HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 11-18-2025 Item No. 16 Mary Avenue potential sale and negotiator appointment_Written CommunicationsCC 11-18-2025
Item No. 16
Potential sale and
appointment of
negotiator for Mary Ave
property
Written Communications
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Clerk; City Council; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Luke Connolly; Gian Martire; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:Compliance and policy concerns with Mary Ave city handling of parcel.
Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 1:07:09 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 for 11/17/25 council meeting for items not on agenda.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino taxpayer, voter, resident.]
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, and ICM Kapoor,
Please see my comments below. Residents will keep raising these issues until the City
explains them clearly.
I appreciate your review of the ground lease risks. If that review changed the direction, the
public must be told. Closed-session outcomes that shift policy need a public summary.
Lack of disclosure raises Brown Act concerns. Residents already see problems with the failure
to vacate the public right-of-way and the lack of required findings and hearings on surplus or
exempt surplus land.
These issues cannot be moved forward on the consent calendar. Major decisions require open
explanation. Public trust depends on this.
We need clarity on who recommended the ground lease. We need to know when the decision
was made. We need to know whether it came from prior or current leadership. We need to
know which departments were involved. The public needs facts and corrective steps if errors
occurred.
We also need to know who authorized turning a roadway into a parcel without noticing,
hearings, right-of-way vacation, or surplus land findings. Please confirm how HCD was
notified. Please confirm whether a NOA was issued. Please state when the public can see
responses. These steps must follow the legal order.
Each lapse compounds the next. Accountability is required.
This is now a compliance issue, in addition to a policy issue.
Please address these lapses openly. Please correct past omissions. Please agendize each
remaining step so the process is legal, transparent, and impartial.
Please also hold study sessions with commercial real estate operators in the skilled nursing
asset class. This asset class has significant challenges. The City needs to understand the
operating risks. The City needs to understand the financing risks. The City needs to know the
track record of similar facilities and their long-term viability. Skilled nursing and specialized
care are among the hardest asset classes to finance and operate successfully.
https://www.sokolovelaw.com/blog/nursing-home-graveyard/
This parcel is currently a roadway. Before moving forward, the City has an obligation to study
comparable assets. The City must understand what happens if an operator fails, if the asset
enters bankruptcy, or if no operator is willing to take over. The City must consider what
happens if a failed operator seeks to convert the facility to general housing. The City must
consider what precedent this sets for nearby land on the same roadway. Residents are
concerned about the risk of using a bike-lane project as a path to bypass surplus land rules and
transfer public land under the label of 100% affordable housing, only to see it converted later.
These questions are serious. The City must study the asset class before taking further steps.
Please pause and fully review the long-term viability of this use.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino taxpayer, voter, resident).
Begin forwarded message:
On Sunday, November 16, 2025, 11:02 PM, Santosh Rao <santo_a_rao@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the 11/18/25 city council
meeting.
[Writing on behalf of myself as a Cupertino taxpayer, resident and voter]
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, ICM Kapoor, CAO,
I am following up on agenda item 16.
I wish to bring to your attention the below CA Govt Code.
———————————-
CA Govt Code § 54221 (2024)
b) (1) “Surplus land” means land owned in fee simple by any local agency
for which the local agency’s governing body takes formal action in a
regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not
necessary for the agency’s use. Land shall be declared either
“surplus land” or “exempt surplus land,” as supported by written
findings, before a local agency may take any action to dispose of it
consistent with an agency’s policies or procedures. A local agency, on an
annual basis, may declare multiple parcels as “surplus land” or “exempt
surplus land.”
———————————-
Please provide the written findings and the public meeting date, agenda, minutes
where the above occurred. If the land was declared surplus or exempt surplus
absent the above process please assess if this is a violation of the above state law
and potentially also a violation of the Brown Act.
I urge council to enforce CA govt code is followed and and further take action to
ensure CM, department directors and staff are being held accountable to
follow state laws and Brown Act and also publish clearly artifacts from the same
as attachments should you choose to pursue agenda item 16 but still pull from
consent calendar.
Further please do not spend city money on CAO billing hours on this matter if
state laws have not been followed to vacate public right of way land and deem
surplus or exempt surplus.
The public is a key stakeholder in decisions like these. Land cannot be vacated
or deemed surplus or exempt surplus without public noticed meetings and
sufficient community input at council hearings.
Thanks,
San Rao (Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino taxpayer, voter,
resident)
On Wednesday, November 12, 2025, 11:11 PM, Santosh Rao
<santo_a_rao@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the
upcoming city council meeting for agenda item 16.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident]
Subject: Request to Pull Agenda Item 16 from Consent Calendar for
11/18/25 City Council Meeting
Hello Mayor Chao, Council Members, ICM Kapoor, Attorney
Andrews,
I respectfully request that Agenda Item 16 be pulled from the consent
calendar for the November 18, 2025 City Council meeting so that it
can be discussed in open session.
There are significant unanswered questions about the parcel’s legal
status. It appears that the public right of way associated with this
property has not been formally vacated through the required public
hearings or a resolution of intent. Without that process, it is unclear
whether this parcel was legally created in accordance with state law
and city procedures.
If the right of way has not been vacated, it raises serious implications
for the validity of the parcel and any potential sale. The City should
clarify whether clear title can be conveyed or if the property would
remain encumbered as a result.
This issue warrants full Council discussion, not approval on consent.
The agenda materials should include all documents and actions
related to the parcel’s formation, including any right of way
vacations, planning or council actions, and staff determinations of
General Plan conformance.
Given the potential procedural and legal implications, open
discussion would demonstrate transparency, ensure compliance with
state and city requirements, and maintain public trust.
Thank you for your attention to state and local law conformance and
ensuring the city is completely transparent with Cupertino residents
and voters. Please ensure there are no short cuts to giving public land
away to anyone. This is taxpayer land and taxpayers must be fully
involved in the process including consideration of CA Article 34.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident)
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Clerk; City Council; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Luke Connolly; Benjamin Fu; Gian Martire; City Attorney"s
Office
Subject:Re: Please pull agenda item 16 from consent calendar for the 11/18/25 city council meeting.
Date:Sunday, November 16, 2025 11:03:24 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 11/18/25 city council meeting.
[Writing on behalf of myself as a Cupertino taxpayer, resident and voter]
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, ICM Kapoor, CAO,
I am following up on agenda item 16.
I wish to bring to your attention the below CA Govt Code.
———————————-
CA Govt Code § 54221 (2024)
b) (1) “Surplus land” means land owned in fee simple by any local agency for
which the local agency’s governing body takes formal action in a regular
public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for
the agency’s use. Land shall be declared either “surplus land” or “exempt
surplus land,” as supported by written findings, before a local agency may
take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency’s policies or procedures.
A local agency, on an annual basis, may declare multiple parcels as “surplus land”
or “exempt surplus land.”
———————————-
Please provide the written findings and the public meeting date, agenda, minutes where the
above occurred. If the land was declared surplus or exempt surplus absent the above
process please assess if this is a violation of the above state law and potentially also a
violation of the Brown Act.
I urge council to enforce CA govt code is followed and and further take action to ensure CM,
department directors and staff are being held accountable to follow state laws and Brown Act
and also publish clearly artifacts from the same as attachments should you choose to pursue
agenda item 16 but still pull from consent calendar.
Further please do not spend city money on CAO billing hours on this matter if state laws have
not been followed to vacate public right of way land and deem surplus or exempt surplus.
The public is a key stakeholder in decisions like these. Land cannot be vacated or deemed
surplus or exempt surplus without public noticed meetings and sufficient community input at
council hearings.
Thanks,
San Rao (Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino taxpayer, voter, resident)
On Wednesday, November 12, 2025, 11:11 PM, Santosh Rao <santo_a_rao@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council
meeting for agenda item 16.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident]
Subject: Request to Pull Agenda Item 16 from Consent Calendar for 11/18/25
City Council Meeting
Hello Mayor Chao, Council Members, ICM Kapoor, Attorney Andrews,
I respectfully request that Agenda Item 16 be pulled from the consent calendar for
the November 18, 2025 City Council meeting so that it can be discussed in open
session.
There are significant unanswered questions about the parcel’s legal status. It
appears that the public right of way associated with this property has not been
formally vacated through the required public hearings or a resolution of intent.
Without that process, it is unclear whether this parcel was legally created in
accordance with state law and city procedures.
If the right of way has not been vacated, it raises serious implications for the
validity of the parcel and any potential sale. The City should clarify whether clear
title can be conveyed or if the property would remain encumbered as a result.
This issue warrants full Council discussion, not approval on consent. The agenda
materials should include all documents and actions related to the parcel’s
formation, including any right of way vacations, planning or council actions, and
staff determinations of General Plan conformance.
Given the potential procedural and legal implications, open discussion would
demonstrate transparency, ensure compliance with state and city requirements,
and maintain public trust.
Thank you for your attention to state and local law conformance and ensuring the
city is completely transparent with Cupertino residents and voters. Please ensure
there are no short cuts to giving public land away to anyone. This is taxpayer land
and taxpayers must be fully involved in the process including consideration of CA
Article 34.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident)
From:Rhoda Fry
To:Public Comments
Cc:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:comments city council meeting 11/18 - item #16
Date:Sunday, November 16, 2025 6:45:06 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.
comments city council meeting 11/18 - item #16
Dear City Council,
Given the amount of concerns raised for the property sale at Mary, I am surprised to see this
item on the consent calendar.
Many residents have raised questions about the processes used to get to this point, like
whether the roadway was properly vacated and whether it is now zoned for housing. In the
interest of transparency and so that residents understand and trust the process, can you please
pull this item?
Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry
From:Walter Li
To:City Council; City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu; City Clerk
Subject:Pull Agenda Item 16. Illegal Precedent Cannot Be Rectified — Project Must Be Withdrawn
Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 11:20:58 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 Chao, Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, City Attorney Andrews, and City
Clerk,
Please pull Agenda Item 16 from the consent calendar for the November 18, 2025 meeting
and bring it forward for open discussion.
The City cannot authorize negotiations or sale of the Mary Avenue parcel (APN 326-27-053)
because the project rests on an illegal precedent that cannot be rectified. The property
includes public right of way that has not been vacated under the California Streets and
Highways Code §§8320–8325, which require a Resolution of Intention, public notice, and a
public hearing before any vacation can occur. Without those actions, the parcel’s formation
and title remain legally defective.
Further, the City has failed to comply with the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code §§54220–54234).
State law requires declaring the land surplus or exempt surplus and completing the mandated
offer process before any consideration of sale. Proceeding without this step violates state law
and exposes Cupertino to enforcement action by HCD.
Residents have a right to participate in deciding whether public right of way should be vacated
and, if so, whether it should be sold. These are not administrative details but fundamental
questions of public ownership and due process. Cupertino has already missed the statutory
deadlines for public hearings required under the Streets and Highways Code. Because those
deadlines have passed without lawful action, the project is no longer valid and must halt
immediately.
Attempting to push this project through would establish an illegal precedent that undermines
public trust and cannot be cured retroactively.
We therefore demand that Agenda Item 16 be pulled and that the project be withdrawn in its
entirety. Cupertino residents expect transparency, compliance, and respect for the law — not
attempts to normalize unlawful practices.
Sincerely,
Walter Li
Originator of the petition "Halt The Mary Aveune Villas Project at this Unsuitable Location"
Working with the neighbors in opposition of the Mary Ave Villas Project
Wmbjt@hotmail.com
408-781-7894
---
Appendix: Relevant Statutory Requirements and Missed Deadlines
• California Streets and Highways Code §8320 — Requires adoption of a Resolution of
Intention to vacate a street or right-of-way.
• §8322 — Requires public notice of the proposed vacation.
• §8324 — Requires a public hearing before adoption of any resolution of vacation.
• §8325 — States that until these steps are lawfully completed, the right-of-way remains
public and cannot be sold or transferred.
Because Cupertino did not issue a Resolution of Intention, provide notice, or hold the required
hearing within the statutory timelines, the City has missed the dateline for lawful action. The
parcel therefore remains public right-of-way, and any attempt to treat it as a valid project is
void.
From:Mahesh Gurikar
To:City Council; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject:Mary Avenue APN 326-27-053
Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 8:32:13 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.
City Clerk,
Please include this in the official record for the Nov 18, 2025 city council meeting.
Thank you.
———
Dear Councilmembers,
I am submitting this written objection regarding Agenda Item 16 titled:
“Consider the potential sale of and appoint a negotiator for City-owned property along Mary
Avenue (APN: 326-27-053).”
The City’s handling of this matter is illegal, noncompliant, and cannot be “corrected” after the
fact.
⸻
1⃣ Violation of the Streets & Highways Code (§§ 8300–8363)
Under state law, a public right-of-way cannot be sold, negotiated, or transferred until the City
has:
• Adopted a Resolution of Intention to vacate,
• Provided mailed and published notice, and
• Held a public hearing followed by a Resolution of Vacation.
Cupertino has completed none of these required steps. Therefore, any negotiation or sale of the
Mary Avenue right-of-way is void and without legal authority.
The City cannot retroactively “cure” the absence of a vacation hearing or resolution.
⸻
2⃣ Violation of the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code §§ 54220–54234)
Before the City can dispose of any property, it must first declare it “surplus” or “exempt
surplus” by formal resolution and follow the state-mandated offer process.
Cupertino has not done so.
Any negotiation or transfer prior to compliance constitutes a violation of the Surplus Land Act
and exposes the City to enforcement by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD).
⸻
3⃣ Violation of the Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.)
The City’s agenda description concealed the true nature of the transaction by calling it “City-
owned property” instead of disclosing that it involves public right-of-way.
This omission deprived the public of meaningful opportunity to understand or comment,
violating the Brown Act’s transparency and notice requirements.
However, this violation cannot be cured after the fact — because the underlying action
(negotiating or disposing of public right-of-way without proper authority) is illegal in
substance, not merely in procedure.
⸻
4⃣ Statement of Legal Invalidity
The City’s handling of the Mary Avenue property is wrong, unlawful, and violates its own
municipal procedures and state law.
Cupertino cannot “slide into” legal status or claim compliance retroactively.
The entire action is null and void because the City lacked lawful authority from the outset.
⸻
5⃣ Requested Action
I hereby request that the City:
• Withdraw and nullify all actions and negotiations related to Agenda Item 16 and APN 326-
27-053;
• Cease any further disposition activity until full statutory compliance is achieved through
proper hearings and resolutions; and
• Disclose all communications, maps, and agreements related to this parcel for public review.
Please include this letter in the official record of the City Council meeting.
Respectfully,
Mahesh Gurikar
Cupertino Resident
Gurikar@yahoo.com
From:Griffin
To:City Council; Floy Andrews; Tina Kapoor
Cc:City Clerk; Public Comments
Subject:2025-11-18 City Council Meeting-PULL ITEM 16 Sale of Mary Ave
Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 12:08:53 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.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE
MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Council and Staff,
Please PULL CONSENT ITEM #16, the possible sale of the Mary Avenue property. I find it appalling that as
heated as this project is that you would even consider hiding it under CONSENT!
In the last City Council meeting City Attorney Floy said that the city had not vacated Mary Ave. Now, that’s
exactly what you propose to do! All along the city has said “we will maintain ownership”, “it’s forever”, etc then
you turn around and do this UNDER CONSENT?!?! This is public property and the decision to even consider
putting it up for sale should be discussed in public, not wisked under the rug by using the Consent Calendar.
Please pull item #16 and have a proper presentation and discussion.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Clerk; City Council; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Luke Connolly; Benjamin Fu; Gian Martire
Subject:Please pull agenda item 16 from consent calendar for the 11/18/25 city council meeting.
Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2025 11:12:16 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 upcoming city council meeting for
agenda item 16.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident]
Subject: Request to Pull Agenda Item 16 from Consent Calendar for 11/18/25 City Council
Meeting
Hello Mayor Chao, Council Members, ICM Kapoor, Attorney Andrews,
I respectfully request that Agenda Item 16 be pulled from the consent calendar for the
November 18, 2025 City Council meeting so that it can be discussed in open session.
There are significant unanswered questions about the parcel’s legal status. It appears that the
public right of way associated with this property has not been formally vacated through the
required public hearings or a resolution of intent. Without that process, it is unclear whether
this parcel was legally created in accordance with state law and city procedures.
If the right of way has not been vacated, it raises serious implications for the validity of the
parcel and any potential sale. The City should clarify whether clear title can be conveyed or if
the property would remain encumbered as a result.
This issue warrants full Council discussion, not approval on consent. The agenda materials
should include all documents and actions related to the parcel’s formation, including any right
of way vacations, planning or council actions, and staff determinations of General Plan
conformance.
Given the potential procedural and legal implications, open discussion would demonstrate
transparency, ensure compliance with state and city requirements, and maintain public trust.
Thank you for your attention to state and local law conformance and ensuring the city is
completely transparent with Cupertino residents and voters. Please ensure there are no short
cuts to giving public land away to anyone. This is taxpayer land and taxpayers must be fully
involved in the process including consideration of CA Article 34.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident)