Written Communications - 03-04-2026 — Cupertino City Council, March 3, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

CC 3-3-2026
Oral
Communications
Written Comments

From: David Yan
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; [email protected]; Public Comments; City Council; Emi Sugiyama; Tina Kapoor; [email protected]
Subject: Fire Safety Clarification Request – Linda Vista Corridor (Cupertino) Date: Friday, February 20, 2026 12:32:55 PM
Attachments: Joint Letter to SCC Fire and City of Cupertino_Linda Vista Fire Safety_02.20.2026.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Santa Clara County Fire and City of Cupertino:

Attached please find a formal request for coordinated clarification regarding fire safety and cumulative evacuation review for the proposed development at 10857, 10867, 10877 and 10887 Linda Vista Dr in Cupertino.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

David

FORMAL REQUEST FOR FIRE SAFETY DETERMINATION
Proposed 51-Unit Development at 10857–10887 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino Project Reference: CUP-029 (“Evulich Court”)
To: Santa Clara County Fire Department, Office of the Fire Marshal, Cupertino City Council; Cupertino City Manager; Cupertino Planning Division
Date: February 19, 2026
To the Santa Clara County Fire Department and the City of Cupertino:

I. Purpose of This Letter
We are writing to request coordinated clarification from the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara County Fire Department regarding whether the proposed 51-unit residential development at 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive (CUP-029, interchangeably referred to as “Evulich Court”) has been evaluated for consistency with safe emergency access and evacuation under the State’s March 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zone reclassification.

The City’s July 2024 rezoning of this parcel from R1 to R3/TH relied on the 2007 Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation that was in effect at that time. In March 2025, CAL FIRE updated the hazard classification for this corridor. That update materially changes the hazard baseline applicable to this site.

We respectfully request confirmation that the project, as currently proposed in its approved unit count and site configuration, has been reviewed under the updated High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation and that cumulative corridor level risk has been evaluated in coordination between Planning and Fire.

II. Project and Site Context
Evulich Court is a proposed 51-unit residential development on a 2.55-acre parcel located on the west side of Linda Vista Drive in the Monta Vista area of Cupertino. The site sits approximately 500 feet south of the road’s northern terminus at Hyannisport Drive, within a corridor that functions as the primary evacuation route for approximately 75 existing single-family homes.

Linda Vista Drive is a two lane, curved/winding residential road approximately 2,600 feet in length. It runs generally north-south between Hyannisport Dr and the Santa Teresa Drive area.

The corridor is characterized by significant tree canopy overhang, narrow roadway width, and limited-access side streets many of which are cul de sacs with no secondary egress.

In addition to Evulich Court, a second development Vista Heights (35 units) is planned along the same corridor with its sole access point via Linda Vista Drive. The combined projects would add 86 residential units to a road currently serving approximately 75 homes. The Vista Heights project's sole vehicular access is also via Linda Vista Drive, within the same block of the already constrained Evulich Court driveway.

The primary evacuation load for the southern segment of Linda Vista Drive consists of approximately

75 existing

homes

whose

access

depends

that

corridor.

While

the

broader

Monta

Vista

neighborhood

includes

additional

homes

adjacent

streets

with

connections

Bubb

Road

and

McClellan

Road,

this

analysis

focuses

the

segment

Linda

Vista

Drive

that

directly

serves

the

corridor

south

Hyannisport

Drive.

III. A Defined Baseline is Required for Cumulative Corridor Evaluation Cumulative emergency access and evacuation feasibility cannot be evaluated without a clearly defined

corridor

baseline

condition.

the

time

the

City’s

2024

rezoning,

the

residential

baseline

consisted

approximately

75 existing

homes.

That

condition

longer

fixed.

The Vista Heights proposal, currently pending and subject to litigation, would add 35 residential units

the

same

constrained

access

corridor.

proposed,

represents

reasonably

foreseeable

change

corridor

load

that

must

considered

cumulative

evaluation.

The Evulich project proposes to add 51 additional units within this evolving context. The record does

not

identify

the

baseline

condition

against

which

evacuation

and

access

feasibility

are

being

evaluated.

unclear

whether

analysis

assumes

historic

pre

Vista

conditions,

anticipated

buildout

conditions,

some

intermediate

scenario.

Absent a clearly articulated and consistently applied cumulative baseline, it is not possible to determine

whether

additional

residential

density

consistent

with

safe

evacuation

under

the

updated

Fire

Hazard

Severity

Zone

designation.

While individual developments may be reviewed independently for purposes of code compliance and

site

specific

fire

safety

standards,

evacuation

feasibility

inherently

corridor

wide.

Emergency

egress

depends

shared

roadway

capacity

and

cumulative

vehicle

load

rather

than

parcel

boundaries.

Accordingly,

cumulative

corridor

conditions

must

inform

evaluation

incremental

residential

intensification.

Clear articulation of cumulative evacuation assumptions will strengthen the defensibility of any ultimate

approval.

IV. March 2025 CAL FIRE FHSZ Reclassification Between February 10 and March 24, 2025, the California State Fire Marshal released updated Fire

Hazard

Severity

Zone

(FHSZ)

classifications

for

Local

Responsibility

Areas

(LRA).

These

maps

identify

the

Linda

Vista

corridor

and

immediately

adjacent

hillside

areas

falling

within

Moderate,

High,

and

Very

High

fire

hazard

severity

zones.

This is a material change from the 2007 FHSZ maps that were in effect when the City of Cupertino

rezoned

the

Evulich

Court

parcel

R3/TH

July

2024.

Under

Government

Code

51179,

the

City

required

adopt

the

updated

State

findings.

The

implications

for

this

project

are

direct:

1. The 2024 rezoning density was approved under a hazard baseline that has been superseded

State

action.

2. The updated FHSZ classification may implicate stricter fire-safety requirements under the

California

Building

Code

and

California

Fire

Code

that

were

not

contemplated

during

the

original

project

review.

3. The Evulich Court parcel sits at the interface between developed residential area and wildland

vegetation

(Stevens

Creek

corridor

and

Linda

Vista

Park),

placing

squarely

within

the

Wildland-Urban

Interface

zone

under

the

updated

classification.

The City’s July 2024 rezoning of this parcel relied on the 2007 Fire Hazard Severity Zone classification

that

was

effect

that

time.

The

State’s

March

2025

update

materially

alters

the

hazard

baseline

applicable

this

corridor.

V. Evacuation Capacity Concern The core safety question is whether Linda Vista Drive can support the emergency evacuation of over

160

residential

units

(75

existing

51 Evulich

35 Vista

Heights)

consistent

with

applicable

fire

safety

and

emergency

access

standards,

given

its

physical

constraints

and

the

updated

fire

hazard

classification.

A preliminary evacuation throughput estimate based on conservative flow assumptions is below.

are

not

presenting

this

substitute

for

Fire

review.

Instead,

are

presenting

illustrate

why

such

review

warranted.

Further,

the

purpose

this

estimate

not

dispute

existing

fire

code

compliance,

but

illustrate

why

corridor

level

evacuation

assumptions

warrant

transparent

documentation.

Metric Current (R1) With Projects Change Housing Units ~75 ~160 +113% Estimated Vehicles ~120 ~260 +117% Road Clearance Time 12–18 min 35–50 min +183% Total Order-to-Safety 30–45 min 60–90 min +100% Table assumptions: 1.6 vehicles per household (emergency consolidation); single-lane flow rate of 600–800 veh/hr on

winding

residential

road.

Mobilization

time

includes

human-factor

delays

(securing

pets,

vehicles).

We note that standard fire code review evaluates parcel level features such as sprinkler systems,

noncombustible

materials,

hydrant

spacing,

and

access

road

dimensions.

These

are

important

but

address

onsite

fire

resistance,

not

corridor-wide

evacuation

capacity

under

cumulative

load.

project

may

fully

comply

with

Fire

Code

requirements

and

still

contribute

evacuation

condition

that

exceeds

the

corridor's

throughput

capacity.

VI. Site-Specific Risk Factors Beyond the aggregate vehicle count, several physical characteristics of the Linda Vista corridor compound

evacuation

risk:

• Limited egress geometry. Linda Vista Drive is the primary vehicular evacuation route for

the

corridor

dependent

homes.

Side

streets

such

Baxley

Court,

Rae

Lane,

Mount

Crest Dr, Linda Vista Court, as well as an 11 acre Park (Linda Vista Park) are dead-end roads

cul-de-sacs

that

feed

exclusively

onto

the

Linda

Vista

spine

with

independent

egress.

While

other

streets

such

Columbus

Ave,Terrace

Dr.

and

Hyannisport

Dr.

provide

alternative

connections

Bubb

Road,

wildfire

evacuation

corridor

wide

event,

not

isolated

single

street.

These

routes

would

simultaneously

carry

their

own

residential

evacuation

traffic

Bubb

Road,

which

itself

becomes

the

shared

collection

point

for

the

entire

neighborhood.

Available

capacity

alternative

routes

cannot

assumed

when

those

routes

are

subject

the

same

concurrent

demand.

The

Evulich

Court

development

accesses

Linda

Vista

Drive

via

single

project

driveway,

placing

its

full

vehicle

load

directly

onto

the

corridor

regardless

conditions

adjacent

streets.
• Tree canopy and ember vulnerability. The road corridor has significant mature tree overhang.

wind-driven

fire

event,

spotting

(embers

jumping

ahead

the

fire

front)

can

ignite

canopy

over

the

roadway,

potentially

blocking

the

evacuation

route

entirely.

single

fallen

tree

across

this

two

lane

road

could

block

evacuation

for

residents

dependent

this

corridor.
• Wildland Urban Interface exposure. The west side of the corridor is directly adjacent to Stevens

Creek,

Linda

Vista

Park,

and

the

vegetated

hillsides

leading

McClellan

Ranch

Preserve

and

Deep

Cliff

Golf

Course.

This

continuous

wildland

fuel

bed

runs

the

full

length

the

evacuation

route.
• Concentrated access point for new density. The Evulich Court development alone would

add

51 units

with

single

driveway

access

directly

onto

Linda

Vista

Drive,

injecting

approximately

85 additional

vehicles

into

the

mid-section

the

evacuation

corridor

during

emergency.

Typical, on-site fire hardening measures including sprinklers, fire rated cladding,ember resistant vents,

etc.

improve

structural

survivability

but

not

reduce

evacuation

demand.

Each

occupied

unit

generates

the

same

vehicle

load

regardless

construction

type.

VII. Limitations of the 2019 Cupertino Emergency Operations Plan The City’s 2019 Emergency Operations Plan (“EOP”) establishes a framework for emergency response

coordination,

incident

command

structure,

and

interagency

communication.

outlines

how

the

City

responds

once

emergency

has

occurred.

structured

response

coordination

framework

rather

than

corridor-level

evacuation

capacity

analysis.

The

Plan

response

document

and

does

not

provide

corridor

specific

evacuation

capacity

modeling,

nor

does

evaluate

cumulative

residential

intensification

within

constrained

hillside

access

routes.

The

Plan

does

not

identify

maximum

safe

occupancy

thresholds

for

single

access

corridors,

nor

does

analyze

vehicle

throughput

capacity

under

degraded

wildfire

conditions.

assumes

operational

response

under

existing

infrastructure

conditions.

Additionally,

noted,

since

adoption

the

2019

EOP:
• The State has updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone classifications. • Additional housing allocations have been approved. • Climate driven wildfire intensity assumptions have evolved. • The Plan does not appear to incorporate corridor level evacuation modeling for areas now

classified

High

Fire

Hazard

Severity

Zones.
• Accordingly, reliance on the 2019 EOP as a sufficient safeguard for additional residential intensification

single

access

hillside

corridor

warrants

review.

VIII. Accountability for Pre Incident Mitigation
Broader wildfire mitigation and evacuation capacity planning transcend any single development.

Recent

wildfire

events

California

have

underscored

the

importance

clearly

documented

evacuation

planning

prior

project

approvals.

are

not

suggesting

that

any

agency

has

failed

its

responsibilities

here.

are

asking,

before

additional

development

approved

corridor

now

classified

under

very

high

fire

hazard

severity

zone,

that

the

responsible

agency

official

clearly

identified

and

that

the

analytical

basis

for

determining

evacuation

feasibility

documented.

This

opportunity

ensure

that

the

record

reflects

deliberate,

coordinated

evaluation

that

the

question

ever

asked,

there

answer.

IX. Formal Requests In light of the March 2025 FHSZ reclassification and the evacuation constraints described above,

respectfully

request

the

following:

A. Written Fire Safety Determination. A formal written determination from the Fire Marshal

whether

51-unit

development

this

location

consistent

with

safe

emergency

evacuation

under

the

2025

FHSZ

classification.

Specifically:

can

the

Linda

Vista

corridor

support

the

emergency

evacuation

approximately

160

residential

units

consistent

with

applicable

fire

safety

and

emergency

access

standards?
B. Evacuation Capacity Review. A professional assessment of the cumulative evacuation impact

both

Evulich

Court

(51

units)

and

Vista

Heights

(35

units)

the

Linda

Vista

Drive

corridor.

The

two

projects

should

evaluated

together,

they

the

same

constrained

evacuation

route.

C. FHSZ Consistency Analysis. Confirmation of whether the project’s approved unit count and

site

configuration

have

been

evaluated

for

consistency

with

fire-safety

standards

associated

with

the

State’s

updated

2025

Fire

Hazard

Severity

Zone

designation

for

this

area.

the

updated

hazard

classification

implicates

additional

safety

considerations

mitigation

measures,

please

identify

those

measures

and

the

unit-count

assumptions

underlying

the

review.

D. Existing Fire Review Documentation. If corridor level evacuation capacity has already been

evaluated

under

the

2025

FHSZ

designation,

respectfully

request

summary

the

assumptions,

methodology,

and

corridor

conditions

underlying

that

determination.

Given the material change in hazard classification and the need for coordinated cumulative evaluation,

brief

continuance

would

allow

clarification

under

current

standards.

the

Department

determines

that

additional

mitigation

measures

are

required

under

the

updated

FHSZ

classification,

please

identify

those

measures.

X. Closing Given the overlapping jurisdiction between Planning approvals, Fire code review, and Council level

policy

determinations,

respectfully

request

confirmation

that

Planning,

Fire,

and

Council

have

coordinated

review

cumulative

corridor

level

risk

under

the

updated

Fire

Hazard

Severity

Zone

classification.

We request that the Fire Department confirm whether the project, as currently approved at its proposed

unit

count

and

site

configuration,

has

been

evaluated

under

the

State’s

March

2025

High

Fire

Hazard

Severity

Zone

designation

and

whether

complies

with

all

applicable

safety

standards under that updated classification. If so, we respectfully request a written determination

that

effect.

We previously shared corridor-level evacuation concerns and a preliminary throughput estimate with

City

Planner

Emi

Sugiyama

and

the

City

Council

January

16 and

January

29,

2026.

are

submitting

this

letter

directly

the

Fire

Department

because

the

updated

FHSZ

designation

materially

alters

the

hazard

baseline

applicable

this

corridor

and

warrants

confirmation

review

under

current

standards.

We are available to meet with your office at any time and will provide any additional information that

would

assist

your

evaluation.

respectfully

request

written

response

within

30 days

and

any

case,

prior

any

approvals.

From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Retail Tenants Being Displaced from Super Kyo-Po Shopping Center in Santa Clara Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 8:12:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council:
(Please consider the following as public comment for the March 3, 2026 Cupertino City Council Meeting.)
I attended the Community Meeting for the Super Kyo-Po Shopping Center at Homestead and Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara tonight (Feb. 25) in the shopping center. There is a plan To convert this shopping center to retail. They are losing 67,000 square feet of active retail with ten small businesses. This is primarily an Asian Shopping Center.

It sounds like most of the mom and pop business owners don't know what is going on and they are being given very little notice of the upcoming end of their shops and the retail. They are essentially having no place to have their shops. The shopping center will be bulldozed.

This is a SB 330 Housing Element site for Santa Clara. We in Cupertino have lost so much retail to Our own seven SB 330s. Can we find vacant retail spaces in Cupertino to help these poor displaced Super Kyo-Po retail tenants? It sounds like they would be a good fit for Cupertino. It sounds like They have no place to go and we have vacant retail.

Please reach out to these small mom and pop stores losing their locations and see if Cupertino can give them a retail home. I think it would be a good fit for our city and help replace some of the vital retail we have lost and will lose in the future in Cupertino.

Thank you very much for helping to protect retail.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]; City Council
Subject: Fwd: Updated Meeting Location - Community Outreach Meeting - 3521 & 3591 Homestead Road Date: Monday, February 23, 2026 3:28:41 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 and the forwarded message from Santa Clara as public input for the March 3, 2026 Cupertino City Council meeting.

Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fwd: Updated Meeting Location - Community Outreach Meeting - 3521 & 3591 Homestead Road From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026, 3:24 PM
To: [email protected],[email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear Cupertino City Council:
(Please consider the following comments and forwarded document from Santa Clara as public input for the March 3, 2026 Cupertino City Council meeting.)
I am forwarding this notification from the city of Santa Clara about a Community meeting (FYI) about the Proposed SB 330 conversion of the very popular Super Kyo-Po Homestead Shopping Center at the Northeast corner of the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road to housing with no retail.

Super Kyo-Po Shopping Center is a very popular Asian Market complex With many active Asian retail stores. This shopping center is just west of the McDonalds and kitty corner across the intersection to Kaiser Hospital. This Is a very congested area already with the hospital and traffic from Homestead/Lawrence and Apple and traffic From Cupertino and Santa Clara and Sunnyvale and Lawrence Expressway.

I am deeply concerned SB 330 is mowing down retail in our city and in adjacent cities. No one is immune From the ravages of this out-of-control bill that is wrecking retail havoc in every city in the state. It is A misguided bill that is causing serious economic problems for everyone. Small merchants and mom and Pop stores as well as valuable chain stores (Panera) are being displaced and becoming homeless.

Please attend this Community Meeting Santa Clara is holding and observe the problems being incurred by Conversions such as these. What are other cities doing to deal with the fallout of squashed retail from SB 330? We need to study these and reach out to our electeds at the state level and alert them to this Burgeoning catastrophe.

Thank you. Please find attached the notification of the Santa Clara Community meeting on this shopping Center. Merchants in the shopping center are highly concerned about losing their shops.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
Cupertino Resident
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Updated Meeting Location - Community Outreach Meeting - 3521 & 3591 Homestead Road From: City of Santa Clara <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026, 2:17 PM
To: [email protected]
CC:

The City of Santa Clara - Stay Connected
Updated Meeting Location - Community Outreach Meeting - 3521 & 3591 Homestead Road
Date: 02/25/2026 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM
Location: 3565 Homestead Road
Santa Clara, California 95051
Meeting Details
PulteGroup invites you to an in-person community meeting regarding the proposed development located at 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road. The proposed development is comprised of a 4,991 square-foot commercial building and 147-unit residential project. City Staff will be in attendance to accept feedback. Additional project information can be found at the project webpage
.

In person: 3565 Homestead Road, Santa Clara, CA 95051
Contact Us
Project Contact: Jim Sullivan, Consultant, [email protected], 408-899-0308 City Contact: Meha Patel, Community Development/Planning Division, Associate Planner, [email protected], 408-615-2454
Click here for more information
Stay Connected with City of Santa Clara:

This email was sent to [email protected] using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: City of Santa Clara · 1500 Warburton Avenue · Santa Clara, CA 95050

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES:

Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe All | Help
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Subject: non-agenda 3/3/2026
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:24:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
I am very worried about the potential of public-safety ramifications of adding 51 4-bedroom 2700 sq-ft homes on two-and-a-half acres at Linda Vista Drive in a known very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). This is the highest fire-hazard designation by Cal Fire.

If the very high fire hazard severity zone had been assigned to this land at the time you made your decisions pertaining to the Housing Element, I am confident that you would not have selected this level of density.

1. A glaring omission is defensible space
, that has been reduced from the recommended
30 to 100 feet to just 10 feet. Read more here:
https://www.fire.ca.gov/dspace#:~:text=the%20property%20line.- ,Why?,is%20growing%20near%20a%20tree.

2. While it is possible that the buildings could be left standing after a fire (having roof-top sprinklers would help), would the residents of these homes and those of others be able to evacuate? And this is why I mention 4-bedroom homes - - - because of the likelihood of requiring two vehicles for evacuation, that’s an additional 102 vehicles in an area that experiences heavy congestion, especially from the nearby schools (3200 students plus teachers plus staff) that represent over 5% of our city’s population.

Another potential for further congestion are the 600-trucks per day estimated for the reclamation at Lehigh’s Permanente Quarry plus a yet-to-be-determined number for Stevens Creek Quarry reclamation. I have yet to see anything about evacuation impacts related to this proposed project.

Your primary responsibility is to the residents of our community.

Yes, the developer may
threaten to sue the City, but our public safety is paramount. I beg you to ensure the safety of our residents.

Please also consider that the Planning Commission was asked to vote on 3 resolutions that assumed compliance with AB130. In my opinion, this assumption was incorrect. The AB 130 Qualification Memorandum, by David J. Powers, checked the YES box on Page 11 stating that the project was NOT located in a very high fire hazard severity zone. This is wrong. The box should have been checked NO. Additionally, we have no idea whether a “plan review” comment letter from County Fire was the appropriate type of document to nullify CEQA for this project. Nor was that letter included in the packet. The date of the letter in the Powers document is listed as January 27, 2026, however a document flashed on the screen during the Planning Commission has a different date. Regardless, that letter should have been included in the agenda packet. The resolutions that the planning commissioners were expected to vote on appear to have been based on incorrect and incomplete information and I think that the City should consider invalidating this hearing and starting over.

Regards,
Rhoda Fry
(recipient of CREST award for Public Safety)
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: Monday, March 2, 2026 4:35:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please publish for the upcoming meeting if there is one on Mar.2, 2026. Thank you! On Thursday, February 19, 2026 at 01:44:43 PM PST, j w <[email protected]> wrote:

Please publish. Thank you!
We request the immediate return of all property and belongings taken from us from end of 2021, and 2016 especially end of 2021. 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
CC 3-3-2026
#1
Parkland Ballot
Measure
Written Communications
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Public Comments; City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2026-03-03 City Council Special Mtg-ITEM1 Parkland Measure Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 3:28:33 PM
Attachments: 2026-03-03 CC Mtg ITEM1-Parkland zoning clean up first.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers and Staff, I am in complete support of a Parkland Measure to protect our current parkland across Cupertino.

In
preparation for this measure, PLEASE clean up the zoning for 3 park areas PRIOR to the measure being voted on to ensure they are zoned correctly.

These 3 park land areas are:
#1 – Creekside Park (the oval track area)
#2 – Franco Park (the storage building area)
#3 – Library Field
The attached PDF contains diagrams of the parcels from the city’s GIS system.

PLEASE move quickly
to correct these zoning irregularities to protect the entire area of each park.

NOTES:

Leaving the parcels BA DOES NOT PROTECT them!
Schools are zoned BA!
One by one, as our CUSD schools are leased to private organizations, the residents of Cupertino have been loosing access to our parklands.

Land CAN BE zoned PR, even if it has a building on it.

The Sports Center is zoned PR (parkland).

The Monta Vista Rec Center is zoned PR (parkland).

There is no reason why the building area of Franco Park cannot be zoned PR, too.

PLEASE PROTECT WHAT LITTLE WE HAVE LEFT!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
CLEAN UP ZONING FOR 3 PARK AREAS BEFORE PARKLAND MEASURE #1 - CREEKSIDE PARK – has 2 parcels zoned inconsistently 1 parcel is zoned PR
1 parcel is zoned BA (the oval track)
REQUEST: Change the parcel that is zoned BA to PR to beƩer idenƟfy it and protect it as parkland.
#2 - 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.

REZONE FROM BA
TO PR

#3 - 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)

1-Separate Library Field
into a new parcel
2-Rezone new parcel to
PR (Parkland)
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Public Comments; City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2026-03-03 City Council Special Mtg-ITEM1 Parkland Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 3:12:15 PM
Attachments: 2026-02-19 ITEM8 Parkland Measure-Written Comm (updated 21926).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers and Staff, Please include the attached PDF as part of written communications for ITEM #1 – Parkland Measure.

The PDF contains the comments that were submitted for this item in preparation for the 2-19-2026 Item 8 – Parkland Measure that was continued to 3-3-2026.

Thank you,
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)

From: Srikantan Nagarajan
To: City Council; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk Subject: Please include Cupertino Sports Center in the Parkland protection measure Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 1:54:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written comments for 03/03/26 council meeting agenda item on parkland ballot measure.

Dear Mayor Moore, Cupertino City Council,
I strongly support placing a parkland protection measure on the November 2026 ballot.

Further I urge the Council to draft it broadly enough to include all city facilities including the Cupertino Sports Center. The current scope falls short.

The Sports Center Has Already Been Targeted
In October 2023, a $76,000 city-commissioned study by Cumming Management Group recommended selling or leasing the Cupertino Sports Center at 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard to private developers to finance a new City Hall. The proposal was shelved, but only because the economics didn’t pencil out, not because any legal protection stopped it. A 3- 2 council majority could resurrect this tomorrow. Residents deserve better than luck.

Close the Loophole
Because the Cupertino Sports Center is zoned Public Buildings (BA) rather than Open Space or Public Park, a narrowly drafted measure would leave it completely unprotected. The ballot measure must cover all city-owned facilities regardless of zoning designation, or it will protect meadows while leaving the Sports Center, Community Hall, and other beloved assets exposed to the next developer proposal.

Require Real Thresholds
The measure should require:
∙ A two-thirds City Council supermajority before any city facility can be converted to private use — so no quiet 3-2 vote can initiate a giveaway; and ∙ A two-thirds voter supermajority to ratify any conversion, consistent with what Milpitas and Santa Clara voters demanded and won in 2016.

The Bottom Line
The Cupertino Sports Center is not an underutilized asset. It is a community institution. This ballot measure is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect it permanently. Please don’t draft it in a way that leaves the door open. Please include the Cupertino Sports Center and all city facilities in the ballot measure.

Respectfully submitted,
Srikantan Nagarajan
Cupertino Resident
CSC Member
From: Ravi Shankar
To: City Council
Cc: Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk
Subject: Parkland Ballot Measure – The Sports Center Must Not Be Left Exposed Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 1:11:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Moore, Cupertino City Council,
I strongly support placing a parkland protection measure on the November 2026 ballot.

Further I urge the Council to draft it broadly enough to include all city facilities including the Cupertino Sports Center. The current scope falls short. *The Sports Center Has Already Been Targeted*
In October 2023, a $76,000 city-commissioned study by Cumming Management Group recommended selling or leasing the Cupertino Sports Center at 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard to private developers to finance a new City Hall. The proposal was shelved, but only because the economics didn’t pencil out, not because any legal protection stopped it. A 3- 2 council majority could resurrect this tomorrow. Residents deserve better than luck. *Close the Loophole*
Because the Cupertino Sports Center is zoned Public Buildings (BA) rather than Open Space or Public Park, a narrowly drafted measure would leave it completely unprotected. The ballot measure must cover all city-owned facilities regardless of zoning designation, or it will protect meadows while leaving the Sports Center, Community Hall, and other beloved assets exposed to the next developer proposal.
*Require Real Thresholds*
The measure should require:
∙ A two-thirds City Council supermajority before any city facility can be converted to private use — so no quiet 3-2 vote can initiate a giveaway; and ∙ A two-thirds voter supermajority to ratify any conversion, consistent with what Milpitas and Santa Clara voters demanded and won in 2016.

Respectfully submitted,
Ravi Shankar
CSC Member & longtime Cupertino resident
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Public Comments; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Kirsten Squarcia; City Attorney"s Office; Floy Andrews; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander; Alex Corbalis, CPRP; Colleen Ferris Subject: Protect the Cupertino Sports Center. Add it to the ballot.

Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 12:55:46 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 include the below in public comments for the parkland ballot measure agenda item on today’s city council meeting.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Dear Mayor Moore, Vice-Mayor Chao, Cupertino Council Members, I write in wholehearted support of a parkland protection measure on the November 2026 ballot, and respectfully urge the Council to ensure it is drafted with sufficient breadth to protect what the community actually values. As presently scoped, it does not. Please include the Cupertino Sports Center and all city facilities in the ballot measure.

Cupertino Sports Center Has Already Been Placed in the Crosshairs In October 2023, a city-commissioned study by a consultant, procured at a significant cost to Cupertino taxpayers, recommended selling or entering into long-term leases of city-owned property, explicitly identifying the Cupertino Sports Center as a candidate site for private residential development, ostensibly to finance a new City Hall.

The proposal was quietly set aside, though not on account of any legal safeguard that stood in its way. It foundered on large outburst from the community of CSC members and that alone saved it thanks to the votes of 3 council members including then council members Kitty Moore and Liang Chao.

A future council, persuaded by a different set of numbers and holding a bare 3-2 majority, could revive it without obstruction. That is not a position in which residents ought to find themselves.

A Drafting Gap That Must Be Remedied
The Cupertino Sports Center is zoned Public Buildings (BA), not Open Space or Public Park.

A measure confined to those latter designations would afford it no protection whatsoever, an outcome that would strike most residents as precisely contrary to the measure’s purpose. The Council must direct staff to draft language covering all city-owned facilities and properties, irrespective of zoning designation. To do otherwise would be to protect the periphery whilst leaving the heart exposed.

The Thresholds Must Be Meaningful
The measure should establish two clear requirements:
∙ A two-thirds supermajority of the full City Council as a prerequisite before any proposal to convert a city facility to private use may advance, precluding a narrow majority from acting unilaterally on the public’s behalf; and
∙ A two-thirds supermajority of voters to ratify any such conversion, a standard already embraced with resounding enthusiasm by the electorates of Milpitas and Santa Clara in 2016.

In Closing
The Cupertino Sports Center is a well-loved civic institution, and its protection ought not to be left to the vagaries of political circumstance or the mercy of a developer’s spreadsheet. This ballot measure presents a singular opportunity to enshrine that protection in perpetuity. The Council should seize it and ensure, in doing so, that no facility of this city is left vulnerable by an oversight in drafting.

I trust the Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Council will act with the decisiveness this moment warrants.

Respectfully submitted,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Subject: Special Meeting 3/3/2026 #1 Parkland Ballot
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:31:32 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Council,
Regarding Special Meeting 3/3/2026 #1 Parkland Ballot, I concur with the comment from Peggy and Liana and appreciate the forward-thinking of our City Council on this matter that has been adopted by other cities. We must protect our public parks for future generations (including the widely used Library Field). Particularly as the City adds more residents and high-density projects that offer little open space, it is even more important that we have parks - we cannot create any more land.

Warm Regards,
Rhoda Fry
From: Ravi Rajagopalan
To: Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk Subject: Parkland Ballot Measure – The Sports Center Must Not Be Left Exposed Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 4:55:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written comments for 03/03/26 council meeting agenda item on parkland ballot measure.

Dear Mayor Moore, Cupertino City Council,
I strongly support placing a parkland protection measure on the November 2026 ballot. Further I urge the Council to draft it broadly enough to include all city facilities including the Cupertino Sports Center. The current scope falls short. *The Sports Center Has Already Been Targeted*
In October 2023, a $76,000 city-commissioned study by Cumming Management Group recommended selling or leasing the Cupertino Sports Center at 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard to private developers to finance a new City Hall. The proposal was shelved, but only because the economics didn’t pencil out, not because any legal protection stopped it. A 3-2 council majority could resurrect this tomorrow. Residents deserve better than luck.
*Close the Loophole*
Because the Cupertino Sports Center is zoned Public Buildings (BA) rather than Open Space or Public Park, a narrowly drafted measure would leave it completely unprotected. The ballot measure must cover all city-owned facilities regardless of zoning designation, or it will protect meadows while leaving the Sports Center, Community Hall, and other beloved assets exposed to the next developer proposal. *Require Real Thresholds*
The measure should require:
∙
A two-thirds City Council supermajority before any city facility can be converted to private use — so no quiet 3-2 vote can initiate a giveaway; and ∙ A two-thirds voter supermajority to ratify any conversion, consistent with what Milpitas and Santa Clara voters demanded and won in 2016.

Respectfully submitted,
[Your Name]
CSC Member
From: Robert Young
To: City Council; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk Subject: Parkland Ballot Measure – The Sports Center Must Not Be Left Exposed Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 4:54:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written comments for 03/03/26 council meeting agenda item on parkland ballot measure.

Dear Mayor Moore, Cupertino City Council,
I strongly support placing a parkland protection measure on the November 2026 ballot.

Further I urge the Council to draft it broadly enough to include all city facilities including the Cupertino Sports Center. The current scope falls short.

Respectfully submitted,
Robert Young
CSC Member
From: Derek Chen
To: City Council; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk Subject: The Parkland ballot measure
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 4:14:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my strong support for placing a comprehensive parkland protection measure on the November 2026 ballot. I respectfully urge the Council to ensure that the measure is drafted broadly enough to include all city-owned facilities, including the Cupertino Sports Center. Limiting the scope would leave significant community assets vulnerable.

The Sports Center Has Already Been Considered for Disposal In October 2023, a $76,000 city-commissioned study by Cumming Management Group recommended selling or leasing the Cupertino Sports Center at 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard to private developers to help finance a new City Hall. Although that proposal was ultimately shelved, it was due to financial feasibility — not because any legal safeguard prevented it. Under current rules, a simple 3-2 Council vote could revive such a proposal at any time. Our community’s public assets should not depend on political circumstance for their protection.

Close the Existing Loophole
Because the Cupertino Sports Center is zoned Public Buildings (BA) rather than Open Space or Public Park, a narrowly written parkland-only measure would not protect it. The ballot language must apply to all city-owned facilities regardless of zoning classification. Otherwise, while open fields may be safeguarded, valued community institutions such as the Sports Center, Community Hall, and other city properties could remain exposed to future privatization efforts.

Establish Meaningful Safeguards
To provide genuine protection, the measure should include:

A two-thirds City Council supermajority requirement before any city facility may be converted to private use, ensuring that no simple majority can advance such action; and A two-thirds voter approval requirement to ratify any conversion, consistent with the strong protections adopted by voters in neighboring cities such as Milpitas and Santa Clara in 2016.

The Bottom Line
The Cupertino Sports Center is not an underutilized asset — it is a vital community institution serving residents of all ages. This ballot measure presents a rare opportunity to provide permanent protection for the places that define our city. I respectfully ask that the Council draft the measure in a way that fully safeguards the Cupertino Sports Center and all city-owned facilities, leaving no loopholes for future disposal without clear and substantial public consent.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,
Derek Chen
CSC Member
CC 3-3-2026
#1- Ceremonial Items
Recognition of March
as American Red
Cross Month
Written Communications
1 | |American Red Cross Partnership Opportunity

2 | American Red Cross Partnership Opportunity
Our Services
Down the Street. Across the Country. Around the World.® Disaster
Services
Blood
Services
Preparedness,
Health and
Safety Services
International
Services
Service to the
Armed Forces

3 | American Red Cross Partnership Opportunity
90%
Of Red Cross impact is delivered by
Volunteers.

Our Work Impacts Lives Every Day
people are assisted
by the American
Red Cross.

Every 8 minutes
Millions
Of Red Cross Trained
individuals stand ready to
provide CPR as well as
other lifesaving skills.
365
Days a year, we
provide services to
military members,
veterans, and their
families.
180
Times a day, Red Cross
workers help a family
affected by a home fire
or other disaster.
1 in 7
People entering the
hospital need blood

4 | American Red Cross Partnership Opportunity
Santa Clara ValleyImpact 2025
109
Disasters responded to
by the American
Red Cross in Santa Clara County.
2,106
Volunteers deliver our
Humanitarian mission.
1,741
Services provided to
military members,
veterans and their
families.
18,228
Blood donations
collected.

Thank you!
CC 3-3-2026
#2
No Net Loss (RHNA)
Written Communications
From: Piu Ghosh (she/her)
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting March 3, 2026 Special Meeting Study Session- Public Comment Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 11:55:09 AM
Attachments: Letter to City Council 3-3-26.pdf
FYI…

Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager

Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277

From: Greg Endom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 11:48 AM
To: Kitty Moore <[email protected]>
Cc: Liang Chao <[email protected]>; J.R. Fruen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; R "Ray" Wang <[email protected]>; Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>; Luke Connolly <[email protected]>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <[email protected]>; Gian Martire <[email protected]>; Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>; Amy Chan <[email protected]> Subject: City Council Meeting March 3, 2026 Special Meeting Study Session- Public Comment

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.

Mayor Moore:

Please see the attached letter related to tonight's Special Session - Agenda Item 2- State RHNA Goals.

Thank you.

Greg Endom
+1 925 550 8082
DRE# 00766333

CC 3-3-2026
#3
Active Transportation
Plan
Written Communications
From: Venkat Ranganathan
To: Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject: ATP Purple Bike Lane Projects
Date: Saturday, February 21, 2026 8:56:50 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, Vice Mayor, and City Council,
Thank you for your ongoing work and dedication to improving transportation and safety in Cupertino. I appreciate your commitment to fostering a vibrant, accessible community, and I recognize the complexities involved in balancing innovative transportation solutions with neighborhood needs. I hope my perspective contributes constructively to your decision-making process.

In summary, I respectfully request the removal of the purple-marked bike lane projects listed in Attachment D of the Active Transportation Plan, specifically due to concerns regarding neighborhood parking, emergency access, and school safety.

Projects requested for removal:
- Homestead Road (buffered/separated bike lanes)
- Stevens Creek Boulevard (separated bike lanes)
- Stelling Road (buffered/separated bike lanes)
- Blaney Avenue (buffered bike lanes)
- Bollinger Road (buffered bike lanes)
- Foothill Boulevard / Wolfe Road (separated bike lanes) - Bonny Avenue / Pepper Tree Lane
- Mary Avenue / McClellan Road school routes
Key concerns:
- **Loss of curb parking:** The removal of on-street parking, particularly on residential streets such as Stelling Road and Blaney Avenue, would significantly affect seniors, visitors, caregivers, and delivery services. Alternatives for parking in these areas are limited, making the impact substantial for residents and guests. - **Emergency vehicle access:** The installation of concrete barriers for separated bike lanes, as proposed for corridors like Stevens Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard, may restrict access for fire trucks and ambulances.

This is especially concerning near the new Westport senior housing development and the De Anza medical clinic, where timely emergency response is critical.
- **School safety and operations:** Modifications on Bonny Avenue and Pepper Tree Lane would disrupt drop-off and pick-up operations for more than 600 students attending Faria Elementary School, potentially impacting both safety and efficiency.

It is my understanding that the City’s own scoring criteria penalize projects that remove parking, yet these bike lane proposals appear to rely heavily on this approach. As such, they do not seem to meet the established evaluation standards.

Suggested alternatives:

Prioritize improvements in technology and commercial corridors.

Enhance crosswalks and targeted school safety measures to improve mobility without compromising neighborhood access or emergency response.

Engage the community in identifying solutions that address safety and accessibility collaboratively.

I understand that finding the right balance between transportation enhancements and neighborhood needs can be challenging. I am happy to provide further input or participate in community forums to help shape solutions that serve all residents.

Thank you again for your consideration and for your service to Cupertino. I look forward to your thoughtful review of these concerns and am available to discuss them further at your convenience.

Sincerely,
Venkat Ranganathan
From: Devayani Kukade
To: Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Request to Remove All Purple Bike Lane Projects from ATP Date: Friday, February 20, 2026 1:26:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and City Council,
I am writing to formally express my opposition to the bike lane projects marked in purple within Attachment D of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP). These projects negatively impact parking, safety, and school access, and I respectfully request their removal.

Specifically, I am asking for the removal of the following projects:
• 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
My primary concerns include:
• Loss of Residential Parking: The removal of curb parking will significantly impact elderly residents, guests, and deliveries on residential streets. • Emergency Vehicle Access: Concrete barriers may obstruct emergency vehicles, which is particularly concerning given the new Westport senior housing and De Anza clinic. • School Infrastructure: The proposed changes on Bonny and Pepper Tree would disrupt the drop-off process for over 600 students at Faria Elementary.

The current scoring system acknowledges the negative impact of parking removal; I believe these projects fail to meet the necessary standards for approval.

I encourage the Council to instead consider alternative safety improvements, such as technology corridors, enhanced crosswalks, and targeted school safety measures.

Thank you for your time and for prioritizing the safety of our families and community.

Sincerely,
Devayani Kukade
From: Mohsen Jamali
To: Public Comments; City Council
Subject: Opposition to proposed bike lanes that remove street parking Date: Friday, February 20, 2026 12:59:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers.

I live in the Crescent Court / Crescent Road neighborhood. I’m here to oppose any proposed bike lanes that remove on-street parking.

Street parking in our neighborhood is not excess capacity — it is essential infrastructure.

Families, seniors, caregivers, and visitors rely on it daily. Removing parking will directly impact residents who already struggle during peak hours.

If bike lanes can be added without eliminating parking, that’s one discussion. But taking away parking from established neighborhoods is not the right solution.

I also ask that you remove the stretch near Varian Park from this proposal. We do not want incremental steps that create pressure for future expansions.

Please reject any project that eliminates residential street parking.

Thank you.

Mohsen Jamali
From: Kalyan Tummala
To: Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding Proposed Bike Lane Projects Impacting School Access and Neighborhood Parking Date: Friday, February 20, 2026 11:38:25 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include my email in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting. ------
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Members of the Cupertino City Council, I am writing as a Cupertino resident and parent to respectfully express serious concerns about the proposed bike lane projects, particularly those affecting neighborhood streets such as Pepper Tree Lane, Bonny Drive, Shelly Drive, Rodrigues Avenue, and surrounding areas near Faria Elementary.

I strongly support safe transportation and thoughtful infrastructure planning. However, the current proposals risk creating unintended and significant consequences for families, students, and neighborhood safety.

Key Concerns:

1. Loss of Critical School Parking
Many parents rely on street parking on Bonny, Pepper Tree, Shelly, and Rodrigues to safely park and walk their children to school. Removing this parking will eliminate the most practical and safe options currently used by families. Not all children can independently navigate drop- off lanes. Walking children to campus is especially important for younger grades and promotes safety, supervision, and community engagement.

2. Increased Traffic Congestion and Safety Risks
If street parking is removed, parents will be forced into the existing drop-off line. For a school serving hundreds of students, this could mean 600+ vehicles funneling into a single queue during peak times.

This will:

Increase idling traffic and congestion in surrounding streets Create longer queues spilling into main roads
Increase risk of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts
Reduce emergency vehicle accessibility
What is currently a distributed, manageable system will become centralized congestion.

3. Discouraging Walkability
Ironically, eliminating neighborhood parking may reduce safe walking. Parents who currently park nearby and walk their children will instead be forced into vehicle queues. This undermines both walkability and community interaction.

4. Lack of School-Specific Planning
If these changes move forward, what is the city’s concrete plan for managing school access? Has a school impact analysis been conducted during peak drop-off/pick-up times? Has coordination occurred with school administrators and parents? Is there a mitigation strategy to replace lost parking capacity? Without a clear operational plan, these changes risk creating chaos rather than improving safety.

5. Equity and Practical Use Considerations
Neighborhood bike lanes that remove high-demand school parking may benefit a small number of cyclists during limited hours while disproportionately impacting hundreds of families daily. Infrastructure decisions must balance sustainability goals with real-world usage patterns and community needs.

I respectfully request that the City:

Reevaluate bike lane placements on streets directly serving school parking needs Conduct a school-specific traffic and safety impact study before final approval Engage directly with affected school communities
Explore alternative bike routing options that preserve essential parking I support safe biking as a road biker myself. I support sustainability. But we also need solutions that protect school access, neighborhood safety, and the daily functioning of families.

Please do not move forward with changes that significantly impact school operations without a clear, practical mitigation plan.

Thank you for your consideration and for serving our community.

Sincerely,
Kalyan Tummala
Resident and Parent
From: Jithin George
To: Tina Kapoor; Public Comments; City Council
Subject: Request to Remove All Purple Bike Lane Projects from ATP Date: Friday, February 20, 2026 10:54:30 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, 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,
Jithin George,
Parent of Faria Kid (Cupertino resident on Homestead/Blaney) From: Ravi Kiran Singh Sapaharam
To: City Council; Public Comments
Cc: Tina Kapoor
Subject: Request to Reconsider Purple Bike Lane Projects in ATP Date: Friday, February 20, 2026 10:34:52 AM
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Members of the Cupertino City Council, I am writing as a Cupertino resident to respectfully request reconsideration of the purple bike lane projects
While I support roadway safety improvements, several of these proposals raise concerns regarding residential parking loss, school drop-off logistics, traffic congestion, and emergency vehicle access — particularly along Homestead, Stevens Creek, Stelling, Blaney, Bollinger, Foothill, Wolfe, Bonny, Pepper Tree, and the Mary/McClellan school routes.

Many families rely on curbside parking near homes and schools, and maintaining reliable emergency access along key corridors is critical. I encourage the Council to carefully weigh these community impacts before advancing these projects.

I respectfully suggest prioritizing alternatives that enhance safety without reducing parking or travel lanes — such as crosswalk upgrades, traffic calming measures, and school-area safety improvements.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Ravi | Cupertino Resident

Ravi Kiran Singh Sapaharam
Public Safety Commissioner

[email protected]

From: Nidhi Parekh
To: Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Request to Remove All Purple Bike Lane Projects from ATP Date: Friday, February 20, 2026 9:29:06 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, and City Council,
I am writing to express my respectful opposition to the purple-marked bike lane projects listed in Attachment D. I believe these projects will negatively impact parking, safety, and school access, and I request their removal from the Active Transportation Plan (ATP).

Specifically, I am requesting the removal of the following projects:
- Homestead Rd: buffered/separated lanes
- Stevens Creek Blvd: separated lanes
- Stelling Rd: buffered/separated lanes
- Blaney Ave: buffered lanes
- Bollinger Rd: buffered lanes
- Foothill/Wolfe: separated lanes
- Bonny/Pepper Tree: lanes
- Mary/McClellan: school routes
My primary concerns include:
- Parking Loss: The removal of curb parking on residential streets will significantly affect elderly residents, guests, and delivery services.
- Emergency Access: Concrete barriers may obstruct emergency vehicles, which is a particular concern given the proximity of the new Westport senior housing and the De Anza clinic.
- School Disruption: The proposed lanes on Bonny and Pepper Tree would disrupt the drop- off process for over 600 students at Faria Elementary.

The current scoring system penalizes the removal of parking, and I believe these projects fail to meet that standard. I encourage the Council to consider better alternatives, such as technology corridors, enhanced crosswalks, and targeted school safety measures.

Please delete all purple bike lanes from the ATP. Thank you for your commitment to prioritizing families and community safety.

Sincerely,
Nidhi Parekh
From: Pramod Negi
To: Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Request to Reconsider and Remove Purple Bike Lane Projects from ATP Date: Friday, February 20, 2026 9:15:31 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, and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing as a concerned resident and parent to respectfully request the removal of all purple-marked bike lane projects listed in Attachment D from the Active Transportation Plan (ATP).

While I understand and support the broader goal of improving safety and mobility in our city, I am deeply concerned that the proposed buffered and separated bike lanes in these locations will negatively impact neighborhood parking availability, emergency access, and safe school drop-off operations.

Projects I request be removed include:

Stevens Creek Boulevard – separated lanes
Stelling Road – buffered/separated lanes
Blaney Avenue – buffered lanes
Bollinger Road – buffered lanes
Bonny/Pepper Tree – lanes
Mary/McClellan – school routes
Key concerns:

Loss of curb parking on residential streets, which directly affects seniors, visiting family members, and essential deliveries.

Potential obstruction for emergency vehicles due to concrete barriers and narrowed lanes—especially concerning given the proximity to Westport senior housing and the De Anza clinic.

Disruption to Faria Elementary School drop-off and pick-up, impacting over 600 students and their families who rely on safe and efficient vehicle access along Bonny and Pepper Tree.

Additionally, the City’s own scoring criteria penalizes projects that remove parking. Based on that standard, these proposals do not appear to meet the intended balance between safety, access, and community impact.

I respectfully urge the Council to consider alternative safety improvements—such as enhanced crosswalk visibility, traffic calming, school-zone protections, and targeted improvements along commercial or technology corridors—rather than implementing residential parking removal and concrete-separated lanes.

Please prioritize family access, senior mobility, and emergency response by removing all purple bike lane projects from the ATP.

Thank you for your service to our community and for carefully considering the voices of residents.

Sincerely,
Pramod Negi
From: P Hershey
To: Public Comments
Subject: Request to remove all purple bike lane projects from ATP Date: Friday, February 20, 2026 8:52:29 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

>
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,
> Pamela Hershey
> Sent from my iPhone
From: Deepti Rokkam
To: Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Request to reconsider bike lanes around Faria Elementary school Date: Friday, February 20, 2026 8:13:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and members of the city council, I recently found out about the proposal to eliminate parking to introduce bike lanes on Rodriguez, Bonnie, and Pepper tree lanes. As a parent sending her child to Faria Elementary school, this proposal caused me significant concern.

As one of ~650 children attending the school, the 15 minute drop off and pick up periods are only possible because of the availability of street parking. Loss of street parking will increase chaos around the school, and will impact school safety. Please reconsider your proposal.

Respectfully,
Deepti
From: Angan Das
To: Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Please stop bike lane projects: Remove all purple lines from ATP Date: Friday, February 20, 2026 7:42:30 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear members of city council,
Now that we have bike lanes in all major thoroughfares like De Anza, Stevens Creek, McClellan, can we please stop continuing them literally till every residence's gateway? It benefits 5 families, but puts 50 more at disadvantage.

Bike lanes favor neighborhoods with a rising younger generation. On the contract, Cupertino is a city with rising empty nesters. And they need more off-street parking for visiting friends and family.

Moreover, schools also benefit from the same.

I understand there are dedicated funds for staff and resources towards bike lane programs. But I hope we can find alternate ways to divert & utilize those funds towards more meaningful purposes. - Angan Das
Former Cupertino Housing Commissioner
408-204-2486
From: valerie
To: Public Comments; City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Bike Lanes in Cupertino Neighborhoods -particularily Faria Elementary neighborhood Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:10:05 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Thanks!
----------------------------------------------------
Dear Members of the Cupertino City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed creation of bike lanes in the City of Cupertino that would remove existing street parking, particularly in the Faria Elementary School neighborhood. The affected streets—including Pepper Tree Lane, Stelling Road, Shelly Drive, Bonny Drive, Rodrigues Avenue, and Terry Way—serve as vital parking and access points for residents and visitors alike.

I have lived in this neighborhood for over 20 years. I drive through the area daily and walk around the neighborhood every day. Based on my consistent, firsthand observation over two decades, I rarely see bicyclists using these streets—at most, I see one bike perhaps once a month. This raises serious questions about whether there is sufficient demand to justify removing valuable street parking that hundreds of residents rely on.

My primary concern is that this proposal appears to benefit a very small number of individuals at the expense of the broader community. Removing parking spaces will significantly impact homeowners, guests, caregivers, and service providers. Before implementing such sweeping changes, I urge the City to conduct objective traffic studies—such as installing traffic cameras or performing formal usage counts on the proposed streets—to determine how many bicyclists truly use these routes on a daily basis.

Additionally, special events at Freya parking already create congestion challenges in the area.

Eliminating street parking will only exacerbate these issues. With the upcoming development at 20865 McClellan Road, which will add approximately 20 townhomes, the neighborhood can expect a substantial increase in vehicle density. Reducing parking capacity at the same time that housing density increases does not seem practical or responsible.

Monta Vista High School already has access via McLaren Avenue, which adequately serves student cyclists in that area. If the City determines that additional bike lanes are necessary, they should be implemented selectively where there is clear demand and community support —not as a blanket policy applied across all Cupertino streets regardless of neighborhood impact.

I would also like to address the advocacy efforts of Walk Bike Cupertino members. While I respect that some residents enjoy biking to work and to other destinations, that is a personal choice and, for many, a luxury. Not everyone is able to bike to work or travel by bicycle. In my own case, I was traumatized by a past bicycle accident and am unable to bike as a result. I must rely on a vehicle for transportation. Are the rights and needs of residents like myself to be sacrificed in order to accommodate the preferences of a small group? I am further concerned that decisions affecting our neighborhood are being driven by individuals who do not reside here and who may not fully understand the daily realities and needs of our community. Local residents should have meaningful input in determining how their streets are used.

In conclusion, I respectfully urge the City Council to reconsider the current bike lane proposal, particularly in the Faria Elementary School neighborhood, and to prioritize the needs, safety, and accessibility of the broader residential community over a limited and unproven demand.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
VJ
From: E. Poon
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Proposals for concrete barriers for bike lanes on Stelling, Blaney and Finch Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 3:49:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Subject: Concerns Regarding Permanent Concrete Curbs for Bike Lanes Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to formally share my perspective on the proposed installation of permanent concrete curbs for our local bike lanes. While the goal of increasing cyclist safety is one we all share, I have significant concerns regarding the long-term impacts of using rigid concrete barriers as the primary solution.

Based on practical challenges observed in other regions, as well as our own local infrastructure needs, I urge the Council to consider the following drawbacks:

Emergency & Law Enforcement Access:

Permanent concrete curbs create a rigid “island” effect that can hinder emergency and police vehicle access. Cupertino is a relatively small city, and the short response time of our deputies has always been an asset. This advantage should not be given up lightly.

Drainage and Maintenance:

Unlike flexible or modular options, poured concrete can interfere with existing street drainage.

Raised concrete may worsen ponding already observed at some intersections. The addition of barriers could make the street surface more hazardous and increase the City’s exposure to liability.

Aesthetic and Neighborhood Impact:

The “hardened” look of concrete barriers can feel industrial and stark, potentially detracting from the character of our residential streets compared with greener or landscaped separation methods.

Lack of Flexibility:

Once poured, concrete is difficult and expensive to modify. A “quick-build” or mock-up approach would allow the City to test traffic patterns and make adjustments before committing to a permanent, high-cost project. A mock-up could also help alert local residents to what is being planned. Public outreach is costly and not easy. So far, only about 600 residents have been reached by ATP consultants, which represents a very small percentage of the City’s population.

In the past, I attended a safety meeting in the downstairs room of City Hall where several Sunnyvale residents—likely from the Walk Bike Cupertino group—discussed walking and biking safety to Cupertino schools via Zoom.

I recall that one participant mentioned
measuring the proposed bike lane on Homestead and concluding that it was too narrow to be of practical use. That comment is food for further thought.

All of the proposals involve existing roadways built decades ago. Before remodeling them for any purpose, we need careful measurement and realistic mock-ups. However, the ATP reports often note that technical details are not included and are instead held by City departments. In the final analysis, consultants are not responsible for measurements—our City staff is.

Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of local residents on this matter.

Sincerely,
Emily Poon
Resident since 2007
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.

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) CC 3-3-2026
#8
Vacating a Portion of
Public Right-of-Way on
Mary Avenue
Written Communications
From: Mark Zavislak
To: Public Comments
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 3:10:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council Members,
In order to pass the resolution vacating a portion of Mary Avenue (APN 326-27-053), you must make a finding that such portion is "unnecessary" for present use as well as prospective use. However, as a resident of the neighborhood, I drive over that portion of the road several times a day, as do countless other individuals. Cars are literally driving over Parcel 1 as you consider this resolution. While long-term prospective
use is under vigorous debate, present use
is not. The proposed portion to be vacated is currently very much necessary for present use as an active, integrated part of the traffic network whose removal cannot be safely evaluated on paper.

Until such time as the street is reconfigured to entirely remove that portion of Mary Avenue from active public use, you have no choice but to vote no on this resolution.

The resulting impacts after reconfiguration will be easier to understand, and all residents and other road users will be fully informed about whether to make the change permanent.

Sincerely,
Mark
From: Walter Li
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Luke Connolly; Benjamin Fu; Public Comments Cc: Lina; Shaun Fong; Brian Avery; Roberta Murai
Subject: Strong Objection to the Vacation of Mary Ave
Date: Sunday, February 22, 2026 2:47:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

As a long time Cupertino resident (33+ years), I am very surprised by the poor attitude, misguided actions and irresponsiveness of Cupertino City towards us, the residents who elected them. Despite
... showing to the City Council that it has violated various city codes and state laws with regards to vacation of Mary Ave. Right-of-Way, you insist on moving forward. You should stop immediately and think about the consequences of your actions. ... hearing from ex-mayor Liang Chao and council member Ray Wang in recent council meeting, publicly stating that they are very disappointed with their own city staff for insisting on following the current path of vacation with ROW, and not providing alternatives. ... Cupertino so far, has not provided and shown to the residents of Cupertino any evidence of why they do not have to adhere to ALL points of the City General Plan. Following some parts of the General Plan is Not the same as following the General Plan. ... Cupertino so far, has not provided clear and transparent evidence why ROW on Mary Ave is not needed by residents, and can be vacated.
... Mary Ave Villas Project as proposed includes less parking spaces than legally required. Low income and IDD residents have to live on housing built on grounds contaminated by lead and chemicals, as well as living on housing with reduced offset spacing than legally required from freeways.

I therefore urge the Council to not go through with the vacation process. Work with the residents, not non city-associated organizations. It is us, Cupertino residents who elect and provide payroll to you.

Sincerely
Walter Li
408-781-7894
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Floy Andrews; City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor; Luke Connolly; City Clerk; Public Comments; Chad Mosley
Subject: Informational Memo Clarifying Procedural Sequence in Right-of-Way Vacation and Surplus Land Processes Date: Thursday, February 26, 2026 7:48:53 AM
Attachments: ontario-sla-nov-061825.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for items not on the agenda for the upcoming State of the City council meeting today. In addition please include as written communications for the next upcoming city council meeting. [Writing on behalf of myself only as Cupertino resident] Subject: Request for Informational Memo Clarifying Procedural Sequence in Right-of-Way Vacation and Surplus Land Processes
Dear Mayor Moore, City Manager Kapoor, Attorney Andrews, and Honorable Cupertino City Council Members,
I am writing to respectfully request that the City publish an informational memorandum clarifying the City’s interpretation and procedural rationale regarding the sequencing of steps involved in actions such as: vacation of public right-of-way, deeming of land as surplus, notification to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), issuance of an RFP, bid evaluation, selection of a proposal, or determination that a property is surplus- exempt.

Specifically, I request that the memo address why the City believes it is not required under state or local law to maintain sequentiality in these steps, and that it describe the criteria used to determine surplus exemption and related procedural pathways.

In addition, I would appreciate clarification on how the City Council determined and signed findings of General Plan conformance prior to the Planning Commission conducting its own hearing on that matter. It would be helpful for residents and stakeholders to understand the legal and procedural basis for Council’s authority to certify such conformance before the Commission’s review occurred.

To avoid future misunderstandings and ensure transparency, I ask that this informational memo include a detailed explanation and rebuttal of any suggestions of procedural noncompliance with state-defined sequential steps.

Note that deeming land as exempt surplus is a very narrowly defined qualification criteria.

Please publish the state defined qualification criteria for exempt surplus and why the city believes it qualifies to deem this land as exempt surplus. Further single party negotiation must not occur prior to deeming land as exempt surplus. A RFP must not occur on public right of way land before the city has heard evidence that the land can be vacated and heard from the community. Running a RFP prior to these steps indicated pre-biased positions by the city and lack of a fair adjudication of the process to vacate, process to deem surplus, process to deem exempt surplus as the city already ran a RFP and enacted next steps with a single party.

Council is expected to take no positions ahead of council hearings whereas the actions of this RFP process indicate council assumes it is already acceptable to vacate land, deem surplus or exempt surplus, assumes no interest from other HCD notification list parties and gives preference unduly to a single party prior to any of those steps. If the RFP has a single bidder the RFP must be rerun.

If the City identifies any curative measures that may be appropriate, I urge that they be implemented proactively to maintain compliance and public confidence.

Given the City’s fiscal constraints, prudence would suggest minimizing exposure to potential litigation costs through full procedural transparency and adherence to defined statutory processes. I believe that publishing such a memo will help reaffirm the public’s trust in the City’s governance and procedural integrity.

Thank you for your attention to this request and for your continued service to the community.

I look forward to your response and the City’s informational clarification on these important matters.

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

On Tuesday, December 2, 2025, 11:46 PM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter] Dear City Clerk,
Please include this letter in written communications for agenda item 12 for 12/2/25 council meeting and for the next upcoming council meeting.

Subject: Request to Halt Negotiations or Disposition until SLA Process Is Completed in Accordance with 2025 HCD Precedent
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, Attorney Andrews, CAO, CM Kapoor,
Please note the precedent in the below and attached HCD notice of violation to the city of Ontario dated June 18 2025. The precedent directly applies to the actions in progress currently in the city of Cupertino attempting to move forward with appointing a negotiator. take steps towards disposition and engaging in exclusive negotiations with a pre-determined buyer without first completing the SLA process and required notices and noticing period.

I write to respectfully urge the Council to pause any efforts to approve a negotiator, enter into negotiation, or take any steps toward disposition or sale of public land until the city has fully satisfied the notice, findings, and waiting‑period requirements of the Surplus Land Act (SLA), including providing required documentation to HCD and observing the legally mandated notice/negotiation windows.

Background — Relevant Legal Obligation
Under the SLA (Gov. Code §§ 54220–54234), a local agency must first declare property “surplus” (not needed for public use), adopt a resolution to that effect, and then issue a formal Notice of Availability (NOA) to: (1) HCD; (2) any local public entities within the jurisdiction; and (3) developers on HCD’s list of those interested in surplus public land for affordable housing. California Housing Dept.+2Banning, CA+2 After that NOA is issued, the city must allow a minimum statutory waiting period (60 days for responses) and, if any eligible entities respond, a mandated 90‑day good‑faith negotiation period before disposing of the land. Banning, CA
+2California Housing Dept.+2
Furthermore, under recent amendments to the SLA (2024), if a local agency receives a Notice of Violation (NOV) from HCD for noncompliance, the agency is required to hold an open public meeting to evaluate the NOV — and the agency may not proceed with any disposal until that process is complete. Allen Matkins - Allen Matkins+2California Housing Dept.+2
Precedent — HCD’s 2025 Finding Against City of Ontario
In a September 22, 2025 Follow-Up Notice of Violation addressed to Ontario’s City Manager, HCD found that Ontario had violated the SLA by disposing of a

2.368‑acre parcel (APN 0218‑111‑12‑0000) without first declaring the land surplus and without issuing the required notices. California Housing Dept. +1
HCD concluded that the disposition and the fact that the City had “exclusively negotiated with the Developer” prior to complying with SLA requirements—constituted a clear SLA violation. California Housing Dept.+1 HCD also invoked applicable statutory penalties under Gov. Code § 54230.5 for the first‐time violation (30 % of the disposition value) and warned that future violations would trigger even higher penalties (50 % of the disposition value). California Housing Dept.+1
The Ontario case demonstrates that HCD is actively enforcing SLA compliance including penalizing cities that attempt to circumvent the required surplus‑land process by negotiating in advance with a favored developer, or disposing of land without the required surplus declaration and notice.

Risk of Noncompliance and Fiscal/Legal Consequences
Given the recent Ontario finding:

Proceeding with negotiations, designating a "negotiator," or otherwise taking substantive steps toward disposition before completing the full SLA process would risk very likely violation of state law.

Noncompliance may expose the City to substantial financial penalties (per SLA enforcement provisions) and reputational risk.

Such action may also frustrate the primary public-purpose objective of the SLA: to give first priority to affordable-housing proponents or other public entities, rather than to private developers selected in advance.

Pause and Complete SLA Process Before Any Further Action In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Council adopt a temporary moratorium on any of the following steps until the SLA‑required process has been fully observed and documented, and until any required findings and waiting periods have been completed:

Appointment of a negotiator or negotiation team
Entering into or approving formal negotiations with any private developer Any pre-disposition activity regarding sale or lease of the land (including drafting term sheets, letters of intent, exclusivity agreements, or similar) Any vote toward approval of disposition, transfer, or sale of the land At minimum, the city should first:

1. Declare the parcel “surplus” or exempt surplus after written findings with evidence via a formal Council resolution;

2. Issue a NOA to HCD, local public entities, and certified developers per SLA requirements;

3. Observe the 60‑day notice period, await any responses, and if responses are received allow full 90‑day good-faith negotiations;

4. Submit documentation of the notice and negotiation process, and any recorded restrictions or covenants, to HCD for review per SLA guidelines. California Housing Dept.
+2Banning, CA+2
Conclusion
The state’s recent 2025 decision in the Ontario case makes clear that SLA compliance is no longer optional, and that state enforcement can and will penalize cities that attempt to circumvent the process.

Given the potential legal and financial risks, and the public’s interest in transparent, fair, and affordable‑housing–oriented land disposition, I strongly urge the Council to suspend any further steps toward negotiation or sale until full compliance with SLA has been completed and documented.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Respectfully,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter)
SLA0001613
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
June 18, 2025
Scott Ochoa, City Manager
City of Ontario
303 E. B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
SENT VIA EMAIL TO: [email protected]
Dear Scott Ochoa:

RE: City of Ontario’s Surplus Land Disposition of a 2.368-Acre Portion of the Property Located at the Southeast Corner of East Riverside Drive and Ontario Avenue (APN 0218-111-12-0000) – Notice of Violation The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) hereby issues this Notice of Violation, pursuant to Government Code sections 54230.5, 65585, and 65585.1, to the City of Ontario (City) regarding the City’s disposition of a 2.368-acre portion of the property located at the southeast corner of East Riverside Drive and Ontario Avenue in the City of Ontario, with Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 0218-111- 12-0000 (Property).

Pursuant to Government Code section 65585.1, subdivision (a), HCD must notify a local agency if it finds that the local agency is in violation of the Surplus Land Act (SLA), and HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General that a local agency is in violation of the SLA.

The City has 60 days from receipt of this letter to cure or correct the violations noted herein.
1 If the City does not cure or correct all such violations by August 18, 2025, a penalty will be assessed to the City equal to 30 percent of the disposition value.2 In the event of a sale, the disposition value is the greater of the final sale price of the land or the fair market value of the surplus land at the time of the sale. 3 HCD may also pursue
additional remedies authorized under Government Code sections 65585 and 65585.1.

1 Gov. Code, § 54230.5, subd. (a)(1).
2 Ibid.
3 Gov. Code, § 54230.5, subd. (a)(2).

Scott Ochoa, City Manager

Page 2 ends

SLA0001613
Background
HCD initially received a Notice of Alleged Violation (enclosed) pursuant to Section 502 of the SLA Guidelines on March 14, 2025, from UNITE HERE Local 11 (Local 11) regarding the City’s approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for sale of the Property. Local 11 provided prior correspondence, including a letter to the City requesting information on how the action complied with the SLA, prior to the City Council taking action to authorize the sale and disposition of the Property at a public meeting on February 18, 2025.

On March 21, 2025, HCD requested a meeting with the City to discuss the alleged violations. On April 8, 2025, HCD met with City staff, who asserted that disposition was undertaken pursuant to the Economic Opportunity Law.4 The City is also in the process of developing this Property in addition to 190 acres of adjacent City-owned lands for the Ontario Regional Sports Complex. The City shared during the conversation that close of escrow and disposition of the Property to Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC (Developer) was completed on April 4, 2025.

On April 10, 2025, the City provided HCD documentation regarding the disposition, which includes the City Council’s action to approve the DDA between the City and the Developer at a public meeting on February 18, 2025. The documentation includes a resolution describing the City’s “exclusive negotiations” with the Developer for sale and development of the Property as a “luxury 5-star hotel” with 227 guest rooms. The terms and conditions of the DDA also require the Developer to convey to the City approximately 25,489 square feet area of easements for right-of-way and temporary construction purposes. While the documentation included a summary report of written findings claiming that the disposition met the statutory requirements of the Economic Opportunity Law, no such findings or statements were made with respect to meeting the statutory requirements of the SLA. The City further confirmed details of the disposition during a follow-up conversation with HCD on May 5, 2025 and by providing the close of escrow documentation on May 13, 2025. The additional documentation notes an approximate net payment of $979,219.51 to the City, based upon the easements value and closing costs being credited against the Property’s fair market value.

Analysis
Based on a review and analysis of the City’s documentation and subsequent disposition of the Property, HCD finds that the City violated the SLA, as discussed below.

4 Gov. Code, § 52201.

Scott Ochoa, City Manager

Page 3 ends

SLA0001613
The City Did Not Make the Land Available Pursuant to the SLA Government Code section 54221, subdivision (b)(1) states:
“‘Surplus land’ means land owned in fee simple by any local agency for which the local agency’s governing body takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency’s use. Land shall be declared either ‘surplus land’ or ‘exempt surplus land,’ as supported by written findings, before a local agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency’s policies or procedures. A local agency, on an annual basis, may declare multiple parcels as ‘surplus land’ or ‘exempt surplus land.’” (Emphasis added.)
In addition, Government Code section 54222 requires the following:
“[A]ny local agency disposing of surplus land… shall send, before disposing of that property or participating in negotiations to dispose of that property with a prospective transferee, a written notice of availability of the property to all of the following: (a)(1) A written notice of availability for developing low- and moderate-income housing shall be sent to any local public entity, as defined in Section 50079 of the Health and Safety Code, that has jurisdiction where the surplus land is located. Housing sponsors, as defined by Section 50074 of the Health and Safety Code, that have notified the Department of Housing and Community Development of their interest in surplus land shall be sent a notice of availability for the purpose of developing low- and moderate- income housing. All notices shall be sent by electronic mail, or by certified mail, and shall include the location and a description of the property.” (Emphasis added.)
Government Code section 54230.5, subdivision (b)(1) further states:
“Before agreeing to terms for the disposition of surplus land, a local agency shall provide to the Department of Housing and Community Development a description of the notices of availability sent, and negotiations conducted with any responding entities, in regard to the disposal of the parcel of surplus land and a copy of any restrictions to be recorded against the property pursuant to Section 54222.5, 54233, or 54233.5, whichever is applicable, in a form prescribed by the Department of Housing and Community Development.” (Emphasis added.)
The City’s approval of a DDA between the City and the Developer for sale and development of the Property as a hotel on February 18, 2025, and close of escrow on Scott Ochoa, City Manager

Page 4 ends

SLA0001613
April 4, 2025, qualify as a disposition of surplus land under the SLA. When the Property qualifies as surplus land, then the City must send notices of availability (NOA) for developing low- and moderate-income housing to all entities required under Government Code section 54222 prior to disposing of or participating in negotiations to dispose of the Property. The City must also provide to HCD a description of the NOAs sent and negotiations conducted with any of the responding entities above, in addition to a copy of any restrictions to be recorded against the property, pursuant to the above requirements. Similarly, the SLA also requires that exempt surplus land determinations be supported by written findings and documentation. All local agency reporting requirements for surplus land and exempt surplus land are described further in Section 400 of the SLA Guidelines.5
However, the City has not provided any such documentation to HCD regarding this transaction prior to exclusively negotiating with the Developer, entering into a subsequent DDA with the Developer, and closing escrow. The documentation provided to date, including the public meeting held on February 18, 2025, makes no reference of the Property as surplus land or exempt surplus land and does not include any written findings pursuant to the SLA. Thus, the City has not complied with these key provisions of the SLA prior to disposing of the Property.

Economic Opportunity Law Does Not Relieve the City of SLA Requirements During the meeting on April 8, 2025, the City claimed that it met statutory requirements by disposing of the Property under the Economic Opportunity Law, or Government Code section 52201. The City’s documentation includes written findings, stating that the disposition will “(i) [strengthen] the City’s land use and social structure, (ii) [alleviate] economic and physical blight on the Property and in the surrounding community, (iii) generate property tax revenue, (iv) produce new jobs, (v) stimulate economic vitality and (vi) continue to inspire additional investment within the Ontario Sports Empire.” The Economic Opportunity Law, in relevant part, states that “[a] city, county, or city and county may sell or lease property to create an economic opportunity.” 6 (Emphasis
added.) The use of the word “may,” instead of “shall,” indicates that the City is not required to utilize the Economic Opportunity statutes, whereas the SLA includes mandatory requirements for local agencies, stating: “Land shall be declared either ‘surplus land’ or ‘exempt surplus land,’ as supported by written findings, before a local

5 Updated Surplus Land Act Guidelines available at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/final-updated-surplus-land- act-guidelines-2024.pdf.
6 Gov. Code, § 52201, subd. (a)(1).

Scott Ochoa, City Manager

Page 5 ends

SLA0001613
agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency's policies or procedures.”7 (Emphasis added).

Notably, the City was aware of HCD’s position on this precise issue before finalizing the disposition of the Property. Local 11’s March 14, 2025 Notice of Alleged Violation, which was provided to the City, references a similar letter that HCD issued to the City of Moreno Valley.8 As Local 11 points out, “HCD rejected the claims that the SLA conflicts with the Economic Opportunity Law....” HCD reached out to the City just a week later, on March 21, 2025, but the City disposed of the Property on April 4, 2025,just days before meeting with HCD on April 8, 2025. The City should have paused and consulted with HCD upon receipt of Local 11’s letter and again when HCD reached out to schedule a meeting. Instead, the City moved forward with the disposition.

Further, HCD is not aware of, nor has the City provided, any statutory or decisional authorities standing for the proposition that disposition of the Property under Economic Opportunity Law excuses or exempts the City from complying with SLA requirements.

As such, HCD finds that disposition of the Property and any surplus land under the Economic Opportunity Law is in violation of the SLA.

Conclusion and Next Steps
Based on the information provided, HCD finds that the City’s disposition of the Property is in violation of the SLA because the City failed to make the surplus land available for affordable housing, and the City has not provided any documentation demonstrating compliance with, or exemption from, the SLA before disposing of the Property. The City further violated the SLA by exclusively negotiating with the Developer and by subsequently moving forward with a disposition and sale of the Property.

As discussed above, under Government Code section 542320.5, subdivision (a)(1), the City has 60 days following receipt of this letter, or August 18, 2025, to cure or correct the violations noted herein, or it will be assessed a penalty equal to 30 percent of the disposition value. The City may have few options to cure or correct the violations, and HCD invites the City to discuss further. Pursuant to Section 502 of the SLA Guidelines, HCD has informed Local 11 of the violations noted herein.

Furthermore, should the City proceed to dispose of additional surplus land or exempt surplus land that would constitute subsequent violations of the SLA, including under the Economic Opportunity Law, the City will be assessed a penalty equal to 50 percent of the applicable disposition values.
9 7 Gov. Code, § 54221, subd. (b)(1).
8 City of Moreno Valley Notice of Violation available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/moreno-valley-nov- 101823.pdf.
9 Gov. Code, § 54230.5, subd. (a)(1).

Scott Ochoa, City Manager

Page 6 ends

SLA0001613
If the City or its representatives have any questions or need additional technical assistance regarding the SLA, please contact Linda Ly, Senior Housing Policy Specialist, at [email protected].

Sincerely,

David Z
isser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability

Enclosure

cc: Jennifer McLain Hiramoto, Executive Director, Economic Development Agency Rudy Zeledon, Executive Director, Community Development Agency Ruben Duran, City Attorney, Best Best & Krieger LLP
March 14, 2025
VIA U.S. MAIL, EMAIL & ONLINE PORTAL: https://calhcd.service- now.com/csp?id=sc_cat_item&sys_id=91e19b8ac31955109a97251ce0013105 Department of Housing and Community Development ([email protected]) Division of Housing Policy Development
Housing Accountability Unit
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
RE: POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF SURPLUS LAND ACT;
ITEM 12, CITY OF ONTARIO CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 2025; DDA FOR 2.3-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT E. RIVERSIDE DR./VINEYARD AVE.

Dear Housing Accountability & Enforcement Unit (“HAU”):

On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (“Local 11”), this office respectfully writes to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) requesting its investigation of a potential violation of the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code §§ 54220– 54234) (“SLA”)1 involving the City
of Ontario (“City”) disposition of a 2.368-acre property located at the corner of East Riverside Drive and Vineyard Avenue (i.e., APN 0218-111-12-0000) (“P roperty”).

On February 18, 2025, the City Council app
roved a Disposition and Development Agreement
(“DDA”) for the sale of the City-owned Property to Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC (“Developer”), citing the Economic Opportunity Law (Gov. Code §§ 52200-52201).2 Before the City approved the DDA, Local 11 submitted written and verbal comments raising questions about whether the City complied with the SLA. (See Local 11 letter dated February 18, 2025 [attached hereto].) As raised in these comments, Local 11’s research has not found any confirmation that the Property was first made available to housing sponsors via a written notice of availability (“NOA”). (See e.g., Gov. Code § 54222; HCD SLA Guidelines § 201.) Nor has Local 11’s research found any confirmation that the City made appropriate exempt surplus land findings during a regular public meeting. (See e.g., Gov.

Code § 54221(b)(1); SLA Guidelines §§ 103(c), 400(e).) These types of SLA issues, if verified, have been the subject of Notice of Violations (“NOV(s)”) issued by HCD for other jurisdictions, including 1 Inclusive of SLA Guidelines (8/1/24) https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and- community/final-updated-surplus-land-act-guidelines-2024.pdf. 2 See City Council Agenda (2/18/25) Agenda, Item 12, https://granicus_production_attachments.s3. amazonaws.com/ontarioca/8b1c31aa587d3d63597574d77713d4830.pdf ; Id., Agenda Report, https://d2kbkoa27fdvtw.cloudfront.net/ontarioca/ccfc6d371db4ae6a268fd028108a650c0.pdf ; Id., Resolution, https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/ 3152722/PH_13_Ontario_Ranch_Hotels_DDA_02_RESO_RM.pdf; Id., Summary Report, https://legistarweb- production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/3096019/Ontario_Ranch_Hotels_LLC_52201_Sum mary_Report_ED_Opp_03.pdf.

Notice of Potential Violation RE: City of Ontario (APN 0218111120000) March 14, 2025

Page 2 of 2 ends

an NOV issued to the City of Moreno Valley, where HCD rejected the claims that the SLA conflicts with Economic Opportunity Law (Gov. Code §52200-52203).3 The City approved the DDA over objections made by the public, including Local 11’s request that the City stay its action until after seeking technical advice from HCD. To date, we have yet to receive any legally sufficient explanation from the City of whether and how the City’s DDA approval has complied with the SLA requirements to make land available for housing development or declared it properly exempt. Local 11 supports housing laws intended to promote genuine housing, particularly affordable housing projects. Therefore, Local 11 respectfully requests that HCD review our attached comment letter and investigate whether the City’s approval of the DDA complied with the SLA and HCD Guidelines.

We thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions regarding this matter.

Sincerely,
_________________________________________
Jordan R. Sisson, Esq.

Attorney for UNITE HERE Local 11
ATTACHMENT: UNITE HERE Local 11 Letter (2/18/24)
CC: (email only)
Sheila Mautz, City Clerk ([email protected])
Scott Ochoa, City Manager ([email protected])
Jennifer McLain Hiramoto, Exec. Director Econ. Dev. ([email protected]) 3 City of Moreno Valley (10/18/2023) Notice of Violation RE Northwest Corner of Alessandro Boulevard and Nason Street, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning -and-community/HAU/moreno- valley-nov-101823.pdf; see also San Bernardino (5/24/2023) Notice of Violation RE 295 Carousel Mall, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/ sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/San-Bernardino-Carousel- Mall-Follow-Up-Letter-052423.pdf; Roseville (12/4/2023) Notice of Violation RE 6382 Phillip Road, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/ default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/roseville-nov-sla- 120423.pdf; Anaheim (12/8/21) Notice of Violation RE 2000 East Gene Autry Way, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/anaheim-surplus-land-act- nov-120821.pdf.

February 18, 2025
VIA EMAIL:

City Council, City of Ontario
303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764
[email protected]
RE: Item 12, City Council Meeting February 18, 2025;
Disposition and Development Agreement for Land Sale and 227-Room Hotel; UNITE HERE Local 11 Comments
Dear Mayor Leon and Honorable City Councilmembers:

On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (“Local 11”), this office respectfully provides the following comments1 to the City of Ontario (“City”) regarding the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) between the City and Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC (“Developer”).

The DDA would allow for the sale of a 2.368-acre City-owned property located at the corner of East Riverside Drive and Vineyard Avenue (i.e., APN 0218-111-12-0000) (“Site” or “Property”) in anticipation of a 227-room, 5-star luxury hotel (“Project”). According to the staff report for the above-referenced item,2 the Project was considered in the Ontario Regional Sports Complex (“ORSC”) Environmental Impact Report (i.e., SCH No. 2023110328) (“EIR”),3 which was certified and approved by the City Council on July 16, 2024. (Agenda Report, p. 2.) Upon review of the relevant documents, Local 11 has several concerns with the DDA, including several live issues with the DDA and the proposed 227-room hotel’s compliance with the Surplus Land Act (“SLA”), the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”),4 and the City’s zoning code. As further explained below, it is unclear if the City has complied with the SLA requirement to make land available for housing development or declared it properly exempt. Additionally, it seems that the prior EIR only considered a 100-room hotel in a different location. So too, the significantly larger hotel is likely to exacerbate vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) and associated greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts, which could be further mitigated through feasible mitigation measures not considered. Furthermore, the staff report fails to provide and/or explain critical information about key financial aspects of the DDA or explain why the City does not require a hotel-specific conditional use permit (“CUP”) at this time, as required under the City’s zoning code.

For these reasons, Local 11 respectfully asks the City to stay action on the DDA until all SLA requirements have been satisfied, a CEQA-compliant review has been conducted, a hotel-specific mandatory commuter trip reduction program is added, and there is an opportunity for the public to vet key financial studies associated with the DDA along with all entitlements for the hotel Project. 1 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., “p. #”) or PDF -page location (i.e., “PDF p. #”). 2 Inclusive of the “Agenda Report” dated 2/18/25, “Summary Report” regarding the DDA, “Exhibit A” Property view, DDA, and the proposed “DDA Resolution”.
3 Inclusive of the Draft EIR (“DEIR”), Final EIR (“FEIR”), and Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Program (“MMRP”).
4 Including “CEQA Guidelines” codified at 14 Cal. Code. Regs. § 15000 et seq.

Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025

Page 2 of 7 ends

I. LOCAL 11’S STANDING
Local 11 represents more than 25,000 workers employed in hotels, restaurants, airports, sports arenas, and convention centers throughout Southern California and Phoenix—including approximately 450 members who live and/or work in Ontario. The union has a First Amendment right to petition public officials in connection with matters of public concern, including compliance with applicable zoning rules and CEQA, just as developers, other community organizations, and individual residents do. Protecting its members’ interest in the environment, including advocating for the environmental sustainability of development projects and ensuring the availability of housing and hotels (in compliance with state and local rules), is part of Local 11’s core function.

Recognizing unions’ interest and union members’ interest in these issues, California courts have consistently upheld unions’ standing to litigate land use and environmental claims. (See Bakersfield Citizens v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1198.) Furthermore, Local 11 has public interest standing to challenge the Project Approvals given the City’s public duty to comply with applicable zoning and CEQA laws, which Local 11 seeks to enforce. (See e.g., Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 914-916, n.6; La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1149, 1158-1159; Weiss v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 194, 205-206; Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach (2011) 52 Cal.4th 155, 166, 169–170.) II. SPECIFIC ISSUES WITH THE DDA & PROJECT

1. IT IS UNCLEAR IF THE CITY HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SURPLUS LAND ACT The Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code §§ 54220–54234)(“SLA”), inclusive of its guidelines (“SLA Guidelines”) prepared by the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), aims to make local public land that is no longer needed for government purposes available for building affordable homes.5 The SLA applies to all cities, including charter cities. (See Anderson v. City of San Jose (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 683.) Generally, before disposing of surplus land, a local agency must send a written notice of availability (“NOA”) of the property to HCD, any local public entity within the jurisdiction where the surplus local land is located, and affordable housing sponsors who have notified HCD. (See Gov. Code § 54222; HCD SLA Guidelines §201.) While there are exceptions to this requirement, a local agency’s determination that land is exempt surplus land must be supported by written findings during a regular public meeting of the agency, with those findings sent to the HCD. (See Gov. Code § 54221(b)(1); SLA Guidelines §§ 103(c) and 400(e).) Here, the City is proposing the disposition of the City-owned Property, but the available documentation reviewed by Local 11 does not mention whether the Property was subject to a NOA or declared exempt. Nor is it clear whether the Property falls within any of the categories of “exempt surplus land” under Gov. Code § 54221(f)(1). While subdivision (c) notes an exemption for land exchanged for “another property necessary for the agency’s use”, it is unclear how and whether that exemption would apply to the DDA, which references a proposed exchange of 25,489 square feet (0.585 acres) non-exclusive, right-of-way remained owned by the land owner (i.e., 7-25 5 See HCD Public Lands for Affordable Housing Development ( identifying land acquisition as one of the biggest challenges to new affordable housing, and outlining several actions taken by the state to enhance the SLA, such as Executive Order N-06-19 [Gov. Newsom, 2019], AB 1486 [Ting, 2019], AB 1255 [Robert Rivas, 2019]), https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/public-lands-affordable-housing- development.

Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025

Page 3 of 7 ends

feet adjacent to dirt sidewalk area) and temporary construction easement would apply.6 The sidewalk is less than one-fourth the size of the 2.368-acre Property,7 and there appears to be ample space within existing rights-of-way (i.e., dirt side walk and road) to access existing utility lines along Riverside Drive.8 Furthermore, future street improvements (e.g., street, sewer, traffic signal, utility lines, etc. ) are already anticipated along Vineyard right-of-way (i.e., five-lane with 8-foot multi-use trail) as subject to the previously approved ORSC.9 In sum, it is unclear how this significantly smaller temporary construction easement is necessary here to qualify as exempt, which would nevertheless have to be declared exempted at a regular public meeting.

2. THE DDA’S PROPOSAL OF A 227-ROOM HOTEL WAS NOT ANALYZED UNDER THE PRIOR EIR Under CEQA, once an EIR has been prepared, a subsequent or supplement EIR is required for granting a later discretionary approval when there have been: (i) substantial changes to the project, (ii) substantial changes in the circumstances involving the project, or (iii) significant new information involving the project. (See Pub. Res. Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15162.) Projects not contemplated or not within the geographic area may require additional CEQA analysis.10 Here, the DDA contemplates a 227-room hotel, which the staff report suggests was covered by the previously certified EIR.11 However, the EIR does not mention the DDA or the proposed 227-room hotel Project. Instead, the EIR contemplated a mere 100-room hotel located in planning area (“PA”) 3, and anticipated retail uses within PA2 (i.e., where the City-owned Property is located).12 It is unclear if the City is now contemplating a single larger hotel in a different location (i.e., a 227-room hotel in PA2) or is considering two hotels (i.e., 227-rooms in PA2 plus the 100-room hotel in PA3).

As disucssed below, even a single larger hotel would likely have exacerbated impacts not analyzed or mitigated under the certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed 227-room hotel development appears 6 See Agenda Report, p. 2; Exhibit A (area generally located along sidewalk area); DDA, PDF p. 7, 59, 78 (section 1.1.49, Exhs. A-1 & D-1).
7 For example, this SLA exemption has been cited by other agencies exchanging relatively comparable properties. (See e.g., Capitola Planning Commission Agenda Report (4/4/24), p. 1 [5,592 -sf property [Soquel Union Elementary School District] in exchange for 4,284-sf property [City of Capitola]), https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/capitolaca -meet- 7a1699cfde7f4d0f8d2bce5df22a5e22/ITEM-Attachment-003-fa130eb7dab849d0a07fab4d3f57eaa1.pdf. 8 See GoogleMaps, https://www.google.com/maps/place/S+Vineyard+Ave+%26+E+Riverside+ Dr,+Ontario, +CA+91761/ @34.019553,-117.6108423,3a,60y,275.55h,90.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5! 1sg62gK6vh1vo5 oTVRplSt-w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2 Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client% 3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-0.31853410523336834% 26panoid%3Dg62g K6vh1vo5oTVRplSt-w%26yaw%3D275.5462992542434! 7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x80c334cd1f399d7 b:0x14ca414b23038095!8m2!3d34.0195981!4d-117.610924!16s%2Fg%2F11gdzt7tpb?entry=ttu&g_ep= EgoyMDI1MDIxMi4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDU1SAFQAw%3D%3D .
9 See DEIR, PDF p. 101, 117, 127-136, 151-159, 692; see also Agenda Report (7/16/24, Item 20, p. 4. 10 See e.g., Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v 32nd Dist. Agric. Ass'n (1986) 42 C3d 929, 937 (plans for approved amphitheater project changed to increase seating significantly, expand the site, and reorient the stage to face nearby residences); Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2020) 51 CA5th 226, 237 (claim that university changed project described in campus long -range development plan by approving increases in student enrollment well beyond development plan and EIR projections, without considering whether further CEQA review was required, alleged violation of CEQA). 11 See Summary Report, p. 1; Agenda Report, p. 2; DDA, PDF p. 60 [Exh. B Scope of Development]. 12 DEIR, PDF pp. 32, 41-43, 114-117 (project components and planning areas), 176-178 (listing the project approvals); MMRP, PDF p. 7.

Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025

Page 4 of 7 ends

to reflect substantial changes to the project, meaning that further CEQA review should be required before the City approves the DDA.

3. EXACERBATED GHG/VMT IMPACTS CAN BE FURTHER MITIGATED As mentioned above, the staff report suggests the proposed action was covered by the prior FEIR, including the Council finding that “all environmental impacts” have been addressed within the prior EIR and that “no new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required.” (Proposed Resolution, p. 3.) However, the prior EIR contemplated only a 100-room hotel, including assessing VMTs and GHGs associated with the hotel use.13 By more than doubling that size, the anticipated Project would possibly significantly increase the amount of VMTs and GHGs (including those deriving from mobile emissions) associated with the hotel use (i.e., new or exacerbated impacts). These are impacts going above and beyond those previously found significant and unavoidable.14 As it relates to hotel-related development within PAs 2 and 3, the EIR largely relies on mitigation measures GHG-4 (i.e., point system under City’s Community Climate Action Plan (“CCAP”)) and TRAF-1a (development of Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”)).15 (See excerpts below.)
GHG-4 The City of Ontario shall require applicants to design and construct buildings in Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4 to achieve a 100 -point score with the 2022 Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP), Table 6, “Screening Table for Implementing GHG Performance S tandards for Commercial, Office, Medical, Hotel, Industrial, and Retail Development, 2030.” Alternatively, the analysis of development projects can be done through emissions calculations to demonstrate equivalent reductions using CalEEMod or a similar tool . Projects that do not use the CCAP Screening Tables to demonstrate consistency with the 2022 CCAP must demonstrate that they will generate annual GHG emissions that do not exceed the following emission screening thresholds from the CCAP:

1. For residential development completed between 2020 and 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 5.85 MTCO 2e/dwelling unit.

2. For residential development completed after 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 1.53 MTCO 2e/dwelling unit.

3. For nonresidential developments of all types completed between 2020 and 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 8.84 MTCO2e/2,500 square feet of conditioned space.

4. For nonresidential developments of all types completed after 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 3.61 MTCO 2e/2,500 square feet of conditioned space.

For projects that include both residential and nonresidential space, the residential and nonresidential components must be assessed separately against their respective applicable thresholds
###
13 DEIR, Appendix D1 (Air Quality GHG Modeling), PDF pp. 4, 31, 683; DEIR, Appendix L1 (VMT Memorandum), PDF pp. 9, 34; FEIR, PDF p. 171.
14 See e.g., CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, pp. 105-109, 115-119, 137, 141-142.
15 Ibid., see also MMRP, pp. 23, 30,
Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025

Page 5 of 7 ends

TRAF-1a Commercial/Hospitality TDM Measures. Applicants for commercial and hotel development in Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4 shall prepare Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures analyzed under a VMT -reduction methodology consistent with the Californ ia Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Final Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2021) and approved by the City of Ontario. Measures shall include but are not limited to:
• Implement a voluntary commute trip reduction program for employees. • Implement an employee parking cash-out program for employees. • Collaborate with the City to support transit service expansion. • Comply with requirements detailed in the Parking Management Plan, including providing parking validation for retail and hospitality visitors. (See ORSC EIR, MMRP, pp. 23, 30.)
While the ORSC EIR stated there were no other feasible mitigation measures,16 additionally feasible mitigation measures do seem available to reduce the impacts exacerbated by the larger hotel Project17—especially measures that can minimize VMTs and associated GHG mobile emissions recommended by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”) and other public agencies (e.g., Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”), the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”), South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”)).18 For example, the City could require a mandatory rather than merely voluntary commute trip reduction program (“CTRP”), provide subsidized transit passes, include bike/scooter-share facilities, and other strategies.19 CAPCOA estimates that a mandatory CTRP is more than six times more effective at reducing GHG impacts (i.e., up to 26%) as compared to a voluntary CTRP (i.e., up to 4%).20 Furthermore, it is unclear why some of the 227 rooms could not accommodate some form of on-site housing, such as affordable or 16 Ibid., 109, 119
17 To the extent impacts are part of the existing baseline conditions, it is nevertheless proper to evaluate a development’s exacerbating effects on existing impacts. (See Clews Land & Livestock, LLC v. City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 161, 194 [quoting California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377, 388].)
18 See CAPCOA (Dec. 2021) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, pp. 31-32, 73, 76, 80-96, https://www.airquality.org/ ClimateChange/Documents/Final%20Handbook_AB434.pdf; CAPCOA (Aug. 2010) Quantifying GHGs and Mitigation, pp. 64-74, https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/34123/CAPCOA-2010-GHG- Quantification-PDF; OPR (Dec. 2018) Technical Advisory, pp. 27, https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_ Technical_Advisory.pdf; SCAG (Dec. 2019) Final Program EIR, pp. 2.0-18 – 2.0-71 (see project-level mitigation measures for air quality, GHG, and transportation impacts), https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_complete.pdf?1607981618; SCAG (Apr. 2024), Program EIR, pp. A-7 – A-48, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/exhibit_a_mmrp_508_final.pdf?1712003625; CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, 4, 7, 24, 29 & Appendix D, pp. 23, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32- climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents; CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, Appendix B-Local Action, pp. 1-8, 7-9 & Appendix D, p. 2, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/app_b_local_action_final.pdf. 19 See e.g., CAPCOA (Dec. 2021), supra fn. 16, pp. 83; CAPCOA (Aug. 2010), supra fn. 16, p. 66. 20 CAPCOA (Dec. 2021), supra fn. 16, at pp. 83, 86.

Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025

Page 6 of 7 ends

work-force housing. Therefore, we urge the City to consider a more robust, hotel-specific mandatory commuter reduction program that could include:
• Specific performance level to be reached (e.g., specific VMT or average daily trip reduction or both);
• Specified participation level (e.g., 100% of employees); • Participation in guaranteed ride programs for employees who need to respond to emergencies arising when normal public transit is infeasible; • Incentivize employee carpool/vanpool access to preferential parking spaces or hotel valet service or both;
• Subsidized transit passes for hotel workers and patrons; • Provide end-of-trip facilities; and
• Dedicated shuttle service for hotel patrons toward nearby destinations.21

4. MISSING INFORMATION AND PROJECT PIECEMEALING
The staff report also fails to explain and/or provide other key information. For example, the staff report cites a Thompson & Thompson Real Estate Valuation and Consulting, Inc. appraisal, which is not included. (See Summary Report, p. 3.) This is significant because the staff report does not explain to the public numerous key issues with the DDA, for example: (1) how was the fair market value of the City-owned property determined to be “$14.00 per square foot”; (2) what is the difference between the City’s purchase price (i.e., $1.4 million) and the estimated reuse value of the Property to the Developer, which is admittedly valued “significantly higher”; and (3) how much increased “revenue” is the City expecting from the new hotel (e.g., property tax, TOT, etc.). (Id.) Furthermore, as part of the City’s action in July 2024, the Property was rezoned CCS,22 which requires a hotel CUP under section 5.03.250 of the City’s Development Code, which requires (among other things) a market feasibility study23—also not mentioned or provided in the staff report.

Additionally, the increased hotel component and failure to consider the CUP here raises the concern of whether the City is improperly piecemealing the Project and project approvals. Under CEQA, the City must assess “the whole of an action” and not improperly piecemeal a project’s analysis whereby the full impacts of a development are masked by chopping up the overall project into smaller development projects. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15003(h), 15378(a).24) This analysis must include all phases of the project and all reasonably foreseeable consequences of the project. (Id., § 15126.25) This analysis should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process and before the City commits to any action. (Id., § 15004(b).) Here, the prior EIR looked at only a 100-room hotel—not a 227-room hotel—and the City seems to be considering committing to the larger hotel Project without conducting a subsequent CEQA analysis and evaluating a CUP. 21 See e.g., Santa Monica Municipal Code § 9.5.130(B)(2)(b); https://www.octa.net/getting-around/ rideshare/oc-rideshare/employers/guaranteed-ride-home-program/; https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/ AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/3098?fileID=21731.
22 see July Resolution, PDF pp. 1-2.
23 Dev. Code, PDF p. 17, 44, 54, 130-132.
24 See also Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1454; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. Cnty. of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 730. 25 See also Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396-398; City of Santee v County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1454.

Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025

Page 7 of 7 ends

III. CONCLUSION
In sum, Local 11 is concerned that the City may not be following normal SLA rules that would make the City Parcels available to housing developers. Local 11 is also concerned about the City’s reliance on an inadequate CEQA review and mitigation that seems to have never contemplated the DDA or a 227-room hotel at the Property (among other concerns). Local 11 respectfully urges the City to stay action on the DDA until the issues mentioned above are adequately addressed.

Local 11 reserves the right to supplement these comments at future hearings and proceedings for this Project. (See Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1120 [CEQA litigation not limited only to claims made during EIR comment period].) This office requests, to the extent not already on the notice list, all notices of CEQA actions and any approvals, Project CEQA determinations, or public hearings to be held on the Project under state or local law requiring local agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them. (See Pub. Res. Code §§, 21092.2, 21167(f) and Gov. Code § 65092.) Please send notice by electronic and regular mail to the address identified on page one of this letter.

Thank you for consideration of these comments. We ask that this letter is placed in the administrative record for the Project.

Sincerely,
_________________________________________
Jordan R. Sisson, Esq.

Attorney for UNITE HERE Local 11
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office; Luke Connolly; Benjamin Fu; Chad Mosley; City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Request to Halt Negotiations or Disposition until SLA Process Is Completed in Accordance with 2025 HCD Precedent
Date: Friday, February 20, 2026 9:31:39 AM
Attachments: ontario-sla-nov-061825.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for council. [Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Dear Mayor Moore, Vice-Mayor Chao, Council, CM Kapoor, CAO, I am re-submitting the below previously submitted. Please carefully study the cited case precedents.

The HCD notification has not occurred. Claims that a RFP was run are questionable since the city cannot run a RFP on right of way. That is public land. The land needs to be vacated and deemed surplus and await interest from notified parties before deeming exempt surplus. The conditions to deem exempt surplus are very narrow and do not apply here.

If a RFP got a single response the city needs to re-run the RFP. Further the RFP and the response need to be included as staff attachments. Did it describe the offering as a ground lease or disposition. What were the terms. Is that still the same now.

Any vacation requires written evidence that the land can be vacated and has no use. The PC was not allowed to seek or examine such written evidence. Gal conformance absent the same and absent any other findings other than a named housing element project raise the question of whether such a project can be cited in a finding when the negotiation cannot be entered while land is public right of way.

Please ensure you slow down and evaluate impact to the city due to any potential exposure.

All of you have a duty to be fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars and ensure the city avoids any actions that may not be legally defensible.

I implore you to set aside your personal positions and act solely and wholly on the basis of legal correctness and sequentiality of actions as expected by state law in the matter of vacation, HCD notification, bids from interested parties, deeming surplus, deeming exempt surplus, basis for each of the prior steps and noticing, hearings and required written evidence at each step as defined by state law.

Thank you for maintaining full fidelity to state law and expected ordering of actions implied by state law and conformed by past case precedent cited below.

Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) Begin forwarded message:

Risk of Noncompliance and Fiscal/Legal Consequences
Given the recent Ontario finding:

Noncompliance may expose the City to substantial financial penalties (per SLA enforcement provisions) and reputational risk.

1. Declare the parcel “surplus” or exempt surplus after written findings with evidence via a formal Council resolution;

2. Issue a NOA to HCD, local public entities, and certified developers per SLA requirements;

3. Observe the 60‑day notice period, await any responses, and if responses are received allow full 90‑day good-faith negotiations;

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Respectfully,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter)
From: Paul Krupka
To: City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments
Cc: Lina Meng; Brian Avery
Subject: Public Comment | 03-03-26 | Mary Avenue Villas Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 2:42:01 PM
Attachments: krupka Georgia t 50.png
Public Comment 02-10-26 Item #4 Mary Avenue Public Right-of-Way_rev 1 021526.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council Members:

I am sharing the attached revised public comment letter to the Planning Commission for the public record and your consideration during your deliberations on March 3, 2026.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Paul Krupka
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: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk; Lauren Sapudar
Subject: Written Communications Agenda Items 8 and 9 Mary Ave. Villas Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 6:05:41 PM
Attachments: Pages from NR 26-47 Response 1_Redacted.pdf Re Your Vote on Mary.pdf
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the attached documents and this email in the official administrative record for the Mary Avenue Villas project (Agenda Items 8 and 9) for tomorrow's meeting.

These materials—one discovered through a Public Records Act search and the other sent directly to me—are being submitted specifically to protect the integrity of the quasi- judicial process. Formal inclusion ensures full transparency and upholds the procedural due process required for this project.

Contextual Note: These records involve communications with Joshua Safran, the legal counsel for the project opposition, and John Anzur (who appears to be attorney John Andrew Anzur), regarding legal coordination against the project apparently with Councilmember Wang as intermediary.

Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Mayor

City Council
[email protected]
(408)
777-1389

From: R "Ray" Wang <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2026 10:24 PM EST
To: Lina <S Brian Avery
; Walter Li
Subject: Re: Mary Avenue

>; Theresa Horng [i
[email protected]>; Roberta Murai
; City Council <[email protected]>
Hello Mary Avenue team,
This person wants to help you. I'll let you assess if he’s friend or foe but | can tell you he wrote a scathing letter to council and Kitty for her lack of support.

Warmest regards
R “Ray” Wang
Member, Cupertino City Council
www.ray4cupertino.org
Cupertino
City Council
Residents First e Fiscal Responsibility e Quality of Life

On Feb 9, 2026, at 14:55 wrote:

Ray, writing u on this email. You can forward my email to the leaders of the save cupertino stop mary. We would be willing to donate something to the legal fight to stop it. The newspaper said some legal corners were cut by the city and maybe a court will stop it.

Tks, john

1 of 2
Monday, March 2, 2026 at 14:24:05 Paciﬁc Standard TimeMonday, March 2, 2026 at 14:24:05 Paciﬁc Standard Time Subject: Subject:Re: Your Vote on Mary
Date: Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 at 7:30:01 AM Paciﬁc Standard Time From: From:

To: To: Kitty Moore
CC: CC: R "Ray" Wang, John Andrew Anzur
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 Ms Moore, Following up on this email which you did not respond to or even acknowledge.

Referring back to the election, you and Ray Wang were elected speciﬁcally because of your ability to form an anti development majority on the Board.

Instead you cast a deciding vote to move forward a very locally unpopular development project on Mary. Why do this?
Simply asking for an explanation how u possibly could vote ,and be the deciding vote, to move this forward. It is a betrayal to those who voted u in .

I also understand from the press that not all the legalities were followed. Can y explain this please? Can you also forward my email to the citizens who led the opposition to this project, or send us their email.

Finally, why spar with your colleague. U two were voted in together. The press report some petty retribution. Focus on the important issues.

When these things get built they are permanent. Your decision has long lasting bad implications for this neighborhood.

Look forward to hearing from you .

On Feb 9, 2026 12:55 PM, wrote:

Dear Ms Moore,
What happened on your vote on Mary Avenue? If you had voted with Wang the ridiculous locally unpopular project was dead (2-2-1). We elected u and Wang as a block to slow development and u ignored your voter block. Really? Would like an explanation why u didnt follow your promises to voters and voted contrary to Wang.

Thank you.

From: Cupertino ForAll
To: City Council
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk
Subject: Support for Mary Avenue Villas
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 6:07:14 PM
Attachments: image.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.

March 02, 2026
Please include the following letter in the Written Communications for City Council Meeting on March 3, 2026.
______________________________________________________
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers,
Subject: Agenda Items 8 & 9,

City Council Meeting March 3, 2026, Mary Avenue
Villas Project
Cupertino For All (CFA) strongly advocates in favor of, and urges City Council to approve both Agenda Items 8 & 9, re-stated from Staff Reports below:

Agenda Item 8:

Consider Adopting a Resolution Vacating a Portion of Public Right- of-Way Located Along the Westerly boundary of Mary Avenue (APN 326-27-053) Recommended Actions: Find project exempt from CEQA

1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

2. Adopt Resolution No. 26-XXX approving the vacation of a portion of public right-of- way located along the westerly boundary of Mary Ave (APN 326-27-053) Agenda Item 9:

Consider Adopting a Resolution Declaring the Mary Avenue property (APN 326-27-053) Exempt Surplus Land under the California Surplus Land Act.

Recommended Actions:

1. Find project exempt from CEQA

2. Adopt Resolution No. 26-XXX declaring the Mary Avenue property (APN 326-37- 053) to be exempt surplus land pursuant to the provision of the Surplus Land Act codified at
California Government Code subsection 54221(f)(1)(F)(i) Mary Avenue Villas fills a critical need. With this housing, Cupertino joins the region in building homes for our most vulnerable residents. This, also, fulfills another goal of the city: preventing people from becoming unhoused.

We honor the dedicated advocates for Extremely Low Income (ELI) Housing for those who are Intellectually Developmentally Disabled (IDD). These advocates have dreamed and worked for this housing for two decades. Many organizations and families have borne witness to the need.

Thank you to several City Councils for their attention and support over many years as this project worked its way through regulatory meetings and decisions required. In 2019, Mayor Scharf put the project for ELI/ IDD housing on the City Priorities which provided City leadership from that time to this important day.

Thank you to Cupertino’s knowledgeable, dedicated City Staff, and excellent Attorneys, who have worked diligently over the years to complete the long, detailed list of regulatory steps for this unique site and special-needs housing. As stated in the Staff Reports for both Agenda Items, many actions have been taken, meetings held, findings made, and affirmative decisions made, to move Mary Avenue Villas Project toward final approval.

Thank you to the Public who have spoken and written over the years in support of this critical housing for vulnerable residents. Your warmth and generosity have shone through your presence and words.

Cupertino For All strongly advocates in favor of, and urges City Council to approve, both Agenda Items 8 & 9.

We are here to advocate that this City Council join the several prior Councils that have moved this project forward with the necessary approvals, funding, and with these actions, the land needed to build a place for our most vulnerable neighbors. A place for them to become. A place for them to enjoy independent lives that allow them to continue to learn and grow, throughout their lives. A place for them to create a community. Those of us who enjoy the independence of our own homes can watch with joy as 40 new homes are added to Cupertino’s housing stock to provide such independence to others.

We urge you to vote “yes” without further delay.

Sincerely,
Cupertino For All
Board of Directors
From: louise saadati
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Items 8 & 9 of City Council Meeting March 3, 2026, Mary Avenue Villas Project Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 5:33:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

March 02, 2026
Please include the following letter in the Written
Communications for City Council Meetings for
March 3, 2026 _________________.

Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Liang and
Councilmembers:

Please vote yes for both Agenda Items 8 and 9
in the 3/3/26 council meetings.

This yes vote is needed to allow the Mary
Avenue Villas to progress to final approval and
development. It has been a slow arduous 20
year process starting with grassroots Cupertino
community including
advocates for Extremely Low Income (ELI)
Housing for Intellectually and those who are Developmentally Disabled (IDD); then obtaining support from the Rotary for more than 10 years; and then Steve Scharf in 2019 to meet the need
in Cupertino for some affordable housing for
EDD and IDD.

This site is part of the required Housing Element
that HCD approved.

June 16, 2026 is the HCD deadline for
Cupertino to meet the Housing Element
requirement for below market housing. We
need this Mary Avenue Villa to be approved
before June 16, 2026 to KEEP CUPERTINO
FREE FROM BUILDERS’ REMEDIES.

Please approve Items 8 and 9 on 3/3/26 Council
Meeting and expedite its progress to
development and meeting Cupertino’s Housing
Element requirements.

Thank you to the City Councils, Commissions,
City Staff, advocates and community who have
worked hard over a 20 year period to make this
project be possible and come close to final
approval.

Thank you ,
Louise Saadati
From: Joshua Safran
To: Lauren Sapudar; City Clerk; City Council
Cc: Tina Kapoor; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Kirsten Squarcia; Benjamin Fu; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Floy Andrews; City Attorney"s Office
Subject: Demand Letter to City Council of Cupertino re Mary Avenue Villas Project (March 3, 2026) Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 2:36:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Demand Letter to City Council of Cupertino re Mary Avenue Villas Project (March 3, 2026).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the City Council,
Please find attached our Request for Compliance with Law and Objections to Agenda Items 8 & 9 of City Council Agenda of March 3, 2026: Proposed Right-of-Way Vacation (Res. 26-024) and Exempt Surplus Land Declaration (Res. 26-025) for Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737) for due Council consideration and inclusion in the public record.

All the best,
Joshua
Best Regards,
Joshua Safran
One Almaden Boulevard, Suite 700
San Jose, California 95113
Phone:

408.478.4100
Email: [email protected]
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential, and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privilege.

If you are not the intended recipient, any review, disclosure, distribution, or use of such information is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this e-mail in error, please destroy it and notify the sender immediately.

One Almaden Boulevard, Suite 700 San Jose, CA 95113
P: (408) 478-4100 F: (408) 295-4100 www.strategylaw.com

March 3, 2026 JOSHUA SAFRAN, ESQ.
[email protected]

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

By Email ([email protected])
Request for Compliance with Law and Objections to Agenda Items 8 & 9 of City Council Agenda of March 3, 2026:

Proposed Right-of-Way Vacation (Res. 26-024) and
Exempt Surplus Land Declaration (Res. 26-025) for
Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)
Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the City Council:

We represent the Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Avenue Safety (the “Coalition”), an unincorporated association of residents and comm unity members directly and adversely affected by the proposed Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737) (the “Project”), and the City’s related approvals and commitments affecting the Mary Avenue right-of-way and public parking resources. The Coalition respec tfully objects to the actions pr oposed for tonight under Agenda Items 8 and 9, including the City’s request that the Council (i) again find these actions CEQA- exempt, and (ii) adopt resolutions to vacate a portion of the Mary Avenue public right-of-way and to declare City-owned land “exempt surplus land” under the Surplus Land Act.

At a minimum, Items 8 and 9 should be continued. The record demonstrates that the City has been proceeding in a rushed, backward, and legally indefensible manner – approving and committing first, and attempting to supply required findings and lawful sequencing later – driven by an external financing timeline. Proceeding tonight would compound those defects and further prejudice affected residents.

I. Tonight’s Actions Are Not “Mere Implementation” and Cannot Lawfully Proceed on a Categorical Exemption
Item 8’s staff report asks the Council to “[f]ind the project exempt from…CEQA” and adopt the street vacation resolution. Item 9 likewise as ks the Council to “[f]ind the project exempt from…CEQA” and adopt the exempt surplus land declaration. The draft exempt-surplus resolution goes further, asserting that “none of the exceptions” apply and that the action is “not…a separate project under CEQA” but “an implementati on action within the scope” of the housing development.

Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)

Page 2 ends

The Coalition has alread y shown, supported by eviden ce in the record a nd supplemental expert analysis, that CEQA’s categorical exemption criteria and exceptions are not satisfied and that the City’s CEQA approach reflects improper segmentation of an integrated undertaking. As explained in the Coalition’s Petition for Reconsideration (the “Petition”) filed on February 27, 2026, the DDA approval, public land conveyance, and ri ght-of-way vacation enabling development constitute a single integrated undertaking that must be evaluated as the “whole of the action.” II. The City Is Inappropriately Attempti ng to “Cure” Required Findings After Committing Itself through the DDA
A. The City’s Own Staff Report Co nfirms these Actions Are Conditions Precedent to Perfecting the Transfer under the DDA
The staff report for Item 9 acknowledges that on February 3, 2026 the Council voted to enter into a contingent DDA, and that the City cannot transfer the City-owned property unless contingencies are satisfied, including (1) declaring the property “exempt surplus land,” and (2) vacating 0.79 acres of public right-of-way. It further states that only after those contingencies are satisfied “may a transfer of property be perfected.”
In other words, tonight’s items are not ministerial follo w-through; they are th e City’s effort to fulfill legal prerequisites that should have been lawfully analyzed and sequenced before the City committed itself through the DDA and related approvals.

B. The Record Demonstrates “Cart Before the Horse” Sequencing Driven by Applicant Financing Deadlines
As the Coalition already documented in the Peti tion, the City’s process for this Project has proceeded as a deadline-driven rush where the City approves and commits first, and attempts to supply legally required findings and sequencing later.

That is precisely what is happening again toni ght: staff explicitly links the exempt surplus declaration to “the Project’s financing timeline and regulatory commitments.” Deadline pressure is not a lawful substitute for sequencing required by CEQA, the Surplus Land Act, and right-of- way vacation law.

C. Belated Planning Commission Action s Cannot Retroactively Legitimize an Invalid Process
In the Petition, the Coalition has already ex plained that a belated Planning Commission consistency determination cannot retroactively legitimize an i nvalid CEQA process or cure improper project segmentation, and that the appropriate course is to reset the process and comply with the sequencing and findings requirements imposed by state law.

Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)

Page 3 ends

Separately, the Coalition has s hown that the Planning Commission was inappropriately asked to bless the abandonment of public right-of-way before the City had established what public functions will be eliminated, modified, or displaced, and that this sequencing deprived the Commission and public of a meaningful ability to evaluate General Plan consistency.

D. The DDA Reflects Impermissible Predetermination of Approvals.

As set forth in the Coalition’s prior subm issions, the DDA is not “implementation”; it independently commits the City to convey public land and vaca te public rights-of-way and constitutes unlawful predetermination whereby commitments are made before lawful completion of CEQA compliance, surplus land determinations, and right-of-way vacation findings.

III. The City Cannot Declare “Exempt Surplus Land” on Conclusory Findings that Ignore the Property’s Functional Public Use and Rely on Bootstrapping.

The Item 9 staff report confirms the “Property” includes 0.79 acres of right-of-way and “some on- street parking.” The Coalition has already demonstrated that the Surplus Land Act requires a good- faith determination that property is not necessary for present or foreseeable public use, grounded in the property’s actual functional use, and that the City’s approach improperly bootstraps surplus status to the redevelopment decision.

This is not a technicality. Staff expressly states that adoption of the ex empt surplus declaration “authorizes the City to proceed toward disposition…in accordance with the Project’s financing timeline.” The City should not dispose of public assets on conclusory “not necessary” recitals where the record contains substantial evidence of ongoing public use and displaced impacts.

IV. The Right-Of-Way Vacation Is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence and Cannot Be Treated as “Without Adverse Effect.”
Item 8’s staff report repeatedly asserts that the City “must vacate” the right-of-way “[t]o facilitate the project’s construction,” and that if the Co uncil does not adopt the vacation “the approved development project would not be able to move forward.” That is not the legal standard. A right- of-way vacation is a permanent abandonment of a public asset, requiring findings supported by evidence that the area is unnecessary for present or prospective public use.

The Coalition’s Petition and supporting submissions also explain that the record contains substantial evidence of adverse traffic/parking/circulation and safety impacts, which further undermines any finding that the vacation (and re lated actions) can proceed under a categorical exemption.

Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)

Page 4 ends

V. Councilmembers With Demonstrated P rejudgment/Bias (and Other Disqualifying Relationships) Must Recuse Themselves for Disqualifying Conflicts of Interest The Coalition has separately requested that the Council proceed only after compliance with disqualifications due to conflicts of interest. This issue is not abstract; it goes to the validity of any action taken tonight if the voting body is not impartial.

A. The Petition Documents Record Evid ence of Prejudgment and Lack of the Requisite “Open Mind.”
The Petition explains that a fair quasi-judicial hearing requires decisionmakers to maintain an “open mind,” decide based on law and eviden ce, and not proceed based on animus, moral condemnation, or prejudgment; it identifies extensive remarks by Councilmember J.R. Fruen that the Coalition contends demonstrate prejudgment a nd partiality. The Petition further notes that Councilmember Fruen was the “deciding majority vo te,” that he seconded the principal motion, and that if he had recused himself “the Decision would not have been made.” The Petition therefore requests that any rehear ing be conducted only after “recusal of any Councilmember who has demonstrated prejudgment or bias inconsistent with an ‘open mind.’” Those same principles apply to tonight’s continued, consequential actions that further implement and entrench the challenged approvals.

B. Participation Tied to Organizations Promoting the Project Raises Additional Conflict Concerns
The record also includes a specific request, out of an abundance of caution and to avoid the appearance of impropriety and self-dealing, that Councilmembers who are part of the Rotary Association (associated with and/or promoting the Project) should recuse themselves, and that any city council member who has a conflict of interest must recuse themselves from voting on this Project.

VI. Requested Relief for Tonight’s Meeting
For the reasons above, the Coalition respectfully requests that the City Council:

1. Continue Agenda Items 8 and 9 (Res. 26-024 and 26-025).

2. Direct staff to proceed only after full compliance with applicable law, including lawful CEQA review of the whole action, antecedent Government Code § 65402 determinations, right-of-way vacation findings/procedures, and Surplus Land Act compliance.

3. Ensure a lawful and impartial decisionmaking body by requiring recusal of any Councilmember with a disqualifying conflicts of interest, including prejudgment/bias

Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)

Page 5 ends

inconsistent with an “open mind,” and addressing the additional conflict concerns described above.

4. Decline to make or reaffirm categorical exemption findings for these actions where the record shows substantial evidence of impacts and legally defective segmentation/sequencing.

This letter is submitted without prejudice to, and shall not be deemed to waive, any claims, objections, arguments, or remedies available to the Coalition under CEQA, state law, local ordinance, or common law. All such rights and remedies are expressly reserved.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Very truly yours,

STRATEGY LAW, LLP

Joshua Safran, Esq.

cc: Tina Kapoor, City Manager (Tinak@c upertino.gov; [email protected]) Kirsten Squarcia, Interim Deputy City Manager ([email protected]; ) Lauren Sapudar, Acting City Clerk ([email protected]; [email protected]) Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development ([email protected]; [email protected])
Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney ([email protected]; [email protected])

From: Connie-Comcast Swim5am
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Written Communications City Council 2026-3-3
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 8:45:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,

Please add my comments to the written record.

Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham
2026-03-03 CC Written Communications; Mary Avenue Villa Project Agenda Item 8 Good Evening, Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney:

Thank you to the City Staff for their excellent work and to the City Attorney for opinions we can rely upon that the project meets all legal requirements.

I urge you to approve the recommendations for Agenda Item 8. Exempt from CEQA, and Vacation of a portion of public Right of Way located along Mary Avenue.

The project strikes a good balance among City needs:

housing, roadway, parking,
pedestrians and bicycling.

Sincerely,
Connie L. Cunningham
38 year resident and, currently, Chair, Housing Commission, speaking for myself only.

From Connie's iPhone
From: Mark Zavislak
To: Public Comments
Subject: Re:

Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 5:29:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To supplement my comment, the parcel to be vacated is in active use by the southbound bike lane, and the parcel is also being used at this very moment by students from Homestead High who are currently running across it.

On Mon, Mar 2, 2026, 15:09 Mark Zavislak <[email protected] > wrote:

Dear City Council Members,
In order to pass the resolution vacating a portion of Mary Avenue (APN 326-27-053), you must make a finding that such portion is "unnecessary" for present use as well as prospective use. However, as a resident of the neighborhood, I drive over that portion of the road several times a day, as do countless other individuals. Cars are literally driving over Parcel 1 as you consider this resolution. While long-term prospective
use is under vigorous debate, present
use is not. The proposed portion to be vacated is currently very much necessary for present use as an active, integrated part of the traffic network whose removal cannot be safely evaluated on paper.

Until such time as the street is reconfigured to entirely remove that portion of Mary Avenue from active public use, you have no choice but to vote no on this resolution.

The resulting impacts after reconfiguration will be easier to understand, and all residents and other road users will be fully informed about whether to make the change permanent.

Sincerely,
Mark
From: Lina
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Public Comment March 3 2026 City Council Meeting Items 8 and 9 Mary Ave Project Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 4:18:50 PM
Attachments: Kids N Fun festival occupancy projection.png MPSP appendix A-41 Recs Maintain Mary Ave parking configuration.png Hexagon parking counts April 2025.png
MSPS vendor parking quote.png
I - Applicant Parking Exhibit.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Moore, Vice-Mayor Chao, and Councilmembers:

The Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Avenue Safety submits this formal correspondence to highlight critical factual inconsistencies and legal risks associated with tonight’s Agenda Items 8 and 9. While the Council has expressed a strong desire to support housing goals, proceeding with the street vacation and surplus land declaration on the current administrative record constitutes a documented Abuse of Discretion that jeopardizes the City’s legal standing.

1. "Surplus" Inaccuracy: The City’s Own Records Prove Necessity To declare land "Surplus" or "Unnecessary for Public Use" (Streets & Highways Code § 8324), the City must prove the land is not needed. The City’s own concurrent records prove the opposite:

The Westport Admission: On May 20, 2025, this Council reviewed the neighboring Westport Project (Building 1), which has a 19-space on-site parking deficit. In that record, the City’s "mitigation" was to suggest residents park 8 miles away in San Jose (Oakmont Properties).

The Contradiction: It is legally indefensible to declare Mary Avenue "surplus" land for the Villas project while simultaneously acknowledging that the project next door is so starved for infrastructure that its residents must be sent to another city.

2. Violation of the Adopted 2024 Memorial Park Specific Plan (MPSP) Approval of Item 8 directly contradicts the City’s newly adopted planning documents. The 2024 MPSP Parking Study (Recommendation #6) explicitly mandates: "Maintain current parking configuration along Mary Avenue." * A "Yes" vote tonight ignores the City’s own expert study which signals Mary Avenue as the sole unrestricted relief valve for a regional park where 87% of internal lots are closed during peak events.

Ignoring an adopted Specific Plan recommendation to facilitate a land disposition is a violation of General Plan consistency requirements.

3. Engineering a "Functional Failure" on Mary Avenue .The City’s reliance on the Hexagon Study—conducted during Spring Break (April 14–18, 2025)—is a failure of due diligence.

Baseline Error: By counting cars when Garden Gate Elementary was closed, the City ignored the primary daily users of this artery. It also excluded study during festival conditions.

Krupka Consulting - new report: New data shows that removing these 95 spaces will push parking occupancy to 157% during regional events. Under General Plan Mobility Policy M-1.2, this is a "functional failure." You cannot find a project consistent with the General Plan if it intentionally breaks the circulation network.

Recall that the only other park-adjacent residential parking (Ann Arbor, Christensen, Lauretta Dr.) is permit-only. Vacating Mary Ave is a direct loss of essential civic infrastructure.

4. The "De Anza" Myth Relying on De Anza College parking to mitigate the loss of Mary Avenue is legally speculative:

De Anza is moving to a paid model ($5–$10), which drives visitors onto free neighborhood streets.

Measure G expansion (the 1,000-seat Events Center) will consume De Anza's internal capacity.

The City cannot legally vacate a public asset based on the hope that a third-party private entity will provide a low-cost or free alternative.

5. Correcting the Legal Sequence The "backward" procedure employed here—where the Planning Commission was asked to ratify Council’s pre-determined decision—violates Government Code § 65402. Legal findings of consistency must precede the commitment to dispose of public land. This procedural error, combined with the unaddressed lead and arsenic soil contamination, makes the current CEQA exemption invalid.

Conclusion: A "moral" vote does not provide immunity from state law. We urge the Council to protect the City from the liability of an indefensible record. Do not declare this land "surplus" when your own Westport and Memorial Park records prove it is essential.

We request that you vote NO on Items 8 and 9 and direct staff to perform a full EIR that addresses the whole of the action.

Sincerely,
Lina
Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Avenue Safety
Attachments:

Memorial Park Specific Plan Parking Study 2024
Hexagon Parking Study Report November 2025
Krupka consulting Feb 25, 2026
Attached PDF is from the May 20, 2025 CC meeting on Westport Project Cupertino Assisted Living - Project Modification Back Up Building 1 (Senior Assisted Living) Parking Needs:

Use Expected Count Typical Parking Need Onsite
Stalls
Potential
Surplus Reasoning for Delta Alternative for Potential Overflow Residents 171 Units 14 Stalls
= 8% Utilization Rate
(# of Cars / # of Units)
3 11 Residents will be encouraged against
bringing cars. Onsite stalls will be
dedicated to concierge vehicles.

Concierge vehicles take Residents w/in 25 min
radius, nearby Oakmont Properties have surplus
parking (6.5-8.0 miles away in SJ)
Staff 110 Staff / 3 Shifts
= 37 Staff per Shift
10-13 Stalls
= 25-35% of Max
40 Shift Staff
10 3 75% of staff at nearby Oakmont
Properties take alt transit, staff will be
incentivized through vouchers, etc.

Bus, Bike, Hopper, Carpool, De Anza, Use of Retail
Space when not open (i.e. night shift)
Visitor 30 Daily throughout Day
= 5-10 at given time
5-10 Stalls
= 17-33% of
Daily Visitors
5 5 Guest count is variable on day/time,
estimated 30 guests per day spread
across 3-6 visit times
Uber/Carshare, De Anza
Public Parking
Subtotal - Senior Assisted Living 37 Stalls 18 Stalls 19 Stalls Retail 4 Stalls per 1,000 GSF
on 4,000 GSF
16 Stalls 16 0 N/A
Total 53 Stalls 34 Stalls 19 Stalls
ALTERTNATIVE: REMOVE RETAIL SF Reallocate 16 Retail Stalls Reallocate 16 Retail Stalls to Resident/Staff Parking 16 Stalls to Residential/Staff Parking Total - Senior Assisted Living 53 Stalls 34 Stalls
Impacts to Building 2 (Senior Independent) if Building 1 (Senior Assisted Living) doesn’t get built:

1. Added Annual Maintenance Costs per REA Budget:

Year 1 REA Budget $97,945
Building 1 Share $50,931

2. Loss of 7 Parking Stalls to be provided following construction of Building 1 7 Parking Stalls Cost PSF SF per Stall Total Cost
Underground $ value $300.00 325 $682,500
Surface $ value $60.00 325 $136,500

3. Loss of Common Open Space (Building 2 Open Space included in Building 1’s Central Green) Park SF Cost PSF Total Cost
Estimated Cost of Park 12,250 $170 $2,082,500 includes Hard + Soft Costs From: Lina
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Mar 3 2026 CC meeting follow-up video of 10 ft wide City truck Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 11:03:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include this Follow-up to tonight's hearing. Here are photos of the truck I showed tonight at the City Council meeting that City staff denied as being City-affiliated. It pulled into the Cupertino City Public Works lot at 10555 Mary Ave.

This is confirmed in this video recording of its path.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/uSkABhCspxcz9myf8
truck 1.png
truck 4 end route.png
Lina
Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Ave Safety
From: Lina
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Mary Ave project and wide service truck safety issues- photos for Mar 3 2026 City Council meeting Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:05:31 PM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City,
Please include this for the public record. The Coalition has continuous video recording in addition to photos below of Cupertino public works vehicles (with city logos) on Mary Ave. · Approximately 16 Public Works vehicles per hour, including utility trucks, boom trucks, garbage trucks, and semi-trucks with trailers, travel through Mary Avenue.

Semi-truck with trailer: up to 10 feet wide. Parked cars are seen on Mary Ave parked into the buffer lane, appearing to avoid the traffic lane.

Utility truck 8 to 10 feet wide

Garbage truck 8 to 10 feet wide

Flatbed utility trailer 8-10 feet wide

Boom truck 8 to 10 feet wide

Lina
Coalition for Mary Ave Safety
CC 3-3-2026
#9
Mary Avenue property
Exempt Surplus Land
Written Communications
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Floy Andrews; City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor; Luke Connolly; City Clerk; Public Comments; Chad Mosley
Subject: Informational Memo Clarifying Procedural Sequence in Right-of-Way Vacation and Surplus Land Processes Date: Thursday, February 26, 2026 7:48:55 AM
Attachments: ontario-sla-nov-061825.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.