CC 10-06-2026
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Clerk; Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; R "Ray" Wang
Subject: 10/6/2026 City Council Oral Communications
Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 10:09:32 AM
Attachments: img647.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the attached for oral communications for today’s city council meeting.
Thanks Much,
Rhoda
•\\J/`, z=lnc,$8"#`
-
•1\`,,1
a a a o a a a a c>=>=====2=
iI->Ir_i*95
o a o cl c> o c] a a===>>==>= Sna :< rD ® o rD o rD otl ot> ot}'000 i P i P P q' % % % * ~ ^ ^ *+ ~ -_. =. -_.j'j'j`j`j'j'JJJ j` =` j` j` i` j` J J J
rD ® o ® rD ® co co oti n> o ro ® ® ® at] co oti
gEio®Eaf3,!:-+JmsN;8fiFT:E:.®a,aail---==Jacosg±?:i,\,tT#_01jenTFiceEo-q COC,CJCJ9,CJaCJCnIt4rJtJ|a®ru+1Na=anrucOu,aCnNOetn`®K3Nlu rlaJ~C=9aIIX 3aa,9I0® IBa,aIn)rt) 50a,a,T®0
ia,JIJOQin0® irD +aIu,®3aCCL'I€I% U|tL'0un=XJr'8% iaPrD€FIr,aaD1^0 naIu,*:.aIJX i0a,aI®0 5aa,a11rD® iaa,9Th00 ta,J t® +@J #Du,JXJr,=a'u,n}i5F=FBODin0
110®
I00I®rD nrDrD
03aEtJa,Ja+ODX
i0'* +@Iu,t'aiBaI CZ'=* >C|<a,In®C|ia,IJJao1rD® Ja0n0iea)IJJ®<0€ ta,* I@JutaaIRaI OJ=7J >C|<a'Jn0CL|JI,IJJOt'nrDrt) Ia9.0iia,Ig<0€ CO`cO=+
aJ>ul`0aa
rJN`+8N I+`0III
|n+SOD
ula+hJ0a
I,CX,`10t>,C„ LJLJaulN-aC)|Pul+.ro|J|C)ul J>t>ro`0\£U| Cr\u.180\ cO0uJ8un cO-8C,
CDC)`cO8CJ 1~1^uJ-gCJ
rutJ|`ru80\ uCn`0|L'CnLJ
rJul`ro+roI uJCn`+t£ul
N+`08N C„+U|`£uJ
NroNIrJCr\Cn ua09C)un£C)
|DaCn`~ulNC, +a+`J>LJ®LI N+u+0\Iro P++`~ruLJ0
N+`C)8N |O+|n`£|L'
LIcOCr\|n|n10cO ICX)Cr'`Cn8:CX, DL.|u`Cr\ulluul
NLJ|n`cO8a ICx,u,`08:a rJru0\`t>ulrot=
(,\
//,
PCnNI8CJ IU|Ou`cOaa
``esk
J> = a. co W 0 N W J>
- `D I `r
-5 -: -: -E -% -: -a -: :E
`# `g `:.:
a : a 5i E £ : £ 3! #' #'::
S-----`.` -`-s:.:
® CITY 0F CUPERTIN0 HIGHLIGHTS
Cupertino's receipts from January improved; overall, general consumer through March were 233.0% above the
first sales eriod in 2025. Excludin
`j=:_--`----I---------------:-:.-`-
A sizeable year ago audit correction
reversed taxes paid to the City in prior
quarters;explainstheextraordinaryspike
in cash comparisons. Related, this action
prevented a lQ25 pool's payment; the
current pool allocation shown above is
in line with historical patterns.
Theadditionofataxpayer,robustdemand
for technology related equipment caused
a 117% surge in business-industry.
Casual and fine dining, along with quick
service venues, all reported better filings
for the restaurant's category.
Specialty stores suffered location
closures while spending on family apparel
www.hdlcompanies.com I 888.861.0220
goods fell 2%. Temporary shuttering
of a gas stati.on outweighed fuel price
spikes late in the quarter triggered by
world conflicts; thus, a decrease of 7%
by service stations.
Net of aberrations, taxable sales for all
of Santa Clara County were flat over the
comparable time period; the Bay Area
was up 3.5%.
® TOP 25 PRODUCERS
99 Ranch Market
Alexander's Steak
House
Apple
Apple Procurement
Company
Argonaut Window &
Door
Benihana
BJ's Restaurant &
Brewhouse
California Dental Arts
Chevron
Cupertino Car Wash 76
Dish N Dash
Galpao Gaucho
Great Gas Cupertino
Haidilao Hot Pot
Insight Direct usa
Insight Public Sector
Lazy Dog Cafe
Mirapath
Rotten Robbie
Safeway
Shane Co.
Siam Stati.on
Target
TJ Maxx
Whole Foods Market
HdL®Companies
Publishecl by HdL Companles in Summer 2026
I:Q2325 __.-``...`:.-:_i.`..`::`:.:.`.`. `.. CITYOFCUPERTINO SALESTAXUPDATE
STATEWIDE RESULTS
California's local one cent sales and use
tax receipts posted moderate growth
during the first quarter, reflecting resilient
consumer behavior despite persistent
economic headwinds. For the months
of January through March, revenues
increased 4% from the year ago quarter
after adjusting for accounting anomalies.
Strong consumer spending patterns did
not falter and was the main reason of
growth, parti.ally enhanced by larger-thanexpected income tax refunds. Both online retailers and brick and mortar merchants
experienced dynamic changes over
last year that far exceed expectations.
E-commerce remains the platform of
choice providing convenience, broad
product availability, and flexible payment
options -benefitting the business-industry
sector and allocations via the countywide
use tax pool. Family apparel and discount
department stores both boosted general
consumer goods the most, with a slight
bump in gas prices further pushing returns
from multiple vendors.
Patronage at restaurants resulted in a
4.2% year over year jump. \Mth demand
constrained due to increasing pricesensitivity and slower foot traffic, gains by all types of eateries signaled underlying
resolve to dine out. Temporary events
further contributed to the positi.ve
outcome - Southern California wildfires
hindered 2025 and the Super Bowl lifting
2026.
The first quarter also included the initial
impacts of elevated tensions in the
Middle East which drove West Texas
Intermediate crude oil prices above $95
per barrel. This had an immediate impact
on local gas prices resulting in a modest
bump to receipts from gas stations and
created large amounts of uncertainty. At
the ti.me of writi.ng, the conflict appears to
have subsided with the Strait of Hurmuz
reopened reducing the possibility of future
strain.
Autos-transportation posted a nominal
gain in first quarter 2026, as higher average
transaction prices offset weaker unit sales.
These price increases reflected tariff
impacts reaching consumers after months
of absorpti.on by automakers, along with
rising material costs. As in the prior quarter,
the transition to the new DMV payment
system for used vehicle dealers under AB
85 modestly reduced cash receipts, with
adjustments sti.ll pending.
Overall, the short-term outlook remains
cautiously opti.misti.c. Normal consumer
spending combined with multiple host sites
of World Cup matches and corresponding
tourism should sustain growth, albeit
varied regionally. The Middle East conflict
temporarily resulted in $6 per gallon
average peak pricing during the start of the
summer months. The forecast is coupled
with a national inflation rate that anticipates
an upward trend leaving little room for the
Federal Reserve to alter interest rates in a
favorable way for consumers, potentially
slowing down the retail economy.
State General Fund
City/County General Fund (Bradley-Burns)
County Public Safety (Prop 172)
County Realignment (Mental Health/\^/elfare/Publlc Safety) Countywide Transportation Fund
Santa Clara Co. Transportation Authority (VTA) (SCVT)
Santa Clara County Transit (SCOT)
Santa Clara County \/TA BART Operating & Maintenance Transactions and Use Tax (SVTB) Santa Clara Co. Measure A (SCCR)
Santa Clara County SV Transporation Solution Tax (SVTS) Santa Clara County Meagure RR (JPBT)
Santa clara County 2026 Retail Transactions Tax Measure A (sccc) ax Rate Effective April 01, 2026
3.9375%
1.0000%
0.5000%
1.5625%
0.2500%
0.5000%
0.5000%
0.1250%
0.1250%
0.5000%
0.1250%
0.6250%
9.7500%
Cupertino
Business Type
Casual Dining
Service Stations
Quick-Service Restaurants
Fast-Casual Restaurants
Grocery Stores
Family Apparel
Sporting Goods/Bike Stores
Specialty Stores
Garden/Agricultural Supplies
Home Furnishings
*AIIocation aberratlons have been_
Q1 '26* Change
474.1
153.9
85.5 81.0
74.0 -
64.6 25.0
23.4 18.2
14.9 usted to reflect sales actlvit
County HdL state
Change Change
3.9%
-1.0%
-1.9%
1.5%
-1.8%
*ln thousands of dollars
0I98S0LJ 98e
C)P98SaLJ 8SSarJ
®1aoaGRAen\\
RIHE]REi]E]Hii
OJ`
a7ous
H®q7¢
(,,,,
-
®
MARKETSTATISTICS EmEillREREE[EE[E-EEDfiEHE.I..EDE
1111111111111111111111
oseCpbelvLosGatos
Sunnyvale/Cuperti
-aa
Cushlvwh,er
i+++¥#£ii*i|`+5ij?;?;;;++:i;:;i++;;;|i;':£;c+VACANT+SubLETVAcT' \
HilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllBill
::i+:++,+Tt,+i+,Li+i.\+-ii?i++++;:,::I::,-tt:+++++++.J'+t`+++++ -
18,228,261
4,641,760 2,363,341
|E'J,30rf 85,412 104,792
nE=En 33,056 7,518
0 EEZZEI=I.
:.-cuRRENi.dii+;+;++;i++::,;i+:+Tt++'*+++i:++fyi+"++,:++i++i ..EmillEillEE1illEi]EEEEEillDERI.
SILICONVALLEY RETAILQ22026 ]E[E[]EEEEE[[[=[E]]EEEEHEHEEaE.E.E] 11111111111-
1.a
2.0011 .4%
•'y.++t'f'.Lt,,++++
+++;+`4+papppT[pqu+;t_s`F++
59,826
Emu 3,077
83,290
4,269 19,461
0 0 0
F,+++++i+:\t+/,r+;++i.+++.r\.-+t+:+i++++ 1111illlEIIEiu IEIIIIIIIHillRIEI
as.70 sO9.22 sO7.16
132,39605.3%3,346-3,5270$25.09 191,740172,7217.2%5,52480,5460$44.76 MorganHiwGilroy4,080.384329,479001% mEE-
+RentalratesreflectTripleNetaskingSPSFNear
nol,121 EmEEE
-29,258 nEEDiEi]
0 in
$21.22 EEE]EE'
EECenter
2 RInQfiE±fitoacdr5hmftVA+hhe
',,(',;,`(,
MARl(ETSTATISTICS
EEEE=..i,Ei==EOD'iiiiiEiiil
E-
•(/I,„H.)
/,/
/ /
SILlillNVALLEY OFFICDE,Q22026
1%?o©
Fremonto ClassA
11111111111
ClassB19,728,667 TOTALS94,570,018
170,173 E]BEIEEBillE
3,091,365
ilEilliiBmil
20.4% .Oo
iE.E]ill
Milpitas
1,952,446
889,297
ainVi
Cupertiro caPlpE;I LosGatos/Saratoga
6,139,401 4,419,594 2,596,069 2,661,400
MenloPark
E|ilEEEEIIE.EEII|E
•Im=illEEE]ill-lo I'[Emlll 6,464,838
1111'
E]illEDREo. .EZEEZEillE|[ [EEII 343,291 112,773 10,579
450,844
3,420
228,951 182,374 117,790 528,958 508,147 18,075
140,236
0 6,146
77,511
0 •11.
•IImDnEiillE.
-[iiEEEiiEEE,_E=ipERIEE
''EEil='
+\+::+:+++jt+i+`t+i.L;:i+i+:++irL+++++.L+++++:+:-++++i.JtfT\ vi.J\++tti`>i`T.`+.\\+Tt Elill||.ERIEfiE]
EEIE'
illmEEE
793,177 1,487,585 137,365
1,264,755 139,545 675,285 144,472 369,946 228,234 122,244 103,747 198,960
17.6% 16.0% 13.4%
Oo
3.2% I-a
12.3% 92%13.7% 19.1% 26.8% 19.3% 10.8% 6.6%
30.4% 11.7% 9.7%
-
i+._.+
129,302762,066
-271,265-179,397 19,0599,495
179,716252,344 12,56153,434
-63,119-124,471 4,8832,459
120,611110,348 230,656171,389 -23,604 8,39844,271 55,126 11,608-16,548 9,18218,559 28,327-86,200 no,539-5,i02 1,122959
111111111111111111111111-
573,669928,514
-158.843-208.027 EE133,108 502,678 40,069
261,959
61,650 86,081 69,378 209,010 600,420 2,288,447
161,828 439,198 34,941 30,098
160,375 15,647 39,340
+++-.::+++:.++\+:i:.i;:++++i+rt+:+++++i
++.++..++.i
3.812,543 1,321,684 E]EEEE]E]il
Elu.=l ODIII
0 •rT+.i.+\++i++t'F+++++
-
424,188
0 EREBEEZE
$2.68
•+.++i-+.ir.\'_++
IE..I
.1111
se.80 Ou.49 EEIE]E]
0 60,188
0 0 0 00 0
364,000
00 00 0 00
IIIIIIIIEElb 11111111- :+\:;:+++i:+t+++c+AssEsr;+++
se.38 se.47 se.14 sO.57 se.17 sO.16 sO.01 sO.53 se.33 ca.62 %.10 sO.99 $2.59 $2.71 en.30 $2.43
BEH- EEillEEEm ELE=ZEEEE|EB
1111111-
•.EllI
$8.40 $9.13 se.73 $7.12 se.65 sO.61 se.90 sO.04 $6.20 sO.97 sO.13 se.05 sO.50 $3.15 sO.49 $2.32 $2.51 E]EEE •Rentalratesreflectfullserviceasking •MarketindicatorsarenotreflectiveofUSMarketBeattables KEYLEASETRANSACTIONSQ22026 KEYSALETRANSACTIONSQ22026
3 9
i
goM 7fJM BOW 50hl 4CM 3CM 20W T3V .:
::,:,.ijj,:I,`!i;,,i,!! i
i
Y.G`
r
E
;\- .iij
+~J:i
< --:\-
=Cca-ce Act,-81
2C)Cll 4ttJS
2,:2-13 actJ5
2CtoJ5 Aoue'
i
ftELRE 2Or6i7 Actnd A,9\LO\€\\q
!r§ 'ED
EE
E i+i Eii
i
j#dr,
t
i
2C1819
1.,,.i.:;.'''',.:.',';;::
S
H|
.I
ctJ
2J2Li-2` h=-|EI
202223 Ac.ua'
;,.T.-: :ZsS.'--
+
ife. far}t
2,=2425
£ctJ9
FiscatYeor
•,,,:(,,i,,.,,„,.(.,`,,,,
"(,,,.,:.,j,
August 6, 2026
My WeChat
Complaint:
Unauthorized
Campaign Signs
J.R. Fruen
Seema Lindskog
John Tang
CC 10-06-2026
#10
Approved remediation plan
for soil contamination at
The Rise
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council
Subject: October 6 Public Comment #10
Date: Saturday, October 3, 2026 6:56:36 PM
Attachments: 20260625_req_smp.pdf
20260916_VIMS_Design_approval.pdf
Vallco - Response to Public Inquiries - Mr Lowenthal.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I am grateful that in 2021, Mayor Moore and Vice-Mayor Chao supported having the County take a look at contaminants at the Vallco site. They have saved countless residents and workers from illnesses. I am also grateful to the County for their due diligence and for not caving in to political pressure to rubber-stamping the project. The last attachment is one of several letters that were directed to the County on this topic.
I hope that they will be discussing both two cases on geotracker and have attached the most recent letters of each:
Site Cleanup Program Case No. 2022-15s
Site Cleanup Program Case No. 2021-16s
The complete history can be viewed at these sites:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000020648 https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000017167 Warm Regards,
Rhoda Fry
County of Santa Clara
Environmental Health
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division
1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300
San José, CA 95112-2716
(408) 918-3400
www.ehinfo.org/hazmat
Board of Supervisors: Sylvia Arenas, Betty Duong, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, Margaret Abe-Koga County Executive: James R. Williams
June 26, 2026 APN 316-20-121
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Steve McCartt ([email protected])
Vallco Property Owner LLC
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, California 94304
Re: East Vallco Mall Site (Parcel East of Wolfe Road)
10123 North Wolfe Road, Cupertino, CA
Site Cleanup Program Case No. 2022-15s
GeoTracker ID T10000020648
Dear Mr. McCartt:
Santa Clara County Environmental Health (EH) has reviewed the Site Investigation and Updated Conceptual Site Report (Report) prepared by EKI Environment and Water (EKI) and dated May 5, 2026.
The subject site currently consists of a portion of the former Vallco Mall located east of North Wolfe Road. The Mall is currently vacant except for the office of Vallco Property Owner, LLC, a bowling alley, an ice rink, and a Benihana restaurant. A new development is planned for the subject site and will consist of mixed-use residential and commercial multi-level structures, subsurface parking, and a recreational park. The Report was submitted in response to the EH directive letter dated April 28, 2025, and includes a conceptual site model (CSM) which describes the soil, groundwater, and soil vapor conditions at the Site. The results of the site investigation revealed concentrations of organochlorine pesticides (OCP), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and metals in soil and/or soil vapor beneath the Site. The constituents of concern (COC) detected at the site above or equal to their respective Regional Water Quality Control Board residential, commercial, and/or construction worker environmental screening levels (ESLs) are chlordane, cobalt, lead and dieldrin in soil; and benzene in soil vapor.
The Report concludes COCs in soil vapor represent a potential vapor intrusion risk to the four planned developments. Due to the construction timeline, the Report recommends preparation of a site management plan (SMP) that will include a detailed approach to either mitigate or remediate identified on-site soil and soil vapor impacts. EH concurs with the Report’s recommendations. In response, you are required to submit a SMP. The SMP shall include a remedial action plan and mitigation measures based on recommendations presented in the Report and address data gaps identified in the technical comments below.
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
1. Chlordane, cobalt, lead and dieldrin concentrations in soil exceed the applicable residential and construction worker direct exposure ESLs, therefore, appropriate precautions to manage soil waste and East Vallco Mall Site
June 26, 2026
protect worker safety during the planned construction shall be included in the required SMP for proposed development and as described further below.
2. Detections of chlordane in soil exceeding both residential and commercial ESLs at boring V04, located adjacent to the active loading dock, are likely attributable to historical operations at the subject site.
Detections of lead in soil exceeding residential ESLs at boring V09, located adjacent to the former oil/water separator near the former JC Penney, is also likely attributed to a historical release at the Site.
The vertical and lateral extent of soil impacted with chlordane and lead is not defined. The SMP shall include a soil sampling plan to define the vertical and lateral extent of chlordane and lead in soil that exceeds ESLs and a remedial excavation plan to remove and dispose of impacted site soil based on the recommendation of the Report.
3. Based on the data from the CSM, a SMP is required to include construction of each of the four developments.
a. The SMP shall address all COCs in soil and soil vapor that exceed their respective RWQCB residential, commercial, and/or construction worker ESLs. b. The SMP shall include the status of the project’s entitlement with the City of Cupertino, a current and detailed project description, and the proposed development plan for the subject site in relation to site-specific COCs and known areas of contamination. c. The SMP shall include combined historical data tables and figures showing all sample locations on site. The tables shall include the dates the samples were collected. d. The SMP shall include proposed plans to manage, mitigate, and/or remediate potential risks associated with known areas of contamination; for example, procedures for soil excavation and confirmation soil sampling, dust control measures, waste management and disposal requirements, potential soil import requirements, and required actions in the event that previously unidentified areas of contamination and/or hazards are encountered during redevelopment. The SMP shall include the name of the entity responsible for managing each of the mitigation and/or remediation measures, requirements, and/or actions.
e. The SMP shall include an evaluation of the need for a VIMS; and if necessary, a conceptual VIMS design. Following EH concurrence of a conceptual VIMS design, a separate and detailed VIMS Design and Construction Quality Assurance Plan will be required.
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
Please submit the following technical documents to EH (Attention: Ms. Shalom Marquardt) according to the following schedule.
Site Management Plan – Due by September 28, 2026
Technical reports are required pursuant to our authority under Section 101480 of the California Health and Safety Code. Each report shall include conclusions and recommendations for the next phases of work required to protect water resources, human health and safety, and the environment at the site. All required work shall be performed in a prompt and timely manner. Revisions to the schedule shall be requested at least two (2) weeks prior to the due date in writing with appropriate justification for the anticipated delays and a proposed revised schedule.
East Vallco Mall Site
June 26, 2026
The California Business and Professions Codes (Sections 6735,7835, and 7835.1) require work plans and technical or implementation reports containing geologic or engineering evaluations and/or judgments must be performed under the direction of an appropriately registered or certified professional.
PERJURY STATEMENT
All proposals and reports submitted to this office must be accompanied by a cover letter from the Responsible Party which states, at a minimum, the following:
"I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information and/or recommendations contained in the attached proposal or report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge." This letter must be signed by an officer or legally authorized representative of the Responsible Party. Future submittals without the required Responsible Party perjury statement may be denied as insufficient.
ELECTRONIC DATA SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
The Electronic Reporting Regulations (Chapter 30, Division 3 of Title 23 & Division 3 of Title 27, CCR) require electronic submission of any report and data required by a regulatory agency for a cleanup site. You are required to complete electronic data submittal over the Internet to the case file established for the subject site in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database. Once a report and data are successfully uploaded, as required, you have met the reporting requirement (i.e., the compliance measure for electronic data submittal are the actual uploads themselves).
Analytical data (including geochemical data) for all soil, vapor, and water samples that are collected for the purpose of subsurface investigation or remediation are required to be submitted in specified EDF format to GeoTracker. Groundwater, soil, and vapor samples include, but are not limited to, monitoring well samples, borehole samples, gas and vapor samples, groundwater grab samples, piezometer samples, stockpile samples, and samples from drinking water wells. Other electronic data submittal requirements include boring logs and well screen intervals, depth to water data, locational data, elevation data, and site maps. For additional details, please visit please visit the following GeoTracker Reporting Requirements webpage:
www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/electronic_submittal/report_rqmts.
Future reports submitted without accompanying electronic data submittals will be considered incomplete and may be denied. Please be advised that EH may not close your case without this complete information. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (408) 918-1943 or via email.
Sincerely,
Shalom Marquardt, PG
Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist
Site Cleanup Program
[email protected]
cc: Frank Stillo ([email protected])
File – GeoTracker
County of Santa Clara
Environmental Health
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division
1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300
San José, CA 95112-2716
(408) 918-3400
www.ehinfo.org/hazmat
Board of Supervisors: Sylvia Arenas, Betty Duong, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, Margaret Abe-Koga County Executive: James R. Williams
September 16, 2026 APN: 316-20-122
Vallco Property Owner, LLC SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY c/o Reed Moulds ([email protected])
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Re: Vallco Town Center, 10123 North Wolfe Road, Cupertino, CA Site Cleanup Program Case #2021-16s
Parcel West of Wolfe Road
GeoTracker ID No. T10000017167
Dear Mr. Moulds:
Santa Clara County Environmental Health (EH) has received the Basis of Design Report for the Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System Design The Rise – Block 5 (VIMS Design and CQA Plan) prepared by West Environmental Services & Technology, Inc., (West) and dated September 11, 2026. The VIMS Design and CQA Plan was submitted in support of the planned mixed-use development at Block 5 only.
A vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) is currently planned to be installed under the footprint of the building to mitigate potential vapor intrusion from a volatile organic compound soil vapor plume located on the subject site. The VIMS consists of a vapor intrusion barrier and a sub-slab ventilation layer to be installed below the concrete slab of the planned development which includes a multi-story mixed-use residential and commercial building with slab-on-grade construction. The eight-story building will have commercial use on floors 1 -3 and residential units on floors 4-8. The building will not include any belowground structures (e.g., subsurface parking) other than elevator pits. The vapor barrier will be sealed at all foundations and utility penetrations to create an air‐tight seal beneath those portions of the building.
The VIMS Design and CQA Plan includes design plans to construct the VIMS, general construction notes and specifications, a quality assurance/quality control program to be implemented during construction of the proposed VIMS, and a description of verification sampling and controls to maintain the long-term integrity of the VIMS. EH conditionally accepts the VIMS Design and CQA Plan with the following conditions and requirements.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. This letter does not modify or relieve any additional requirements specified for this project by the City of Cupertino.
2. EH conditional approval of the VIMS design plans applies only to the proposed redevelopment project as shown in the VIMS Design and CQA Plan. If there are changes to the proposed Vallco Town Center, 10123 North Wolfe Road, Cupertino, CA September 16, 2026
redevelopment project or to the VIMS design plans, you are required to notify EH in writing, and you may be required to submit updated VIMS design plans to EH for approval.
3. EH understands that the City of Cupertino is the lead agency responsible for approving the final building design plans, which shall incorporate the VIMS design plans. EH understands that the City of Cupertino will not approve the hazardous materials or soil vapor intrusion mitigation aspects of the VIMS design plans but will review and approve the VIMS design plans as they relate to applicable building code, fire code, etc. as part of the overall building design plans. Documentation of the City of Cupertino’s approval of the VIMS design plans as part of the final building design plans shall be submitted to EH prior to construction of the building foundation. EH understands that the proposed building design plans, which include a VIMS, were submitted to the City of Cupertino, prior to EH review. Typically, VIMS design plans are submitted to EH for review and approval prior to a city’s review. Please be aware that if the VIMS design plans change during the City of Cupertino’s review process, EH may require updated plans, which may then require additional approval from the City of Cupertino.
4. In addition to the VIMS Design Engineer (currently, West), any deviations or modifications from the EH-approved VIMS design plans must be submitted to and accepted by EH and by the City of Cupertino prior to proceeding with VIMS construction, with the exception noted in Technical Comment #5.
5. All selected VIMS products and materials shall be compatible with known constituents of concern identified for the subject site. It is acceptable to select alternate vapor barrier products at a later date if needed, provided that the alternate vapor barrier products are designed to provide protection from potential soil vapor intrusion and have similar physical properties as those described in the VIMS Design and CQA Plan (ex. product thickness, permeation rate or diffusion coefficient, ASTM testing data, etc.) to achieve the design objectives and design elements described in the VIMS Design and CQA Plan. Verification of material compatibility shall be provided to EH in the final completion report. The final completion report and the final VIMS Design and CQA Plan shall include a detailed description and technical justifications for the final VIMS products selected and installed.
6. A copy of the VIMS Design and CQA Plan must be reviewed by all applicable contractors prior to initiating construction activities and must be kept on site and available at all times throughout the project. The Responsible Party is responsible for ensuring the VIMS Design and CQA Plan is reviewed and acknowledged by all applicable contractors prior to construction activities.
7. You are required to notify EH at least two weeks prior to the VIMS Preconstruction Meeting with the general contractor, VIMS installer and VIMS quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) inspector so that EH may be present to observe the VIMS Preconstruction Meeting. The VIMS QA/QC inspector shall provide a list of required inspections to the VIMS Installer and to EH that must be conducted to ensure the VIMS is installed in substantial accordance with the VIMS design plans.
8. You are required to notify EH at least two weeks prior to VIMS quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) testing so that EH may be present to observe the QA/QC tests.
9. The previous requirement for a land use covenant shall be deferred, pending results of postoccupancy verification monitoring.
Vallco Town Center, 10123 North Wolfe Road, Cupertino, CA September 16, 2026
10. Please refer to the EH letter dated July 9, 2026, for a detailed description of all previously assigned deliverables, which are summarized below. Please note the required submittals which shall be submitted to and approved by EH prior to building occupancy.
REQUIED SUBMITTALS
You are required to submit the following reports to EH (Attention: Ms. Shalom Marquardt) via GeoTracker according to the following schedule. EH is providing a list of anticipated future deliverables for planning and scheduling purposes.
1. Prior to installation of the building foundation:
a. Confirmation of City Approval of Final VIMS Design – Prior to construction of the building foundation.
b. VIMS Preconstruction Meeting - Two weeks prior to commencement of VIMS Installation notify EH of VIMS Preconstruction meeting.
c. Notification to EH VIMS QA/QC – Two weeks prior to VIMS Installation notify EH of VIMS quality assurance/quality control inspection schedule.
2. Following VIMS installation and building construction:
a. VIMS Completion Report – Due within 60 days following completion of all earthwork activities, VIMS installation, and building envelope construction activities. b. VIMS OM&M Plan – Following VIMS installation.
c. Pre-Occupancy Verification Sampling Report (Sampling Events 1 and 2) – Following building completion and prior to building occupancy.
d. Long-Term Verification Sampling Report (Sampling Events 3 and 4) – Within 12 months following building occupancy.
e. Long-Term Verification Sampling Report (Sampling Event 5) – Within 24 months following building occupancy.
Technical reports are required pursuant to our authority under Section 101480 of the California Health and Safety Code. Each report shall include conclusions and recommendations for the next phases of work required to protect water resources, human health and safety, and the environment at the site. All required work shall be performed in a prompt and timely manner. Revisions to the schedule shall be requested at least two (2) weeks prior to the due date in writing with appropriate justification for the anticipated delays and a proposed revised schedule.
The California Business and Professions Codes (Sections 6735,7835, and 7835.1) require work plans and technical or implementation reports containing geologic or engineering evaluations and/or judgments must be performed under the direction of an appropriately registered or certified professional.
PERJURY STATEMENT
Vallco Town Center, 10123 North Wolfe Road, Cupertino, CA September 16, 2026
All proposals and reports submitted to this office must be accompanied by a cover letter from the Responsible Party which states, at a minimum, the following:
"I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information and/or recommendations contained in the attached proposal or report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge."
This letter must be signed by an officer or legally authorized representative of the Responsible Party.
ELECTRONIC DATA SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
The Electronic Reporting Regulations (Chapter 30, Division 3 of Title 23 & Division 3 of Title 27, CCR) require electronic submission of any report and data required by a regulatory agency for a cleanup site. You are required to complete electronic data submittal over the Internet to the case file established for the subject site in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database. Once a report and data are successfully uploaded, as required, you have met the reporting requirement (i.e., the compliance measure for electronic data submittal are the actual uploads themselves).
Analytical data (including geochemical data) for all soil, vapor, and water samples that are collected for the purpose of subsurface investigation or remediation are required to be submitted in specified EDF format to GeoTracker. Groundwater, soil, and vapor samples include, but are not limited to, monitoring well samples, borehole samples, gas and vapor samples, groundwater grab samples, piezometer samples, stockpile samples, and samples from drinking water wells. Other electronic data submittal requirements include boring logs and well screen intervals, depth to water data, locational data, elevation data, and site maps. For additional details, please visit the following GeoTracker Reporting Requirements webpage:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/electronic_submittal/report_rqmts.html.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (408) 918-1943 or via email.
Sincerely,
Shalom Marquardt, PG
Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist
Site Cleanup Program
[email protected]
cc: Peter Krasnoff, WEST ([email protected]) Sharon Squire, WEST ([email protected])
File – GeoTracker
From: Gaddi, Rochelle
To: Richard Lowenthal
Cc: Kaahaaina, Jennifer; O"Regan, Gerald
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Vallco is stuck
Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 3:46:42 PM
Good afternoon Mr Lowenthal,
Thank you for your email below on this important project. To clarify, the application that we received from Vallco Property Owner, LLC is an application requesting regulatory oversight which mentions soil removal as a possible option for addressing onsite contamination at the Vallco project. It is not an application to remove soil, as you indicate below.
The County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) approved this application for regulatory oversight when we entered into a remedial action agreement last June 2021 with Vallco Property Owner, LLC. We have been actively working with the Developer since then to establish a comprehensive understanding of the contaminants on the site that may pose a threat to future residents, workers and visitors. This process takes time to complete accurately. We need to establish this understanding of the contamination to ensure the proposed abatement and mitigation plans will be adequate to protect human health. We have completed our review of the most recent data submitted by the Developer in late December 2021. Last week, we had multiple conversations with the Developer’s representative to confirm our understanding of the data and their conclusions. We also presented our conclusions and proposed next steps. A formal directive letter identifying those next steps is in process and due to be issued within a couple of days. All records related to our oversight of the Vallco Town Center development, including the anticipated letter upon issuance, are made available on the publicly accessible GeoTracker website – Global ID T10000017167. They are in the section entitled Site Maps / Documents.
We reviewed the Developer’s documents when we received them, which were not fully submitted until December 22, 2021. We needed these documents to complete our review and the directive letter is forthcoming.
Please let me know if you need additional information.
Regards,
_________________________________
Rochelle Y Gaddi, REHS
Interim Director
Department of Environmental Health
County of Santa Clara
phone: 408 918-3449
fax: 408 258 5891
mail to: [email protected]
For More Information on Environmental Health Guidance for Coronavirus visit us at: http://EHinfo.org/coronavirus NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Lowenthal <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 12:07 PM
To: District1 <[email protected]>; Chavez, Cindy <[email protected]>; Supervisor.Lee <[email protected]>; Ellenberg, Supervisor <[email protected]>; Supervisor Simitian <[email protected]>; DEHWEB <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Vallco is stuck
Dear Supervisors and Department of Environmental Health, I’m writing today because the Vallco soil removal application has been in front of the Department of Environmental Health for nine months, there has been no action taken, and we need your help to get this project going. Soil removal is a routine process and this approval has taken far too long, having been initially filed on April 15, 2021.
This prolonged delay is holding up the largest affordable housing project in Northern California as well as the vibrant community spaces, green space, and destination retail the will be built along with it. On behalf of the Cupertino community, I urge the Board of Supervisors and DEH to move this application along immediately so that the contaminated soil can be removed and construction can begin at Vallco.
Thank you for your consideration,
Richard Lowenthal
Former Mayor of Cupertino
Founding CEO of ChargePoint
CC 10-06-2026
#11
Block 5 Vallco
TEFRA
Baker Tilly
Written Communications
From: Harvey McKeon
To: City Council; Kitty Moore; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Santosh Rao; Liang Chao; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Tracy Kosolcharoen; Steven Scharf Cc: City Clerk; Public Comments; Lauren Sapudar; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Genaro Diaz; Douglas M.
Chesshire; Daniel Alvarez; Oscar Mazariegos
Subject: Carpenters Local 405 Concerns Regarding The Rise Project TEFRA Hearing Scheduled 10/6/2026 Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 2:46:06 PM
Attachments: c77b7ed7-14cd-49a5-9ce6-eefdc572de29.png
b4b7abe5-0b48-4cc7-9f8d-f3dfbbc69f06.png
d4ce31f0-69da-40c7-b636-524d6d6936d5.png
a5f7dfa1-82e6-45ab-82fc-109df2b4d018.png
3721911e-2c93-4e9c-ab6b-d127caea3265.png
7afcb4bb-5f1c-421a-a3fc-5a6c1e8a0cf9.png
Concerns Regarding The Rise Project TEFRA Hearing Scheduled 10.6.2026.pdf Importance: High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the Members of Cupertino City Council,
Carpenters Local 405 requests that the attached letter be included in the written communications for Item 11 on the agenda for the City Council's October 6, 2026, meeting.
Local 405 is writing to Cupertino’s City Council to urge it to stand with workers by exercising its broad discretion to disapprove or pause voting on the preferential Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) tax-exempt bond financing for the housing project known as The Rise.
Local 405 calls on the City Council to delay approving the bonds until such time as SB 35's labor standards can be demonstrably guaranteed by the Project’s developer, including through its contractor selection process. This will allow the Project to represent a true and unequivocal public benefit to the working people of Cupertino.
The members of Local 405 await your decision.
Sincerely,
Harvey McKeon
Field Representative, Strategic Campaigns & Research
North Coast States Carpenters Union
(510) 414-5371
[email protected]
https://ncscarpenters.org
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Affordable Housing on Item 11, Sept. 6 City Council Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 1:33:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
(Please consider the following as public input for Item Number 11 on the Cupertino City Council Agenda for the September 6, 2026 City Council Meeting).
Item Number 11 on the Cupertino City Council has Affordable Housing being built on a location near Wolfe Road at The Rise/Vallco. I think this housing should be between the builder and the Affordable Housing Administrator, Eden Housing. This seems more like a private development. Maybe another non-profit could get involved. Also, there is retail in the bottom of the building and the city doesn't usually own retail in a shopping center.
I think the Affordable Housing construction should be handled privately and not involve the city.
If a Redevelopment Agency was involved, that would be different.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Venkat Ranganathan
To: Public Comments; City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Agenda item 11 in today"s council meeting - Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) public hearing Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 10:42:33 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor, City Councilmembers, City Manager, and Staff, I’m writing regarding Agenda Item 11, the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) public hearing and proposed conduit financing for The RISE Block 5 Apartments Project in today's council meeting.
I have a few questions regarding the proposed CMFA financing and would appreciate clarification before the Council takes action. The JPA agreement appears to provide important protections for the City, including that CMFA is a separate legal entity and that its bond obligations are not debts of Cupertino or backed by the City’s taxing power.
With those protections in mind, could staff please clarify the scope of the City’s involvement:
1. City obligations and exposure: Could staff clarify whether this structure creates any direct or contingent obligations for the City—including financial, legal, environmental, or indemnification obligations—under scenarios such as borrower default, incomplete construction, or financing restructuring?
2. CMFA membership: Why is Cupertino being asked to become a member of CMFA for this transaction, and what, if any, ongoing obligations would the City have after this bond issuance?
3. Financing structure: Could staff provide a high-level description of the project’s financing structure and sources of capital, including how the CMFA bonds relate to construction financing, permanent financing, taxcredit equity, City funding, and other sources?
4. Environmental and remediation exposure: Given the separate remediation issues at The RISE site, would participation in CMFA or approval of these bonds affect the City’s environmental or remediation exposure in any way?
5. Public benefit and oversight: What specific public benefit does CMFA financing provide for this project, and what continuing oversight, if any, would the City have after the bonds are issued? My intent is to better understand the scope of the City’s involvement, the protections in place, and the public benefit before the Council takes action. Thank you for helping clarify these points for the public record.
Thanks
Venkatesan Ranganathan
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Fw: Questions Regarding City Financial and Legal Exposure in RISE Block 5 Financing Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 4:50:06 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.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the 10/06/26 city council meeting for agenda item 11.
Thanks,
Santosh Rao (myself only as a Cupertino resident)
Begin forwarded message:
On Tuesday, October 6, 2026, 7:27 AM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:
(Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) Dear City Attorney Andrews, City Manager Kapoor, Finance Director Orosco,
I have several questions regarding the proposed City participation in CMFA financing for RISE Block 5. Given the potential financial and legal implications for the City, could staff please clarify the following for the public record:
1. Capital structure: Please provide the proposed capital stack, including the relative seniority and priority of CMFA financing compared with senior and junior debt and equity from other institutional or private sources.
2. City liability: What direct or contingent financial, legal, or other liabilities could the City incur if the borrower defaults on its obligations?
3. TEFRA notice: Was a TEFRA hearing and notice
conducted as required? If so, when and where was the notice published, and how were Cupertino residents notified?
4. Financing structure: Is this structured as pooled conduit financing? If so, are draft organizational or LLC structures available showing the relationships among the City, CMFA, borrower, and other entities, including any potential
obligations or liabilities?
5. Construction financing: What is the rationale for using this financing structure for construction financing rather than permanent financing? What risks, if any, would the City assume during the construction period?
6. Bond counsel: Has bond counsel reviewed the proposed financing? If so, are any legal opinions, memoranda, or other supporting materials available for public review?
7. Bond documents: Are draft bond documents, including a bond indenture or equivalent financing documents, available for review? These would help the public understand the
respective obligations and protections of the borrower, bondholders, CMFA, and City.
8. Default or restructuring: If the borrower defaults, what remedies and restructuring mechanisms would apply?
Would the City have any financial obligation, decisionmaking role, or other exposure in that process?
9. Environmental liability: Has the City evaluated whether existing or potential future environmental claims, including claims related to soil contamination or remediation, could create any direct or indirect exposure for the City, CMFA, bondholders, or other parties?
10. Oversight: Will there be any ongoing oversight of the financing or project? If so, who will conduct that oversight, who will receive the findings, and what authority will the oversight body have?
11. Rationale for City participation: Finally, what public benefit does the City receive from participating in this financing structure, and why is City involvement preferable to the applicant obtaining financing directly through private capital markets without City participation?
My intent is to better understand the City’s potential exposure and the protections in place for Cupertino residents and taxpayers before the Council takes action.
Thank you for providing the supporting documentation and responses for the public record.
Thanks,
Santosh Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident)
CC 10-06-2026
#13
Coach House
Written Communications
From: Sophie Haugen
To: Public Comments; Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang Cc: Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Revised Public Comment re item 13 for tonight"s City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 1:49:04 PM
Attachments: _Cupertino - 1655 S. De Anza Blvd - HAA - CC 10_6 .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 of Cupertino,
The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) resubmits the revised attached public comment re item 13 for tonight's city council meeting, the proposed 35 unit housing development project at 1655 S. De Anza Blvd - 7357 Prospect Rd, which includes 3 very low income units, and 2 moderate income units. Please refer to the attached comment instead of the previously submitted comment.
Sincerely,
Sophie Haugen
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/;
Oct 6, 2026
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 1655 S. De Anza Blvd - 7357 Prospect Rd
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Dear City of Cupertino,
The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 35-unit housing development project at 1655 S. De Anza Blvd - 7357 Prospect Rd, which includes 3 very low income and 2 moderate income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), the Density Bonus Law (DBL), and AB 130.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan.
Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov.
Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to maximum floor area, height limitations, three story height limitation, front setback, design requirements, site and building design, landscape requirements, building stepback height, public improvements, building planes, and retail component. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov.
Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) The project is also eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130. (Pub.
Res. Code, § 21080.66.) Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. 2 of 3
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item Number 13, Retail and Housing Numbers
Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 9:25:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
(Please consider the following as public input on Item Number 13 on the Cupertino City Council Meeting Agenda on September 6, 2026.)
On the Agenda Item Number 13 on the housing proposed at the Coach House Shopping Center for the September 6, 2026 City Council Meeting please help any retail that is at this site. This has been a shopping center for a long time and we are losing so much retail in the city to other building sites.
We have six townhouse projects on Stevens Creek Blvd. and much retail is being displaced.
Please help the Coach House retail try to relocate in Cupertino.
We need to keep retail in our town. People in Cupertino have to shop in other cities now because of the lack of retail opportunites in our city. Keeping and recruiting retail in our city is good for the city and shoppers and business.
The concept of No Net Loss is being played out in the city for the first time. This means the inflated RHNA numbers
are having to be redistributed across our Housing Element sites again. I don't think No Net Loss is a good plan for the state and its new housing laws. It will make the Housing Elements worse and the Sixth Cycle Housing Element has already been shown to have many idemic and inherent problems across the state.
Please try to help the retail at this site stay in the city and try to mitigate the problems that No Net Loss is propagating across our city.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
CC 10-06-2026
#16
Future Agenda Items
Written Communications
From: Ilango
To: Public Comments; City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject: Public comment - Agenda item # 16 – Oct 6, 2026 - Future Agenda items - ATP Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 3:41:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I am a Cupertino resident and Bicycle Pedestrian commissioner, writing on behalf of myself.
I request you to expedite the scheduling and final approval of Cupertino’s draft Active Transportation Plan (ATP).
The draft ATP was reviewed and recommended by both the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and the Planning Commission in July 2026. However, the plan is yet to be scheduled for a full Council review.
The ATP is a critical framework that builds on Cupertino's 2024 Vision Zero Action Plan and 2023 Local Roadway Safety plan. It provides essential infrastructure safety recommendations to improve pedestrian safety and bicycle safety -- priorities our residents & community members have emphasized in their inputs to ATP.
I request the Council to direct the City Manager to present the draft ATP for your formal review and final approval at the earliest possible date.
Thanks,
Ilango Ganga
Cupertino Resident,
writing on behalf of myself