CC 09-16-2025 Oral_Late Written CommunicationsCC 09-16-2025
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Prashanth Dullu; Tina Kapoor
Subject:San Mateo sets the example for Cupertino. It’s ok to undo bad decisions impacting our roadways.
Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 4:24:29 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 items not on the agenda.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident]
Dear Mayor Chao, Council members,
Please see the action taken by San Mateo at the link below:
San Mateo moves to remove most of Humboldt Street bike lanes
Here is a snippet of interest:
“ both Councilmembers Nicole Fernandez, who represents the district,
and Danielle Cwirko-Godycki said the city put themselves in this
predicament, as they didn’t heed vehement pushback from the
community prior to moving ahead on the project a few years
San Mateo moves to remove most of
Humboldt Street bike lanes
By Alyse DiNapoli, Daily Journal staff
The San Mateo City Council supported restoring the majority of the
parking spaces that were removed on Humboldt Street to make
room for bike lanes that were installed just a
back.”
Cupertino had vehemently feedback against lane removals on DeAnza Blvd and yet it pushed
ahead. A year later this has proven to be a bad idea. Traffic backs up to the next light. The
lanes are more crowded than before even on weekends. East west traffic waits longer and has
less time to clear signals. Right turns have become harder on east west roads. McA Kellen
backs up till Stelling in the evenings. And yet there are no bicyclists on this stretch. Build it
and they will come did not play out with this project. The city built it and no bikers came.
Please do not leave the meeting tonight without putting on the future agenda a hearing session
to restore lanes on DeAnza Blvd as they existed for decades prior to the removal last year
without oversight of city council.
I urge you do not leave the meeting without putting this on the future agenda so we get the
fourth lane back on DeAnza Blvd this year.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident)
From:Walter Li
To:Tina Kapoor; Public Comments; lina.lang41@gmail.com; shaun.fong@gmail.com; Liang Chao;
desairanjan@gmail.com
Subject:Very poor communication
Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 6:20:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
City Manager Tina,
Representing the Mary Ave neighborhood residents, I like to lodge a complaint about
Vice Mayor Kitty Moore regarding her totally unacceptable lack of communication.
Several of us had emailed her requesting to meet with her. She not only did not
acknowledge our emails but also did not give any answers to our requests. Some of us
had also met with her during recent council meeting and requested again to meet with
her. She told them she would set up the meeting. Yet, no further words were heard from
her. Serena Tu, Cupertino assistant told us she has also request the presences of Kitty
Moore together with Sheila Mohan to meet with us. Again no reply to us residents.
I believe Cupertino officials have a responsibility to meet and communicate with us. If
not, an acknowledgment at the very least and a reason why the meeting is not possible.
I like to share my (our) frustration with the City. As City Manager, I thought you are the
best person to hear my complaint.
Thank you and Best Regards.
Walter Li
Get Outlook for iOS
CC 09-16-2025
Item No. 11
Accept Legislative
Review Subcommittee
recommendation for SB
63, SB 707 and Measure A
Written Communications
From:Jack McGovern
To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk
Subject:Item 11 - Please support Measure A
Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 5:13:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council,
Please pull the Measure A item off of the consent calendar and consider a Yes Position.
I understand as a community member living in Santa Clara County that more taxes are brutal.
However, this 5/8 of cent sales tax increase is temporary, and it is critical for the health and
wellbeing of our community.
Our Santa Clara County hospital system takes care of thousands of people a year. If these
hospitals close, people will lose care and our medical system will collapse. This is that serious,
unfortunately.
So, I will be voting in support of Measure A, and I really hope the Cupertino City Council will
vote to support Measure A.
Thank you,
Jack
Jack McGovern (he/him)
Political Director
South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council
jack@southbaylabor.org
From:Neil Park-McClintick
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Item 11—Poorly Conceived Opposition to Measure A
Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 4:35:48 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,
I am writing in regard to item 11 on today's agenda, specifically the proposed opposition of
Measure A, which would be conveyed through a letter by the Mayor. This is poorly conceived
opposition—if the mayor or other Councilmembers wish to convey their opposition, they
should do so individually, not on behalf of the City of Cupertino. The reality is that this
measure is ALREADY on the ballot—therefore, Cupertino taking a position could jeopardize
the measure passing. There is no alternative to restore the giant hole that federal cuts will blow
in the county's healthcare budget. And Santa Clara County is the second largest local public
healthcare system in the state! In other words, if Cupertino is opposing Measure A, it is
endorsing the impacts of federal cuts to healthcare. An opposition stance also destroys
goodwill with the county and other jurisdictions, especially when our own Supervisor and our
own Assemblymember are so strongly in support.
Each point of the proposed letter addressed:
General Tax vs Special Tax—the letter posits that a general tax will allow the county to
spend funds in ways not promised.
-(1) A special tax would require a voter threshold requirement of 2/3, which we cannot risk in
this political environment. It's incredibly challenging to get 2/3 of anyone to agree on anything
—can you even get 2/3 of your friends or family to agree on eating at the same dinner spot?
Relying on a 2/3 threshold would be grossly incompetent on behalf of the campaign that is
tasked with saving our county healthcare system.
-(2) This is a tax (as the letter even points out!) that would bridge irreparable sums of lost
funds in the budget. This money is not going to get used in other ways because the County
cannot afford to. This is a measure to replace lost funds, not to create new expenses.
(3) Measure A has above average oversight, with a citizen-led independent oversight
committee, annual public reports, and independent audits every year. All spending will be
posted online. It's a temporary 5 year tax.
“It Only Covers Part of the Gap”
This is true—these federal cuts will be devastating either way, but considering we have a city
council poised to oppose a 5/8 cent sales tax, would you really want to ask voters for an even
larger tax to make the difference? Some funding is far better than none! With Measure A,
hospitals may have to cut back, but without it, entire ERs and clinics will close. It's
unacceptable to have to wait twice as long to receive life saving care, but it's even more
devastating to have to wait three or four times as long.
“Regressive Tax” Argument
This is a temporary five-year, ⅝-cent sales tax—a minor increase compared to inflation and
tariffs. Sales taxes don’t apply to necessary groceries, rent, or healthcare, only to consumer
goods and services. The decision to place a sales tax on the ballot was debated based on
polling and political realities, not arbitrarily decided. Goods are rapidly increasing in cost—
this is true—but this will be attributed to inflation and tariffs, not to a 5/8c sales tax.
“Engage Cities More”
There is no time to delay. This is the largest healthcare funding cut in our history, and
hospitals across the state are already closing!
While individual councilmembers can have their own views, it is reckless for Cupertino as a
whole to officially oppose this measure when thousands of our residents depend on county
healthcare services.
People’s lives are at stake. This is not business as usual—inaction (or in this case, opposing
the few options we have) will mean deaths, bankruptcies, and families losing care. And if that
happens, Cupertino will be partially responsible.
Thank you,
Neil Park-McClintick
CC 09-16-2025
Item No. 22
Options on Commission
Oversight of
Transportation Matters
Written Communications
From:Vanukuri Renuka
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Tina Kapoor
Subject:Regarding Agenda Item 22 of the Cupertino City Council meeting on September 16, 2025
Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 8:29:56 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 Chao and Councilmembers,
I am writing regarding Agenda Item 22 on how Cupertino commissions should oversee transportation
projects.
The current structure has failed our residents. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission was allowed to
move projects forward with very little accountability, and the result was the loss of lanes on De Anza
Boulevard. This caused frustration for drivers, longer travel times, and more congestion, especially for
families and seniors who rely on cars.
Cupertino cannot afford more mistakes like this.
Transportation decisions that affect thousands of people every day must be reviewed by the Planning
Commission, not left to a narrow advisory body.
Option 2 provides this necessary oversight. It makes sure that large-scale projects with citywide impact
are reviewed in a broader planning context, not only from the perspective of a single group.
Other cities like Palo Alto and San Carlos have shown that this structure works. Cupertino should learn
from them and restore balance to our process. Residents deserve a system that looks at the whole
picture, not just bicycles and pedestrians, before making changes that affect everyone.
I strongly urge Council to adopt Option 2. Cupertino needs stronger oversight, accountability, and fair
representation for all road users.
Sincerely,
Renuka Vanukuri
Cupertino Resident
From:Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir
To:City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Tina Kapoor
Subject:Refocus on Cupertino City Transportation Needs
Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 5:05:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the following as written comments for the 09/16/25 Council meeting, agenda
item 19.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, and Council Members,
I strongly request that you remove agenda item 19 from the consent calendar and decline to
approve the SCB corridor study. Cupertino should not remain involved in this project.
At the recent steering committee meeting, I observed that San Jose staff were in charge of the
proceedings. Their approach raised real doubts about fairness and whether Cupertino’s
interests are respected. Despite our Vice-Mayor clearly voicing opposition to Cupertino’s
further participation, the committee still adopted a motion that now binds Cupertino as if we
had agreed. This is deeply concerning. A decision taken by other agencies should not be
forced upon our city when our representative opposed it.
In addition, I cannot understand why Cupertino’s limited transportation staff are spending time
on this corridor study while urgent local needs remain unaddressed. Traffic congestion in
neighborhoods like Regnart due to Tesselations School, and long-pending safety
improvements such as the Phar Lap Drive crosswalk, continue to affect families. If staff have
no time to prioritize these pressing issues, they should not be assigned to outside projects that
work against Cupertino residents’ wishes.
I therefore urge the Council to:
1. Reject the SCB corridor study.
2. Withdraw Cupertino from the steering committee.
3. Direct that no further staff resources go into this effort.
Cupertino must decide its own path. Our city’s priorities should reflect the needs of our
residents, not be dictated by outside agencies.
Thank you for your leadership and for taking action to protect Cupertino’s independence.
Respectfully,
Yuva Athur
From:Neil Park-McClintick
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Item 19—Support option 3, Protect Walking and Cycling
Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 4:11:13 PM
Attachments:image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
Dear City Council,
Resubmitting this for tonight, since the item is being continued today. Please support option 3 for item 22—to preserve the
distinction between the planning commission and the bicycle and pedestrian commission.
Most municipal governments—including all of our neighbors in Santa Clara County—maintain a transportation-focused
commission separate from their planning commission. These commissions promote good governance by allowing cities to better
allocate staff time, leverage outside funding, and provide an essential advisory voice for a future where residents don’t have to rely
on driving everywhere.
Part of what makes Cupertino so livable today is our willingness to embrace positive changes that encourage walking, biking, and
transit. Thanks to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission, Cupertino is far more walkable and cycling-friendly than many other
cities. While some drivers may complain about these improvements, few would actually want to live in a fully car-dependent
environment—examples of which exist across the U.S., a country already heavily car-oriented:
In addition to the positive effects of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, having a separate mobility-focused commission is also
just good governance. The planning commission will always be focused on residential, commercial etc projects and the rules that
enable land use potential. With the largest Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirement ever placed on municipal governments,
the planning commission will understandably be preoccupied with planning around thousands of new homes. They will not and
should not be using valuable staff and commissioner time on whether a new crosswalk is needed in a neighborhood, or if a speed
bump could reduce fatalities.
Even Cupertino’s own staff report underscores this point. The only listed con for Option 3—the option to preserve a dedicated
mobility commission—is that it does not align with Council’s stated direction. That is not a substantive reason. Making decisions
simply because “Council wants to” without evidence or rationale is poor governance. It risks placing Cupertino on par with the kind
of arbitrary, power-consolidating decision-making we criticize at the national level.
Please support option 3.
Thank you,
Neil Park-McClintick
former 15+ year resident of Cupertino, with family still there