The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 11-18-2025 Oral Comunications_2CC 11-18-2025 Oral Communications Written Comments From:j w To:City Clerk Cc:City Council Subject:Re: time sensitive!Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the "political prisoner/hostage"/Fair Treatment from the City Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 2:47:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Please confirm it is published. Thank you! From: j w <jzw97@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 4:55 PM To: Liang Chao <liangchao@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <citymanager@cupertino.org> Cc: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>; City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Subject: time sensitive!Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the 'political prisoner/hostage'/Fair Treatment from the City lease include in the public record for next meeting-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang, On Monday, November 3, 2025 at 11:27:26 PM PST, j w <jzw97@yahoo.com> wrote:On Monday, October 20, 2025 at 03:51:05 PM PDT, j w <jzw97@yahoo.com> wrote: Subject: Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and Fair Treatment from the City Dear Mayor, I would like to share some background and respectfully request that the City treat our situation with the fairness, dignity, and compassion it extends to all residents. Our family lives at the bottom edge of the city’s economic and social margins. We are doing our best to hold on — even now, part of our roof requires patching every few months just to keep things livable. Years ago, we were misled by an Indian real estate agent, which led to major losses and hardship. Despite this, we took full responsibility and followed the proper path through the City Planning and Building Department. We worked with licensed, experienced professionals to carry out an approved plan for the 2nd time. Unfortunately, a complaint from the 1st construction — made by someone who has since left their position — led to retaliation on the 2nd one, and lack of the communication as stated below caused more confusion. We did our best to stand up, but over time, we lost everything: the property, our belongings, and the sense of home we built over years as long-standing residents. It felt like persecution. And the pain didn’t stop there — we were falsely labeled, our rights stripped away, and our lives disrupted in ways that had nothing to do with the original matter. These labels have followed us into every corner of life. It has reached a point so tragic and unjust that criminals were able to attack us, but we could not fight back — not legally, not financially, not even emotionally — because of how the court accepted the City's false narrative. The damage from these untrue labels has led to severe mental and emotional decline for our family. The refusal of the courts to hear our side, to look at the full truth, has left us in a state of hopelessness and fear. Making things worse, the lack of communication from the City over the past several years has deepened the hardship. We were not able to schedule even a single in-person meeting, despite repeated efforts. One of our elder family members is now immobile, and the sense of isolation and exclusion has been profound. We’ve been forced to pay unnecessary legal fees, not only for the property matter, but also for broader issues where City sanctions were misapplied or extended beyond their scope — even into private disputes, turning what should have been civil into something resembling a political prisoner situation. We’ve had to spend even more money six figure just to settle matters that were never ours to begin with, nothing to do with city, but couldn't defend since city hold as 'prisoner' on all unrelated matter. We have no place else to turn. We have always believed in the City Council’s mission to support residents. We believe in redemption and renewal. We accepted the outcome the first time and tried to rebuild. But now, I’m asking — from the deepest part of my heart — that you extend that same belief to us. No one — no matter their flaws — deserves to be forgotten in the system, lost in endless procedures, enduring punishment far beyond what justice requires. Please see us. Please give us the opportunity to be heard and to heal. We respectfully ask that this be treated as a high-priority matter, and that steps be taken to restore open communication, offer fair support, and ensure no resident is left behind. Thank you for your time and your service to the people of this City. Jane for Huang family 4086731820 From:Vikram Saxena To:City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc:City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office Subject:Request for Clarification on Density Bonus Waivers – Evulich Court Development Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 2:19:59 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 of Cupertino Planning Staff and City Council Members, I am a Cupertino resident writing about the proposed housing development on Evulich Court (near Linda Vista Drive). The developer, SummerHill Homes, is requesting density bonus waivers under state law to exceed R3 zoning standards for height and setbacks. I and my fellow neighbors seek clarification on how these waivers will be evaluated, given the unique circumstances of this site. Background The Evulich property was rezoned in 2023, to R3 standards of roughly 30-foot height, and setbacks (20ft front/rear 10ft side for the first floor) . The current proposal for 51 townhomes exceeds those assumptions by invoking California’s Density Bonus Law, which allows additional units and modifications to local standards. Why This Site is Different Fire Risk: In 2025, CAL FIRE designated this area a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Tighter spacing and taller buildings could worsen fire spread and evacuation challenges. Location and Transit: Unlike sites along Stevens Creek or near transit corridors, Evulich Court is a cul-de-sac in a car-dependent neighborhood. The neighborhood has reduced outlets since it backs into open spaces, does not have access roads on all sides and has limited nearby services. Access and Infrastructure: All traffic, emergency access, and evacuation would funnel through one short, narrow street. These factors were not fully known or considered when the Housing Element rezoned the site. Key Questions for the City 1. Has the city documented the specific adverse impacts of construction in a very high severity fire zone which does not honor setbacks and height limits? 2. Public Safety Exception: State law allows denial only for “specific, adverse impacts” to health or safety. How is this defined in practice, and can wildfire associated with a very high fire risk area and evacuation risks with a neighborhood backing into wilderness and hence with reduced outlets qualify? 3. Safety Standards: Will Fire Department and Public Works staff formally evaluate whether reduced setbacks or extra height compromise fire code, road access, or evacuation? 4. Public Input: Since waivers are considered ministerial entitlements, what opportunities remain for residents to contribute local knowledge on safety and traffic? 5. City Discretion vs. State Mandate: What is the scope of the city's discretionary powers when it comes to reviewing these requests? Closing I support Cupertino’s housing goals. My concern is ensuring that state housing mandates do not override basic safety and infrastructure standards, especially at a site with limited access and high wildfire risk. Clear answers on the City’s authority and review process will help residents engage constructively. Thank you for your time and service. Sincerely, Vikram Saxena 11126 Linda Vista Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014 From:Walter Li To:City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor Subject:Mary Ave Project -- Brown Act Violation Summary Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 12:01:29 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 11/18/25 council meeting for items not on agenda. Brown Act Violation Summary – Mary Avenue Project The City of Cupertino committed multiple Brown Act and procedural violations in its handling of the Mary Avenue parcel. Across each major decision, staff made material land-use determinations without public direction from the dais, violating both the Brown Act’s open-meeting requirements and the state-mandated procedures for housing, surplus land, and right-of-way actions. ⸻ 1.⁠ ⁠Switching From Ground Lease to Sale Without Council Direction The City changed the project structure from a ground lease to a full sale of public land without any public agenda item, discussion, motion, or vote. This constitutes a Brown Act violation because: • Disposition of public property requires discussion and approval in an agendized open session. • Staff cannot unilaterally alter terms of disposition without legislative action. ⸻ 2.⁠ ⁠Reclassifying SB 35–Approved Land Back to “Surplus” Without Authority The Mary Avenue parcel was already committed to housing under SB 35 (Gov. Code § 65913.4). Despite this, staff treated the parcel as if it could be designated “surplus land” after approval —a legal impossibility. Brown Act implications: • No agenda item or vote authorized staff to reclassify the land. • Staff’s behind-the-scenes reclassification is an undisclosed policy decision requiring public approval. ⸻ 3.⁠ ⁠Right-of-Way (ROW) Vacation Initiated Without Council Action Staff acted as if the public ROW could be vacated, even though: • There was no council direction, • No public hearing, • No resolution of vacation, • No agendized item. Under the Brown Act, ROW vacation must be initiated and approved in open session, not through staff discretion. ⸻ 4.⁠ ⁠No Council Action Declaring the Parcel Surplus State law requires a formal council vote to declare any public property “surplus.” Cupertino never: • Agendized this action, • Held a hearing, • Adopted a surplus resolution. Yet staff proceeded as if the parcel had been declared surplus. This is both a Brown Act violation and a Surplus Land Act violation. ⸻ 5.⁠ ⁠No Public Notice or Community Process for ROW Vacation or Surplus Actions For any ROW vacation, surplus designation, or exemption, the City must: • Publish notice, • Mail notice to neighbors, • Allow public comment, • Adopt findings in open session. The City did none of these steps. Because these actions were taken administratively without council authority, they violate both: • The Brown Act, and • Procedural requirements under Streets & Highways Code and the Surplus Land Act. ⸻ 6.⁠ ⁠No Notification to HCD as Required by State Law When dealing with surplus/exempt surplus land, SB 35 parcels, or project modifications impacting affordability or land disposition, the City must notify HCD. Staff never: • Agendized the issue, • Informed the Council, • Logged a notice to HCD. This represents both: • A violation of state law, and • A Brown Act violation because the decision not to notify HCD was never taken publicly. ⸻ 7.⁠ ⁠Failure to Publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) For surplus or exempt surplus land, the City must publish a Notice of Availability (NOA). Cupertino published no NOA: • No agenda item, • No publication, • No council authorization. Yet staff acted as if they were proceeding under surplus land procedures. This is a clear Brown Act breach. ⸻ 8.⁠ ⁠Failure to Notify Affordable Housing Developers and Agencies Under the Surplus Land Act, the City must notify: • Qualified affordable housing developers, • Local housing authorities, • Regional affordable housing providers. Cupertino did none of these required notifications. The decision not to provide legally required notice was never agendized or approved, making it an additional Brown Act violation. ⸻ Overall Conclusion Cupertino staff took major discretionary actions affecting public land, right-of-way, and state- approved housing without: • Agenda items • Public notice • Council direction • Required state notifications • Required public findings This is a systemic Brown Act violation, compounded by violations of: • SB 35 • The Surplus Land Act • The Housing Accountability Act • Streets & Highways Code procedures for ROW vacation From:Santosh Rao To:City Clerk; City Council; Rachelle Sander; Tina Kapoor Subject:CSC and Cupertino Memorial Park public tennis court requests. Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 8:15:21 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 Clerk, Please include the below in written communications for 11/18/25 council meeting. Thanks, San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino taxpayer, voter, resident) Begin forwarded message: [Writing on behalf of myself only as Cupertino taxpayer, resident, voter and CSC member] Dear All, I am writing to request the resumption of city Public Works cleaning and maintenance of CSC as it used to in the past. Currently Public Works maintains public park courts and Lifetime maintains CSC courts including trash removal. The maintenance by city Public Works is superior to Lifetime and I request the city to resume the same for CSC. CSC is a paid facility. Members pay $400 - $500 annual fees. There is no reason that free users of public park courts should get better service than those paying $500 annually. I also request that zero dollars be spend on anything to do with pickleball which is free and not charged for. CSC has not replaced the gates at the lobby front desk leading to gate crashers. CSC needs to repair and fix nets and court cracks. We are requesting lights for CSC courts 16 - 18. We are requesting better fence backdrop that screens headlights better. Given we at CSC are a paid facility we need to get priority and investments rather than any free users of Memorial Park pickleball especially given 90+% of users are non-residents. I also encourage P&R to conduct an id verified census of those playing pickleball at Memorial Park by starting a use pass system. It will be revenue accretive to the city and will yield a clear catalog of who is using city facilities and how many of those are non- residents. Lastly I encourage P&R to research San Francisco where park courts use is limited to residents. Other cities have similar use limits. Most recently Carmel has prohibited pickleball. Please add a pickleball ordinance to the CWP TBD list to consider following the actions of Carmel and banning pickleball in Cupertino. Cupertino tax dollars need to be applied towards serving Cupertino resident especially for highly in demand facilities such as tennis courts. If you believe grants obligate you to serve non-residents please research San Francisco and how they do not have the same obligation and can limit public park courts use to residents only. Thanks, San Rao (writing as a Cupertino taxpayer, voter, resident and CSC member with tax dollars funding city facilities)