Written Communications (Updated 04-08-2026) — Cupertino City Council, April 7, 2026

CC 4-07-2026
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From: Walter Li
To: City Council; City Attorney"s Office; Public Comments Cc: Lina; Shaun Fong; Brian Avery; Roberta Murai
Subject: City Council Meeting Time Exceeding City"s Own Policy Date: Thursday, April 2, 2026 8:18:37 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 Attorney and Members of the City Council,
I am writing on behalf of concerned residents and members of the Coalition of Mary Ave regarding the conduct of recent public hearings on April 1, 2026, related to the Mary Ave Villas project.

We respectfully raise serious concerns about the City’s practice of continuing public meetings into the early morning hours of April 2, 2026, including past midnight and reportedly as late as 2:00–3:00 AM. While we understand that the City Council may vote to extend meetings beyond typical adjournment times, the repeated use of late-night hearings for significant and controversial agenda items raises substantial concerns regarding fairness, accessibility, and legal compliance.

Public participation is a cornerstone of open government under California law, including the Ralph M. Brown Act. While the Brown Act may not impose a strict time limit on meetings, it requires that public participation be meaningful, not merely technical. When hearings extend into the early morning hours, many residents—including working individuals, seniors, families, members of the Coalition of Mary Avenue and even legal representatives—are effectively excluded from participating (procedural abusive and suppress public participation). This creates a structural imbalance in access to decision-making and undermines the integrity of the public process. Particularly, since many people in attendance are against the development project, the long drawn out meeting way past mid night was definitely felt to keep people from giving their comments to the city council.

Additionally, the City of Cupertino has adopted procedural guidelines that contemplate adjournment around 11:00 PM, with extensions requiring formal action. The repeated suspension of these guidelines for high-impact agenda items suggests a pattern that may constitute procedural abuse, even if technically permissible in isolated instances.

We respectfully request the following:

1. That the City Attorney review whether the practice of holding hearings past midnight— particularly on controversial matters—complies with both the letter and the intent of the Brown Act.

2. That the City Council adopt and enforce a reasonable cutoff time for public hearings (e.g., no later than 11:30 PM or midnight), especially for items requiring substantial public input.

3. That any agenda items not reached by a reasonable hour be continued to a future meeting to ensure full and fair public participation.

4. That major agenda items be scheduled earlier in the evening to avoid foreseeable exclusion of community members.

We also request that this letter be included in the official public record for all future proceedings related to the Mary Ave Villas project.

Please note that continued reliance on late-night hearings for controversial matters may expose the City to legal challenge based on impairment of public participation and procedural fairness. We urge the City to take proactive steps to ensure that its processes remain transparent, inclusive, and consistent with both legal requirements and public trust.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Walter Li
On behalf of the Coalition of Mary Ave
408-781-7894
From: Michael Chang
To: Public Comments; City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Ongoing Arroyo Village Shared Access Issue and Need for Clear City Standards [Input to Planning Commission meeting, 2026-03-24]
Date: Friday, March 27, 2026 6:46:48 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing as a resident of Arroyo Village, and would like to provide input on shared access and driveway governance, based on an ongoing issue that has now persisted in our community for over one year.

On a shared access roadway (Moro Bay Terrace) serving multiple parties, including nearby residents and the Westport Senior Apartments, multiple speed bumps located less than 25 feet away from residences were installed unilaterally by one parcel owner last year without consultation or agreement from other affected residents.

Since installation, these measures have caused sustained and significant noise disturbance at all hours of the day due to vehicles traveling or speeding over the speed bumps, as well as heavy trucks using this roadway as a shortcut to Stevens Creek Boulevard, despite posted City "No Through Traffic" signage. These speed bumps have affected not only our household, but also neighboring residents and occupants of the Westport Senior Center, while doing little to meaningfully reduce speeding or through traffic. Multiple complaints, including those raised by residents of Westport have, to date, not been substantively addressed.

This situation has involved outreach over time, including engagement with the Mayor and former Mayor, and more recently, efforts by the City to help facilitate discussions among stakeholders. However, because the roadway is considered private, there is no clear mechanism to resolve disputes or prevent unilateral actions that materially affect others.

This points to a broader and recurring issue: developments involving shared access are being approved without clearly defined, enforceable frameworks governing:

1. Authority over physical modifications (e.g., speed bumps or barriers)

2. Required consultation or consent among affected users

3. Responsibility for impacts such as noise, safety, and accessibility

4. Mechanisms for dispute resolution when conflicts arise In the absence of such structure, affected residents have been left in a sustained and unresolved situation causing ongoing disruption and measurable quality-of-life impacts, with no clear path to resolution.

I respectfully urge the City to consider establishing consistent standards for shared access arrangements, including:

1. Clearly recorded and enforceable easements defining rights and limitations

2. Explicit requirements for notice and consent prior to physical modifications

3. Defined processes for addressing disputes among users

4. Consideration of secondary impacts (such as noise and safety) before and after implementation

5. A framework for City involvement when private arrangements create ongoing community impacts
While my comments are grounded in my Arroyo Village experience, my goal is to help prevent similar shared access conflicts from arising elsewhere in the city. Addressing this at a policy level would help prevent future conflicts and provide clarity for all parties.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Michael Chang
408-204-2853 (C)
From: Walter Li
To: Tina Kapoor; Public Comments
Cc: Lina; Shaun Fong; Brian Avery
Subject: Re: Can we erect any signage onto public space? Date: Thursday, March 26, 2026 3:51:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thank you for your quick reply, Tina.

This bike rack at Memorial Park is set up in the middle of a large green lawn area. That means the City expects bikers to ride into the park, along the walking trails and then park their bikes where the rack is? Does the park allow regular bike riding on the walking paths? I walked to the park from my home about 3-4 times a week for the past 10+ years. I can confidently say that I have not seen a regular bike rider riding into the park. Mostly, there are kids riding their small bikes or bikes with training wheels. Why the City approved and installed bike racks in the middle of the park instead of near parking lots is beyond me. I wish Mr. Mosley can enlighten me.

It is much easier for me to believe that the City is playing favorites allowing Rotary Club to do this installation than putting in bike racks to serve the community and public. Why only 1 bike rack planned and a small one at that?
Unless the City removes the bike rack, I cannot see how you can deny any other organizations from here onward from requesting to put their own signages with their own organization names at the park and other public places. You approved this one for Rotary Club, can you refuse other organizations? I have not done a search on this topic to see if the City has already violated its own city code. Even an ordinary resident like me would think there is something very wrong to allow a private organization to install its own signage on public land and parks.

To say "the City Council will be reviewing the City’s policies related to sponsorships, donations, and naming rights in the near future" is too little too late. Please remove the current signage plus check if you have violated city law / codes.

Best regards
Walter LI
From: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 1:55 PM
To: Walter Li <[email protected]>; Public Comments <[email protected]> Cc: Lina <[email protected]>; Shaun Fong <[email protected]>; Brian Avery <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Can we erect any signage onto public space? Hello Walter (and Council bcc’d):

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns regarding the installation in Memorial Park.

The item you are referencing is part of a bike rack initiative that was previously included in the City Council’s Work Program. The installation and the partnership with the Cupertino Rotary was intended to support park amenities and encourage bicycle use.

Staff issued an informational memo to council in January, which can be found here.

I understand your concerns regarding the installation. Staff is continuing to evaluate the placement and design of these bike racks, including the one located at Memorial Park, to ensure they are appropriate for their surroundings and do not create unintended safety issues.

More broadly, the City Council will be reviewing the City’s policies related to sponsorships, donations, and naming rights in the near future. This discussion will help establish clearer guiding principles for how community organizations are recognized in public spaces going forward.

We appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention and sharing your perspective.

Your feedback is helpful as we continue to evaluate this project and refine our policies.

Regards,
Tina
Tina Kapoor
City Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-7607
From: Walter Li <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 11:47 AM
To: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Public Comments <[email protected]>
Cc: Lina <[email protected]>; Shaun Fong <[email protected]>; Brian Avery <[email protected]>
Subject: Can we erect any signage onto public space?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello City Manager Tina,
⁩Can any organization put an advertising sign on public grounds such as a park? Does the public community need to be notified and approved such an installation? This item / signage has been installed in Memory Park (Mary Avenue) for months. Seems to me it serves no public service at all, except to advertise Rotary Club Cupertino. In fact, I have seen kids playing on it. It could pose a danger to small toddlers if they are stuck in the openings, or fall down from it.

What kind of conditions, donations, processes or relationship with the City, does the City require to allow such a signage item on a public park or land? Can anyone apply for such an installation with their own organization names?
Please consider to disassemble this item from the park. It is not appropriate for Rotary Club to advertise on public land. Nor is it legal if the public community is not notified, or allow to give approval or denial. What did Rotary Club do for Cupertino to allow this installation? Thank you for your consideration.

Walter Li
408-781-7894

From: Jeffrey Herdman
To: Public Comments
Subject: Support New Family Housing at 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Blvd! Date: Thursday, March 19, 2026 11:21:27 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.

Official Record Public Comment,
Dear Cupertino Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to strongly urge you to recommend approval for the proposed residential project at 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard. This development represents a rare and vital opportunity to create 122 for-sale townhomes in our city, providing the high-quality, family-sized housing that Cupertino desperately needs.

By building 100% three- and four-bedroom units and including a significant 20% on-site affordable component, this project ensures that both growing families and our local workforce have a path to homeownership. This is a smart, logical conversion of an underutilized commercial site that will actually benefit the surrounding neighborhood by reducing net daily traffic by 40%. Furthermore, the project team’s commitment to preserving the historic pear trees and creating a new public linear park shows a clear dedication to enhancing our community’s character and green space.

Jeffrey Herdman
[email protected]
San Jose, California 95129
From: jzw97
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: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 3:06:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please publish.

We are requesting immediate assistance from the Cupertino City Council regarding property taken in early 2016 and without notice again at the end of 2021, which has still not been returned. I have made multiple attempts to resolve this matter, including requests for meetings, but have received no response.

I am asking the Council to (1) investigate the removal of my property, (2) facilitate its return if still in the City’s possession, and (3) stop all on-going retaliation/ ensure there is no further retaliation for raising this issue. We are ready to meet with a City official as soon as possible to resolve this and expect the return of the property and an end to the retaliation we have experienced since bringing this forward.

Regards,
Residence Huang family
Sent from my Device
-------- Original message --------
From: Huang family
Date: 2/19/26 1:44 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: citycouncil
Cc: City Clerk
Please publish. Thank you!
We request the immediate return of all property and belongings taken from us. Additionally, we ask that all sanctions and any prosecutorial overreach—both to date and ongoing—be lifted as soon as possible.

On Tuesday, December 2, 2025 at 06:57:42 PM PST, j w <[email protected]> wrote:
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: j w <[email protected]>
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 02:47:24 PM PST
Subject: Re: time sensitive!Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the 'political prisoner/hostage'/Fair Treatment from the City
Dear City Clerk,
Please confirm it is published. Thank you!
From: j w <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 4:55 PM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Subject: time sensitive!Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the 'political prisoner/hostage'/Fair Treatment from the City lease include in the public record for next meeting-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang, On Monday, November 3, 2025 at 11:27:26 PM PST, j w <[email protected]> wrote:On Monday, October 20, 2025 at 03:51:05 PM PDT, j w <[email protected]> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jane for Huang family
4086731820

CC 4-07-2026
#1
Active Transportation Plan
(previous written comments from 2/19 & 3/3)
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
TKosolcharoen@cupertino. gov
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 andsirens to pass onthe 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 veterandeputies 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: Venkat Ranaanathan
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,
VenkatRanganathan
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 Kagoor
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 ofthe 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 dropoff 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
Ifthese 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 Georae
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 Sinah 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 I Cupertino Resident
Ravi Kiran Singh Sapaharam
Public Safety Commissioner
0 RSapaharam@cupertino. gov
0- 9- 0- 0- 9- N. 0;
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 dropoff 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 Neoi
To: Public Comments; City Council; Tina Ka000r
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:

To:

Subject:

Date:

P Hershey
Public Comments
Request to remove all purple bike lane projects from ATP 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:

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 ofthe 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: Anaan 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
4o8- 204- 2486
From: Tracy Kosolcharoen
To: City Council; Tina Ka Door; 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. odf 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.

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
N TKosolcharoen@cupertino. gov
I I 0 I I I I
County of Santa Clara
Office of the Sheriff
55 West Younger Avenue
San Jose, California 95110- 1721
408) 808- 4400

MEMORANDUM
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-wayandshall immediately drive to the right-hand edge or curb ofthe 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.

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.

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 ofthe 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 FORTH E 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 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:

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, NOWHERE 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 Ka000r
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.

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 clear reasons why these projects should be rejected:

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 Ka000r
Subject: Request to Remove All Purple Bike Lane Projects from ATP Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 6: 20: 27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Projects to remove:

Homestead Rd buffered/ separated lanes
Stevens Creek Blvd separated lanes
Stelling Rd buffered/separated
Blaney Ave buffered
Bollinger Rd buffered
Foothill/Wolfe separated
Bonny/Pepper Tree lanes
Mary/ McClellan school routes
Key concerns:

Curb parking lost for elders, guests, deliveries on residential streets.

Emergency vehicles blocked by concrete barriers, especially with new Westport senior housing and De Anza clinic.

Faria Elementary drop-off disrupted for 600+ kids on Bonny/Pepper Tree.

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

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

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

Thank you for prioritizing families and safety.

Sincerely,
Chirali Bhandari
From: Seema Lindskoa
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 Ka000r
Subject: Request to remove purpole bike lane projects from ATP Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 5: 59: 14 PM
AUTION: 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 Ka000r
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:

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 Ka000r
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 ofresidents. 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 Ka000r; 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofresidential 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofresidents 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) 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
From: Santa Teresa Cupertino
To: City Council; Public Comments
Subject: Protect Cupertino’s Safety: Reconsider Segregated Bike Lane and ATP Projects Affecting Evacuation Access Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 11:42:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Moore, Vice-Mayor Chao, and Council Members, We placed our trust in your commitment to represent and prioritize the needs and safety of Cupertino residents. We deeply value the leadership you have shown and appreciate your dedication to balancing our city’s infrastructure, environmental, and fiscal responsibilities.

With that in mind, we respectfully urge you to reconsider funding for the segregated bike lanes and any projects within the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) that may reduce roadway capacity or impede emergency response and evacuation.

While we support safe and sustainable transportation options, the specific design of segregated bike lanes— especially those that introduce concrete dividers or reduce shoulder space—poses serious risks. These changes remove flexible roadway areas needed for vehicles to pull over and for emergency responders to maneuver quickly.

In a wildfire or other emergency, the ability to open lanes and adjust traffic flow can make a critical difference in ensuring public safety.

The Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor, from Foothill to De Anza, is already operating at near-capacity levels.

Maintaining free-flowing right turns and direct access to community destinations—such as Orange, Pasadena, Imperial, De Anza College, Stelling, and nearby shopping centers—is essential to avoid daily congestion. These routes also play a vital role in school circulation, and restricting right-side capacity will lead to significant delays for families. The same concerns apply to the Foothill and Stevens Canyon corridors.

As our elected leaders, we encourage you to be bold and be selective—support only the projects that truly enrich Cupertino. Every budgeted project is a long-term investment in promoting Cupertino as the chosen city in the Bay Area—a community that residents are proud to call home. We believe you share our goal of protecting public safety, maintaining sensible mobility, and ensuring prudent financial management.

Thank you for your continued service and commitment to the residents of Cupertino.

Cupertino Resident
Jen C.

From: Ashwini Kumar - Tejas Patil
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Public Comments Subject: request to reconsider ATP project
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 6:30:53 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, Council members,
Please reconsider the ATP project. the proposed changes, i think, should be defunded.

The proposed designs remove usable roadway. They restrict pull-over space. Emergency vehicles need that space. Without it, response times will suffer.

Concrete barriers create fixed choke points. They reduce flexibility during emergencies. In a wildfire or evacuation, we need the ability to open lanes quickly. These barriers make that impossible.

The Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor from Foothill to De Anza must not be constrained. It is already congested. Right turns must remain free-flowing. Access to Orange, Pasadena, Imperial, De Anza College, Stelling, and nearby shopping centers is essential. Removing right-side capacity will create daily gridlock.

While I understand the aim of the project, the proposed implementation is, I consider, faulty. the design is impacting a few elementary and middle schools and I believe more than 90% of the students in elementary and middle schools do not bike to school. The proposed designs will directly impact school drop-off and pick-up. Families rely on these routes. Delays will be severe and unavoidable.

Do not turn key corridors into bottlenecks. Do not compromise emergency access. Do not disrupt school circulation.

If the full ATP cannot be canceled, then remove all proposed bike lane elements that reduce vehicle capacity.

Also review staffing tied to these projects. Reducing program scope should include reducing associated headcount. This is a necessary step given the city’s structural budget deficit.

Please act now. Defund and cancel ATP.

Best Regards,
Ashwini Kumar Patil
From: Vidya Gurikar
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Public Comments Subject: Cancel ATP
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 5:35:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> Dear City clerk,
> Please include this in public comments section.
> Thank you.
>
> Dear Mayor Moore, Vice-Mayor Chao, Council members,
>
> Please cancel the ATP project.
>
> These projects benefit only a very small number of bicyclists and will make it very difficult for large number of other vehicles who use the roadways.
>
> We already have dedicated bike lanes in many major streets in Cupertino. They are serving their purpose without concrete barriers. The concrete barriers will only make the roadways worse. >
> The major roads in Cupertino are already overcrowded during the commute hours. Please do not make it worse. >
> Proposed designs reduce usable roadway. They restrict pull-over space. Emergency vehicles need that space.

Without it, response times will suffer.
>
> Concrete barriers create fixed choke points. They reduce flexibility during emergencies. In a wildfire or evacuation, we need the ability to open lanes quickly. These barriers make that impossible. >
> The Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor from Foothill to De Anza must not be constrained. It is already congested.

Right turns must remain free-flowing. Access to Orange, Pasadena, Imperial, De Anza College, Stelling, and nearby shopping centers is essential. Removing right-side capacity will create daily gridlock. >
> This will directly impact school drop-off and pickup. Delays will be severe and unavoidable. >
> Do not turn key corridors into bottlenecks. Do not compromise emergency access. Do not disrupt school circulation.
>
> If the full ATP cannot be canceled, then remove all proposed bike lane elements that reduce vehicle capacity. >
> Also review staffing tied to these projects. Reducing program scope should include reducing associated headcount. This is a necessary step given the city’s structural budget deficit. >
> Please act now and cancel ATP.
>
> Thank you.

Shrividya Gurikar
> Cupertino Resident
>
>
From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; David Stillman Subject: Defund ATP
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 5:22:12 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 in public comments section.

Thank you.

Dear Mayor Moore, Vice-Mayor Chao, Council members,
Please cancel the ATP project.

These projects benefit only a very small number of bicyclists and will make it very difficult for large number of other vehicles who use the roadways.

We already have dedicated bike lanes in many major streets in Cupertino. They are serving their purpose without concrete barriers. The concrete barriers will only make the roadways worse.

The major roads in Cupertino are already overcrowded during the commute hours. Please do not make it worse.

Proposed designs reduce usable roadway. They restrict pull-over space. Emergency vehicles need that space.

Without it, response times will suffer.

Concrete barriers create fixed choke points. They reduce flexibility during emergencies. In a wildfire or evacuation, we need the ability to open lanes quickly. These barriers make that impossible.

The Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor from Foothill to De Anza must not be constrained. It is already congested.

This will directly impact school drop-off and pick-up. Families rely on these routes. Delays will be severe and unavoidable.

Do not turn key corridors into bottlenecks. Do not compromise emergency access. Do not disrupt school circulation.

If the full ATP cannot be canceled, then remove all proposed bike lane elements that reduce vehicle capacity.

Also review staffing tied to these projects. Reducing program scope should include reducing associated headcount.

This is a necessary step given the city’s structural budget deficit.

Please act now. Defund and cancel ATP.

Thank you.

Mahesh Gurikar
Cupertino Resident
From: Shankar
To: City Council
Cc: Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; [email protected]; Chad Mosley; David Stillman Subject: Active Transportation Plan (ATP) project.

Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 4:45:49 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 / Transportation Committee,
I am writing to share my concerns regarding the proposed Active Transportation Plan (ATP) changes along Stevens Creek Boulevard, particularly in the Foothill to De Anza corridor.

While I understand the broader goals of improving safety and supporting multimodal transportation, I am concerned that the current design may introduce unintended consequences for both traffic flow and emergency response.

This corridor is already heavily utilized and frequently congested. Reductions in vehicle capacity, especially along the right side where turning movements and access points are concentrated, could significantly impact daily traffic conditions. In particular, maintaining efficient right-turn flow is critical for access to key streets such as Orange, Pasadena, Imperial, De Anza College, and Stelling, as well as nearby shopping areas. Any degradation here would likely affect not only general traffic but also school drop-off and pick-up patterns for many local families.

I am also concerned about the use of fixed concrete barriers. While they may provide safety benefits, they can reduce flexibility in roadway management. In situations such as emergency response or evacuations, the ability to dynamically adjust lanes or allow temporary pull-over space can be important. It would be helpful to better understand how these scenarios have been evaluated in the current design.

Given these concerns, I would strongly encourage reconsideration of design elements that reduce vehicle capacity or limit operational flexibility along this corridor. If the ATP moves forward, I request that alternatives be explored that preserve current traffic flow and emergency access while still achieving safety improvements.

Additionally, given the city’s broader budget considerations, I encourage careful evaluation of project scope to ensure that investments are aligned with highest-impact outcomes.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Shankar Garikapati
From: Shweta Minch
To: Public Comments
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 4:45:32 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.

Hello we're Cupertino residents. Morning all 3 school timings almost same n it's very difficult to drive. Why Cupertino City arrange the school bus? It's very convenient to everyone.

Thank you.

Shweta.

From: Deepa Mahendraker
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Public Comments Subject: Please defund and cancel the ATP project
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 4:38:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Moore, Vice-Mayor Chao, Council members,
Please defund and cancel the ATP project.

These designs remove usable roadway. They restrict pull-over space. Emergency vehicles need that space. Without it, response times will suffer.

Concrete barriers create fixed choke points. They reduce flexibility during emergencies. In a wildfire or evacuation, we need the ability to open lanes quickly. These barriers make that impossible.

The Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor from Foothill to De Anza must not be constrained. It is already congested.

This will directly impact school drop-off and pick-up. Families rely on these routes. Delays will be severe and unavoidable.

Do not turn key corridors into bottlenecks. Do not compromise emergency access. Do not disrupt school circulation.

If the full ATP cannot be canceled, then remove all proposed bike lane elements that reduce vehicle capacity.

Also review staffing tied to these projects. Reducing program scope should include reducing associated headcount.

This is a necessary step given the city’s structural budget deficit.

Please act now. Defund and cancel ATP.

Thank you.

Deepa
Sent from my iPhone
CC 4-07-2026
#10
Mayor Signature for Joint
Letter with West Valley
Mayors
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Subject: Item #10 letter to state
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 4:02:13 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.

Item #10 letter to state
Hi City Council,
I would certainly be pleased if the state would roll back ab130 and/or replace other draconian housing laws. I hope that the letter can be clarified to allow modifications to laws in order to regain local control. So I was a bit concerned about putting a total pause on housing laws. Yes, we want housing production, but not at the expense of public health and safety.

Thanks, Rhoda
CC 4-07-2026
#11
Harvest Proporties
Written Communications
From: Shelby Maples
To: Lauren Sapudar; City Clerk
Subject: Applicant presentation - Harvest
Date: Monday, April 6, 2026 3:25:11 PM
Attachments: 260407_SCB_CC Approval Hearing.pdf
260407_SCB_CC Approval Hearing 1.pptx
Good afternoon,
Please see the attached applicant presentation for tomorrow's hearing.

Thank you!
Shelby Maples
Senior Planner
Community Development
[email protected]
(408)777-1333
HARVEST PROPERTIES 1
The Canopies
2 0 8 0 7 - 2 0 8 8 3 S T E V E N S C R E E K B LV D
HARVEST PROPERTIES 2
A gen d a
Introductions
Ownership Overview
Project Introduction
Project Timeline
What We Have Heard
Why Residential/The Opportunity
Project Information
HARVEST PROPERTIES 3
I nt ro d u c t i o n s
J. Blair Volckmann – Partner
Blair joined Harvest Properties in 2010 and is responsible for the sourcing and acquisition of new investments. He works in all aspects of operating and expanding the firm’s portfolio, including investment selection, financings, dispositions and capital relations. He co-heads the entitlement and development team with Preston O’Connell and oversees acquisitions at Harvest.

Prior to joining Harvest, Blair spent three years in Eastdil Secured’s San Francisco office underwriting more than $4 billion of office, retail and industrial transactions. Blair holds a Bachelor’s degree from Vanderbilt University and serves on the board of NAIOP Silicon Valley and City of Hope.

Kevin Choy, P.E. – Director
Kevin joined Harvest Properties in July 2022. At Harvest, Kevin is responsible for supporting all aspects of the development and construction process across a variety of commercial, multi-family and mixed-use projects that range from building repositionings and capital improvements to entitlement and ground-up development.

Prior to Harvest, Kevin served as Development Project Manager for Lendlease leading the initial feasibility, design and early entitlement components of a Mountain View-based commercial project in partnership with Google. Kevin holds a Bachelor’s degree in architectural engineering from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. He is a member of the Urban Land Institute’s Young Leaders Group Advisory Committee and currently co-chairs the Ventures in the Vineyards event series for ULI YLG.

HARVEST PROPERTIES 4
P ro j ec t L o cat i o n
De Anza College
Apple HQ
Sam Lawson
Middle School
Whole Foods
William Faria
Elem. School
280
85 Garden Gate
Elem. School
Project Address: 20807-20883 Steven’s Creek Blvd
HARVEST PROPERTIES 5
P ro j ec t L o cat i o n
Stevens Creek Blvd
N Stelling RdSaich Way
Alves Dr
HARVEST PROPERTIES 6
Project Timeline
Ownership has diligently processed this housing project for the past one and half years and engaged with Staff, the Community, and elected officials to present today’s project.

WHEN ACTION
April ‘24 Submitted Project’s SB330 Application
September ‘24 Submitted Project’s Major Application
1 st November ’24 Community Meeting
February ’25 Major Application Deemed Complete
2 nd March ‘25 Community Meeting
March & April ‘25 Planning Commission and City Council Engagement & Feedback March – July ’25 Alternate Design Investigations
Feb ‘25 – Jan ’26 Major Application Consistency Review
HARVEST PROPERTIES 7
What We Have Heard
 The project is preserving the existing pear trees along Steven’s Creek Blvd.
 The project has completed a traffic study, which has been peer reviewed by City Staff and their Traffic Consultant. That traffic study shows a ~40% net decrease of trips to the site.
 The project is proposing to remove the Retail to allow for new homes.

Ownership commits to working with both Panera and Voyager Coffee to assist in finding a new location in Cupertino.
 The project provides 32,000 sq. ft. of open space onsite via the linear park at the center of the site + paseos between groupings of units.

This is greater than the city requirement.

What did we hear: How did we solve it:

The Team has hosted two community meetings with the public, met with Planning Commissioners and City Council members, and met with other members of the public and business community. In those meetings we have heard the following themes and responded accordingly.  The onsite trees are worth preserving
 Will this project exacerbate traffic
issues in the area?
 What will happen to the Retail onsite?
 What open space is being provided?
HARVEST PROPERTIES 8
P ro j ec t I nt ro d u c t i o n - O p p o r t u n i t y Re-Entitlement Thesis & Strategy
Project’s Guiding Principles:
• For Sale Housing: Production of for-sale housing in the last cycle was minimal at best. Rental product is denser, has been produced historically, and doesn’t pencil • Demographics are changing: As Millennials age and have kids, they are looking for places to put down roots and form a home
• Appropriate Density: Look to reduce visual impacts by reducing density/size/scale of the development
• Consider City Tax Revenue: For-sale housing produces more property tax revenue to the City than apartments
• Respect the surrounding neighborhood’s character: Respect the scale of development, singlefamily neighborhood, to the project’s north • Engage the Stakeholders: Engage with and elicit feedback from the project’s stakeholders • Utilize State Housing Laws: Utilize the various State Laws that promote housing to produce the maximum reasonably achieved homes on this site
Why Redevelop:
• Buildings are at the End of their Useful Life: Buildings are over 40 years old • Apple is Vacating: Apple occupies 65% of the project and has notified us that they are vacating • Office Demand has Changed: Office demand has fundamentally changed. There are millions of square feet that are vacant in the valley
• Lenders & Capital Markets have Devalued Office: Financing for office is almost unavailable due to current interest rates + where lenders value office when compared to pre-Covid 20807 – 20883 Stevens Creek Blvd | Cupertino, CA
Project Plan:
~117,500 sf | 6, 1-2-story older commercial bldgs.

Convert older existing bldgs. to 122 residential units
Size | Description :

HARVEST PROPERTIES 9
P ro j ec t Ben ef i t s
122 for-sale homes proposed
>51 planned within HE
20% Affordable = 24 BMR Homes
~$10M in Impact Fees Paid ~$160k/yr in net additional City General Funds
Consistent with General Plan and
Zoning
Reduction in trip count by ~40%
HARVEST PROPERTIES 10
Ren d er i n g – Steven s C reek Bl vd Ent ra n c e
HARVEST PROPERTIES 11
P ro j ec t I nt ro d u c t i o n – Si te P l a n
HARVEST PROPERTIES 12
L a n d s ca p e Si te P l a n
HARVEST PROPERTIES 13
Ren d er i n g s – I nter n a l L i n ea r Pa r k
HARVEST PROPERTIES 14
Ren d er i n g s – Town h o me o n Steven s C reek
HARVEST PROPERTIES 15
Ren d er i n g s – SFDs o n A l ves
HARVEST PROPERTIES 16
T h a n k yo u
From: Jeffrey Herdman
To: City Clerk
Subject: Support New Family Housing at 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Blvd! Date: Thursday, April 2, 2026 6:52:22 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.

Clerk Council Clerk,
Dear Cupertino City Council members,
I am writing to strongly urge you to recommend approval for the proposed residential project at 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard. This development represents a rare and vital opportunity to create 122 for-sale townhomes in our city, providing the high-quality, family-sized housing that Cupertino desperately needs.

Cupertino must approve thoughtful infill projects like this to meet our housing goals and remain a welcoming city for families of all income levels. I respectfully ask that you vote yes and approve this project!
Jeffrey Herdman
[email protected]
San Jose, California 95129
From: Neil Park-McClintick
To: City Clerk
Subject: Support New Family Housing at 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Blvd! Date: Thursday, April 2, 2026 5:16:57 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.

Cupertino must approve thoughtful infill projects like this to meet our housing goals and remain a welcoming city for families of all income levels. I respectfully ask that you vote yes and approve this project!
Neil Park-McClintick
[email protected]
San Jose, California 95126
From: Jarrod Hsu
To: City Clerk
Subject: Support New Family Housing at 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Blvd! Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 10:48:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Cupertino must approve thoughtful infill projects like this to meet our housing goals and remain a welcoming city for families of all income levels. I respectfully ask that you vote yes and approve this project!
Jarrod Hsu
[email protected]
640 Clay St
Los Altos, California 94024
From: Connie-Comcast Swim5am
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 2026-4-7 Agenda Item for Townhomes at Panera/Voyager Site Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 10:47:47 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please add this to Written Communications
Agenda Item Townhomes at Panera/Voyager Site
Honorable Mayor Moore, Vice-mayor, and Councilmembers,
I strongly support this application.

Cupertino needs more homes of all types. These townhomes include BelowMarket Rate purchase homes and is an excellent step forward.

I urge City Council to approve this Harvest Properties Townhome project tonight.

I urge you to continue the Planning Commission’s idea for finding incentives to keep Panera Bread and Voyager.

Thank you for your consideration.

Connie Cunningham
38 year resident
Housing Commission, speaking for myself only
From Connie's iPhone
From: James Lloyd
To: Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang Cc: Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.

Subject: public comment re item 11 for tonight"s Council meeting Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 9:58:45 AM
Attachments: Cupertino - 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Blvd - HAA Letter - CC.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 Cupertino City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 11 for tonight's Council meeting, the proposed 122-unit housing development project at 20807, 20813, 20823 & 20883 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes 24 median- and moderateincome units.

Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
Apr 7, 2026
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 20807, 20813, 20823 & 20883 Stevens Creek Blvd
By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Dear Cupertino City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 122-unit housing development project at 20807, 20813, 20823 & 20883 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes 24 median- and moderate-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), Housing Element Law, and AB 130.

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan.

Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov.

Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
Of note, the City has planned for housing development on the site by including it in its current Housing Element site inventory. Specifically, the City has planned for 51 units on the site including 21 lower-income units.

CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to height, front setbacks, side setbacks, rear setbacks, building forms, roof plans, lot coverage, number of stories, minimum lot width, landscape easement, parking space size, tandem parking, parking setback, and affordable unit size. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law.

The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) Finally, the project is exempt from state environmental review pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res.

Code, § 21080.66). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
2 of 3
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3
From: Witt Turner
To: Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang; City Council; Public Comments Cc: Ali Sapirman
Subject: Housing Action Coalition | Letter of Endorsement: The Canopies Date: Monday, April 6, 2026 6:35:14 PM
Attachments: The Canopies Cupertino - HAC Letter of Support.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 Members of the Cupertino City Council, I am writing on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition (HAC) to formally present our letter of support for Harvest Properties' "the Canopies", a residential redevelopment at 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard
HAC is a statewide member-supported organization. We advocate for building more homes at all income levels to alleviate California’s housing crisis which directly impacts Cupertino. We are excited to be supporting this project that will bring much needed housing to the region.

All proposed units feature three or four bedrooms, providing essential homeownership opportunities for local families. Furthermore, the development meets Cupertino’s 20% inclusionary requirement by delivering 24 below-market-rate homes onsite.

The project is a logical development that aligns with the General Plan and utilizes state streamlining and density bonus laws. Beyond providing housing, it includes beneficial community features such as a central linear park and a projected 40% net decrease in trip generation compared to the current office use.

Our formal letter of support is attached. We respectfully urge the City Council to support this project and approve it with no delay.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Witt Turner
--
Witt Turner
He/Him/His
Office: (415)-300-0967
Cell: 510-421-9401
Advocacy and Operations Associate | Housing Action Coalition April 6, 2026
Cupertino City Council
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao and Members of the Cupertino City Council, The Housing Action Coalition (HAC) is a member-supported nonprofit that advocates for creating more housing for residents of all income levels to help alleviate California’s housing shortage, displacement, and affordability crisis.

The Housing Action Coalition is pleased to endorse Harvest Properties’ proposed residential redevelopment “The Canopies” at 20807–20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino. Following review by the HAC Project Review Committee, we find that the project represents a thoughtful conversion of aging commercial buildings into much-needed for-sale housing, aligned with Cupertino’s General Plan and inclusionary housing requirements.

Land Use. The project will redevelop six one- and two-story commercial structures totaling approximately 117,500 square feet, including roughly 7,000 square feet of retail, into a 100% residential community. The site fronts Stevens Creek Boulevard, a commercial corridor, and Alves Drive, a single-family neighborhood. Transitioning this aging office site into housing is a logical infill strategy that responds to changing market conditions and community needs.

Density. The project proposes 122 for-sale homes, all consisting of three- and four-bedroom units. The net density of approximately 17.84 dwelling units per acre is within the base zoning allowance of 25 dwelling units per acre. Heights are generally around 40 feet from proposed grade, with certain homes requiring waivers due to Cupertino’s measurement methodology. The project utilizes State Density Bonus Law, SB 330 streamlining, and AB 130.

Affordability. The development meets Cupertino’s 20% inclusionary requirement, delivering 24 below-market-rate homes onsite. Of these, 12 units are at the Moderate AMI level (120%) and 12 at the Median AMI level (100%). By providing ownership opportunities for moderate- and median-income households in a city where entry-level homeownership is often out of reach, the project addresses a critical gap in missing middle housing supply.

Transportation and Parking. The project includes 244 covered resident parking spaces (two per unit) plus 27 guest spaces, consistent with State Density Bonus parking standards and below what would otherwise be required under Cupertino Municipal Code. Bicycle parking is provided within each garage, along with additional publicly available racks. A completed traffic study demonstrates a net decrease of approximately 40% in trip generation compared to the existing office use.

Urban Design and Open Space. The project incorporates a network of small paseos and a central linear park designed to foster neighborhood interaction and community life. The internal park includes seating areas, shade structures, lawn areas, and pedestrian pathways. Each unit includes a private deck, and select homes include rooftop decks. Memorial Park and William Faria Elementary School are located within a half-mile of the site, further supporting livability for families.

Environmental Features. The project will meet California Building Code and Title 24 sustainability requirements, including rooftop solar installation and EV charging infrastructure. While not pursuing third-party certification, the development complies fully with current state and municipal environmental standards.

Community Engagement. Although not legally required to host outreach meetings, the project team conducted two in-person neighborhood meetings and engaged Planning Commissioners, City Councilmembers, and surrounding residents. In response to feedback, the project team preserved the pear trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard and evaluated retail retention before determining that preserving retail would require significant resubmission and delay.

Overall, this proposal converts underperforming commercial buildings into 122 new for-sale homes—including 24 affordable units—in a city facing severe housing constraints. We support this project and encourage the City of Cupertino to continue advancing it through the entitlement process.

Sincerely,
Corey Smith, Executive Director

From: Connie-Comcast Swim5am
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 2026-4-7 Agenda Item for Townhomes at Panera/Voyager Site Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 8:33:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please add this to Written Communications
Agenda Item Townhomes at Panera/Voyager Site
Honorable Mayor Moore, Vice-mayor, and Councilmembers,
Connie Cunningham
38 year resident
Housing Commission, speaking for myself only
I strongly support this application.

Cupertino needs more homes of all types. These townhomes include a variety of homes. Especially, it include Below-Market Rate purchase homes and is an excellent step toward our commitment expressed earlier this evening for April as Fair Housing Month..

I agree with the speakers who have made important testimony about Panera Bread and Voyager Coffee as community hubs. I urge City Council and Staff to continue the Planning Commission’s idea for finding incentives to keep Panera Bread and Voyager Coffee in the City.

I urge City Council to approve this Harvest Properties Townhome project tonight.

Thank you for your consideration.

Connie Cunningham
38 year resident
Housing Commission, speaking for myself only
From Connie's iPhone

Cupertino City CouncilApril 7, 2026

Cupertino City Council
April 7, 2026