Loading...
CC 04-15-2025 Item No. 14 Future aenda items requested by Council_Written CommunicationCC 04-15-2025 Item No. 14 Review future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers Written Communications From:Liang Chao To:City Clerk Subject:Fw: Agenda Item Request: Minor Modification to Muni Code for Parking Date:Monday, April 14, 2025 11:15:30 AM Please add this to the written communication for Item 14 TBD list to provide context of the agenda request. Liang Chao​​​​ Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 10:34 PM To: Floy Andrews <fandrews@awattorneys.com>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Valenzuela, Neil <Neil.Valenzuela@shf.sccgov.org> Cc: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.gov>; Kitty Moore <KMoore@cupertino.gov> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Request: Minor Modification to Muni Code for Parking Adding Vice Mayor, with whom I have discussed some of this. I looked into the Muni Code for 72-hour parking restriction in Saratoga and Los Altos, who are also under the same Sheriff's Office: Los Altos's version: "For the purposes of this section, a vehicle or trailer shall be considered to have been parked or left standing for seventy-two (72) or more consecutive hours if it has not been moved at least one thousand (1,000) feet during such seventy-two (72) hour period." Saratoga's version: "A vehicle shall be considered to have been parked or left standing for seventy-two or more consecutive hours if it has remained inoperable or has not been moved and remained at least one mile from its original parked location for at least twenty-four hours during the seventy-two-hour period." I found Fremont's version is similar to Mountain View's version: Fremont's version: "any vehicle that has been parked in the same location for 72 hours move at least 1,000 feet from its current location and may not return to the same parking spot for at least 24 hours" (adopted Nov. 2024) Fremont on restriction near residential streets: "Additionally, oversized vehicles, including any attached trailers, vehicles, or loads which exceed 22 feet in length, and/or 6 feet in width and 7 feet in height, are no longer allowed to park on any public street within 100 feet of a residential property line. The ordinance allows for limited exemptions of loading/unloading, emergency vehicles and commercial deliveries. If the oversized vehicle is not moved within 24 hours after receiving a warning notice, the vehicle could receive a citation and will be at risk for getting towed. " (adopted Nov. 2024) I realize that restrictions on oversized vehicles are more complicated since we need to consider exemptions to allow construction vehicles etc and we need to define over- sized vehicles. So, in the first version, I would just consider the minor modification on parking violation, which would not require a study session. For restrictions on oversized vehicles, we would likely need a study session first to get public and council input, which could be considered as a part of the FY 2025-27 Work Program. =========== Los Altos Muni Code https://library.municode.com/ca/los_altos/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeId=TIT8VETR_CH8.20STSTPA 8.20.090 - Parking for more than 72 hours. No person who owns or has possession, custody, or control of any vehicle or trailer shall park such vehicle or trailer upon any street, alley, or public place continuously for more than a consecutive period of seventy-two (72) hours. For the purposes of this section, a vehicle or trailer shall be considered to have been parked or left standing for seventy-two (72) or more consecutive hours if it has not been moved at least one thousand (1,000) feet during such seventy-two (72) hour period. (Prior code § 3-2.913) 8.20.100 - Removal of vehicles parked more than 72 hours. Any regularly employed and salaried officer of the police department may remove, or cause to be removed, any vehicle which has been parked or left standing upon a street, highway, or public parking lot for seventy-two (72) or more consecutive hours. (Prior code § 3-2.914) Saratoga Muni Code https://library.municode.com/ca/saratoga/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeId=CH9MOVETR_ART9-25PAREAPALHI 9-25.030 - Parking of certain oversize vehicles on residential streets. (a) No person who owns or has possession, custody or control of any commercial vehicle recreational vehicle, boat or trailer, shall park or leave standing such vehicle upon any street in a residential district or abutting any property or area within a residential district for a period of seventy-two consecutive hours or more. A vehicle shall be considered to have been parked or left standing for seventy-two or more consecutive hours if it has remained inoperable or has not been moved and remained at least one mile from its original parked location for at least twenty-four hours during the seventy-two-hour period. (b) Unattached boats and trailers shall not park or stand upon any public street. (c) For the purposes of this section: (1) Trailer means a vehicle, other than a motor vehicle, designed for industrial, professional, or commercial purposes, for carrying property on its own structure, and for being drawn by a motor vehicle. (2) Commercial vehicle shall have the meaning set forth in section 9-10.040; (3) Recreational vehicle means any vehicle used for recreation and designed for human habitation for recreational, emergency, or other occupancy, and not including passenger vehicles. (Ord. No. 394, § 1(Att. A), 12-7-2022) 9-25.040 - Application of other laws. The provisions of this Article are in addition to other parking regulations which are or may be imposed by the laws of the State and the provisions of this Code and shall not relieve any person from the duty to observe other and more restrictive provisions of the Vehicle Code or this Code. 9-25.050 - Enforcement of Article. It shall be the duty of all policemen and Community Service Officers appointed for such purpose and all deputies of the County Sheriff performing police services in the City to enforce the regulations set forth in this Article. Liang Chao​​​​ Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 1:37 PM To: Floy Andrews <fandrews@awattorneys.com>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Valenzuela, Neil <Neil.Valenzuela@shf.sccgov.org> Cc: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.gov> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Request: Minor Modification to Muni Code for Parking Adding Captain Neil. Captain, What do you think about a potential change in parking regulation to require a vehicle to move by 1000 feet after 72 hours? And not return to the same spot within. 24 hours. This mirrors the regulation in Mountain View. In terms of implementation, I suppose that this would be complaints based like other Muni code enforcement. So, there is no need to track every parked vehicle. Only a few ones where a complaint is submitted for violating this code. Thank you. Liang Liang Chao​​​​ Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Floy Andrews <fandrews@awattorneys.com> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 1:26 PM To: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov> Cc: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.gov> Subject: RE: Agenda Item Request: Minor Modification to Muni Code for Parking CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you for this information, Mayor. I appreciate the research! From a legal perspective, I believe an updated like this could be implemented in short order. Curious whether we would need to loop in the County Sheriff’s department? I assume the County Sheriff is the entity that enforces the parking ordinance. I think we should take a quick look at whatever MOU or other agreement the City has with the County. I would be inclined to mirror Mountain View’s version. I like its simplicity. Best, Floy From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 7:34 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Floy Andrews <fandrews@awattorneys.com> Cc: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.gov> Subject: Agenda Item Request: Minor Modification to Muni Code for Parking *** EXTERNAL SENDER *** I learned that the cities around us have revised their Muni Code to address the issue of RV parking and we are lacking behind. I would like to propose a minor modification to the Muni Code for parking to address the issue that a vehicle could occupy the same section of a public street 24x7 as long as they move the vehicle by 6 inches. This is against the original intent of the Muni Code 11.24.130. I have included relevant Muni Code sections from Mountain VIew and Sunnyvale, in addition to Cupertino's Muni Code below. We could consider the two options: Mountain View's version: Any vehicle must be moved at least one thousand (1000) feet (approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) from its current location and may not return to the same parking spot for at least twenty-four (24) hours after its departure. Sunnyvale's version: Pushing or moving a vehicle a short distance will not be considered compliance with this section. Additionally, successive acts of parking shall be presumed to be a single act of parking within the meaning of this section when the vehicle is moved merely for the purpose of avoiding the parking limitations prescribed by this section. I hope that such minor modification could be considered in a timely manner. Thank you. Liang ============ Current Cupertino Muni Code 11.24.130 Prohibited for More than Seventy-Two Hours. No person who owns or has in his possession, custody, or control any vehicle or trailer shall park such vehicle or trailer upon any public street or alley for more than a consecutive period of seventy-two hours. (Ord. 843, § 6, 1977) Mountain View Muni Code: SEC. 19.72. - Seventy-Two (72) hour parking limit—Twenty-Four (24) hour no return. - Any vehicle that has been parked or left standing in the same location or parking spot for seventy-two (72) consecutive hours must be moved at least one thousand (1000) feet (approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) from its current location and may not return to the same parking spot for at least twenty-four (24) hours after its departure. Sunnyvale Muni Code § 10.16.120 Use of streets or public parking facilities for storage of vehicles prohibited. It is unlawful for any person who owns or has possession, custody or control of any vehicle, including a boat or trailer, to park or leave such vehicle upon any street, alley, or public parking facility for a period of seventy-two consecutive hours or more. The intent of this section is to limit parking of vehicles, boats and trailers to seventy-two consecutive hours. A vehicle or trailer shall be considered to have been parked or left standing for seventy-two or more consecutive hours if it has remained inoperable or has not been moved. An inoperable vehicle is a vehicle that cannot be moved under its own power or a vehicle which cannot operate legally and safely on the highways of the state. Pushing or moving a vehicle a short distance or attempting to rub away the tire marking will not be considered compliance with this section. Additionally, successive acts of parking shall be presumed to be a single act of parking within the meaning of this section when the vehicle is moved merely for the purpose of avoiding the parking limitations prescribed by this section. (Ord. 2435-93 § 1; Ord. 2633-00 § 1; Ord. 2925-10 § 1) Liang Chao​​​​ Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 8:05 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Tom Chin <TomC@cupertino.gov> Cc: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; Serena Tu <SerenaT@cupertino.gov> Subject: Re: RV parking resources Yes. Please direct me to county resources. Below is a question on city code enforcement: "California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22651(k) and Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) 11.24.130 state that vehicles cannot be parked in the same spot on a public street for more than 72 hours. " But they can move by 6 inches every day and still park in generally the same space? Or they have to move by at least the length of the vehicle so that the same "space" is not occupied by the same vehicle?" Thanks. Appreciate your attention on this issue of high interest from the community . Liang Liang Chao​​​​ Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 5:58 PM To: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>; Tom Chin <TomC@cupertino.gov> Cc: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; Serena Tu <SerenaT@cupertino.gov> Subject: RE: RV parking resources Mayor Chao, we can assist in directing your questions to the County planning office. Please advice, Pamela Pamela Wu​​​​ City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.gov (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 10:04 AM To: Tom Chin <TomC@cupertino.gov> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; Serena Tu <SerenaT@cupertino.gov> Subject: Re: RV parking resources Where are legal RV parking places within Santa Clara County? Other RV parking resources? Has the Santa Clara County adopted any RV ordinance? Or surrounding cities, like Sunnyvale? (in case the information is readily available to staff) If we do not wish RVs to occupy our streets, I hope to know where they can park legally with and without RV facilities. "California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22651(k) and Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) 11.24.130 state that vehicles cannot be parked in the same spot on a public street for more than 72 hours. " But they can move by 6 inches every day and still park in generally the same space? Or they have to move by at least the length of the vehicle so that the same "space" is not occupied by the same vehicle? Thanks for the information, Liang Liang Chao​​​​ Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Tom Chin <TomC@cupertino.gov> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 8:52 AM To: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; Serena Tu <SerenaT@cupertino.gov> Subject: Re: RV parking resources Good morning Mayor Chao, I have provided answers to your questions regarding RVs below: Mary Avenue is not specifically designated for RV Parking. The Rotating Safe Car Park (RSCP) program cannot accommodate RVs at this time. The RSCP provides parking spaces for passenger vehicles on private property. The risk of an RV breaking down or discharging grey or black water is very high. The private property owners are not likely to accept the risk. California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22651(k) and Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) 11.24.130 state that vehicles cannot be parked in the same spot on a public street for more than 72 hours. CVC 22651 (k) and CMC 11.24.130 aim to prevent abandoned vehicles from being stored on the street. Neither the CVC nor the CMC specifically prevents RVs from parking on public streets, and unless posted otherwise, all legally parked vehicles can be on public streets. Neither the CVC nor the CMC specify the distance a vehicle must travel to have been considered "moved." While mostly complaint-based, Code Enforcement regularly patrols areas of the city known to have RVs parked to enforce the 72-hour and street sweeping rules. Of all the parking citations issued by Code Enforcement, violations for CVC 22651 (k) and street sweeping are the most common. In FY 24, approximately 280 citations or warnings were issued. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Thank you, Tom Tom Chin​ Emergency Manager City Manager's Office TomC@cupertino.gov (408) 777-1310 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2025 11:10 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov> Cc: Tom Chin <TomC@cupertino.gov> Subject: RV parking resources Given the high interest in RV Parking issue right now, I hope to understand what resources there are for RV parking in Cupertino and surrounding areas or the County. I heard that Mary Ave is a designated RV parking site? Does the rotating Safe Parking program accommodate RVs? I think it's important to reasonably accommodate RV parking to support RV dwellers. But they do not have the right to occupy the public street 24-7 as their own private parking space. Thus, I’d like to know what’s the practice in terms of issuing fines when muni codes for street parking or street cleaning are violated. Thanks, Liang Liang Chao​​​​ Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From:Liang Chao To:City Clerk Subject:Fw: Upcoming Council study session on student housing and some questions on the decision to purchase Date:Monday, April 14, 2025 11:05:10 AM Please add this to the written communication for Item 14 TBD list to provide context for Item 12 "Study session on multi-family apartments converting to student housing" Here is the motion from the draft Minutes of the April 2 Council meeting: MOTION: Chao moved and Moore seconded to add the following item to a future agenda: A study session on the multifamily apartment conversion to student housing issue, and whether the City can do it; include existing proposed bills on student housing and comparisons to municipal codes on student housing in other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco and Berkeley; and consider a potential ordinance for student housing, so the City has control of its use and impact. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. Liang Chao​​​​ Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Lee Lambert <lambertlee@fhda.edu> Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 2:32 PM To: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Cc: Carla Maitland <maitlandcarla@fhda.edu>; Omar Torres <torresomar@fhda.edu>; Kristina Whalen <whalenkristina@fhda.edu>; Peter Landsberger <landsbergerpeter@fhda.edu>; Pearl Cheng <chengpearl@fhda.edu>; Laura Casas <casaslaura@fhda.edu>; Terry Godfrey <godfreyterry@fhda.edu>; Alexander Gvatua <gvatuaalexander@fhda.edu> Subject: Re: Upcoming Council study session on student housing and some questions on the decision to purchase CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you, Mayor Chao. The Foothill-De Anza Community College District appreciates the opportunity to participate in the study session and will await the meeting date. Sincerely, Lee Lee D. Lambert Chancellor and CEO Foothill-De Anza Community College District 12345 El Monte Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022-4599 650.949.6100 650.941.1638 (fax) Executive Assistant: Carla Maitland maitlandcarla@fhda.edu CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2025 10:05 AM To: Lee Lambert <lambertlee@fhda.edu>; Omar Torres <torresomar@fhda.edu>; Kristina Whalen <whalenkristina@fhda.edu>; Carla Maitland <maitlandcarla@fhda.edu>; Pearl Cheng <chengpearl@fhda.edu>; Laura Casas <casaslaura@fhda.edu>; Terry Godfrey <godfreyterry@fhda.edu>; Alexander Gvatua <gvatuaalexander@fhda.edu>; Peter Landsberger <landsbergerpeter@fhda.edu> Subject: Fw: Upcoming Council study session on student housing and some questions on the decision to purchase (Resending to add President Walen) Dear Chancellor Lambert, President Torres, President Whalen and FHDA Community College Board Members, I hope to keep you informed of the Council's decision to agendize a study session on the conversion of multifamily housing to student housing and its impact to Cupertino. More details is in the enclosed email sent to some FHDA staff members who have reached out to set up a meeting with the City of Cupertino. I realized later that this email should have been addressed to you directly as the leaders of the Foothill-De Anza Community Colleges. Warmly, Liang Liang Chao​​​​ Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2025 9:37 AM To: Serena Tu <SerenaT@cupertino.gov>; Carla Maitland <maitlandcarla@fhda.edu>; Nathaly Aguilar <aguilarnathaly@fhda.edu> Cc: Marisa Spatafore <spataforemarisa@fhda.edu>; Ellen Kamei <kameiellen@fhda.edu>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Kitty Moore <KMoore@cupertino.gov>; Floy Andrews <fandrews@awattorneys.com>; Christopher Dela Rosa <delarosachristopher@fhda.edu> Subject: Upcoming Council study session on student housing and some questions on the decision to purchase (Fixed typo for FHDA and changed the subject line. Added Vice Chancellor Christopher Dela Rosa) Dear FHDA Friends, Last night (April 2), the City Council unanimously voted to schedule a study session on the potential impacts of converting multifamily housing—such as McClellan Terrace— into student housing. We will be examining the effects on the City’s affordable housing stock in comparable price ranges, as well as parking and public safety concerns associated with changing the use from 94 family units to housing for 332 unrelated young adults. For me, the decision to agendize the study session is out of the great concern of the loss of affordable housing stock in the price range as McClellan Terrace. As indicated by the research done in the attached email by Rhoda Fry, Terrace rents are more affordable than others in the area. Terrace is the only large complex that is in the Monta Vista tri-school area. As mentioned by a member of the public at the April 2 City Council meeting, this is a housing justice issue: converting McClellan Terrace to student housing would deprive 94 families of access to high-performing schools like Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle, and Monta Vista High. There are no other nearby units in a similar price range, which runs counter to the goal of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing included in the Housing Element we recently adopted. I would like to understand more about the Foothill-De Anza College Board’s decision- making process in choosing to purchase an older apartment complex rather than constructing on-campus student dormitories. If available, it would be extremely helpful if you could share any comparative studies or cost analyses your team has conducted. Some questions that come to mind include: 1. Has FHDA considered building on-campus student dormitories? Why was this option not pursued? 2. Has FHDA considered the ongoing maintenance costs for 94 individual 50- year-old apartments—each with its own kitchen and bathrooms—when occupied by 332 young adults, who might not maintain it responsibly as common tenants? 3. How do these costs compare to maintaining a typical student dormitory, which often features a shared kitchen per building and one or two large shared bathrooms per floor? In particular, has FHDA considered the potential efficiencies of newly constructed dormitories with state-of-the-art facilities for technology access? 4. Which option is more affordable for students—purchasing older apartment units or constructing new dormitories on campus? 5. Has FHDA estimated the additional public safety costs associated with maintaining off-campus student housing? Would FHDA cover these costs, or is there an expectation that the City of Cupertino would bear them? Based on the experiences in other cities, like Berkeley, there are additional public safety issues for student housing, compared with housing for family units, as you must know. As Mayor of Cupertino, I must carefully evaluate the impact that off-campus student housing will have on our City. I appreciate any information you can share, and I look forward to discussing these issues further. I hope FHDA fully utilizes the 120-day due diligence period to thoroughly evaluate these options and questions, ensuring that purchasing McClellan Terrace for off-campus student housing is both socially responsible and fiscally sound. Warm regards, Liang Mayor, City of Cupertino Liang Chao​​​​ Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From:Liang Chao To:City Clerk Cc:Kitty Moore Subject:Fw: Agenda Item Request - consider Finch Property for potential purchase or other partnership with CUSD Date:Monday, April 14, 2025 11:00:17 AM Please add this to the Written Communication for the Agenda 14 TBD list to provide some context to the agenda item request for the potential purchase of the Finch Property. Thanks, Liang Liang Chao​​​​ Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Jerry Liu <liu_jerry@cusdk8.org> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 2:19 PM To: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Cc: Stacy McAfee-Yao <yao_stacy@cusdk8.org>; Kitty Moore <kmoore@cupertino.gov>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Floy Andrews <fandrews@awattorneys.com>; Nancy Mak <mak_nancy@cusdk8.org>; jew_chris@cusdk8.org <jew_chris@cusdk8.org> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Request - consider Finch Property for potential purchase or other partnership with CUSD 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 Liang, Thanks for the thread to pull everyone together. A couple of notes to add context to your summary: 1. On the observation that CUSD is interested in selling Finch, I just want to add the full context that we're interested in a property exchange to exchange the Finch asset into another real estate investment that generates a revenue stream. Similar to our Montebello property exchange last year, this will likely involve multiple transactions with multiple parties, and we've engaged with a real estate firm to help with this. Any transaction we'd have with the City regarding Finch would be just one part of the exchange and the City wouldn't be involved in other parts of this exchange. 2. Superintendent Yao will be back in town on April 19. I'm staying a few extra days after the student delegation events and will be back on April 22. I think we are on the same page - not seeing any differences in understanding. We can use the Friday time to discuss perhaps what information the City needs from the District to have a productive discussion during your May 6 council meeting? Thanks, Jerry On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 4:18 PM Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Added Floy Andrews, our new City Attorney. Chris Jew, CUSD's CTO. Nancy Mak, CUSD's Executive Assistant. Thank you, Jerry, for the discussion yesterday to clarify that CUSD is indeed interested in selling the Finch Property at market value, but the property has not been assessed yet. While CUSD is interested in investing the income from the sell in other revenue generating options, the sell of the Finch Property could be done independent from any revenue-generating option CUSD might pursue. That's my understanding from Jerry. I hope to confirm that we are on the same page. I initially was very confused since Pamela has told me in very concern language repeatedly that "CUSD does want to sell" since January 2025. Back in August 2024 Cupertino City staff has told CUSD that "Cupertino has no money". Then in October 2024, Pamela has told CUSD that Cupertino City has no interest in purchasing since she stated: "The City was asked if there is any plan to lease or purchase the Finch property. I informed CUSD that the City has no plan to either lease or purchase the Finch property. This is not part of the current CIP project and the City was in no financial condition to make any further purchase.” Then, finally in March 2025, I realized that I need to proactively reach out to CUSD to ensure that we communicate effectively. Thus, I hope to clarify some things here so that we are on the same page. The current uncommitted balance of the parkland dedication fee is about $13M, according to the info memo February 13, 2025 - Parkland Dedication Fees(PDF, 243KB). There is about $22M potential parkland fees from already entitled projects and another $20M from current pending projects. The City Council was never consulted back in August 2024 or October 2024 to weigh in on any interest to consider an option to purchase or lease the Finch Property. No information was given to the Council, and no input was sought from the Council at that time. There has been community interest in keeping the Finch Property to serve the public interest, either through the City or through the school district. Vice Mayor Kitty Moore and Mayor Chao do have a strong interest to look into the possibility of purchasing the Finch Property or partnering with CUSD in some way so that the Finch Property benefits the community. However, the Council does need more information in order to decide whether the purchase or any other option is reasonable for the City's best interest. Jerry did say that CUSD wishes to have some resolution on the Finch Property in the next few months. But I am not certain whether you have a hard deadline for any decision. I would propose to agendize an item in open session for the May 6 Council meeting so that the Council could decide on whether the Council intends to consider the purchase of the Finch Property, likely with the parkland dedication fee. The agenda for the May 6 meeting would be published by April 29. It would be helpful if the agenda packet includes the info memo on the current and projected parkland dedication fee. The property information about the Finch Property and any public information, any improvement or environment cleanup done so far. Any information on potential assessed value of the property or similar property (if the information is public) Any information from CUSD on their intention with the Finch Property and any other partnership options besides selling the property might be helpful. I suppose as a part of the May 6 agenda, the Council might designate a city staff to be the negotiator or get a consultant to negotiate with CUSD. Then, there will more discussions in closed sessions with any due diligence report and assessment report. (For this portion, I would rely on the city staff to guide us on any legal requirement.) I know that both Jerry and Stacy are leaving on April 12 for Taiwan to join their student delegation in Hsinchu and won't be back until April 24. And the entire week of April 13 is CUSD holiday where the office is closed. If we are all on the same page with what I've written above, it seems we don't really need a meeting where Kitty or I or Jerry need to attend. It seems as long as the staff can coordinate to get sufficient information for the upcoming May 6 council meeting, that is fine. Therefore, I have added Chris Jew since he might be able to provide whatever information needed even if Stacy might be away. Regards, Liang Liang Chao​​​​ Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Jerry Liu <liu_jerry@cusdk8.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 10:15 AM To: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Cc: Stacy McAfee-Yao <yao_stacy@cusdk8.org>; Kitty Moore <kmoore@cupertino.gov>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Request - consider Finch Property for potential purchase or other partnership with CUSD 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 Liang, Your idea of having a discussion among two council members and two board members and staff sounds appropriate for the 2x2 meetings that has been set up. I would suggest we agendize Finch for the next meeting and also move up the schedule as one just occurred a few weeks ago and these tend to be only a few times a year. The district has held multiple public meetings discussing our property plans. The last major discussion was during our board advance in January. The slides are at preview.png CUSD Board Advance Jan. 23, 2025 PDF Document · 14.1 MB and the property section starts on slide 81. I’m also including the two slides on Finch here: The meetings are recorded and available for viewing but the gist of the recommendation is that we exchange our real estate holdings from an illiquid form to one that generates ongoing revenue. Identifying new revenue sources is an increasingly urgent issue as our current multi-year budget projection shows us not able to maintain the traditionally 6% reserve, and we just this month issued layoff notices to some of our staff. The CUSD board has reviewed the Finch options multiple times and asked many questions since last summer so I think at this point we should be able to provide any information that the city council needs. I would invite you to send your questions to Stacy as soon as possible. I do think the district needs to move forward on this decision soon, given our budget gaps and the uncertainty around education funding in this climate. Thanks, Jerry Jerry Liu Governing Board Member Cupertino Union School District Liu_Jerry@cusdk8.org 865-377-9548 (86-JERRY-LIU) WeChat, WhatsApp: jerryjliu On Mar 26, 2025, at 5:12 AM, Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. We hope to start an informal discussion about the Finch Property to get some basic information and understand CUSD's plan between two councilmembers and two board members, and of course relevant staff members. What do you think? My sense is that there is a desire in the community to keep the Finch Property for public use, rather than seeing it developed into private use, such as for housing. However, I think the Council needs more information before deliberating on the issue, both on the property, on CUSD's plan and on our plans with the current and future Park Impact Fees or other funds. Regards, Liang Liang Chao​​​​ Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Date: Thursday, March 20, 2025 at 6:50 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>, Floy Andrews <fandrews@awattorneys.com> Cc: Kitty Moore <KMoore@cupertino.gov> Subject: Agenda Item Request - consider Finch Property for potential purchase or other partnership with CUSD Finch Property was included in one of the proposed FY 2025-27 Work Program for evaluating city properties. I am told that CUSD would likely make decisions about Finch Property in a few months so the City of Cupertino should make a decision on our interest. Therefore, I hope to add this to the Council agenda for consideration. Ideally, the agenda item should include the following information: Information about the Finch Property itself. Any communication about the Finch Property from CUSD. The info memo on the current balance and estimated future parkland impact fee. I wonder whether it might be more efficient to conduct a special joint meeting with CUSD Board since the communication with the CUSD Superintendent and their board members have been inconsistent. Thus, it might be best to have a joint meeting. Thank you, Liang Image removed by sender. Liang Chao​​​​ Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender. From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 4:28 PM To: Jerry Liu <liu_jerry@cusdk8.org>; Stacy McAfee-Yao <yao_stacy@cusdk8.org> Subject: Parkland dedication fees: current balance and projected income As I have said a few times, the Cupertino City Council has not agendized the item for Finch Property to have any discussion. Whether the city has funding in the general fund is not relevant since any funding for any parkland purchase would likely come from parkland dedication fees. Personally, I do not have a position on that until I have more data on the current and projected parkland dedication fees and until receive public input and had a council discussion. Thus, we have asked for an info memo on the current balance and projected parkland dedication fees. 02 - February 13, 2025 - Parkland Dedication Fees(PDF, 243KB) From that memo, the current uncommitted balance of the parkland dedication fee is about $13M. "The Park Dedication Fund began Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 with an opening fund balance of $19,046,081, as reported in the FY 2023-24 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. Accounting for budgeted revenues of $478,000 and expenditures of $5,940,456, the available balance to date is $13,583,625." There is about $22M potential parkland fees from already entitled projects and another $20M from current pending projects. However, the recent trend is that the developers are requesting the city to waive parkland impact fees. For example, Vallco Property Owners received about $70M in fee waivers (Traffic Impact fee) in a settlement. The report also goes on to estimate a total of $140M in parkland impact fees from the 3,237 new units from the current 2025-2031 Housing Element, provided all of the planned new units are entitled and built. But the performance depends on the market condition for the builders and their investors. Liang Image removed by sender. Liang Chao​​​​ Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender. -- ----- Jerry Liu Board President Cupertino Union School District liu_jerry@cusdk8.org 86-JERRY-LIU (865 377 9548)