Written Communications (updated 2/20/26) — Cupertino City Council, February 19, 2026

CC 2-19-2026
Oral
Communicat
ions
Written Comment
s
From: Joseph Hauser
To: Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Mary Ave Villas
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 1:38:34 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.

The Mary Ave Villa project is the right project at the wrong location. There is no doubt that challenged individuals need their own housing, but we as a society need to make sure that we are providing the best possible housing. The Mary Avenue site, being adjacent to a freeway has several major problems. The exhaust from cars is known to be very unhealthy, and the wall between the proposed housing and the freeway will not stop that pollution from affecting those individuals who can tolerate it the least.

Furthermore, the freeway noise, is constant. Imagine looking out your rear window and seeing nothing but a wall. The postage stamp size apartment leaves little room for a comfortable life.

There are several alternatives that could alleviate these problems.

For example, the section of Memorial Park adjacent to Stevens Creek Blvd would give the occupants a closer walk to public transportation, grocery and retail, as well as green space to look at from their windows. However, the city has appeared to decide that pickleball courts are more important than the health, and well being of these individuals. In addition, the city could use small sections of other city parks. There are also undoubtably other alternatives that could have been negotiated which would provide for more room, and more units. To try to shoehorn this project into a space that does not lend itself for such a project, and can affect the health and well being of project residents, as well as severely affect current residents, is shameful at best.

Let’s be more responsive to those of us who you represent. Do the right thing. Find a more suitable place for those who need it the most.

Please give this project more thought.

Joe Hauser
Sent from my iPad
From: Vidya Gurikar
To: City Clerk; Public Comments
Subject: Mary Avenue ROW Vacation
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 12:41:33 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 Councilmembers,
The proposed right-of-way vacation raises significant concerns in the community.

Because vacating public land is a legislative act, residents may have the right to pursue a referendum if the Council approves it. While that is a legal option available to voters, it would be far preferable for the Council to ensure that any action taken is fully supported by clear evidence and broad community support.

Community engagement is critical. Many residents feel that the evidentiary basis for declaring this right-of-way unnecessary has not been demonstrated.

Please consider whether the legal findings required for vacation are truly supported. A decision of this magnitude deserves caution, transparency, and community confidence.

Please do not rush this issue until all of community concerns have been addressed and resolved.

Thank you,
Sincerely,
Shrividya Gurikar
Cupertino Resident
⸻
From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: City Council; Public Comments
Subject: Mary Avenue Vacation of Public Right of Way
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 10:42:44 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 Mayor and Councilmembers,
The proposed right-of-way vacation raises significant concerns in the community.

Community engagement remains critical. Many residents feel that the evidentiary basis for declaring this right-of- way unnecessary has not been demonstrated.

Please carefully consider whether the legal findings required for vacation are truly supported. A decision of this magnitude deserves caution, transparency, and community confidence.

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,
Mahesh Gurikar
⸻
From: Walter Li
To: Public Comments; City Council
Cc: Lina; Brian Avery; Theresa Horng; Shaun Fong
Subject: Right-Of-Way (ROW) Vacation -- Insufficient Evidence Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 10:33:27 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.

Dear Councilmembers,
The item before you this Thursday is a right-of-way vacation — not a General Plan matter.

Before vacating public land, the City must demonstrate with substantial evidence that the right-of-way is no longer needed for public use. No such evidence has been presented and shared with residents.

Public land should not be transferred or extinguished without strict compliance with state law and full transparency.

Please do not approve the vacation without clear, legally sufficient findings supported by evidence.

Thank you for your consideration.

Long Time Cupertino Resident
Walter Li
408-781-7894
[email protected]
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]; City Council
Subject: Fwd: SB 330 at Panera Bread/Voyager Coffee on March 17 City Council Date: Monday, February 16, 2026 10:35:46 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 consider the following as public input for the February 19, 2026 City Council meeting.

Thank you.

Best regards.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: SB 330 at Panera Bread/Voyager Coffee on March 17 City Council From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026, 10:29 PM
To: [email protected],[email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear City Council:
(Please consider the following as public comment for the February 19, 2026 City Council meeting).

I see that the SB 330 for the Panera Bread/Voyager Coffee site on the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd and South side of Alves Road is going to be heard at the March 17, 2026 City Council
meeting. This is the seventh SB 330 project to be considered and it is taking down active retail.

The bulk of it is along Stevens Creek Blvd.

I have very serious doubts about SB 330 or why Senator Skinner ever introduced this bill. I don't think
She wanted to kill all retail in a city. Maybe it was a legitimate try on her part to produce some sort of Housing, but the result is a serious fiasco and blow to the retail industry, especially in a Town for size of Cupertino.

Will the Panera/Voyager Coffee SB 330 go to the Planning Commission before March 17? These SB 330s
must be a nightmare for the city staff to deal with. There are so many of them. Are there any Community
Meetings planned for the Panera/Voyager Coffee site? It is really disheartening to see a shopping center
That we planned so carefully just 12 years ago be torn apart for housing. We thought we were building
Retail to last years and years. It is so sad to see more retail go down in our city. And this is active retail in
A prime location.

No one would want to shut down active retail. SB 330 has become a major problem in the city.

I hope
The city can address this growing problem soon. What have other cities been doing to prevent the
Mowing down of their retail to SB 330? Also, in terms of Refugee Retail, is the city reaching out
To Panera Bread and Voyager Coffee to help them find alternative sites in the city so we don't lose
Them to Sunnyvale or Santa Clara or San Jose?
Look at the sad fate of Staples. Now our city has no office supply or computer supply store anymore.

Was there no place in town for this chain?
Yes, we have a lot of problems in the city. One of the major ones is loss of retail. SB 330 is a useless
piece of legislation which is creating massive problems in the city. It wants to create luxury housing and
It also destroys retail, especially active retail.

What are other cities doing to deal with this fallout from SB 330? It is time to ask this question. Not only
Do we have to dodge the SB 79 fallout from Senator Wiener's legislation, we have to deal with the
Fallout from Senator Skinner's SB 330 legislation. Hand in hand they are creating uproar and havoc in
our city. SB 330 has created a Retail Crisis.

The Panera Bread/Voyager Coffee site needs to be adequately studied. Please let the public know if
there are any Community Meetings on it and if it is going to the Planning Commission. How will this
Affect Saich in the future?
Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]; City Council
Subject: Fwd: Retail and Gas Station Issues in Cupertino: Is a Crisis Emerging? Date: Monday, February 16, 2026 4:53:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk:

Please consider the following as public input for the February 19, 2026 Cupertino City Council Meeting.

Thank you.

Best regards.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Retail and Gas Station Issues in Cupertino: Is a Crisis Emerging? From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026, 4:50 PM
To: [email protected],[email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear City Council:
(Please consider the following as public input for the City Council meeting on February 19, 2026)
I have seen an article that says the Big Target site in Cupertino by Stevens Creek Blvd. and Bandley is up for sale. I cannot begin to state what a retail crisis is evolving in Cupertino. Big Target
Is one of the key anchor retail sites in Cupertino. There has been a grocery store/department store at this site since the days of Gemco where my family, my grandmother and my husband's family
shopped.

We must make sure that the Big Target site remains retail and does not go to housing. There is already
The threat of six other SB 330/Builders Remedy sites wiping out retail up and down Stevens Creek Blvd.
from the Western City Limits to the Eastern City Limits. The Housing Element does not care if we have
Any retail left in Cupertino. It is a useless, unrealistic mandate from some ill-advised, over- zealous
Tyrants in Sacramento. Cupertino might need to buy the Big Target site itself to make sure the retail
In the city is not wiped out once and for all.

Also, what about protection of gas stations and car repair sites in the City? The gas station at Foothill Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. now has a fence around it and says it is moving to Imperial
Avenue? There is no other gas station or car repair in this remote part of the city. The other station
became housing ten years ago. Are they going to put housing on this site too at Foothill Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd.? What is becoming of the city? Are we the new bedroom community for
Sunnyvale and Los Altos and San Jose? We won't have any place to buy gas or get cars repaired?
These are vital services. Will the city have to buy gas stations too to keep them from becoming Housing? Is this another Crisis in the making? A real energy crisis? No fuel? No place to repair
A car?
We must have better insight than just converting all our retail and gas stations to housing. We can't depend on
Sacramento to look out for us. We must depend on ourselves. The loss of Local Control also means we
will have no retail or gas stations or other vital services like pharmacies or grocery stores. We must
make sure our city does not lose all of its important services that everyone relies on.

That means if the City must start buying up Target stores and gas stations and drug stores so be it.

We can't look to Sacramento to help us. That is totally obvious.

We have a true retail and gas station emergency and crisis in Cupertino.

Please do all you can to help protect Big Target and retail in general in Cupertino as well as vital
Services such as the gas station at Foothill Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. If the Target Store in
Scotts Valley is booming, why isn't ours?
Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk; City Council; Tina Kapoor; Luke Connolly; Chad Mosley Subject: Fw: Public Comment | 02-10-26 | Item #4 Mary Avenue Public Right-of-Way; Revised Letter for the Record Date: Monday, February 16, 2026 9:43:46 AM
Attachments: Public Comment 02-10-26 Item #4 Mary Avenue Public Right-of-Way_rev 1 021526.pdf Dear City Clerk and City Council,
The Planning Commission received the below updated written communications after the hearing at Planning Commission. I am forwarding the same for your inclusion in written communications and council materials for your reading.

Thank you.

Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission

[email protected]
From: Paul Krupka <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2026 2:05 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Lina Meng <[email protected]>; Brian Avery <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Public Comment | 02-10-26 | Item #4 Mary Avenue Public Right-of-Way; Revised Letter for the Record

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:

I revised my February 10, 2026, public comment letter to correct some typographical errors. It is attached for the record.

Sincerely,
Paul Krupka
_____________
On Feb 10, 2026, at 3:53 PM, Paul Krupka <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Planning Commission Members:

Please accept and consider my attached public comment letter during your deliberations on February 10, 2026.

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>
<Public Comment | 02-10-26 | Item #4 Mary Avenue Public Right-of-Way.pdf> Paul J. Krupka, PE
(he/him/his)

KRUPKA CONSULTING
Trusted Advisor | Transportation
650.504.2299
[email protected]

February 10, 2026

by email only > [email protected]

Planning Commission Members
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014

RE: Public Comment – February 10, 2026 – Item #4: Mary Avenue Public Right-of-Way

Dear Planning Commission Members:

I am supporting Brian Avery, owner of the Glenbrook Apartments, Lina Meng, a neighbor, and the Garden Gate Neighborhood Group in providing transportation advisory services and a professional opinion on the Mary Avenue Villas Project. This letter documents my opinion that 1) the vacation of the Mary Avenue public right-of-way and the disposition of the Mary Avenue project site are not consistent with the General Plan, and 2), regarding Environmental Impact, certain Project impacts contradict ﬁnding d) “approval of the project would not result in any signiﬁcant eﬀects relating to traﬃc…”.

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 45 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. Finally, I have authored and managed dozens of transportation and circulation studies supporting development and disposition agreements and environmental impact reports for transportation improvements and development projects of all sizes and types.

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, reviewed recent photographic evidence of related parking conditions during Memorial Park events, developed parking estimates, and read many comments and concerns expressed by Garden Gate Neighborhood Group members and other residents. 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.

KRUPKA CONSULTING
431 Yale Drive | San Mateo, CA | 94402
650.504.2299 | [email protected] | pkrupkaconsulting.com Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 2 Comments
Mary Avenue Is Not Underutilized Right-of-Way – The Mobility Element of the General Plan deﬁnes Mary Avenue as a Neighborhood Connector. The street is actively used, as set forth in the Mobility Element of the General Plan, providing parking, access, and circulation for the residential neighborhood and serving as a crucial linkage to Memorial Park in line with these Goals.

•M-2 Promote improvements to city streets that safely accommodate all transportation modes and persons of all abilities
•M-3 Support a safe pedestrian and bicycle street network for people of all ages and abilities •M-5 Ensure safe and eﬃcient pedestrian and bicycle access to schools while working to reduce school-related congestion
•M-6 Promote innovative strategies to provide eﬃcient and adequate vehicle parking

Therefore, the vacation of the Mary Avenue right-of-way is inconsistent with the General Plan, and it follows that the location, purpose, and extent of the disposition of the Mary Avenue project site are not consistent with the General Plan.

Approval of the Project Will Create a Deﬁciency - These comments from my February 3, 2026, letter to the City Council (attached) established my opinion that the Project’s impact - reduction in parking supply - creates an unsustainable deﬁciency that aﬀects residents and visitors alike.

The parking evaluation (in the Transportation Study) 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 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 SeriesKids 'N Fun Festival), 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). The sample photos below provide drivers’ views of vehicles parked end-to-end on Mary Avenue, from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Lubec Street, during the Saturday, August 23, 2025 event.

Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 3

Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 4 A major festival at Memorial Park has a dramatic eﬀect on parking conditions on Mary Avenue without the Project. The Project’s 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.

I developed estimates of parking occupancy during two festivals cited in my above comments – August 23, 2025, and September 13, 2025, which found between 140 and 229 vehicles parked on Mary Avenue. The following tables present these estimates, along with the existing parking conditions from the Transportation Study and the with-Project conditions. It is clear that festival parking inundates Mary Avenue under existing conditions, and the Project’s impact - reduction in parking supply by 95 spaces - overloads the system with demand meeting and exceeding supply and creates an unsustainable deﬁciency.

ESTIMATED PROJECT PARKING IMPACT

TYPICAL AND FESTIVAL CONDITIONS
FESTIVAL: SILICON VALLEY FALL FESTIVAL, SATURDAY , SEPTEMBER 13, 2025

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

ESTIMATED PROJECT PARKING IMPACT

TYPICAL AND FESTIVAL CONDITIONS
FESTIVAL: SUMMER CONCERT SERIESKIDS ’N FUN FESTIVAL, SATURDAY , AUGUST 23, 2025

CONDITION PARKING
SUPPLY
PARKED

VEHICLES

OCCUPANCY
TYPICAL EXISTING 241 37 15%
TYPICAL EXISTING WITH PROJECT 146 37 25%
FESTIVAL EXISTING 241 229 95%
FESTIVAL WITH PROJECT 146 229 157%
Sources:

Typical Conditions - Transportation Study
Festival Condition - Krupka Consulting
Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 5 The Transportation Study did not consider large, wide vehicles, which frequent Mary Avenue to and from the Service Center and provide routine waste and recycling services. The vehicles involved are 10 to 128 to 10 feet wide and often encroach on adjacent travel and parking lanes, as shown in the photo below. This reduces safety and is especially critical to the northbound lane, which is currently 11.5 feet wide. The southbound lane, which is 14 feet wide, accommodates these larger vehicles with less encroachment. The Project calls for two 11-foot lanes, which will create additional conﬂicts with large vehicles and exacerbate safety issues.

Similarly, the Transportation Study did not consider the necessary door swing required for access to parked vehicles, which encroaches on the adjacent travel lane, causes conﬂicts, and reduces safety. The photo below is an example. The Project calls for 11-foot lane widths, which will create additional conﬂicts with street traﬃc and exacerbate safety issues.

These Project impacts contradict ﬁnding d) “approval of the project would not result in any signiﬁcant eﬀects relating to traﬃc…” and require further study and development of alternative improvements to enable a fully informed decision on the Project.

Other Approved and Planned Developments Will Exacerbate this Project Deﬁciency: The following nearby projects will increase parking demand, aﬀecting Mary Avenue.

Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 6 • Memorial Park enhancements, intended to serve existing and new patrons, will increase parking demand in the neighborhood and on Mary Avenue. The following observations underscore parking conditions at the park.
• Observations on NovemberSeptember 13, 2025, during the Silicon Valley Fall Festival, indicated that only 34 of the 256 oﬀ-street parking spaces (13%) at Memorial Park were available to festival visitors, given that most parking areas were used for food vendors (including loading and unloading, portable restrooms, handwashing, and preferential parking).
• The only other Park-adjacent residential streets (Christensen Drive, Lauretta Drive, and Ann Arbor Court) are not accessible to Park visitors as they require permits from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.
• Notably, the Memorial Park Parking Study (for the Memorial Park Speciﬁc Plan) 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.
• Three phases of work are involved in implementing the Park Concept, and the suggested timeline, depending on available funding, is as follows: Phase 1 can be completed in 0 to 5 years, Phase 2 in 6 to 10 years, and Phase 3 in 11 to 15 years. • Completion of the Westport Mixed-Use Project, which involves a 36-month buildout period, will reduce residential and retail areas, associated vehicle trips, and the total parking supply, but will require accommodating the resulting retail parking demand oﬀ-site along Mary Avenue. As a condition of approval, the applicant must update the site plan to add at least 20 on-site parking spaces before building permits are issued. • 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. This Foothill-De Anza Community College District Measure G project is generally deﬁned below based on publicly available information. • Uses: College events, performing arts | cultural events, and community rentals | regional events.
• Spaces: Primary performance/event space with approximately 1,000 seats; Secondary performance/meeting space with approximately 300 seats. • Expected Parking Demand: 1 parking space per 4 ﬁxed seats. For 1,000 seats, 250 parking spaces. The idea is to use the existing on-site parking supply and improve parking and circulation to suit the project.
• Cost: $30 million.
• Development Program and Timeline: Not stated.

I appreciate your consideration.

Sincerely,

KRUPKA CONSULTING

Paul Krupka, P .E.

Owner

Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 7 Attachment
Cc (with Attachment): Brian Avery, Lina Meng
From: Kieran Hau
To: Melissa Robertson
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Re: Public Comment on General Plan Consistency – Proposed Mary Avenue ROW Vacation Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 4:26:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Yes, please do.

Thank you,
Kieran
On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 4:14 PM Melissa Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Kieran,
We have received your written communication for the February 10, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. We also noticed that your message was sent to the Public Comments email address.

Could you please confirm whether you would like your comments to be included in the written communications for the next regular City Council meeting as well? Please let us know how you’d like to proceed.

Thank you,
Melissa Robertson
Administrative Assistant

City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-3148

From: Kieran Hau <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 3:55 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Luke Connolly <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Public Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on General Plan Consistency – Proposed Mary Avenue ROW Vacation

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

Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am submitting this comment for inclusion in the public record in connection with the Planning Commission’s review of General Plan consistency for the proposed vacation of a public right-of-way (ROW).

While the Commission’s role is limited to determining whether a proposed action is consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan, that determination must be made within the framework of applicable state law. Under California law, General Plan consistency findings cannot be divorced from statutory requirements that govern the existence, use, and disposition of public streets and rights-of-way.

Accordingly, in evaluating whether the proposed ROW vacation conforms to the General Plan, the Commission must consider the following state-law constraints:

1. Subdivision Map Act (Government Code §§ 66410–66499.58) The Subdivision Map Act establishes statewide standards governing access, circulation, and streets that directly inform General Plan assumptions. Relevant provisions include:
- Section 66424, which requires subdivision-related actions to comply with applicable general plans within the Act’s statutory framework;
- Section 66473.5, which addresses legal access requirements fundamental to circulation planning; and
- Section 66499.20a, which requires streets shown on subdivision maps to be properly dedicated or already public, underscoring the legal significance of existing public ROWs.

2. Streets and Highways Code (Sections 8300–8368)
The vacation of public streets and rights-of-way is governed exclusively by the Streets and Highways Code. These statutes directly affect whether a proposed ROW vacation can be consistent with General Plan circulation and infrastructure policies. In particular:
- Section 8324 requires notice, public hearing, and legislative approval; and - Section 8333 provides that a vacation does not take effect until the adopting action is recorded.

Until these requirements are satisfied, the ROW remains public and must be evaluated as such for purposes of General Plan consistency.

3. Government Code Section 27281 (Recordation of Property Interests) Government Code section 27281 confirms that only instruments affecting title to real property may be recorded. A public right-of-way does not constitute private property unless and until it has been lawfully vacated. This legal status bears directly on whether assumptions regarding the removal or conversion of public land may be relied upon in a General Plan consistency finding.

4. Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code §§ 65300–65763, including § 65860) The Planning and Zoning Law requires that land-use actions affecting streets and public infrastructure be consistent with the General Plan, particularly the Circulation and Land Use Elements. A proposed ROW vacation that conflicts with those elements, or that relies on assumptions inconsistent with state law, cannot be found consistent.

In sum, a valid General Plan consistency determination concerning a public right-of-way vacation must consider whether the proposed action is authorized under controlling state law. Where the statutory prerequisites governing the existence or vacation of a public ROW have not been met, the Planning Commission cannot lawfully conclude that the proposed action conforms to the General Plan.

This comment is intentionally limited to the issue of General Plan consistency as it relates to the proposed vacation of a public right-of-way.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for ensuring that General Plan findings are grounded in applicable state law and supported by the administrative record.

Respectfully,
Kieran
Cupertino Resident
From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: Melissa Robertson
Subject: Re: Mary Avenue - Right of Way vacation
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 2:50:07 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.

Melissa,
Yes, please include it in the written communications for the next City Council meeting.

Thank you,
Mahesh Gurikar
On Feb 11, 2026, at 6:04 AM, Melissa Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mahesh,
We have received your written communication for the February 10, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. We also noticed that your message was sent to the Public Comments email address.

Thank you,
Melissa Robertson
Administrative Assistant

City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-3148

From: Mahesh Gurikar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 7:08 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Luke Connolly <[email protected]>; Public Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Mary Avenue - Right of Way vacation

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

Dear Members of the Planning Commission,

Please include the following in the public record, limited specifically to the Planning Commission’s review of General Plan consistency concerning the proposed vacation of a public right-of-way (ROW).

Although the Commission’s role is to assess consistency with the City of Cupertino’s adopted General Plan, such determinations must be made within the bounds of applicable state law. California statutes governing public streets, access, and land use are controlling and cannot be disregarded or assumed satisfied for purposes of a General Plan consistency finding.

In evaluating whether the proposed ROW vacation conforms to the General Plan, the following state-law considerations are directly relevant and must be addressed:

1. Statewide Requirements Governing Streets and Access (Subdivision Map Act)

2. Statutory Control of Public Right-of-Way Vacation (Streets and Highways Code) The vacation of public streets and rights-of-way is governed exclusively by the Streets and Highways Code (Sections 8300–8368). These provisions directly affect whether a proposed ROW vacation can be consistent with the General Plan.

3. A public ROW does not become private property until it is lawfully vacated in accordance with state law. This legal distinction bears directly on whether removal or conversion of public land can be assumed for General Plan purposes.

4. Consistency Requirements Under Planning and Zoning Law

A valid General Plan consistency determination regarding a public right-of-way vacation must account for whether the proposed action is authorized under controlling state law. Where statutory requirements governing the existence, use, or vacation of a public ROW have not been satisfied, a finding of General Plan conformance cannot lawfully be made.

This comment is intentionally limited to General Plan consistency considerations related to the proposed ROW vacation.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for ensuring that General Plan findings are fully supported by applicable state law and the administrative record.

Respectfully,
Mahesh Gurikar
From: j w
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Re: time sensitive!Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the "political prisoner/hostage"/Fair Treatment from the City
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 1:45:04 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.

Please publish. Thank you!
We request the immediate return of all property and belongings taken from us. Additionally, we ask that all sanctions and any prosecutorial overreach—both to date and ongoing—be lifted as soon as possible.

On Tuesday, December 2, 2025 at 06:57:42 PM PST, j w <[email protected]> wrote:
----- Forwarded Message -----
From:
j w <[email protected]>
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 02:47:24 PM PST
Subject: Re: time sensitive!Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the 'political prisoner/hostage'/Fair Treatment from the City
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: j w
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Request to Prioritize Rebuilding Direct Communication Between City Leadership and Residents Dear [Recipient
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 1:40:17 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.

Please publish. Thank you!
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: j w <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 at 06:58:23 PM PST
Subject: Fw: Request to Prioritize Rebuilding Direct Communication Between City Leadership and Residents Dear [Recipient
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: j w <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 at 04:50:22 PM PST
Subject: Re: Request to Prioritize Rebuilding Direct Communication Between City Leadership and Residents Dear [Recipient
Please include in the public record for this meeting----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang, Could someone please get back to me on this, or forward it to the City Manager’s Office for a response? I’ve raised this issue several times over the past few years, and we would appreciate an update.
>>>>>>
On Monday, October 20, 2025 at 12:02:03 PM PDT, j w <[email protected]> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Jenny
Huang family
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Written Communications City Council 2026-2-19
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 3:59:17 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.

Dear City Clerk,
Please add my comments to the written record.

Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham
2026-02-19 CC Written Communications; Mary Avenue Villa Project Good Evening, Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney:

I support the Mary Avenue Villas Project.

Thank you to the City Council for its vote on July 15, 2025 to move this project forward after the Study Session.

I was excited to see that vote.

I am
supportive of the application to develop new Extremely Low Income homes for Intellectually Developmentally Disabled Individuals (IDD) and, also, other Below Market Rate (BMR) housing units on City-owned property along Mary Avenue.

Thank you to the City Attorney for opinions we can rely upon that the project meets all legal requirements.

I am impressed with how the applicant has designed a project that balances the needs of the City of Cupertino:

1) Housing for ELI and LI residents, 2) road way
use of Mary Avenue, 3) pedestrians, 4) bike paths and 5) parking.

The plan
carefully accounts for all the issues that have been raised over the past years and to the present day.

Although it is difficult to change an existing area, the applicant has shown remarkable design skill and dedication to the concept of community.

This plan will build homes for 40 people.

A significant City goal in
addition to building homes for all its residents, is the goal to prevent homelessness.

These homes will prevent homelessness for people who rely on their aging parents for support.

I have spoken many times about this project at City Council.

This project has
been on the City Council Priority List for many years.

When I was first
appointed to the Housing Commission, then Mayor Scharf put ELI Housing for IDD on the Priority List.

Thank you to him, and to other City Councils who have
moved this project forward over the intervening years.

On February 10, 2026 the Planning Commission determined the project to be consistent with the General Plan.* That night I urged the Planning Commission to approve the recommended actions for finding the Project to be consistent with the General Plan.

This is much needed housing that has been on the Council’s Work Program for many years. I remember 2019 when former Mayor Scharf made it a priority and I was new to the Housing Commission.

I have attended the Housing Commission
and City Council meetings for this project.

I have also attended the Housing
Element meetings at which this site was identified for this purpose.

It is hard
to find land in Cupertino.

I applaud the Council and the City Planners for working hard to find this special place.

Many families and individuals will be helped with this housing.

It will also
facilitate the City’s goal to keep individuals from falling into homelessness.

Many
Individuals who are Intellectually Developmentally Disabled live with aging parents, therefore, these apartments will help these individuals, their aging parents, and our community.

When this project comes forward to Council again, I urge you to vote to approve the recommendations.

Sincerely,
Connie L. Cunningham
38 year resident and, currently, Chair, Housing Commission, speaking for myself only.
*Planning Commission voted to support the Resolutions that evening.

1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) finding that the Mary Avenue public right-of- way vacation (APN 326-27-053) is consistent with the General Plan.

2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) finding that the location, purpose, and extent of the disposition of the Mary Avenue project site (APN 326-27-053) is consistent with the General Plan.

CC 2-19-2026
#1
Santa Clara County
Sheriff's Office Contract
Renewal
Written Communications
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; Jonathan Orozco, CPA
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2026-02-19 City Council Meeting-AGENDA ITEM #1-Sherriff"s Contract 36% Increase! Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 3:58:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers and Staff, This is late to be sending questions but I hope your discussion can include answers to these questions.

The 36% increase is driven primarily by several factors.

One is the “Change in Productive Hours Assumption”. It went from 1,820 hours down to 1,634 hours. This is a 186 hour reduction in productivity! This is equivalent to 4.65 40-hour weeks, which is over a month!
Q1: Why is over a month per deputy no longer productive? Q2: Is this an overhead charge?
Another factor is the “expanded inclusion of Indirect and Countywide Overhead Costs”. As the county grows, its overhead will grow but the number of deputies we hire remains constant.

Q3: Are the 3 West Valley Cities subsidizing the County’s growing needs? Q4: Are we paying twice for overhead i.e. this charge along with a month loss of productivity?
Q5: Has or will the Cities receive an exact breakdown of the charges and how they are calculated?
Q6: What are the next steps?
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
CC 2-19-2026
#8
Parkland Ballot Measure
Written Communications
From: Liana Crabtree
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2/19/2026 Council Meeting, Agenda Item 8, Parkland Ballot Measure Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 6:13:12 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 Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Council Members Fruen, Mohan, and Wang:

Please add my letter to written communication for the 2/19/2026 council meeting, Agenda Item 8, Parkland Ballot Measure - Mapping, Zoning, Legal Review, and Election Considerations.

I am writing in support of a citywide ballot measure to require a majority vote of the residents before parkland and open space may be changed to any other zoning designation or use.

As part of any effort to prepare a parkland ballot measure, I request Council protect today’s parkland use of Library Field by changing its zoning from Public Facilities (P[BA]) to Parks and Open Space (PR).

Library Field is a flat, grassy area with shade trees that is valued by the community for its recreational uses, including but not limited to: cricket, soccer, volleyball, walking, picnicking, relaxing, festival enjoyment, and even as a setting for family portraits.

Please protect Library Field for parkland and open space use by changing its zoning from P(BA) to PR in advance of any ballot measure that would protect parklands from development.

Please limit the use of Library Field to those uses “compatible with open space or park and recreation” and otherwise “in conformance with the purposes of the OS or PR zoning district”.

Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2026-02-19 City Council Meeting - ITEM 8 Parkland Measure - YES! Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 9:24:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers and Staff, Please move forward with a simple, easy to understand measure that protects our existing parkland from changing its use or ownership.

Don’t go overboard.

Keep it direct.

Maybe use
wording that has worked in other jurisdictions.

We have so little parkland and new development projects seem to get away with no providing any additional land for their new residents.

The in-lieu fees they pay don’t cover the cost of
land.

Please protect what little and we have.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2026-02-19 City Council Meeting-ITEM 8 - Parkland Measure-SAVE LIBRARY FIELD! Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 9:18:00 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 Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers and Staff, This issue has come up at least one other time…protecting Library Field by designating it PARKLAND.

Currently, it is zoned P(BA) and is one parcel that includes City Hall, Community Hall, the Library, etc.

It’s time to protect it.

We, the residents, consider it a park.

We use it for
sports, for leisure and enjoy the open space with all it’s trees.

REQUEST:

Please make Library Field a separate parcel and rezone it to be zoned PR.

We have seen in the recent past that people have wanted to convert it to parking! Please
protect it!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2026-02-19 City Council Meeting-ITEM8 Parkland Measure - CLEANUP ZONING of 2 PARCELS from BA to PR Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 9:05:07 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers and Staff, I am disappointed with the Staff Report.

Pointing to a link of the city’s interactive zoning map is NOT providing a list of areas with inconsistent zoning.

For example:

CREEKSIDE PARK – has 2 parcels with one zoned PR and another zoned BA. This is inconsistent zoning.

REQUEST:

Change the parcel that is zoned BA to PR to better identify it and protect it as parkland.

FRANCO PARK – has 2 parcels with one zoned PR and another zoned BA. This is inconsistent zoning.

REQUEST:

Change the parcel that is zoned BA to PR to better identify it and protect is as parkland.

Rezoning these 2 parcels would make the zoning consistent with other parkland areas such as the Senior Center and Monta Vista Rec Center, both of which are zoned PR.

Please note that schools are zoned BA.

When the Council passes zoning regs that impact
parcels zoned BA which are typically schools, they can unexpectedly impact the few parcels the city has that we consider parkland but are zoned BA such as:

The building/storage unit adjacent to Franco Park on Homestead Rd near Safeway.

The southern end of Creekside Park.

This was done with the previous council as part of dealing with the Tessellations School.

Please protect these 2 parcels by correcting their zoning as parkland which they are! Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Lauren Sapudar
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Peggy"s Slides for ITEM 8-Parkland Measure
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 8:11:59 PM
Attachments: Peggys Slides-ITEM8 PARKLAND Measure.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 plan to speak via Zoom tonight on ITEM 8-Parkland Measure (City Council 2-19-202.

Could you
please display these slides for me when I speak?
Thank you for your help,
Peggy Griffin
CLEAN UP ZONING FOR 2 PARK PARCELS
CREEKSIDE PARK – has 2 parcels zoned inconsistently
1 is zoned PR
1 is zoned BA
REQUEST: Change the parcel that is zoned BA to PR to beƩer idenƟfy it and protect it as parkland.

FRANCO PARK – has 2 parcels zoned inconsistently
1 is zoned PR
1 is zoned BA
REQUEST: Change the parcel that is zoned BA to PR to beƩer idenƟfy it and protect is as parkland.

LIBRARY FIELD – is part of one BIG parcel that includes  City Hall
 Community Hall
 the Library
 Library Field
REQUEST: Please
1) make Library Field a separate parcel and
2) rezone it as Parkland (PR)

CC 2-19-2026
#9
Active Transportation
Plan
Written Communications
From: Tracy Kosolcharoen
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk
Cc: David Stillman; Matt Schroeder
Subject: Written comments -- Agenda Item 9, ATP
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 7:46:59 AM
Attachments: 2026 Sheriff Memo Re SCC Concrete Lanes.pdf Dear City Council,
(writing on behalf of myself) — please do not make roadway changes that delay our emergency response times. Some of the latest ATP project proposals do not fully account for their impact on emergency vehicles.

Both our sheriff and fire departments confirmed that they travel slower on small roads with concrete bike barriers like McClellan, in my direct conversations. Please see the attached written statement from the sheriff's department, which notes that during peak hours, the sheriff
must take alternate routes to avoid congested, concrete-buffered roads like McClellan. They cannot even turn on their sirens on these roads because it confuses drivers who cannot pull aside. Constricting more high-traffic two-lane roads across Cupertino cumulatively degrades response times across our city.

We can increase bike safety without delaying public safety response. Most of the ATP proposes painted buffered bike lanes along our 2-lane roads, which I very much support. Painted buffers are a proven option
that still allows cars to pull aside for
emergency vehicles to pass. In fact, the last city memo on the De Anza bike lane changes showed that the new painted buffer bike lanes significantly improved safety for bikers and vehicles alike.

I ask City Council to consider painted buffer bike lanes in lieu of concrete separation on three of the ATP proposals
for Stelling (mostly two-way in the proposal),
Blaney (mostly two-way and curved in the proposal), and Finch (all two-way). Please do not create additional strains on law enforcement that prevent them from turning left on the left side of vehicles, or create gridlock that they must subsequently avoid during peak hours.

Note that I am not asking to change the Foothill, Homestead, or Stevens Creek concrete lane ATP project listings, which are wider roads with space for turning.

Please consult our own city's law enforcement and emergency response first and foremost, and consider their feedback before any outside research studies. During the last planning commission meeting, some commissioners referenced studies from entirely different states and with different scenarios (4- to 3-lane conversion). Please compare similar scenarios involving 2-lane roads, not 3- or 4-lane roads.

Increased response times would put lives at risk due to longer transit times to hospitals, and make our city a greater target for crime. Many residents choose to live in Cupertino because it is safe and has rapid emergency response rates. Per the latest sheriff and fire department reports, Cupertino experiences at least 6K sheriff and fire department
incidents per year. We enjoy exemplary sheriff response times compared to the rest of the county. Moreover, as we add hundreds of new housing units, and our aging population continues to grow, we can expect
increased strain on our law enforcement and
emergency response.

Is council willing to slow down our emergency response? For many of us, protecting emergency response times is non-negotiable.

We can make biking safer without physically preventing cars from yielding to emergency vehicles. Please enable our sheriff to fight crime and save lives quickly and effectively.

Thank you for your consideration,
Tracy
P.S. -- there is a minor correction on the memo from Sergeant Slaugh and the reference to the raised island on Wolfe & SCB should read "prevents vehicles from moving left ," not right. I'll
send through a corrected version when I have it.

Tracy Kosolcharoen
Chair, Planning Commission

[email protected]

County of Santa Clara
Office of the Sheriff
55 West Younger Avenue
San Jose, California 95110 -1721
(408) 808 -4400

M E M O R A N D U M
Robert Jonsen
Sheriff
TO : Tracy Kosolcharoen
FROM : Sergeant A. Slaugh #1922 / West Valley Traffic Sergeant SUBJECT : Emergency Vehicle Response Re: solid bike lane barriers DATE : February 13, 2026
______________________________________________________________________________ In response to whether the Emergency Response of the Sheriff’s Office is impacted by a solid barrier between the far most right lane, bike lane and shoulder of any roadway, I offer this statement as the opinion of an emergency responder.

The California Vehicle Code, section 21806(a)(1), states that when an authorized emergency vehicle is operating its forward -facing red lights and siren, “The driver of every other vehicle shall yield the right-of-way and shall immediately drive to the right -hand edge or curb of the highway, clear of any intersection, and thereupon shall stop and remain stopped until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.” This law exists so that emergency responders can arrive swiftly to emergency calls for service.

Several locations within the City of Cupertino currently present conditions where, during peak commute hours, traffic congestion prevents motorists from complying with this legal requirement. In these areas, the installation of cement barriers or raised curbs designed to protect bicycle lanes leaves drivers with no physical space to yield to the right , as required by law.

In some segments—such as Stevens Creek Boulevard east of Wolfe Road—there is a raised island that prevents vehicles from moving right. In other areas, such as McClellan Road, there is no two-way left-turn lane, making it impossible for an emergency vehicle to pass on the left. Department policy requires emergency vehicles operating with lights and sirens to pass on the left whenever feasible. When both sides are obstructed, an impasse is created, resulting in confusion for motorists and delayed response times for emergency personnel.

In these situations, emergency responders often must bypass the main arterial altogether and divert through residential neighborhoods to reach their destination. While veteran deputies familiar with the area can navigate these alternate routes efficiently, newer deputies —who rely more heavily on GPS —may experience additional delays, potentially impacting response times during critical incidents.

From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council
Subject: February 19 2026 City Council Agenda Item #9
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 4:25:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
Regarding February 19 2026 City Council Agenda Item #9.

I am concerned about the continued erosion of public parking in favor of bike paths.

We need to find a way to satisfy both needs.

Since installation of the bike path near Lawson school, which resulted in an avoidable loss of
parking, neighboring streets have become very congested with on-street parking and there are more people speeding through the neighborhoods because of the dearth of parking near the school.

In order to protect public safety and quality of life, please retain on-street parking when designing new bike paths.

Regards,
Rhoda Fry
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2026-02-19 City Council Meeting-ITEM 9 Study session ATP Update Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 8:22:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE 2-19-2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #9-ATP.

Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers and Staff, I am very concerned at the resulting project rankings for the ATP due to the scoring of the Project Prioritization Matrix. When I looked at the highest priority work it emphases routes that I would consider some of the safer routes compared to those that were ignored.

BOTH the
Planning Commission and the Bike/Pedestrian Commission along with those who spoke in public comments are all in agreement – the scoring of the project rankings needs to be adjusted to prioritize the more dangerous intersections in Cupertino, where there has been death, injuries and collisions.

REQUESTS:

Please reassess the scoring matrix to

1. INCREASE the emphasis/scoring for areas where there are injuries, deaths and collisions.
a. The priority should be where people have been killed, injured or there have been accidents!
b. EXAMPLE OF UNDESIRED POINT RESULTS…the highest priority project is the intersection of Lazaneo Dr (near the Donut Wheel) and De Anza Blvd i. 90 points = Intersection of De Anza Blvd and Lazaneo ii. 60 points = intersection of De Anza Blvd and Homestead Rd

1. This is by far a more dangerous intersection for everyone (pedestrians, bikes and vehicles)!

Vehicles running the red lights
don’t just run the light, they increase their speeds to run the light.

I
have seen as many as 5 cars run the light AFTER it turns red.

If
pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles don’t see them they risk injury or death…and yet it’s #60 on this list!

1. REDUCE the priority on Safe Routes to School routes and give more priority to the Vision Zero High Injury locations and areas.
a. In “Attachment A – Revised Prioritization Criteria”
i. Table 1, Safety gives the max of 20 points if it’s ANYWHERE ALONG the SR2S route. Please note that these routes are selected because the ARE the safer routes already!
ii. Table 2, Safety gives the max of 20 points if it’s ANYWHERE ALONG the SR2S route.
iii. Table 3, Safety gives the max of 20 points if it’s ANYWHERE ALONG the S42S route.

1. NOTE in this Table 3 that parks, the library, senior center/facilities, rec centers, shopping get a max of 5 points!
iv. Table 4, Safety, again gives the max of 20 points if it is along 75% of the SR2S route

1. NOTE under Safety that Collision History can only get a max of 10 points!

2. INCREASE POINTS for parks, the library, senior center/facitilites, rec centers, shopping centers.

3. INCREASE the emphasis on the use of technology
a. Our Sheriff’s contract is increasing, we can’t afford to add deputies but technology can help increase safety. Please use it!

REQUEST:

1. LOSS OF PARKING - There are quite a few projects on this list that anyone driving down the specified road would know the impact without having to spend 30% of the design cost for a consultant to tell you. Once a project is started, even 30%, it is not stopped.

It’s basically a done-deal.
a. With our city’s growing density and the state’s requirement to NO REQUIRE parking for housing projects, the elimination of existing parking becomes more significant.
b. ADD POINT DEDUCTIONS for loss of parking.

2. PUBLIC NOTICE – for potential projects, NO WHERE is there a mention that the residents/businesses will be notified BEFORE a decision is made. a. As the Planning Commissioner Rao pointed out, at the public events, no mention of potential loss of parking was mentioned.

3. SEPARATED BIKE LANES – please use sparingly for high speed corridors (35-40 mph or more) with multiple lanes, not 2-lane roads.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Deepa Mahendraker
To: Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Please Reject All Bike Lane Projects in the ATP Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 9:07:23 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.

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

Subject: Please Reject All Bike Lane Projects in the ATP Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Cupertino City Council, I am a Cupertino resident and auto user who supports safe walking and commutes. I strongly oppose every bike lane project shown in purple in the Active Transportation Plan and respectfully ask that you cancel all proposed bike lane projects.

These include:
• Homestead Road buffered and separated bike lanes
• Stevens Creek Boulevard separated bike lanes
• Stelling Road buffered and separated bikeways
• Blaney Avenue buffered bikeways
• Bollinger Road buffered bikeways
• Foothill Boulevard separated bikeways
• Wolfe Road separated bikeways
• Bonny Avenue bike lanes
• Pepper Tree Lane bike lanes
• Related school‑access segments on Mary Avenue and McClellan Road Please reject all of these purple row identified bike lane projects.

On‑street parking is essential for families. Many homes rely on curb space for elders, caregivers, visiting relatives, and everyday guests. Removing parking on residential segments of Homestead, Blaney, Bollinger, Stelling, Bonny, Pepper Tree, Mary, and McClellan will push cars into smaller side streets and make daily life harder for residents.

Emergency response will suffer. Concrete‑separated and tightly buffered lanes on Stevens Creek, Stelling, Foothill, Wolfe, and Homestead leave no room for drivers to move over. With a hard curb on one side and a center line on the other, cars cannot clear a path. Fire trucks and ambulances will be forced to inch through traffic instead of getting a clear lane in seconds.

This is especially risky because we are adding more high‑need destinations. Senior assisted‑living and memory‑care units at Westport (Mary and Stevens Creek) and the proposed medical clinic at De Anza College will increase emergency calls on Stevens Creek, Stelling, Pepper Tree, Mary, McClellan, and nearby streets. At the same time, hard‑separated bike lanes would make yielding to those emergency vehicles more difficult.

School access will be damaged. At Faria Elementary, more than 600 families use Bonny Avenue and Pepper Tree Lane twice every day. Parents park on these streets and walk their children in. If you remove street parking on Bonny and Pepper Tree for bike lanes, the current drop‑off system breaks. Queues will back up onto arterials, and more children will be forced to cross busy streets from farther away.

Similar problems will appear near schools that depend on Stelling, Homestead, Blaney, Bollinger, Mary, and McClellan for drop‑off and pick‑up.

The City’s own framework emphasizes data, cost‑effectiveness, and negative scoring when removing many parking spaces or travel lanes. Yet the purple projects are exactly where those impacts will be largest. Advancing them without clear block‑by‑block information on parking loss, congestion, and emergency response would go against those principles.

I respectfully ask you to:
• Remove all purple‑listed bike lane projects on Homestead Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Stelling Road, Blaney Avenue, Bollinger Road, Foothill Boulevard, Wolfe Road, Bonny Avenue, Pepper Tree Lane, Mary Avenue, McClellan Road, and other affected streets from the ATP; and • Focus instead on technology‑based measures that do not remove on‑street parking or emergency‑vehicle maneuvering room.

We all want fewer crashes and safer streets. We should not achieve that by making it harder for families to live, gather, and reach medical care, or for emergency responders to reach people in time.

Please do not approve the purple row or any other bike lane projects.

Thanks,
Deepa
From: Vidya Gurikar
To: Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject: ATP projects
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 7:56:27 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 am a longtime Cupertino homeowner and daily driver. I value safe streets for everyone. But the purple-marked bike lane projects in the Active Transportation Plan will make our city less safe.

The number of motorists that use the streets far outnumber the small number of bicyclists.

The ATP projects take away precious street space from motorists and make the streets unsafe for everyone.

I urge you to remove them all.

Here are the projects to reject:
• Homestead Road buffered/separated bike lanes
• Stevens Creek Blvd separated bike lanes
• Stelling Rd buffered/separated bikeways
• Blaney Ave buffered bikeways
• Bollinger Rd buffered bikeways
• Foothill Blvd separated bikeways
• Wolfe Rd separated bikeways
• Bonny Ave bike lanes
• Pepper Tree Ln bike lanes
• Mary Ave and McClellan Rd school segments
Three reasons why these projects should be rejected:

1. Emergency vehicles get blocked. Hard concrete bike lanes trap cars between barriers and center lines. No room to pull right. Fire engines and ambulances crawl through traffic. This hits hardest where we need fastest response: new Westport senior/memory care at Mary- Stevens Creek, De Anza College medical clinic, plus all our schools and neighborhoods.

2. School drop-off chaos. Faria Elementary serves 600+ kids. Parents park on Bonny and Pepper Tree, walk kids in safely. Strip that parking for bike buffers? Lines spill onto arterials.

Kids dart across roads from distant spots. Same story for schools near Stelling, Homestead, Blaney, Bollinger.

3. Families lose parking. Curb space isn’t optional. It’s for grandparents, guests, service vans, family events. Residential stretches of Homestead, Blaney, Bollinger, Stelling, Bonny, Pepper Tree, Mary, McClellan – all lose it. Cars flood narrower streets. Congestion worsens everywhere.

Pleasr reject them now, before they lock in harm.

Please consider the following to improve the safety for everyone:

Speed cameras. Smart signals.

Crosswalk beacons.

Neighborhood slow streets.

School guards.

All of the above deliver safety without sacrificing parking or blocking emergency vehicles.

Action requested:
• Delete every purple bike lane from the ATP.
• Prioritize tech, intersections, and school fixes instead.

Cupertino works because streets serve cars, bikes, peds, and emergencies equally. These projects break that balance.

Please Vote no. Reject all new bike lanes.

Sincerely,
Shrividya Gurikar
From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Cancel all purple bike lane projects in ATP
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 7:38:51 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.

Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Cupertino City Council, I am a longtime Cupertino homeowner and daily driver. I value safe streets for everyone. But the purple-marked bike lane projects in the Active Transportation Plan will make our city less safe. I urge you to remove them all.

2. School drop-off chaos. Faria Elementary serves 600+ kids. Parents park on Bonny and Pepper Tree, walk kids in safely. Strip that parking for bike buffers? Lines spill onto arterials.

Kids dart across roads from distant spots. Same story for schools near Stelling, Homestead, Blaney, Bollinger.

Pleasr reject them now, before they lock in harm.

Better fixes exist. Speed cameras. Smart signals. Crosswalk beacons. Neighborhood slow streets. School guards. All deliver safety without killing parking or blocking fire trucks.

Action requested:
• Delete every purple bike lane from the ATP.
• Prioritize tech, intersections, and school fixes instead.

Cupertino works because streets serve cars, bikes, peds, and emergencies equally. These projects break that balance.

Please Vote no. Reject all new bike lanes.

Sincerely,
Mahesh Gurikar
From: Chirali Bhandari
To: Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Request to Remove All Purple Bike Lane Projects from ATP Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 6:20:27 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, Vice Mayor Chao, and City Council,
I respectfully oppose the purple-marked bike lane projects in Attachment D. They harm parking, safety, and school access. Please remove them all.

Projects to remove:
• Homestead Rd buffered/separated lanes
• Stevens Creek Blvd separated lanes
• Stelling Rd buffered/separated
• Blaney Ave buffered
• Bollinger Rd buffered
• Foothill/Wolfe separated
• Bonny/Pepper Tree lanes
• Mary/McClellan school routes
• ⁠
Key concerns:
• Curb parking lost for elders, guests, deliveries on residential streets. • Emergency vehicles blocked by concrete barriers, especially with new Westport senior housing and De Anza clinic.
• Faria Elementary drop-off disrupted for 600+ kids on Bonny/Pepper Tree.

Your scoring system penalizes parking removal. These projects fail that test.

Better options: Technology corridors, crosswalks, school safety measures.

Request: Please delete all purple bike lanes from the ATP.

Thank you for prioritizing families and safety.

Sincerely,
Chirali Bhandari
From: Seema Lindskog
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office Subject: Serious Ethics Concerns Regarding Planning Commission Chair Communications on the ATP agenda item Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 6:09:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor, Council members, and City Attorney,
I am a commissioner with the Cupertino Planning Commission but I am writing today as a resident. City Clerk, please include this email as public communication for the ATP agenda item at tonight's Council meeting.

Tracy Kosolcharoen, Chair of the Planning Commission, sent an email to the City Council on Wednesday Feb 18 2026 regarding emergency response times and protected bike lanes. The email– and how it came to be – raises serious governance and ethics concerns.

The issue raised in the email was discussed during the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, at which time Chair Kosolcharoen introduced adding a criteria to the ATP to consider emergency response times and therefore deprioritize projects for protected bike lanes on some city streets as a potential recommendation of the Planning Commission. That recommendation did not proceed, receiving two votes in favor and three votes against. As a result, the Planning Commission explicitly decided not to recommend the position expressed.

Yesterday, Chair Kosolcharoen sent an email to the City Council expressing opposition to protected bike lanes due to her concern about emergency response times. The email was sent from her official @cupertino.gov email address and included her official title as Chair of the Planning Commission.

Although the message states that she was “writing on behalf of myself,” the context and manner of the communication raise several significant concerns related to governance, ethics, and the appropriate role of appointed officials. As a member of the Planning Commission myself, I am very mindful to ensure that if I write to council or outside agencies on my own behalf on any matter within the jurisdiction of Cupertino, to do so from my private, personal communication and to acknowledge that the communication is personal and does not reflect the position of the Commission. Council has previously and recently discussed this standard.

More concerningly, Chair Kosolcharoen also used her official email and title to reach out to a sergeant in the Sheriff’s Office. Nowhere in the email did she disclaim that she was acting in her official capacity. City staff were not aware that Chair Kosolcharoen sent the email. Because the email came from her official email and with her official letterhead and title, the sheriff’s office mistakenly assumed it was an official request from the City of Cupertino. In fact, the city staff knew nothing about it and it was not an official staff request. This has resulted in quite a bit of confusion and public resources being used in support of a personal question by Chair Kosolcharoen as a resident.

Specifically, these two communications appear to implicate the following principles:

1. Use of public resources for personal advocacy
Under California Government Code § 8314, public resources may not be used for personal or political purposes. Chair Kosolcharoen’s use of an official city email account and signature block associated with a city-appointed role to advocate a personal policy position may constitute misuse of public resources, regardless of disclaimers included in the message.

2. Improper invocation of official title following contrary commission action Ethics guidance from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) emphasizes that public officials may not leverage the prestige or authority of their office to influence governmental decisions when acting in a personal capacity. This concern is heightened where the official’s communication follows a recorded vote of the body rejecting the same position, creating a reasonable risk that the communication could be interpreted as conveying an institutional or insider view that does not, in fact, exist.

3. Circumvention of the commission’s collective, noticed process The Planning Commission acts only through noticed meetings and majority votes. After the Commission voted on Feb 10, 2026 not to advance the recommendation, a unilateral communication by Chair Kosolcharoen to the City Council on the same issue – using her official email address and title – undermines the integrity of the advisory process and the public’s understanding of how recommendations are formed.

4. Undue influence
Chair Kosolcharoen’s clear use of her title and official city email address, and failure to disclaim to obtain preferential responses from the Sheriff’s Office created an undue influence on the Sheriff’s Office (the impression that the communication was an official request of the City of Cupertino) that induced the Sheriff’s Office to produce a prospectively favorable memo in response. It would be inappropriate for a Councilmember to breach the Council-Manager relationship in this fashion. It cannot be acceptable for Council’s commission appointees to circumvent it either. It is for this reason that the Commissioner’s Handbook and the city’s Ethics Policy admonish against misuse of official titles.

5. Inconsistency with local ethics and commission conduct standards While I defer to the City Attorney on specific municipal code citations, most municipal ethics codes and commission handbooks require appointed officials to:

Clearly distinguish personal views from official positions Avoid use of city resources for private advocacy
Refrain from representing themselves as speaking for the body absent formal authorization This communication is clearly inconsistent with those standards.

I raise these concerns not to question intent, but to safeguard the integrity of the City’s governance processes and ensure clear boundaries for appointed officials, particularly where the Planning Commission has already taken formal action on the issue. I respectfully request that the City Attorney review this matter and provide guidance to Chair Kosolcharoen regarding appropriate communication practices following commission votes, including the use of official email accounts, titles, and disclaimers.

Thanks,
Seema Lindskog
___________________________________________________________________ "You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi This message is from my personal email account. I am only writing as myself, not as a representative or spokesperson for any other organization.

From: David Yan
To: City Council; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Request to remove purpole bike lane projects from ATP Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 5:59:14 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.

Councilmembers,
I am writing to oppose the purple marked bike lane projects. They harm parking, safety, and school access.

Projects to remove:
• Homestead Rd buffered/separated lanes
• Stevens Creek Blvd separated lanes
• Stelling Rd buffered/separated
• Blaney Ave buffered
• Bollinger Rd buffered
• Foothill/Wolfe separated
• Bonny/Pepper Tree lanes
• Mary/McClellan school routes
* ⁠
Key concerns:
• Curb parking lost for elders, guests, deliveries on residential streets. • Emergency vehicles blocked by concrete barriers, especially with new Westport senior housing and De Anza clinic.

Better options: Technology corridors, crosswalks, school safety measures.

Please delete all purple bike lanes from the ATP.

From: Ram Sripathi
To: Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Request to Remove All Purple Bike Lane Projects from ATP Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 5:55:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and City Council,
I am a Cupertino senior resident. I respectfully oppose the purple-marked bike lane projects in Attachment D. They harm parking, safety, and school access. Please remove them all.

Projects to remove:
• Homestead Rd buffered/separated lanes
• Stevens Creek Blvd separated lanes
• Stelling Rd buffered/separated
• Blaney Ave buffered
• Bollinger Rd buffered
• Foothill/Wolfe separated
• Bonny/Pepper Tree lanes
• Mary/McClellan school routes
Key concerns:
• Curb parking lost for elders, guests, deliveries on residential streets. • Emergency vehicles blocked by concrete barriers, especially with new Westport senior housing and De Anza clinic.
• Faria Elementary drop-off disrupted for 600+ kids on Bonny/Pepper Tree.

Your scoring system penalizes parking removal. These projects fail that test.

Better options: Technology corridors, crosswalks, school safety measures.

Request: Please delete all purple bike lanes from the ATP.

Thank you for prioritizing families and safety.

Sincerely,
Ram Sripathi
Cupertino resident forever
Sent from my iPhone
From: Deepak Balasubramaniam
To: Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Request to Remove All Purple Bike Lane Projects from ATP Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 5:46:44 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, Vice Mayor Chao, and City Council,
As a Cupertino resident who will be affected by the bike lane project proposal, I respectfully oppose the purple-marked bike lane projects in Attachment D. They harm parking, safety, and school access. Please remove them all.

The current bike lanes and safety blockades have created more distractions, dangerous situations and overall frustration for residents. Instead of solving issues through education, enforcement, upgrading pavements, and monitoring we are spending money unnecessarily on these projects that don't help the majority of residents. We will continue spending money on maintaining these projects in the future too which wastes taxpayer money.

Projects to remove:
•⁠ ⁠Homestead Rd buffered/separated lanes
•⁠ ⁠Stevens Creek Blvd separated lanes
•⁠ ⁠Stelling Rd buffered/separated
•⁠ ⁠Blaney Ave buffered
•⁠ ⁠Bollinger Rd buffered
•⁠ ⁠Foothill/Wolfe separated
•⁠ ⁠Bonny/Pepper Tree lanes
•⁠ ⁠Mary/McClellan school routes
Key concerns:
•⁠ ⁠Curb parking lost for elders, guests, deliveries on residential streets. •⁠ ⁠Emergency vehicles blocked by concrete barriers, especially with new Westport senior housing and De Anza clinic.
•⁠ ⁠Faria Elementary drop-off disrupted for 600+ kids on Bonny/Pepper Tree.

Your scoring system penalizes parking removal. These projects fail that test.

Better options: Technology corridors, crosswalks, school safety measures.

Request: Please delete all purple bike lanes from the ATP.

Thank you for prioritizing families and safety.

Sincerely,
Deepak
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office; Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk Subject: Opposition to Bike Lane projects in ATP
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 4:14:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear 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: Opposition to Purple-Lined Bike Lane Proposals in ATP Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Cupertino City Council, I am writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident.

I oppose the bike lane projects shown in purple in Attachment D of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) agenda materials. While I support safer walking and biking, these particular bike lane proposals would create serious, localized impacts on residents’ ability to live and function on affected streets, especially around on‑street parking, school access, and emergency response.

Because the purple projects are not simply paint on wide arterials but often require removal of existing curbside parking and/or conversion to concrete‑separated Class IV facilities, they directly conflict with the ATP goal of “Multimodal Balance” and with the “Community Impacts” language in the General Plan Mobility Element, which calls for minimizing adverse impacts and avoiding simply moving problems from one street to another.

Below I outline overarching concerns, then request that you remove each purple‑identified bike lane project from the list, before adopting the ATP.

Overarching concerns
• Loss of on‑street parking and guest parking: The revised prioritization criteria explicitly recognize parking and lane removal as negative impacts, with point deductions when “five or more regularly used parking spaces are removed” or when a travel lane is eliminated over more than 10% of a project’s length. The purple projects by definition are the ones most likely to require these trade‑offs, and yet the plan does not provide project‑by‑project parking loss numbers that residents can evaluate today. Approving these facilities in concept, and deferring the true parking analysis to a later 30% design phase, pushes a large, real impact onto individual households without giving them clear information now. • Emergency vehicle access and lane width: Many of the purple projects contemplate either buffered or concrete‑separated Class IV bikeways on constrained corridors. Once a hard median or curb‑separated bikeway is built adjacent to a narrower general‑purpose lane, cars can no longer pull right into a wide shoulder or curb lane to yield to fire trucks or ambulances.

This is especially problematic on corridors that will see more emergency responder trips in the near future, such as Stevens Creek Boulevard and connecting streets serving medical and senior facilities. The ATP is asking you to pre‑approve these corridors before that impact is fully analyzed.
• One‑size‑fits‑all separated design: Some community members asked to “upgrade buffered bike lanes to separated bikeways” on high‑speed corridors. That preference on wide arterials should not automatically drive the choice of concrete separation on constrained residential segments, where loss of curb access, driveway conflicts, school drop‑off operations, and emergency operations are far more acute. The ATP should explicitly distinguish where full separation is essential (e.g., high‑speed, multi‑lane arterials) versus where lower‑speed neighborhood streets can safely be served with shared or advisory treatments that preserve parking and curb flexibility.
• Data‑first policy conflicts: The revised prioritization framework emphasizes objective metrics, removal of “Fairness” as a subjective criterion, and additional negative scoring for projects that impact arterials or remove parking and lanes. Yet the purple corridors are being advanced as network “must‑haves” without the same level of quantitative balancing for neighborhood and school impacts, especially emergency response and daily school circulation.

New development and emergency response impacts
Several near‑term projects will significantly increase emergency responder activity along Stevens Creek Boulevard and adjacent streets:
• The planned Westport development at Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard, which includes more than 130 assisted‑living units and 36 memory‑care units, will generate frequent ambulance and fire responses due to the frailty of its residents. • The proposed 25,000‑square‑foot medical clinic facility at DeAnza College Parking Lot B will add another high‑intensity medical destination, increasing emergency calls and patient transport along Stevens Creek, Stelling, Mary, Pepper Tree Lane, McClellan Road, and the surrounding network.

These facilities will rely on rapid access along exactly the streets where concrete‑separated bike lanes are being proposed in purple. When general‑purpose lanes are narrowed and a rigid curb or median separates traffic from the bikeway, drivers can no longer swing into an extra‑wide curb lane or shoulder to create space for emergency vehicles. Instead, traffic often becomes “trapped” between the separation and the centerline, forcing fire trucks and ambulances to thread slowly through the middle of the lane, adding seconds or minutes to response times when every second matters.

Designing these corridors with unforgiving concrete separation, at the same time we are adding high‑need medical and senior uses, is an avoidable conflict. The ATP should explicitly recognize these planned uses and direct that on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Stelling Road, Mary Avenue, Pepper Tree Lane, McClellan Road, and nearby connections, emergency access and yield‑space remain a hard constraint on bikeway design.

School access and Faria Elementary (Bonny Avenue and Pepper Tree Lane) Two of the purple‑proposed bike facilities are on Bonny Avenue and Pepper Tree Lane, which directly serve Faria Elementary. Over 600 families drive on these roads twice a day for school drop‑off and pick‑up.

Parents rely on exactly this curb space to:
• Queue vehicles safely in an organized fashion.
• Park on Bonny and Pepper Tree and then walk the last segment with their children into campus.

Removing street parking on Bonny Avenue and Pepper Tree Lane to meet buffer or separation width requirements would fundamentally disrupt this daily operation for roughly 600 students.

It would:
• Force parents into longer, more chaotic queues on already‑congested arterials. • Push parking and loading activity deeper into adjacent residential side streets that are not designed for this intensity.
• Increase the number of children crossing uncontrolled or mid‑block locations as families hunt for replacement parking further away from school.

A plan that claims to prioritize Safe Routes to School cannot simultaneously remove the very curb space parents use to stage and walk the “last stretch” to Faria. Any purple bikeway concept on Bonny and Pepper Tree should be removed from the ATP and replaced with a school‑specific circulation and safety plan that preserves on‑street parking and focuses on speed management, crosswalk upgrades, and crossing‑guard support rather than lane and parking removal.

Other school drop‑off and pick‑up impacts
The same pattern of conflict appears along several other purple corridors:
• Homestead Road: Serves multiple school communities; parking and wide lanes along some segments are used informally for staging and drop‑off. Converting these segments to concrete‑separated bikeways will constrain both school circulation and emergency yield space. • Stelling Road: Carries heavy school‑hour traffic and walking/biking to nearby schools.

Removing curbside parking and hard‑separating the bikeway would reduce safe, legal short‑term parking near schools and limit options for parents to pull over when children need assistance.
• Blaney Avenue: Used by families accessing nearby schools and the Blaney/Stevens Creek intersection. Wider buffered lanes at the expense of residential curb parking would make it harder for parents to find safe, proximate parking and walk children to school. • Bollinger Road, Mary Avenue, McClellan Road, and connecting residential streets: All function as part of the practical school access network, even if not directly fronting school property. Removing parking on these streets as part of purple bike lane projects will displace school‑hour parking and loading into other blocks and complicate traffic patterns around schools.

The ATP already emphasizes the importance of Suggested Routes to School, Safe Routes to School programming, and intersection‑level safety measures. It would be far more consistent with those goals to prioritize intersection improvements, traffic calming, and crossing safety, rather than corridor‑wide parking and lane removals on the very streets that families depend on for daily school access.

Corridor‑by‑corridor opposition (summary)
For the reasons above, I oppose the purple‑designated bike lane projects that would remove parking or narrow emergency‑critical lanes on:
• Homestead Road (buffered and separated bike lanes)
• Stevens Creek Boulevard (separated bike lanes, especially near Westport and De Anza College)
• Stelling Road (buffered and separated bikeways)
• Blaney Avenue (buffered bikeways on residential segments) • Bollinger Road (buffered bikeways)
• Foothill Boulevard and Wolfe Road (separated bikeways on constrained sections) • Bonny Avenue and Pepper Tree Lane (bike lanes affecting Faria Elementary access) On each of these corridors, I ask that Council explicitly remove the purple row identified bike lane projects from the ATP.

Requests to Council
In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council:

1. Direct staff to remove all purple‑designated bike lane segments from the ATP including but not limited to the segments of Stevens Creek Boulevard, Homestead Road, Stelling Road, Blaney Avenue, Bollinger Road, Foothill Boulevard, Wolfe Road, Bonny Avenue, Pepper Tree Lane, Mary Avenue, McClellan Road, and nearby school‑access streets.

2. Explicitly account for the upcoming Westport senior assisted‑living and memory‑care project and the planned De Anza College medical clinic in any design decisions for Stevens Creek Boulevard and its feeder streets, treating emergency response and yield‑space as non‑negotiable design constraints.

3. Protect school access by prohibiting ATP projects that remove curbside parking or materially disrupt drop‑off/pick‑up operations around Faria Elementary and other schools, unless and until a replacement circulation and parking plan is designed with parents, school staff, and public safety and is approved in a separate, transparent process.

4. Where safety concerns are real, prioritize technology‑based safety improvements only rather than corridor‑wide parking and lane removals.

This approach would allow Cupertino to pursue genuine safety improvements in line with its Vision Zero and Climate Action Plan goals, while still honoring the daily realities of residents who need curbside access for their families, caregivers, and guests and who depend on clear, unobstructed paths for emergency response, particularly as the City adds new senior and medical facilities that will increase the volume and urgency of emergency medical calls.

Thank you for considering this perspective as you refine the ATP.

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

Cupertino City CouncilFebruary 19, 2026

Cupertino City Council
February 19, 2026