CC 09-01-2026
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From: Sam Cedar
To: Public Comments
Subject: Finding On Changes in Traffic Due to New Housing Projects Date: Sunday, August 30, 2026 3:16:06 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.
[This message is intended for the Written Communications for the coming City Council meeting on 9/1]
Hi City Council,
I'm Sam, a current high school senior at The Nueva School and resident of Cupertino. Over the summer, I conducted a study investigating whether the common complaint about new traffic coming from housing projects was true. Instead, I found the opposite: Cupertino's new housing projects were expected to decrease traffic.
The reason is that many of Cupertino's larger townhome projects are replacing existing retail and office space, which attract more traffic per day than a 50-unit townhome. When these commercial or office centers are replaced, customers and workers no longer have any reason to come to those locations. For visitors, they may never enter the city at all, and residents may exit Cupertino to work or go shopping. In other words, the traffic goes elsewhere.
It is true that these housing developments replacing former commercial and office sites will generate some traffic from the people living there. However, I have found that the traffic from these townhome projects is generally much less than the existing traffic from these commercial properties.
This finding comes as the City is mired in controversy with several new housing projects, namely Evulich Ct and Mary Avenue Villas, where local residents have complained about increases in traffic and parking availability. These sentiments around traffic have additionally been shared by some on this council. Hopefully, my work can help our residents and leaders reconsider what they believe are the negative effects of new housing projects, especially with the upcoming election.
A version of this message has been uploaded to Cupertino For All's website (accessible here ).
If you would like to read the full study, you can view it here.
Thanks,
Sam
From: Marie-Laure Oliva
To: Public Comments
Subject: Annual volleyball game
Date: Saturday, August 29, 2026 12:57:38 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.
I am resident of Cupertino and noticed that even though the Blackberry Farms pool isn’t the most fun it does offer a yearly pooch plunge.
I propose to have a volleyball game in one of the pools. I experienced this at a resort in Palm Springs and the kids as well as my husband and I had so much fun and met some wonderful people. Please consider. I am available to plan.
Marie Oliva
650-534-6378
Sent from my iPhone
From: ronaldbfinlay
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: General public comment for the next city council meeting Date: Monday, August 10, 2026 4:51:00 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good evening to the city council,
I am writing to express my disgust and disbelief that this city council some years ago honored the late Gordon Burke (1920-2010) as a so-called pillar of the community. Gordon Burke is known to have beaten his wife Evelyn and raped his daughters Monica and Nancy. He was one of the worst human beings who has ever resided in the State of California. The city council must formally rescind the honor they accorded him and offer a public apology immediately.
Shame on all of you.
Ronald Finlay
From: i v y
To: Public Comments
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT – NOT ON THE AGENDA – Waterlytics Proposal Date: Saturday, August 1, 2026 10:20:37 AM
Attachments: Ivy_WaterAnalytics_Executive_Summary.pdf
Ivy_WaterAnalytics_Cupertino_Proposal.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 Councilmembers,
My name is Ivy Zan, and I am submitting my Waterlytics proposal as a written public comment for the August 18, 2026 City Council meeting. Waterlytics is an intelligent irrigation system designed to reduce water waste through precision irrigation and real-time data analysis.
I have attached my executive summary and full proposal for your review. I appreciate your time and consideration and would welcome any feedback or guidance regarding this project.
Thank you,
Ivy Zan
From: Aditya Agrawal
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Reporting Trespassing by JR, Tang and Seema Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 10:03:03 AM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for items not on agenda for city meeting
Thanks
Aditya
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Monica Diaz <[email protected]>
Date: August 26, 2026 at 12:14:34 PM PDT
To: Aditya Agrawal <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Reporting Trespassing by JR, Tang and Seema
Good morning Aditya,
I appreciate you reaching out. I can understand your concerns, given the report that you did not give permission for the installation of the pictured signs. Your report is logged and being worked on.
I would like to take this opportunity to clarify regarding the trespass mention. I am unsure if you’re aware that the right-of-way extends beyond the paved sidewalk areas in this area of Johnson Avenue. Per Public Work records, the right-of-way extends to about 9 feet from the inside edge of the curb. This means private property begins about 6 feet in from the inside edge of the sidewalk. Based on that, and the images provided, the signs are located within the public right-of-way, and thus no trespass of private property occurred.
It is not okay for signs to be placed in the right-of-way adjacent to your residential property without your or another resident of age’s permission. The Cupertino Municipal Code states the following about this issue:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->19.104.340
<!--[endif]--> Illegal Signs in Public Right-of-Way or on Public Property. …
C. Any political sign placed in a park strip within the public right-of-way in residential zones, without the consent of the adjacent property owner or resident, may be removed and discarded by that adjacent property owner or resident.
There are two options available and need to your help to know what next steps to take:
1. Option one – you remove the sign per CMC §
19.104.340. The case is logged and closed based on this option.
2. Option two – we take your complaint and follow the removal process set by the municipal code. This includes contacting the candidate(s) involved and asking they remove the signs.
The code requires a 2-business day notice, and if they do not remove the signs, Code Enforcement staff comes and removes the sign. There is a holding period that allows the sign owner to retrieve the sign, pay a fee to do so, and if it is not retrieved, it is later disposed of.
How would you prefer to proceed? I look forward to hearing from and assisting you further.
Thank you,
Cupertino logo EST. 1955
Monica Diaz
Code Enforcement Supervisor
Community Development
[email protected]
(408)777-3266
From: Aditya Agrawal <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2026 2:38 PM
To: Monica Diaz <[email protected]>
Subject: Reporting Trespassing by JR, Tang and Seema
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi,
I want to report a serious incident of unauthorized trespassing by JR, Tang and Seema.
They installed signs on my yard without permission.
2 week ago they asked me but I did not give them permission, they still installed their sign anyways without permission ! They are harrasing city residents and disrepecting their property and rights.
Please consider this as a formal complaint that needs to be actioned and they need to cease and desist from trespassing without permission.
Here is a picture of their sign on my property at 10473 Johnson Ave, Cupertino that has been installed without my permission.
Sincerely,
Aditya Agrawal
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council
Subject: 9/1/2026 oral communications - JR Fruen & friends campaign breaking law Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 3:35:44 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Manager and City Council,
A campaign sign for councilmember Fruen, Planning Commissioner Lindskog, and former San Jose Water employee Tang, was placed illegally on my property in my yard on my landscaping (not on the other side of the sidewalk strip, which is also not allowed without permission.) It is even more worrisome that this is coming from a councilmember who claims to be a lawyer and is employed by the City of San Jose as staff to a councilmember and similarly from a planning commissioner. Both ought to know better. Additionally, the Fantozzi campaign also placed a sign at a neighbor's property without permission and I was able to notify the candidate that this was not allowed.
Please educate the campaigns on the rules.
I have lived in Cupertino for over 40 years and have never witnessed this level of lawbreaking and disrespect for residents.
Regards, Rhoda Fry
From: Munisekar
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk Subject: Oral Communications Failure on Sept 01, 2026
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 7:42:54 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 & City Attorney,
I strongly feel that my First Amendment rights were violated today during oral communications as you did NOT allow me to speak. I was not campaigning for anyone but wanted to make position very clear as there are unethical behavior exhibited by certain members running for the city council. It is unfortunate that you couldn't differentiate between these two.
Since you did not allow me to speak, here is my full speech for the record.
Good afternoon, Mayor Moore and City Council
Members.
My name is Muni Madhdhipatla. I am a long-time
Cupertino resident and a member of the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Commission.
I am speaking tonight in my personal capacity as a
resident.
In the upcoming election, I support the Residents
First slate of Gopal Kumarappan, Santosh Rao,
and Tracy Kosolcharoen. They are dedicated public
servants who have been serving our community in good
faith for many years.
Many of my neighbors also support these candidates,
which is why you see their campaign signs throughout
my neighborhood.
Recently, a named leader of local YIMBY advocacy
group Cupertino4All founded by current Council
Member JR Fruen went door-to-door in my
neighborhood encouraging residents to replace Gopal,
Santosh, and Tracy signs with signs supporting another
slate of candidates. My neighbors made their own
decisions, and all of them chose to keep the signs they already had.
Later that week, City Council candidate Mark
Fantozzi came to my home and asked if he could place
one of his campaign signs in my yard. I politely declined, explaining that I was already supporting Gopal, Santosh, and Tracy.
Afterward, several neighbors told me that Mark had
approached them and indicated that I supported his
campaign. I was not present for those conversations, so I cannot speak to exactly what was said. However, I
want to make my own position absolutely clear.
I support only Gopal Kumarappan, Santosh Rao, and
Tracy Kosolcharoen. I do not endorse or support any
other City Council candidates.
I respectfully ask that all campaigns ensure their
volunteers and representatives accurately
represent endorsements and respect residents'
decisions regarding campaign signs. Campaigns
should be conducted honestly and respectfully,
without misleading statements or pressure on
residents who choose to support other
candidates.
Thank you for your time.
CC - 09-01- 2026
#10
Conflict of Interest Code
Amendment
Written Communications
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 2026-09-01 City Council Meeting - AGENDA ITEM 10 Conflict of Interest Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 2:50:07 PM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE AGENDA ITEM.
Dear City Council and Staff,
Thank you for keeping this information up to date as required and making sure it matches reality – the organizational structure and positions that currently exist.
In reviewing this, I noticed that there seems to be one discrepancy.
Q: Why is Human Resources Manager = 2 but the Management Analyst = 1? In other departments, the manager is a 1.
PAGE 6 of 9
Q: What is the difference between a position that is Category 1 and a position that is “1 (Gov. Code § 87200 filers)”?
REQUEST: If there is a difference, could the explanation of this difference by added to the Conflict of Interest Code?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
CC 09-01-2026
#11
Acceptance of LRC
recommendation
supporting Senate Bill 922
Written Communications
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Floy Andrews; Chad Mosley Subject: Please Pull Item 11 and Maintain Cupertino"s Neutral Position on SB 922 Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 2:24:49 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 Clerk,
Please include the below in written comments for the upcoming city council meeting. Thank you.
(Writing on behalf of myself only as an Cupertino resident) Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to respectfully request that Item 11, regarding Senate Bill 922 (Laird), be pulled from the consent calendar and considered separately by the City Council.
I am also asking the Council not to take a position in support of or opposition to SB 922 at this time, and instead maintain Cupertino’s current neutral position.
The staff report notes that the Legislative Review Committee discussed SB 922 but was unable to adopt a position because the City’s legislative platform places this bill in the “monitor” category. The report further states that taking a formal position of support or opposition requires consideration by the full Council.
Given that the bill has potentially significant implications for how local agencies recover roadway maintenance and repair costs through utility rates, franchise fees, and other public service charges, I believe the Council should have a full public discussion before changing Cupertino’s position from monitoring to supporting the legislation.
The staff report itself presents legitimate arguments on both sides.
Supporters argue that SB 922 provides legal clarity and preserves existing local cost-recovery practices. Opponents, including the California Taxpayers Association, have raised concerns about transparency and taxpayer protections when road repair costs are recovered through service fees without voter approval.
This is precisely the type of issue that deserves deliberation by the full Council rather than an action through the consent calendar.
I am not asking the Council to oppose SB 922. I am asking that Cupertino refrain from taking a position until Councilmembers and the public have had an opportunity to fully consider the legislation, its potential effects on residents and taxpayers, and whether supporting it is consistent with Cupertino’s legislative priorities.
Importantly, the staff report states that if the recommended support position is not approved, the City will remain neutral on SB 922.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Council:
1. Pull Item 11 from the consent calendar;
2. Decline to adopt a position of support for SB 922 at this time;
3. Decline to adopt a position of opposition as well; and
4. Maintain Cupertino’s neutral/monitor position on SB 922 unless and until the Council determines, following public discussion, that a formal position is warranted.
Thank you for considering this request and for ensuring that significant policy matters receive appropriate public discussion before the City takes a formal legislative position.
Sincerely,
Santosh Rao
Candidate for Cupertino City Council 2026
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Floy Andrews; Chad Mosley Subject: Re: Please Pull Item 11 and Maintain Cupertino"s Neutral Position on SB 922 Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 4:01:12 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.
(Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) Dear Councilmembers,
I respectfully ask that Item 11, concerning SB 922, be pulled from the consent calendar and considered separately.
The staff report recommends sending a letter to Governor Newsom requesting that he sign SB 922. However, the Governor has already signed SB 922 into law.
Given this discrepancy, I believe the Council should not approve the item as presented. The Council should instead discuss whether any action or revised communication is appropriate now that the bill has become law.
I respectfully ask that the Council pull Item 11 and refrain from taking a position to support or oppose SB 922 at this time.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
Santosh Rao
Candidate for Cupertino City Council 2026
On Tuesday, September 1, 2026, 11:24 PM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written comments for the upcoming city council meeting. Thank you.
(Writing on behalf of myself only as an Cupertino resident) Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to respectfully request that Item 11, regarding Senate Bill 922 (Laird), be pulled from the consent calendar and considered separately by the City Council.
I am also asking the Council not to take a position in support of or opposition to SB 922 at this time, and instead maintain Cupertino’s current neutral position.
The staff report notes that the Legislative Review Committee discussed SB 922 but was unable to adopt a position because the City’s legislative platform places this bill in the “monitor” category. The report further states that taking a formal position of support or opposition requires consideration by the full Council.
Given that the bill has potentially significant implications for how local agencies recover roadway maintenance and repair costs through utility rates, franchise fees, and other public service charges, I believe the Council should have a full public discussion before changing Cupertino’s position from monitoring to supporting the legislation.
The staff report itself presents legitimate arguments on both sides. Supporters argue that SB 922 provides legal clarity and preserves existing local cost-recovery practices. Opponents, including the California Taxpayers Association, have raised concerns about transparency and taxpayer protections when road repair costs are recovered through service fees without voter approval.
This is precisely the type of issue that deserves deliberation by the full Council rather than an action through the consent calendar.
I am not asking the Council to oppose SB 922. I am asking that Cupertino refrain from taking a position until Councilmembers and the public have had an opportunity to fully consider the legislation, its potential effects on residents and taxpayers, and whether supporting it is consistent with Cupertino’s legislative priorities.
Importantly, the staff report states that if the recommended support position is not approved, the City will remain neutral on SB 922.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Council:
1. Pull Item 11 from the consent calendar;
2. Decline to adopt a position of support for SB 922 at this time;
3. Decline to adopt a position of opposition as well; and
4. Maintain Cupertino’s neutral/monitor position on SB 922 unless and until the Council determines, following public discussion, that a formal position is warranted.
Thank you for considering this request and for ensuring that significant policy matters receive appropriate public discussion before the City takes a formal legislative position.
Sincerely,
Santosh Rao
Candidate for Cupertino City Council 2026
CC - 09-01-2026
#12
Ordinance amending Chapter
2.88 Audit Committee Duties,
Powers, and Responsibilities
Written Communications
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 2026-09-01 City Council Meeting-AGENDA ITEM 12 Audit Committee Changes Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 3:13:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE AGENDA ITEM.
Dear City Council and Staff,
I am in complete support of the proposed changes to the duties, powers and responsibilities of the Audit Committee. The changes will allow it more financial oversight.
I’m concerned that 4 meetings per year is not adequate to cover the additional oversight. That said, the possible creation of a Budget Subcommittee may be a solution to this.
The renaming of Director of Administrative Services to the Finance Department is so much clearer.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griiffin