Written Communications (Updated 06-17-2026) — Cupertino City Council, June 16, 2026

CC 06-16-2026
Oral Communications
1 Please add this to the Written Communications
2026-06-16 CC Oral Communications
Good evening, Honorable Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor, and
Councilmembers,
Connie Cunningham
39 year resident; Housing Commissioner speaking for
myself only
We live in a beautiful city with beautiful weather and
many amenities for community use along with
community gathering places. We are in Santa Clara
County, within the state of California.

Just 39 miles away is Gilroy, the garlic capital of the world. People come from all over to visit there to taste garlic ice cream and have a good time.

Lauren, Please share the screen of the photo that I
sent.- Soon Gilroy will be famous for something
horrific, inhumane. –Part of a growing number of
locations for detention camps for immigrants before
they are quickly and illegally sent out of the country
without being allowed to argue their case before a
judge. Deportation without due process is kidnapping..
2 As other cities are considering, I exhort City Council to join Cupertino voices with Santa Clara County and
the State of California to block an ICE Facility near
Gilroy. We are stronger together.
"On Wednesday, June 10, six days ago, Santa Clara
County joined forces with California Attorney General
Rob Bonta to file a lawsuit to block the illegal
development of an ICE facility near Gilroy. "
Earlier I forwarded the County’s email. Included are
links to an article by San Jose Spotlight, the full 175 page report by Attorney General Bonta, the County’s
full press release of the five distinct federal and state laws being violated, and the full news conference that
you can watch.

I deeply appreciate the words of Tony LoPresit county
counsel of Santa Clara County. "We are ready. We
are willing. And we are able to hold the federal
government accountable in the courts.”
The planned detention facility will be 20,000 sq.ft. and can hold 150 people. The property is not zoned for
this. It is zoned for agricultural use.
3 You can email the County
at: [email protected] about this stand they
have taken.

I exhort City Council to join Cupertino voices with
Santa Clara County and the State of California to block an ICE Facility near Gilroy. We are stronger together.

Thank you for this time to speak.

Connie Cunningham
39 year residents; Housing Commissioner speaking for
myself only

1 Lauren Sapudar
From: ElderAid Team <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 8:43 PM
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk; Public Comments; Kitty Moore; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang; Liang Chao
Cc: Sonali. Padgaonkar
Subject: Thank You for the Opportunity to Present ElderAid CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
On behalf of the ElderAid team, I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to present at the City Council meeting and share updates on the progress we have made with the ElderAid platform.

I would also like to apologize that we were unable to play our video presentation during the meeting.

Unfortunately, we were not able to complete the verification process in time. Since the video was intended to demonstrate the enhancements made possible through the City's support, we wanted to share it with you here:

ElderAid Video
The video is only about two minutes long, and we would greatly appreciate it if you could take a few moments to watch it at your convenience.

We are extremely grateful for the City's grant and continued support, which enabled us to enhance the platform and better serve seniors and volunteers in our community. As we continue to grow ElderAid, we would appreciate any guidance, introductions, outreach opportunities, or other forms of support that could help us connect with more seniors and volunteers throughout Cupertino.

Our goal remains simple: to help neighbors support neighbors by making it easier for seniors to receive assistance and for volunteers to give back to the community.

Thank you again for your time, consideration, and continued support of ElderAid. We look forward to staying in touch and working together to better serve Cupertino's residents.

Warm regards,
Deepali
--
ElderAid Team
theelderaid.com
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Connecting Seniors & High School Volunteers
2 Building Community On The Way
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Connie Cunningham <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 2:33 PM
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: 2026-6-16 CC Oral Communication: Block ICE Facility near Gilroy 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, and Councilmembers,
I exhort City Council to join Cupertino voices with Santa Clara County and the State of California to block ICE Facility near Gilroy. Attach Koba of District 5 about actions taken by the County and the State. You can reply to [email protected] about this stand they have "On Wednesday, June 10, Santa Clara County joined forces with California Attorney General Rob Bonta to file a lawsuit ICE facility near Gilroy. "
Included are links to an article by San Jose Spotlight, the full 175 page report by Attorney General Bonta, the County’s full press release o laws being violated, and the full news conference that you can watch.

I deeply appreciate the words of Tony LoPresit county counsel of Santa Clara County. "We are ready. We are willing. An government accountable in the courts.”
I exhort City Council to join Cupertino voices with Santa Clara County and the State of California to block an ICE Facility near Gilroy.

Connie Cunningham
39 year residents; Housing Commissioner speaking for myself only Attachment below:

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Supervisor Abe-Koga's Newsletter
Dear Friends,
Santa Clara County and the State of California
sue the federal administration to block
ICE Facility near Gilroy
On Wednesday, June 10, Santa Clara County joined forces with California Attorney General Rob Bonta to file a lawsuit an ICE facility near Gilroy.

In the words of Tony LoPresti, county counsel of Santa Clara County:

2 "We are ready. We are willing. And we are able to hold the federal government accountable in the courts.” To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Attorney General Rob Bonta speaking at the press conference Anxiety has been high since reports of a potential ICE detention center began to surface last May. Records show that centers suffer not only from enforcement, but from fear of enforcement. Daily life in communities withers as people activities at churches and youth sports decline from lack of people to participate.

The 25-acre facility in unincorporated Gilroy that was leased out in 2025 suddenly ramped up activity last month, whe of existing agricultural structures. And now construction has been observed. While the federal administration has bee blueprints uncovered by the publication, San Jose Spotlight, reveal a 20,000-square-foot facility capable of holding u Nowhere in the County’s zoning code for this area does it say that a facility designed to detain human beings is allowe said. In fact, the site, which sits by the Llagas Creek along a winding stretch of Holsclaw Road, is zoned exclusively for

Documents show that the federal government leased the property for $26 million over 20 years. Demolition and cons yet neither the owner nor the federal government has applied for a single county permit. The failure to communicate whose laws govern aspects of land use or environmental review, is alarming for its implications for pollution of the lo the existing septic system. The site has had three decades of documented leaks and spills of chemical compounds -- w the demolition and construction activities.

Based on what we know about other federal detention sites, the blueprints suggest the site would be used for short-t people to larger detention centers around the country. Such facilities are called Enforcement and Removal Operation administrative and short-term detainment, and are not equipped with the infrastructure needed for long-term deten that across the country, such short-term offices have been misused as defacto long-term, detention sites, plagued by conditions stemming from the stepped-up campaign to grab as many people as possible. His office just released a 17 report reviewing conditions at the seven detention facilities operating in Central and Southern California. There is an service just before the report came out.

“Not only is the federal government not working with us, they are actively working against us. Against the law. And ag Clara County,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta.

This filing marks the 11th case Santa Clara County has filed against the Trump Administration and the 71st by the att and constitutional rights of our communities.

County Counsel Tony LoPresti summed it up. “Our suit carries a simple message: In this county and in this state, the l administration’s crusade against the immigrant community.”

The complaint outlines five distinct federal and state laws being violated. You can read each violation in the County’s

We will fight this secretive development clearly on a fast track to build in order to bypass state and local laws. The Co attorney general are seeking injunctive relief, steadfast in belief that a court will stop the action and force the federal We will continue to fight this project with every legal tool at our disposal.

I am grateful for the long hours put in by the lawyers and investigators in the Office of the County Counsel, the lawye and the assistance of Stanford professor Michelle Wilde Anderson. We are fortunate that we can depend on the dedi professionals.
3 Please watch the news conference and hear for yourself how committed they are. What is at stake are the lives of p many ways, what makes us a community at all.
***end of my email ***
Supervisor Margaret Abe-Koga
70 W. Hedding Street
San Jose, CA
(408) 299-5050
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Instagram
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Facebook
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

LinkedIn
Unsubscribe from future updates
Cupertino-Hsinchu Sister City Association Student Exchange Program 2026 To the Cupertino City Council
The Honorable Mayor Kitty Moore
The Honorable Vice Mayor Liang Chao
City Councilmember Sheila Mohan
City Councilmember J.R. Fruen
City Councilmember R “Ray” Wang
The Cupertino-Hsinchu Sister City Association, CHSCA, is pleased to present to the Cupertino City Council our Student Exchange Program April 2026 Report.

Our student exchange program started in 2004 when we welcomed the first student delegation from our Sister City - Hsinchu, Taiwan and this year marked the 22nd year of our Exchange Program. Our delegation of 25 students representing our city from our two school districts, Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD), traveled to Hsinchu for a one week exchange from April 10th to April 19th, 2026. The CHSCA Student Exchange Program provides 7th-12th graders the opportunity to stay with a host family in Hsinchu, attend local schools to experience the education system in Taiwan, learn about the history of Hsinchu and Taiwan, and most importantly establish lifelong friendships between our students and host families.

Hsinchu is known as the Silicon Valley of Taiwan with over 300 tech companies located in the Hsinchu Science and Technology Park. During their time in Hsinchu, students have an opportunity to see how connected our two cities are. Our report will highlight the major activities of our trip based on student journals on our 2026 CHSCA Student Delegation Website where each student was asked to chronicle their time and reflect on the activities they participated in Hsinchu.

This year’s delegation consisted of 25 students, 6 from FUSHD and 19 CUSD students representing all middle schools. Our 2 teacher Chaperones, Mr. Mike Jarvis from Cupertino Middle and Mr. David Chen from Cupertino High School. Mr. Chen had already been part of our student delegation when he was in middle school and so we are excited he now rejoins us as a teacher chaperone! Joining our delegation are members from our organization: President Janice Sung, Vice President Angela Chen, Vice President Chia Ching Lin, and Student Activities Coordinator Angelo Noguera.

Prior to our trip in April, our students participated in 7 training sessions to learn about Taiwan, understand their responsibilities as a delegate, collaborate on a skit to present to our host during the Farewell Dinner, and connect virtually with their host families before arriving in Taiwan. Our meetings are facilitated by members of our group who work with city and education officials in Cupertino and Hsinchu, and act as primary contacts for all family members.

CHSCA 1
Official Delegation Visit to Hsinchu City Hall and Meeting with Mayor Gao on April 13th, 2026 Though our student exchange was only a week long, thanks to the Hsinchu City Government and our host school for this year, Yu Hsien Junior High School and Principal Wang, students were able to explore and learn various aspects of student life in Hsinchu. The week consisted of our official delegation meeting with Hsinchu City Hall Officials, a day trip to Taipei, 3 days of school with their host student, and time to explore Hsinchu. Throughout our entire trip, our students were able to engage with various members of the Hsinchu community who helped ensure our students enjoyed their activity rich week inHsinchu.

CHSCA 2
Welcome Celebration at Yu Hsien Junior High School on April 12th, 2026 A key component of our student program is experiencing school life in Hsinchu.

Throughout the week our student delegation was able to visit many Hsinchu schools to experience unique electives and classes Hsinchu junior and high schools have to offer.

Cupertino students first spent the morning with their host students in school and then in the afternoons traveled to another school to experience classes as a whole delegation. After our visit with Mayor Gao on Monday, our students traveled to Fuli Junior High, a school known for their glass blowing and a championship archer team. Unfortunately, we were not able to visit last year due to renovations on campus. We were excited to return this year and continue the long and positive history our program has had with Fuli.

At Fuli, students broke up into two groups and rotated between the glass blowing and archery class. During the glass blowing class, students were paired with a Fuli student and were tasked with making glass flowers. Sitting side by side in the forge, our students watched the meticulous movements of staff and Fuli students to create their glass sculptures and add their own touches to it. On Fuli’s new archery field, students first received instruction from the coaches, including the Bilingual English teacher and a former Olympian who now coaches the Fuli Team. WIth their Fuli partner, students attempted to hit a target about 5 yards out and many of our students competed with each other to see who could get the most points! CHSCA 3
CHSCA 4
Student Delegation visit to Fuli Junior High School on April 13th, 2026 On the morning of Wednesday, April 15th our students attended their host schools for the first time being spread over 20 schools in Hsinchu. From being introduced to the entire school during morning assemblies or being interviewed in their English Class, our students shared how exciting it was to finally meet their classmates as well as expressed how different school in Hsinchu is compared to home. Despite cultural and language differences, our teacher chaperones noted how many of our students easily adjusted to their new school environment.

After having lunch with their host classes, our students traveled to Peiying Junior High School to take part in a circuit building class. In this Makers Space style class, students were creating right from the start as they were taught by Peiying staff the basics of circuits, how to solder, and putting the whole piece together, a spinning randomizer with the school’s logo and exchange program on it. Though our students only have a few hours at each school, our Hsinchu hosts make every effort to provide a unique and authentic Hsinchu school experience that our students will remember for a lifetime.

CHSCA 5
CHSCA 6
Student Delegation visit to Peiying High School on April 15th, 2026 On Thursday, April 15th after having lunch at their host schools our delegation traveled together to Chien Hua Junior High, a school known for its art program. At Chien Hua, our delegation participated in 3 arts classes: creating a preserved flower display, watercolors painting class, and Chinese Calligraphy. Our teacher chaperones were also able to take part in these classes and got to work side by side with Hsinchu students and staff to learn and create.

As a program, we are thankful to each of the schools we visited who created these opportunities for our students and teacher chaperones to collaborate with each other and form new friendships.

CHSCA 7
CHSCA 8
Student Delegation visit to Chien Hua Junior High School on April 16th Our students shared how on the first day at their host school, many local students greeted them when arriving on campus, sharing social media profiles, and helping our students navigate each campus. Many of our students expressed how they always felt welcomed and became part of the school community during the short time they were on campus. CHSCA appreciates and is thankful to all our host schools who make sure that our students are well taken care of and included in the school community right from the start.

Outside of the classroom, our delegation had a chance to learn and immerse themselves in Taiwan and Hsinchu’s culture by exploring the local area. After our Monday visit with Mayor Gao, our whole delegation toured the area around City Hall to learn of the local culture, food, and traditions of our host city. Students learned how to make traditional Taiwanese delicacies near Cheng Huang Temple, an important temple in Hsinchu surrounded by local markets and delicacies. As students traveled the narrow but lively city streets, our students saw how modernity blends with tradition that defines Hsinchu as a city of innovation with deep roots.

On Tuesday, April 14th our delegation, joined by their host students, traveled to Taipei to visit the National Palace Museum, enjoy lunch at Din Tai Fung, and view the sprawling cityscape from the top of Taipei 101. The evening ended back in Hsinchu at Xinzhu Hou Zhan Night Market, a staple of Taiwanese daily life filled with carnival style games, comfort foods like scallion pancakes and stinky tofu, and souvenirs available at night markets. Spending the whole day with their host student makes this day so special for our students as they travel, eat, learn, and bond with their host families.

CHSCA 9
CHSCA 10
Student Delegation visiting Hsinchu and Taipei
CHSCA 11
Over 9 years ago we started our exchange with the National Experimental School and Hsinchu Science Park. NEHS also hosts the International Bilingual School at Hsinchu Science Park, and in collaboration with the Hsinchu Science Park blends Western and Taiwanese education systems to support the science park and families who work at the companies headquartered in Hsinchu. Having the chance to visit such a unique part of Hsinchu education system highlights how students from different cultures and language backgrounds are able to collaborate and learn with each other to create a school community focusing on developing the best learning environment for all involved. We look forward to hosting NEHS students in October 2026 and continuing this valuable relationship for years to come.

As our week came to a close, our Friday Farewell Dinner is our final opportunity to celebrate with our host families, school leaders, and members of the Hsinchu City Government.

Our “”Journey to the West” student performance was a short retelling of the classic story with humor and laughter mixed in. Each host family was presented with a gift from our delegation as a thank you for welcoming our students with open arms and taking them in as their own.

Walking through the dining hall, it was great to see the smiles, laughs, and some tears as students reminisced about their time this week while making final plans for the last two days together. For our adult delegation, we reconnected with many of the Principals whose schools we have visited in the past. With a slide show and video testimonials playing in the background, this night highlights what makes our program so special for all those involved and the deep bonds that are created throughout our program.

CHSCA 12
Farewell and Recognition Party on April 17th, 2026
CHSCA 13
Though our time in Hsinchu is short, our students were able to experience so much thanks to the planning and generosity from our Hsinchu hosts. Many members of our delegation will be welcoming their Hsinchu host students in October 2026. Our mission is to develop and establish lifelong friendships and partnerships between our two cities through our student exchange and much of that comes from the student experience as members of the CHSCA Exchange Program. We are extremely thankful to all the volunteers, school leaders and teachers, and families both here in Cupertino and Hsinchu. We would also like to extend our appreciation and gratitude for the support from the City of Cupertino, CUSD and FUHSD, in ensuring a positive and healthy program for all of our students and staff involved. We look forward to our continued work together and sharing our students' experiences in years to come.

Sincerely,
Cupertino-Hsinchu Sister City Association
CHSCA 14
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: j w <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 4:06 PM
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 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
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 with belongings 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]>
2 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.
3 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
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: j w <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 9:12 AM
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Re: Request to Prioritize Rebuilding Direct Communication Between City Leadership and Residents Dear [Recipient
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please publish. Thank you!
On Saturday, April 25, 2026 at 10:16:47 AM PDT, jzw97 <[email protected]> wrote:

Mayor Moore Vice-Mayor Chao, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang, -------- Original message --------
From: j w <[email protected]>
Date: 12/2/25 6:58 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: [email protected], City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Request to Prioritize Rebuilding Direct Communication Between City Leadership and Residents Dear [Recipient
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: j w <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 at 04:50:22 PM PST
Subject: Re: Request to Prioritize Rebuilding Direct Communication Between City Leadership and Residents Dear [Recipient
Please include in the public record for this meeting-------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang, Could someone please get back to me on this, or forward it to the City Manager’s Office for a response? I’ve raised this issue several times over the past few years, and we would appreciate an update.
>>>>>>
On Monday, October 20, 2025 at 12:02:03 PM PDT, j w <[email protected]> wrote:
2 We would like to express our concerns about the ongoing lack of direct communication between residents and the City, including the City Council, in recent years.

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

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

Most concerning is the fact that some long-term residents have not had an opportunity to meet with city leadership in person for years.

This disconnect does not reflect the values or mission of the City to serve its community with transparency, accountability, and accessibility.

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

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Jenny
Huang family
CC 6-16-2026
Study Session
Item #1
Parkland and Recreational
Facilities
Written Communications
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 4:32 PM
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk; Public Comments Cc: Rachelle Sander; Benjamin Fu
Subject: URGENT: Proposed Ballot Measure to Protect Cupertino’s PR, BA, and BQ Zoned Sites 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.
(Myself only as a Cupertino resident)
URGENT: Proposed Ballot Measure to Protect Cupertino’s PR, BA, and BQ Zoned Sites
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao,
Councilmembers, and City Manager Kapoor,
I urge the council authorize a ballot measure that would require a two-thirds (2/3) supermajority vote of the
Cupertino public to approve any change of use or
rezoning on sites currently designated as Park and
Recreation (PR), Public Building (BA), or QuasiPublic Building (BQ).

Our city’s public and institutional lands, including the Cupertino Sports Center, Senior Center, Quinlan, City
Hall, Community Hall, public schools and our network
of neighborhood parks, community centers, public safety 2 stations, and local school sites form the irreplaceable backbone of our community's quality of life. These
parcels were designated for public and quasi-public
benefit, and they must be fiercely protected from
administrative reclassifications, commercialization, or piecemeal disposition that bypasses direct community
consent.

Relying solely on standard council majorities leaves our most cherished public assets vulnerable to shifting
political alignments and long-term development
pressures. By establishing a 2/3 voter threshold, we
ensure that:

True Community Consensus is Required: No
significant conversion of public parkland, civic
buildings, or school infrastructure can occur without
broad, undeniable support from the residents who
funded and utilize them.

Neighborhood Stability is Preserved: Our open
spaces, recreational facilities, and educational buffers remain secure, safeguarding the character and public
safety of surrounding residential areas.
3 Fiscal and Civic Accountability is Maintained:

Decisions impacting multi-million dollar public assets
remain directly in the hands of the taxpayers.

Our parks and civic spaces belong to the public. It is
only fitting that the public retains final, decisive control over their future use. I strongly urge the Council to take a proactive stance on neighborhood preservation and
civic oversight by bringing this 2/3 voter requirement
initiative forward to Cupertino voters.

Thank you for your leadership, your continuous
dedication to our city's protection of neighborhoods from vested interests , and your commitment to preserving
Cupertino’s quality of life.

I look forward to your anpproval and to including PR,
BA, BQ.

Sincerely,
Santosh Rao
4 1
Lauren Sapudar
From: Anne Ezzat <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 4:22 PM
To: Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; R "Ray" Wang; City Clerk
Subject: Library Field and Quinlan Center Item 1
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 Member Wang, I writing to ask you to consider the zoning for The Library Field and the Quinlan Center. Please categorize these areas as parkland to protect them from future use as parking lots, etc. With the lack of flat land in the area and the continued push to pave everything over, I am concerned these public spaces will be put to private use and residents will once again get the short end of the stick.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,
Brooke Ezzat
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 4:02 PM
To: Public Comments
Cc: Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; R "Ray" Wang; J.R. Fruen; Sheila Mohan Subject: 2026-06-16 CC Meeting-STUDY SESSION - ITEM #1 - Parkland sites 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.

Dear City Council,
In addition to what the staƯ has as “Next Steps” please consider these request.

REQUESTS:
- Quinlan Center: Change the GP land use to be from “Public Facilities” to “Parks and Open Space”. It is used for recreational purposes.
- Civic Center Library Field:
o Re-zone to PR (parkland)
o Change GP land use to “Parks and Open Space”
- City Hall Annex:
o Re-zone to BA
o Change GP land use to “Public Facilities”
Thank you,
Peggy GriƯin
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 3:46 PM
To: Public Comments
Cc: Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; R "Ray" Wang; J.R. Fruen; Sheila Mohan; City Clerk Subject: 2026-06-16 CC Meeting-STUDY SESSION - ITEM #1 - Parkland sites 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.

Dear City Council,
I thank both you and the staƯ for cleaning up the zoning for our public lands. Thank you! In the StaƯ Report “Next Steps” it does NOT include re-zoning Library Field as parkland. I feel very strongly that this parcel needs to be protected. Please consider adding this to the “Next Steps” list.

REQUEST: Add “Rezone Library Field to parkland.

Also, the 4th bullet of “Next Steps” says “Reconcile the zoning of Quinlan Community Center. This needs to be protected.

Q: Does “Reconcile” mean rezone to “parkland” or something else. Please be specific.

REQUEST: Clarify and protect Quinlan Center.

Thank you,
Peggy GriƯin
CC 6-16-2026
Item #6
Operating and Capital
Improvements Budget
Written Communications

1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Tragic Bronson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 3:19 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang; Sheila Mohan; Tina Kapoor Subject: Public Comment 25-14462 Agenda 6 FY 26-27 Remove $150,000 Pickleball Sound Attenuation Project
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,
This written comment concerns the FY 2026-27 Capital Improvement Program Budget and, specifically, the proposed $150,000 allocation for Memorial Park Pickleball Sound Attenuation.

Pickleball noise is a real operational and residential-impact issue. However, the City should not solve an acoustic problem by creating a public-safety, first-responder, and line-of-sight problem inside a public park.

The issue is not whether sound attenuation should be studied. The issue is whether the City may approve funding for a sound barrier or reinforced fence without first requiring a documented review of police visibility, fire/EMS access, paramedic sightlines, natural surveillance, and emergency response conditions.

Memorial Park’s courts are located along Christensen Drive. Any solid, opaque, or near-opaque sound barrier installed along the courts could materially reduce visibility from the street, sidewalk, parking approach, park pathways, and surrounding public areas. That matters because a transparent chain-link court fence is not merely a boundary. It allows police, firefighters, paramedics, park staff, neighbors, and passersby to see what is happening inside the courts before entering.

A solid acoustic barrier changes that condition.

If a player collapses from heat stress, cardiac distress, a fall, stroke symptoms, dehydration, or another medical emergency, a responding paramedic should be able to see into the court area from Christensen Drive or from the nearest public access route. The responder should not have to physically enter a visually blocked enclosure before determining where the patient is, whether the patient is conscious, whether bystanders are assisting, or whether there are additional hazards inside.

The same issue applies to law enforcement. Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office for police services. Deputies responding to calls at Memorial Park should be able to visually assess the court area before entering. A transparent chain-link fence allows officers to observe activity, 2 locate people, assess whether a disturbance is occurring, identify gates and access points, and determine whether the scene appears safe before entry. A tall solid barrier can force deputies into a blind approach to gates, corners, and enclosed areas.

That is not merely an aesthetic concern. It is an officer-safety and public-safety concern.

The City should also consider natural surveillance. Public parks are safer when ordinary users, pedestrians, neighbors, nearby drivers, park staff, and patrol personnel can observe activity. Visibility discourages after-hours misuse, vandalism, harassment, assaults, drug or alcohol use, and other unsafe conditions. If the City wraps a public court area with solid or near-solid sound panels, it may reduce noise while also creating a public-safety blind spot.

That tradeoff should not be approved casually through a budget line item.

Before any procurement, product selection, bid package, or installation, the City should require a written, site-specific review by:

Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office;
Fire/EMS and paramedic response personnel;
Parks and Recreation operations staff;
Public Works;
Building or structural review staff;
Risk Management or the City Attorney’s Office.

That review should specifically address:
visibility into the courts from Christensen Drive;
visibility from the sidewalk, parking approach, and surrounding park pathways; gate location, emergency access, and whether responders can locate a patient or threat before entry; whether the barrier creates hidden corners, dead zones, or blind approaches; nighttime visibility and lighting conditions;
wind load and structural safety of any reinforced fence; whether the design preserves natural surveillance;
whether transparent acoustic panels, partial-height panels, partial-side treatment, operational controls, quieter equipment, or delayed implementation through the Memorial Park Master Plan renovation schedule would be safer alternatives.

If the Sheriff’s Office or Fire/EMS concludes there is no public-safety concern, that conclusion should be documented in writing and tied to the actual proposed design, including height, opacity, location, gate configuration, and sightlines from Christensen Drive. A generic “no concern” response would not be sufficient because the safety issue is design-specific.

This is particularly important because the City is already facing significant law-enforcement cost pressures through the Sheriff’s contract. If Cupertino is paying a premium for contracted police services, the City should not simultaneously approve park infrastructure that makes police and emergency response more difficult.

The City should also avoid treating this as an isolated pickleball project when Memorial Park is already subject to broader long-term planning. If the line-of-sight and emergency-visibility issues cannot be resolved in the current court location, then pickleball sound attenuation should wait for the established 3 Memorial Park Master Plan renovation schedule, where court placement, orientation, setbacks, circulation, emergency access, noise mitigation, and visibility can be resolved comprehensively.

Noise mitigation is valid. But it cannot come at the expense of police visibility, paramedic sightlines, natural surveillance, and first-responder safety.

I respectfully request that the Council not approve the Memorial Park Pickleball Sound Attenuation project as an open-ended authorization for solid fencing or opaque acoustic panels. At minimum, Council should direct staff to return with a written first-responder and line-of-sight review before any barrier product or fence design is selected.

The City should not allow a $150,000 CIP item to become a blank check for a wall-like enclosure around public courts without first answering the basic public-safety question:

There is no such thing as total public entitlement. Do not let a few loud and persistent activities advocate needlessly inflict more harm to the public with installing ill-advised equipment and inadvertently creating unintended consequences.
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Tragic Bronson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 3:10 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment 25-14462 Agenda 6 FY 26-27 Remove $150,000 Pickleball Sound Attenuation Project
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.

A solid acoustic barrier changes that condition.

This concern is especially important because pickleball is heavily used by older adults. The City should not create a condition where elderly users are playing inside a visually screened court area and first responders cannot immediately assess medical distress from outside the fence. 2 The same issue applies to law enforcement. Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office for police services. Deputies responding to calls at Memorial Park should be able to visually assess the court area before entering. A transparent chain-link fence allows officers to observe activity, locate people, assess whether a disturbance is occurring, identify gates and access points, and determine whether the scene appears safe before entry. A tall solid barrier can force deputies into a blind approach to gates, corners, and enclosed areas.

That is not merely an aesthetic concern. It is an officer-safety and public-safety concern.

That tradeoff should not be approved casually through a budget line item.

Before any procurement, product selection, bid package, or installation, the City should require a written, site-specific review by:

1. Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office;

2. Fire/EMS and paramedic response personnel;

3. Parks and Recreation operations staff;

4. Public Works;

5. Building or structural review staff;

6. Risk Management or the City Attorney’s Office.

That review should specifically address:

1. visibility into the courts from Christensen Drive;

2. visibility from the sidewalk, parking approach, and surrounding park pathways;

3. gate location, emergency access, and whether responders can locate a patient or threat before entry;

4. whether the barrier creates hidden corners, dead zones, or blind approaches;

5. nighttime visibility and lighting conditions;

6. wind load and structural safety of any reinforced fence;

7. whether the design preserves natural surveillance;

8. whether transparent acoustic panels, partial-height panels, partial-side treatment, operational controls, quieter equipment, or delayed implementation through the Memorial Park Master Plan renovation schedule would be safer alternatives.

This is particularly important because the City is already facing significant law-enforcement cost pressures through the Sheriff’s contract. If Cupertino is paying a premium for contracted police services, 3 the City should not simultaneously approve park infrastructure that makes police and emergency response more difficult.

The City should also avoid treating this as an isolated pickleball project when Memorial Park is already subject to broader long-term planning. If the line-of-sight and emergency-visibility issues cannot be resolved in the current court location, then pickleball sound attenuation should wait for the established Memorial Park Master Plan renovation schedule, where court placement, orientation, setbacks, circulation, emergency access, noise mitigation, and visibility can be resolved comprehensively.

Noise mitigation is valid. But it cannot come at the expense of police visibility, paramedic sightlines, natural surveillance, and first-responder safety.

The City should not allow a $150,000 CIP item to become a blank check for a wall-like enclosure around public courts without first answering the basic public-safety question:

Can police, paramedics, park staff, and the public still see what is happening inside? If not, the City should not incur unnecessary risks and plan programming in a more deliberate manner rather than forcing a round peg into a square hole.
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Mahesh Gurikar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 2:49 PM
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Public Comments
Subject: Cupertino Budget Issues
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Just a few years ago CuperƟno was considered a well managed city with budget surplus.

Over the years the situaƟon has changed and now we are facing a deficit and looking at reducing services which will affect the quality of life of CuperƟno residents.

We need to reduce waste and increase producƟvity and use resources more effecƟvely. Spending money on new bike lanes, building or remodeling the City Hall, funding construcƟon of villas on Mary Avenue, And many other projects should be put on hold or cancelled enƟrely.

Even before CuperƟno became known for Apple Headquarters it was known for its excellent schools and as a very desirable place to live.

I hope you will make CuperƟno a well managed, safe and livable city again.

Mahesh Gurikar
CuperƟno Resident
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Zak Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 11:02 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; Susan Michael; [email protected]; Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Re: Pickleball Noise Mitigation Solution for Cupertino Memorial Park Attachments: Sonic Guard Brochures.pdf; QA-5523a - Sport Surfaces - Sonic guard - ASTM E90 - 12192025.pdf; Yacht Club Sonic Guard Study.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include this written comment for the upcoming Cupertino City Council meeting regarding the Memorial Park Pickleball Sound Attenuation CIP.

As communities across California continue to experience the tremendous growth of pickleball, many cities are facing the challenge of balancing recreational opportunities with the quality of life concerns of nearby residents.

The discussion surrounding Memorial Park highlights a challenge that numerous municipalities, HOAs, and park districts are currently navigating: preserving court access while addressing legitimate noise concerns from neighboring properties.

In evaluating potential mitigation measures, I encourage the City Council to consider physical sound attenuation solutions in addition to operational restrictions such as reduced playing hours. Sound mitigation barriers have been successfully implemented in various communities throughout the United States to help reduce the transmission of pickleball paddle-impact noise to adjacent residential areas.

Acoustic barrier systems can provide a proactive approach that allows communities to maintain access to courts while reducing the impact on nearby residents. This approach may help avoid more restrictive measures that could limit recreational opportunities for players, families, seniors, and community members who rely on these facilities.

As the City evaluates long-term solutions, I encourage consideration of engineered sound attenuation systems, acoustic testing data, and real-world case studies from communities that have implemented noise mitigation measures around pickleball facilities.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully submitted,
Zak Wilson
Sales Executive
Sport Surfaces
2 7011 Wilson Rd.

WPB, FL. 33413
Office: 1-561-964-2001
Direct: 407-752-9830
From: Zak Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:34 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Pickleball Noise Mitigation Solution for Cupertino Memorial Park

Hello,
As pickleball continues growing across the Bay Area, Cupertino is facing the same challenge many cities are now wrestling with:

How do you preserve access to one of the fastest-growing community sports while meaningfully addressing neighborhood noise concerns?
At Memorial Park, the concern is understandable.

The repetitive paddle impact noise is unique, highly noticeable, and different from tennis. Nearby residents feel it daily. At the same time, the courts have become a major community gathering point with real social value.

That balance matters.

The good news is: communities do not always need to choose between restricting play and doing nothing.

Sonic Guard was developed specifically for this exact challenge.

Sonic Guard is a purpose-built acoustic barrier system engineered for pickleball and tennis environments where surrounding residential impact has become a serious concern.

Instead of relying only on reduced play hours, court removal, or major site reconstruction, Sonic Guard helps reduce paddle impact noise at the source before it reaches surrounding homes.

Key benefits:
 Reduces the sharp “pop” associated with pickleball paddle impact  Helps absorb and interrupt sound before it carries outward 3  Preserves court access and recreational use
 Integrates with existing fencing and park layouts
 Supports long-term mitigation planning without major demolition Product Options
Sonic Guard Ultra
Up to 44 dB noise reduction
Best for:
 active neighborhood complaints
 city review / planning discussions
 closest residential setbacks
 projects requiring strongest mitigation available
Sonic Guard Pro
Up to 28 dB noise reduction
Best for:
 public courts
 HOA and park applications
 strong acoustic performance with efficient coverage
Sonic Guard Clear Vision
Up to 14 dB noise reduction
Best for:
 maintaining visibility
 preserving aesthetics
 adding sound reduction without visually closing off the space For cities like Cupertino evaluating Memorial Park and long-term solutions, acoustic barriers can provide a practical middle ground:

Protect neighborhood quality of life while keeping the courts active and accessible.

Attached for review:
 Sonic Guard Product Brochure
 Lab Test Results / Acoustic Performance Data
 Case Study / Real-World Installation Reference
We would be happy to review:
 court layout
 residential setback distances
 fence elevations
 existing sound studies
 and recommended placement options
And provide a tailored recommendation based on the site. 4 Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best Regards,
Zak Wilson
Sales Executive
Sport Surfaces/Sport Sonic Guard
7011 Wilson Rd.

WPB, FL. 33413
Office: 1-561-964-2001
Direct: 407-752-9830
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
8148 NW 74 Avenue
Medley, FL, 33166
305.885.3328 ph. | 305.885.3329 fx
"This report is the confidential property of the client addressed. The report may only be reproduced in full. Publication of extracts from this report is not permitted without written approval from QAI. Any liability attached thereto is limited to the fee charged for the individual project file referenced. The results of this report pertain only to the specific sample(s) evaluated. Unless specifically stated or identified otherwise, QAI has utilized a Simple Acceptance rule per ILAC-G8:09/2019 Section 4.2.1 to make conformity decisions on testing results contained in this report, as applicable."
WWW.QAI.ORG
[email protected]
CLIENT: Sports Surfaces LLC
12851 SW 133 ST
Miami, Florida 33186
Project No: QA-5523a Report Date: December 19, 2025
SAMPLE ID: Series: Sonic Guard Acoustic Barrier System
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: 4’-0’’ (48”) Width x 10’-0’’ (120”) High; See page 3 for full description.

SAMPLING DETAIL: The test sample manufactured by Sports Surfaces LLC was submitted directly to QAI by the client. Samples were not independently selected for testing.

DATE OF RECEIPT: Samples were received at the QAI Miami Laboratories on November 24, 2025 TESTING PERIOD: December 19, 2025
TESTING LOCATION: QAI Laboratory (QAI) – Miami, Florida, USA AUTHORIZATION: QAI proposal number QAI-4933 dated November 17, 2025, signed by Verena Burner, dated November 20, 2025
TEST PROCEDURE: Testing to the following requirements:
 ASTM E90 -09 (reapproved 2016) Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions and Elements  ASTM E2235-04Standard Test Method for Determination of Decay Rates for Use in Sound Insulation Test Methods
 ASTM E413-22 Classification for Rating Sound Insulation  ASTM E1332-16 Standard Classification for Rating Outdoor-Indoor Sound Attenuation TEST RESULTS: The Sonic Guard Acoustic Barrier System was tested in accordance with the ASTM E90, ASTM E2235, ASTM E413, and ASTM E1332 and achieved an STC31/OITC26.

CONTENTS: Test report pages 1 through 5.

Prepared By Signed for and on behalf of QAI Laboratories Lusinda Delgado Jose Sanchez
Technical Report Writer Operation Manager
Lusinda Delgado
Printed from an e-signed document

Client: Sport Surface
Test Report No.: MED-5523a
Report Date: December 19, 2025

Page 2 of 5 ends

Description of Test Sample 3
Panel Construction 3
Equipment 4
Test Chamber Dimensions 4
Results Sample A-1
Acoustical Test ASTM E90 4
Revision Table 5
Remarks Table 5

Technician:

Ian McGinley

Client: Sport Surface
Test Report No.: MED-5523a
Report Date: December 19, 2025

Page 3 of 5 ends

DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE
Model Designation: Sonic Guard Acoustic Barrier System
Overall Size: 4’-0’’ (48”) Width x 10’-0’’ (120”) High
Panel Construction

Client: Sport Surface
Test Report No.: MED-5523a
Report Date: December 19, 2025

Page 4 of 5 ends

"This report is the confidential property of the client addressed. The report may only be reproduced in full. Publication of extracts from this report is not permitted without written approval from QAI. Any liability attached thereto is limited to the fee charged for the individual project file referenced. The results of this report pertain only to the specific sample(s) evaluated. Unless specifically stated or identified otherwise, QAI has utilized a Simple Acceptance rule per ILAC-G8:09/2019 Section 4.2.1 to make conformity decisions on testing results contained in this report, as applicable."
WWW.QAI.ORG
[email protected]
Equipment
Instrument Manufacture Model Description
Pressure microphone Norsonic 1230 Microphone
Oscillating microphone boom Norsonic N265 Rotating microphone Loud speaker JBL SR4733X Speaker
Amplifier system QSC RMX1850-HD Amplifier
Dual band equalizer DBX DBX-1231 Equalizer
Test Chamber Dimensions
Receiving Room 7875 ft³
Source Room 6840 ft³
Room Conditions: 79.5 °F R.H: 57% ATM: 1017 hPa
Data
Table
TL
(db) deficiencies 95%
CI
80 26 - 0.84
100 19 - 1.25
125 17 0 0.65
160 25 0 0.54
200 24 0 0.55
250 25 0 0.32
315 26 1 0.38
400 27 3 0.42
500 26 5 0.39
630 27 5 0.45
800 27 6 0.34
1000 30 4 0.22
1250 32 3 0.17
1600 34 1 0.22
2000 38 0 0.09
2500 40 0 0.15
3150 42 0 0.10
4000 44 - 0.15

Client: Sport Surface
Test Report No.: MED-5523a
Report Date: December 19, 2025

Page 5 of 5 ends

Drawings referenced in this document are an integral part of this report, therefore, are required when distributing this test report. Test results obtained represent the actual value of the tested specimens and do not constitute opinion, endorsement or certification by this laboratory.

Test Procedure
Samples were installed in a 120 1/2" by 48 1/2" wall opening and were approximately 1/2" from flush with the receive room side of the wall. A filler panel was installed in the wall opening and a sound transmission loss test was initially performed on the wall. Duct seal was used to seal the interior and exterior of the test samples to the wall opening.

The sensitivity of the microphones was checked with a calibrator before testing was performed.

The sound transmission loss values were obtained for a single direction.

Five measurements were conducted for the sound pressure level, background noise and sound absorption.

Measurements were collected at each rotating microphone.

Data for flanking limit tests, repeatability measurements and reference specimen tests are available on request.

REVISION HISTORY:
12/19/2025: Initial report release
*******END REPORT*******

Studio Shodwe
Prepared by : Zak
Wilson

CASE STUDY

YACHT CLUB ON THE

INTRACOASTAL

FROM NOISE CRISIS TO

COMMUNITY HARMONY IN
60 DAYS
Location: 160 Yacht Club Way, Hypoluxo, FL 33462
Property: 300-unit waterfront condominium
community, 26 acres on the Intracoastal Challenge:

Pickleball court noise threatening litigation and
property values Solution: 48 Sport Sonic Guard
panels, full perimeter installation Result: 75% noise
reduction, zero complaints, $200K+ property value
protected
The Problem

COMMUNITY PROFILE
Premium gated community with 300+ units, marina, resort amenities, and active lifestyle facilities. Mix of full-time residents and seasonal owners seeking waterfront tranquility.

Prepared by : Zak
Wilson

THE CRISIS
Complaints Received:
60+ formal noise complaints from residents in 5 buildings 3 litigation threats
from unit owners 20+ residents demanding immediate court closure 2 seasonal owners threatening not to return
Sound Measurements (Before):

Building 160 (80-120 ft away): 68-72 dB during play Buildings 145/157 (150-180 ft): 62-66 dB during play Buildings 103/110 (180-220 ft): 58- 62 dB during play Background ambient: 42-48 dB (waterfront quiet) Impact: Pickleball noise was 15-25 dB above background—conversation-disrupting and psychologically intrusive. Prepared by : Zak
Wilson

FAILED SOLUTIONS
Time restrictions (10 AM-6
PM only) → Still too loud
"Quiet paddle"
requirements → Only 2-3
dB improvement
Posted "considerate play"
signs → Ignored,
unenforceable Player
education letters → Ineffective
Prepared by : Zak
Wilson

FINANCIAL
STAKES
Legal consultation fees: $8,500 Units listed below
market due to noise: 2 units (-$15K-25K each)
Original court conversion investment at risk: $45,000
Potential litigation exposure: $15K-30K
Board faced impossible choice: Close courts (waste
$45K investment) or face lawsuits.

Prepared by : Zak
Wilson
T
HESOLUTION:

SPORTSONIC
GUARD
AcousticChallenges Identified: Multi-directional exposure (cou rtscentered
amongbuildings)
Hardsurfaceamplification(concrete,asphalt,
waterreflection)
Mid-risebuildings(3-4stories)=elevatedunits in direct sound path Intracoastal water surface reflecting sound bac k into community
Assessment&Design
ReadMore
Preparedby : Zak
Wilson
THE SOLUTION:

SPORT SONIC
GUARD
48 Sport Sonic Guard panels (4' W × 10' H
each) 192 linear feet (full perimeter enclosure)
STC-31/OITC-26 rated (ASTM E90 certified)
10-foot height critical for protecting upper
floors Three-phase installation over 3 weeks
System Design:

Prepared by : Zak
Wilson

THE RESULTS
Noise reduced from"intrusive conversation-disrupting" to "quiet library/barely noticeable"
Building 160 (80-120 ft)
Buildings 145/157 (150-180 ft)
Buildings 103/110 (180-220 ft)
68-72 dB
62-66 dB
58-62 dB
35-42 dB
32-38 dB
30-36 dB
Location Before After
Prepared by : Zak
Wilson

COMMUNITY IMPACT
Complaint Resolution:

Formal complaints before: 60+ over 2 months
Formal complaints after: 0 over 9+ months
Litigation threats before: 3 residents Litigation threats after: 0 100% resolution rate
Prepared by : Zak
Wilson

RESIDENT TESTIMONIALS
Building 160, Unit 303 (Most Vocal Complainant):"We
cannot believe the difference. We were skeptical any barrier could work, but we can now sit on our balcony and barely hear the games. The HOA did the right thing."
Building 157, Unit 308 (Work-from-home Professional):
"I can now work from home with zero disruption. Even
with my balcony door open, I hear nothing. The
investment was worth every penny
Diam donec adipiscing tristique risus nec feugiat in
fermentum.

Prepared by : Zak
Wilson
KEY

TAKEAWAYS
Complete resolution of 60+ complaints
and 3 litigation threats
75% noise reduction verified by postinstallation testin g $200K+ property value protected from
noise-related depreciation
Tour Guide
ero ongoing complaints 9+ months after installation
Courts transformed from liability to amenity generating revenue
300-500% ROI through cost avoidance and value
protection
Prepared by : Zak
Wilson
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Mary H <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 12:30 PM
To: Public Comments
Subject: Sound barrier
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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 emailing in support of the sound barrier for the pickleball courts at Memorial Park- for the benefit of players and neighbors. Please include my email in the documents in support of the budget item for the 6- 16 meeting.

Thank youMary Hansell
Cupertino resident
20100 Rodrigues Ave
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Joel Amzallag <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 9:53 AM
To: Public Comments
Subject: Sound attenuation project at Memorial Park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear members of the Cupertino City Council,
As recently in retirement I started pickleball a year ago. I love coming at Memorial Park to, of course exercise, but also talk during breaks with the community. I played with kids in middle school as well as a 83 years old lady. Exchange ideas for place to go, recipes, have lunches , etc. No appointments, just show up put you paddle in the racks and play.

Where can you do this?
Please, approve the budget for the Sound attenuation project at Memorial Park.

Sincerely,
Joel Amzallag
[email protected]
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: jean kao <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 11:26 AM
To: Public Comments
Subject: Please approve sound wall for CMP pickleball courts 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 Sirs
As long time Cupertino residents, recent retirees and active pickleball players in CMP. We sincerely urge you to support and approve sound wall for CMP pickleball courts in this upcoming fiscal year. It is very important and will benefit significantly for CMP pickleball players community and residents. Appreciate your immediate action to approve funding for sound wall projects.

Thanks
Jean Kao, and TrueLon Lin.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Chun Tang <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 1:04 PM
To: Public Comments
Subject: Noise screen for pickleball
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 Council Members:

I started playing pickleball about 3 years ago at Cupertino Memorial Park (CMP). My friends recommended Memorial Park because the pickleball community was so kind, inclusive, and helpful to new players. Fast forward to now, the pickleball community at CMP has grown to over 1000+ members, and it's still an amazing place for players of all skill levels to play there. It's so wonderful and joyful to see children and seniors playing and laughing together. I can't think of another sport that brings together such diverse groups of people (in age, gender, ethnicity, ...) all sharing the same passion for a game.

I can personally attest to the awesome physical, social, and mental benefits of playing pickleball daily at CMP. It's difficult for me to imagine life without pickleball! When I heard about plans to limit or restrict pickleball at CMP, I was both surprised and sad. Our Cupertino Pickleball Club has worked closely with the Cupertino Council to address neighbors' concerns about the noise. We have encouraged players to use quiet paddles before 9am and after 7pm. Most players are sensitive to the noise concerns, and they've purchased quiet paddles to minimize the sound levels. I've played at pickleball courts with noise screens, and the screens are quite effective in containing the sounds within the courts and reducing the noise outside the courts. I believe the addition of noise screen at CMP will great reduce the sound for home owners near the pickleball courts, and it will be a great solution in addressing the noise concerns at Memorial Park.

Sincerely,
Chun Tang
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Joe Wiswell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 1:09 PM
To: Public Comments
Subject: Sound barriers for PB at Memorial Park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Cup City Council,
Please approve the budget for sound screens at CMP. I am a former Cupertino resident of 10 years. My kids went to Cup schools and I still have many friends there. I enjoy playing with old friends there and would hate to lose that. It is a very inclusive place and while I can afford a quiet paddle, not everyone can. Thank you for your service to Cupertino and your attention to this.

Joe W.

Cupertino 1988-1998
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: P CL <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 1:59 PM
To: Public Comments
Subject: Support of pickleball noise reduction screens
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include this as part of the CC package for the 6/16 meeƟng.

Dear Council Members,
As a member of the CuperƟno Pickleball Club and community, I am wriƟng in support of the noise reducƟon screens installaƟons along the borders of pickleball courts at Memorial Park. I have been playing at Memorial Park and McKenzie Park since 2022, and pickleball has been an influenƟal part of my life ever since. The community that CPC (cuperƟno pickleball club) has created has been invaluable and essenƟal to CuperƟno and its surrounding communiƟes. This type of community is so important, and CuperƟno should be proud of this welcoming environment created by its community members.

I also understand how noise can be a nuisance to the neighbors- Having played at McKenzie Park and Hall Memorial park (Milpitas), where they have the noise reducƟon screens, I don’t understand why these screens aren’t the first remedy for the noise complaints. Please consider this- as it may help ease the tension between the community and the neighbors.

Thank you,
Patricia Lee
Sent from my iPhone
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Salim Charaniya <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 3:09 PM
To: Public Comments
Subject: Request to approve funding for noise abatement at CMP Pickleball courts CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Moore and City Council members,
I have been a resident of Cupertino since 2022. I started playing pickleball at Cupertino Memorial Park (CMP) Pickleball courts about 2 years ago. It has been a very rewarding experience for me. First and foremost, CMP pickleball is an extremely welcoming community. I have played at a few other public courts in other cities and none of them have such an active, volunteer-driven, and socially engaging community. That the community has been able to maintain this given its growing size (more than 1000 members now) is remarkable! A large number of players at CMP and indeed other parts of the country are benefiting from this highly engaging sport. In my personal experience, the benefits are not just physical/cardiovascular exercise, but it also significantly improves my overall well being.

We do understand and appreciate the noise concerns of the neighbors. We want to work with neighbors and the city to address this concern. Since I have a full time job and a young family, I usually only have time in the mornings to enjoy pickleball at CMP. In response to the noise concerns, I and most other morning players have switched to the use of quiet paddles (which are typically more than $100 per paddle) in the morning hours. This shows that the players have made good faith efforts to respond to the noise concerns.

As a next step, I strongly recommend that the city council approves the budget for the noise abatement screen. I believe this step is necessary to address the noise concerns while allowing this wonderful community to thrive and serve as a model for other Bay Area cities.

The CMP community is eager to support the city in enabling the noise barrier solution.

Thank you!
Salim Charaniya
11151 Bubb Road, Cupertino, CA 95014
CC 06-16-2026
#7
Santa Clara County Law
Enforcement Contract
Amendment
Written Communications
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Ravi Kiran Singh Sapaharam <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 3:47 PM
To: City Council; Public Comments; City Clerk
Subject: DO NOT CUT LAW ENFORCEMENT: Fully Fund Public Safety in Cupertino CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and Members of the Cupertino City Council,
I am writing as a concerned Cupertino resident to strongly oppose the proposed budget cuts to local law enforcement. Specifically, I disagree with the proposals to eliminate School Resource Officers (SROs), reduce traffic enforcement, and decrease the number of law enforcement deputies in our community.

Public safety is a fundamental responsibility of local government. Removing law enforcement from schools compromises the safety of our children, while reducing traffic enforcement and deputy staffing will negatively impact our quality of life and public security.

I urge the City Council to fully fund law enforcement services and instead seek cost-saving measures in non-essential areas, such as:
- Eliminating unnecessary consultant contracts and study projects. - Pausing or scaling back non-essential projects within the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Capital Works Program (CWP).
- Reducing internal city staffing and administrative overhead rather than cutting front-line safety personnel.

Our tax dollars should prioritize a safe environment for our families, businesses, and schools. I ask that you protect Cupertino's residents by rejecting these cuts to law enforcement.

Thank you for your time and your service to our community.

Regards,
Ravi Kiran Singh
Cupertino Resident
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: preeti gulati <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 12:13 PM
To: Public Comments
Subject: SROs are needed
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.

Respected City Council,
As a resident citizen of Cupertino and mom of 2 school age kids who attend Cupertino schools, I urge you to not de fund school specefic law enforcement officers .

They are truly helpful for safety of kids around the school and their visible presence makes kids understand the role of law enforcement from an early age.

Kids and , school staff and families can actually see public dollars at work in a very direct manner.

Please consider maintaining this highly important service for the long term benefit of society.

Thank you,
Preeti Gulati
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Long Jiao <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 8:48 AM
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Protecting Our Youth: A Strategic Solution to the 40% Sheriff Cost Increase 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 Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Manager, Please add this email to the official public record as a written communication for Agenda Item 7 at tonight’s June 16, 2026, City Council meeting.

As a resident of Cupertino and a deeply invested member of our local educational community, I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed reductions to our School Resource Officer (SRO) program. While I completely understand that the recent 40% cost increase from the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department has placed an unprecedented fiscal burden on our city budget, cutting face-to-face youth safety programs is a step backward for our community's families.

To balance the budget without compromising the safety and mentorship of our students, I urge the City to consider a structural shift in how we deploy law enforcement resources: automating routine monitoring to preserve human personnel where they matter most.

Instead of utilizing highly expensive, contract sheriff deputies to conduct routine vehicle patrols of empty parks, parking lots, and civic perimeters, Cupertino has a unique opportunity to lead the region by investing in a robot patrol fleet (autonomous outdoor security units).

By pivoting to an automated, 24/7 "observe-and-report" technological framework for baseline perimeter security, we can achieve substantial long-term savings:

1. Drastic Overhead Reduction: Autonomous patrolling technology operates at a fraction of the hourly cost of a contract deputy, allowing us to utilize sheriff personnel strictly on an on-demand basis for active incidents.

2. Resource Realignment: The immense savings generated from automating off-hours and low-risk patrols can be directly reinvested into keeping our human SROs exactly where their empathy, deescalation skills, and mentorship are irreplaceable—safeguarding our local school campuses.

As a tech-forward hub, Cupertino is uniquely positioned to prove that municipal efficiency and public safety can be enhanced simultaneously through innovation. I strongly encourage the Council to explore a pilot program for autonomous perimeter security so that we can protect both our city’s fiscal health and our children’s daily well-being.

Thank you for your tireless leadership, dedication, and open consideration of this modern framework.

Warm regards,
2 Long Jiao
Cupertino Resident & Community Member

Cupertino City CouncilJune 16, 2026

Cupertino City Council
June 16, 2026