
Hi Lauren,
I plan to speak via ZOOM on Item 8 of this 2-3-2026 Council Meeting. I would appreciate it if you please show my slide when I speak tonight. It is attached to this email.

Thank you very much!
Peggy Griffin
2026-02-03 City Council MeeƟng – ITEM 8 MARY AVENUE VILLAS

CITY GIFT AMOUNTS FOR MARY AVE VILLAS
$7,200,000 (value of land)
$ 174,567 (CDBG Fund)
$2,160,000 (Park Development Fees waiver)
TOTAL GIFT AMT = $9,534,567

CITY LOAN AMOUNTS FOR MARY AVE VILLAS
$3,000,000 (BMR Fund LOAN)
$ 908,683 (Permanent Local Housing Fund LOAN)
TOTAL LOAN AMT = $3,908,683 LOAN is 30 years at an interest rate of 3% TOTAL AMOUNT FROM CITY = $13,443,250 (GIFTS + LOANS)
REQUESTS:

1. Place a DEED RESTRICTION on the parcel(s) that RUNS WITH THE LAND to require If sold to anyone other than the City of CuperƟno, that the land must be used for low, very low, extremely low and IDD units.

2. Repurchase price subtracts the Park Land Fee Waiver ($2,160,000 plus inflaƟon).

From: Gia Pham
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; Melissa Robertson; Lauren Sapudar Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - AGENDA ITEM #8 - 2/3/26
Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 5:08:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Cupertino City Council and Staff,
My name is Gia Pham and I am the Communications Coordinator at Housing Choices. I will be speaking on today, 2/3/26 on agenda item #8 Mary Avenue Vilas. I would like to show supplemental material with my public comment. I have attached it to this email.

Item #8 Mary Avenue Villas - Gia Pham Public
Comment.mp4
Thank you.

Warm Regards,
Gia Pham
SAVE THE DATE: San Mateo County Transition to Independence Fair. Saturday, March 7 at 9:00AM at 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City 94065 Check Out the Workshops - Don't Miss Out!

RSVP NOW
CC 2-03-2026
#9
Business License
Amnesty Program
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Jonathan Orozco, CPA; City Attorney"s Office
Subject: MORE: Feb 3 City Council Agenda item #9 WHAT IS A BUSINESS? Date: Sunday, February 1, 2026 8:17:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi City Council,
I see that Cupertino already transitioned to HdL in September (I thought it hadn’t happened yet).

Question: What is a business?
I went to the City website and could not easily find an answer. https://www.cupertino.gov/Business-and-Development/Business/Business-License-UserGuide Then I went to the new website and still could not find an answer. https://cupertino.hdlgov.com/
If someone sells $1000 in goods on eBay a business? What about $10,000 or more? If someone does pro-bono work, it is a business?
What if someone is selling home-made crafts at the local farmers’ market and makes a $500 profit?
This is one of the reasons that I think that we need a longer runway for compliance.

By the way, I had asked the previous City Attorney that when the City makes contracts with businesses that we should check for their business licenses. We check for other things, like insurance. He refused. Will the City start checking that businesses that it enters into contract with are paying a business license tax?
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Feb 3 City Council Agenda item #9
Date: Sunday, February 1, 2026 8:00:37 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.

Dear City Council,
The staff report mentions penalties for not having a business license.

What is the penalty?
Does the penalty apply to the current business year or all past years? I would recommend a fourth option for the Business License compliance project:

This approach offers citywide penalty forgiveness to all previously unlicensed businesses:
100% forgiveness in the first 60 days. After the 60-day period, HdL would begin full discovery enforcement and resume standard penalties after 30 days.

Many small businesses in our city might not realize that they are subject to a business license tax, even if there is outreach from the City. I think that there should be an amnesty provided for those businesses that are discovered by HdL. Separately, how would the City treat businesses that are dormant?
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council; Floy Andrews; Jonathan Orozco, CPA
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2026-02-03 City Council Meeting - ITEM 9 - Business Licenses Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 4:52:38 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.

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

Dear City Council and Staff,
I’m glad you are looking into this issue and attempting to clean up the language and have a clear consistent implementation of our Business License program.

QUESTION1: Is the current Business License Fee $31.24?
The Staff Report did not mention how much this fee is currently.

REQUEST1: DEFINE what a business is and is not such that it is an objective standard with no gray area.

The Staff Report says “…a business is broadly defined as every kind of lawful business, profession or trade in the City.

This definition uses the word “business” to define “business”! Please be specific. Are these businesses?
Newspaper delivery person?
Food truck?
A company that is incorporated outside Cupertino?
Construction company with address outside of Cupertino but does remodeling occasionally in Cupertino? Do they get one as needed?
Electrician, plumber based outside Cupertino but doing work in Cupertino? Is it where the business address is located or where the work is being done or what? Babysitters?
Home daycares?
Home dance classes, music lessons, tutoring?
REQUEST2: Nonprofit Organizations – Please exempt them completely from even From: Peggy Griffin
To: Lauren Sapudar; City Clerk
Subject: Peggy"s Slides for ITEM9 - Business Licenses
Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 6:46:28 PM
Attachments: Peggys Slides-ITEM9 Business License.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Lauren,
I am planning to speak via ZOOM on ITEM 9 Business Licenses at tonight’s City Council Meeting. Attached are my slides I would like you to display as I speak, please? Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
applying.

Requiring them to submit a business license application is overkill! This requirement complicates our business license program.

NOTE1- most school booster clubs are non-profits! Examples Cupertino Band Boosters
AYSO
Cupertino Symphonic Band
NOTE2 - How will you reach all these organizations?
They often do not read legal postings in the paper.

If you don’t know they exist, how are you going to reach them? REQUEST3: Business License Amnesty Programs – PICK OPTION 2 -Ongoing amnesty upon discovery
Don’t fine them until they have been notified
May people do not realize the city considers them a “business” requiring a business license.

Once they are notified, give them 30 days to comply then fine them.

Only go back 3 years max for bringing them into compliance.

Thank you.

Peggy Griffin
2-3-2026 City Council MeeƟng – ITEM 9 – Business Licenses QUESTION1: Is the current Business License Fee $31.24?
REQUEST1: DEFINE what a business is and is not such that it is an objecƟve standard with no gray area.

The Staff Report says “…a business is broadly defined as every kind of lawful business, profession or trade in the City.

This definiƟon uses the word “business” to define “business”! Please be specific. Are these businesses?
 Newspaper delivery person?
 Food truck?
 A company that is incorporated outside CuperƟno?
 ConstrucƟon company with address outside of CuperƟno but does remodeling occasionally in CuperƟno? Do they get one as needed?
 Electrician, plumber based outside CuperƟno but doing work in CuperƟno?  Is it where the business address is located or where the work is being done or what?  BabysiƩers?
 Home daycares?
 Home dance classes, music lessons, tutoring?
 Sub-contractors for projects?
REQUEST2: Nonprofit OrganizaƟons – Please exempt them completely from even applying.

Requiring them to submit a business license applicaƟon is overkill! This requirement complicates a business license program.  NOTE1- most school booster clubs are non-profits!
Examples:
o CuperƟno Band Boosters
o AYSO
o CuperƟno Symphonic Band
 NOTE2 - How will you reach all these organizaƟons?
o They oŌen do not read legal posƟngs in the paper.
o If you don’t know they exist, how are you going to reach them?

REQUEST3: Business License Amnesty Programs – PICK OPTION 2 -Ongoing amnesty upon discovery
 Don’t fine them unƟl they have been noƟfied
o Many people do not realize the city considers them a “business” requiring a business license.
 Once they are noƟfied, give them 30 days to comply then fine them.  Only go back 3 years max for bringing them into compliance.