HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 12-02-2025 Oral CommunicationsCC 12-02-2025
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From:Shen Li
To:City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander
Subject:Cupertino Memorial Park Pickleball
Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:57:25 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 email as part of written communications for the 12/2/25 City Council meeting.
Dear City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Directors Sander and Mosley,
Thank you for taking the time to read our note. We’re Shen and Susan Li, and we’ve lived in
Cupertino for 36 years in the Seven Springs neighborhood. Over the years, this city has become
much more than just the place we live. It’s where we raised our family, where we vote, where we
shop, and where we’ve built so many lasting connections. Cupertino truly feels like home, and
that’s why we wanted to share a bit of our experience with you.
We started playing pickleball about three years ago, and these days we’re at Cupertino Memorial
Park three to four times a week. We occasionally play in Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos,
but we always find ourselves returning to Cupertino Memorial Park. There’s a friendliness and
sense of community here that we haven’t found anywhere else.
What began as something new to try has turned into an activity that brings us joy, keeps us active,
and gives us something to look forward to during the week. It’s been a positive influence on both
our physical and mental wellbeing.
The biggest surprise has been the people. We’ve made friends we never would have met
otherwise, and those friendships have grown into much more than time spent on the courts. We
now get together for bridge, mahjong, hiking, and even the occasional meal out. It’s been
remarkable to see how a simple game can spark such genuine connections.
On any given day at the courts, you’ll see children, seniors, parents, beginners, and experienced
players all sharing the space and encouraging one another. It’s one of the rare activities that
brings together people from all parts of our community. It’s amazing how you can show up not
knowing anyone and leave feeling like you belong.
We know you’ve received a lot of information about court availability and demand, and those
details matter. But just as important is the human side. Pickleball is accessible, affordable, and
brings people outdoors in a way that encourages interaction, activity, and community building. It
offers benefits that go beyond the game itself and contributes to the kind of healthy, welcoming
community we’re all proud to be part of.
We hope the city will continue supporting this growing community of players, both residents and
non-residents, who have found friendship and connection through this sport. We truly appreciate
the work you do and the time you take to listen to residents like us. Thank you for your service
and for considering our perspective.
Sincerely,
Shen and Susan Li
From:Robert George
To:City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander
Subject:Cupertino Memorial Park Pickleball
Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:39:04 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 email as part of written communications for the 12/2/25 City Council
meeting.
Dear City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Directors Sander and Mosley,
I am a resident of Cupertino and have been for over 25 years. I am also an active
pickleball player at Memorial Park most mornings.
I live near Blackberry Farm Golf Course and walking trail so I'm VERY familiar with living
near a popular location which can get noisy at times. I get it. I worked with the City Council
to agree on the placement of the trail through the park and it has worked very well over the
years. Sure there are folks who wander off the trail and poke around on our property but I
kindly ask them to stay on the marked trails and enjoy what our community has to offer.
But we can't let the few dictact the benefits to the many. We can and should come up with
solutions which help mitigate noise but let's not look at things as either black or white.
For morning play I have switched to a quiet paddle, I only play on the courts furthest from
residents' homes and I help enforce quiet play during morning hours. I'm doing my part to be a
good citizen but I also want the benefits offered by the great community we've built.
Seriously, I would be devastated if I couldn't play pickleball with my new found friends.
I helped put together a survey of players and we've found that not only is pickleball at the park
an important part of our player community, it also leads to a lot of commerce in the area which
benefits the entire city. Lets NOT turn our parks into uninviting destinations.
Thanks for your time and service,
--Robert George
22096 Dean Court, Cupertino
From:D L
To:City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander
Subject:PUBLIC COMMENT for 12/2/25 Meeting - Permanent Sound Mitigation at CMP
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 11:06:57 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 this email as part of written communications for the 12/2/25 City Council
meeting.
Dear City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Directors Sander and Mosley,
I am writing as a Cupertino resident and a dedicated member of the thriving pickleball
community at Cupertino Memorial Park (CMP). First, I want to congratulate City Manager
Kapoor on her promotion. We also sincerely thank Directors Sander and Mosley for their
continuing effort to collaborate with our pickleball community, and we thank the Council for
providing permanent pickleball lines at CMP.
We are grateful for your past support and now urge the Council to implement a viable,
permanent solution to ensure this valuable community asset can be sustained.
We must address the notion that over 90% of players are non-residents; this is incorrect. Our
data shows over 30% are residents, and over 50% either live or work in Cupertino. We firmly
oppose any policy that would discriminate against our non-Cupertino friends. This community
contributes significantly to our local economy, visiting CMP for its friendly social setting, not
just for free access.
Pickleball is an extremely efficient use of park resources. Our designated court area hosts an
average of 28.5 players, a staggering number compared to the average of just 1.25 players on
adjacent standard tennis courts.
The noise issue requires an urgent capital solution. For 1.5 years, I relied on morning
pickleball for an hour before 8AM, 3-5 days a week, before dropping off my kids and starting
work. This routine, essential for working professionals like myself, is now lost. I purchased a
quiet paddle, but it negatively affected my play and provided no lasting relief to the neighbors.
In solidarity, I stopped playing in the morning. The current strategy is a failure for both
parties.
We strongly request the City immediately invest in permanent sound attenuation barriers.
Please do this, not only to preserve this great community, but for the neighbors on Christensen
Drive as well, some of whom are a part of our pickleball community. Limiting morning and
evening access is unfair to the working population. We need structural change, not restricted
hours or ineffective equipment mandates.
I urge the Council to support this community by prioritizing permanent sound mitigation.
Sincerely,
David Lim
From:Susan Bloomfield
To:Liang Chao
Subject:Pickleball and Sound Barriers
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 9:19:39 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, City Council members and staff
My name is Susan Bloomfield and I am a 35 year resident of Cupertino. I am very happy to
have become a member of the vibrant pickleball community at Memorial Park from its
inception. In the 30 years prior to that, in spite of being a city taxpayer, I never used the park.
Yet it never occurred to me that people who didn't live in Cupertino should not be able to use
the facilities like the tennis courts. The whole point of a public park it that it is open to the
public. Before Cupertino opened courts to pickleball players, and still to this day, I have
played in Mountain View, Palo Alto and Menlo Park, where courts were free and still are free
and open to all. This is how it must remain in Cupertino. We are a diverse and welcoming
group of folks and we must remain so.
We do want to work with the city and neighbors to make things as good as possible and are
requesting sound attenuating barriers around the courts.
Thank you for your consideration of these points.
Sincerely, Susan Bloomfield
From:Srivatsan Rajagopal
To:City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander
Subject:Pickleball at Cupertino Memorial park
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 9:13:31 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 Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Directors Sander and Mosley,
I am a Cupertino resident and live close to Memorial Park. My kids attended Cupertino
schools throughout (Gardengate, Lawson, Monta Vista) and I have been proud to call
Cupertino my home.
I wanted to thank you for opening up Memorial Park for Pickleball as it has opened the
community up to being a vibrant, fun loving and safe area filled with laughter and the happy
side of society. For the last 16 years I have taken walks in Memorial Park almost every day,
enjoyed watching my kids play and grow up there, attended the plays, music events, enjoyed
the cherry blossoms and all fairs and festivals were just a stone's throw away.
My kids have now graduated and I was wondering how my life as an empty nester, single dad
would shape out. I have begun playing pickleball regularly the last couple of years given the
proximity, lights and a lot of fun people to hang out with. Both the game and lively people
make my day a bit more cheerful and less lonely and monotonous. Cupertino is an expensive
place to live and reasons like this remind me how fortunate and lucky I am to be living in this
neighborhood and community.
The game of Pickleball at Cupertino Memorial Park is something everyone is able to afford
(not as expensive as tennis or indoor courts or paid courts) and being a social-first game, this
invaluable access to that social contact - of all ages and colors - has made this neighborhood a
very desirable part of Cupertino. The Memorial Park neighborhood now has it all - sunshine,
schools, and that social fabric.
I understand the noise concerns from the game and hope the city can address that part - by
providing the much needed wall attenuators quickly - like several other cities have already
done - so that we can continue to build on the unique strengths the Cupertino Memorial Park
has accidentally stumbled upon through Pickleball.
Thank you for your time and wish you all a very happy holidays.
Regards
From:Carol Satterlee
To:City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Rachelle Sander; Chad Mosley
Subject:Pickleball for all at Memorial Park
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 8:08:28 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 Clerk,
Please include this email as part of written communications for the 12/2/25 City Council
meeting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Directors Sander and Mosley,
I am writing to express my thoughts regarding the ongoing discussions surrounding pickleball
court usage at Memorial Park. As a resident of Cupertino for 32 years, I would like to
highlight several important points that I believe merit consideration.
**Residency Concerns:**
The assertion that over 90% of the Memorial Park pickleball players are non-residents is
untrue. Our polling indicates that residents represent over 30% of the players, and when
including those who work in Cupertino, this number exceeds 50%. Nearly all players at CMP,
irrespective of residency or employment, contribute to the local economy by supporting our
businesses.
It is noteworthy that players from other cities are not flocking to CMP solely because it is free;
they have their own free courts. Instead, they come for the welcoming queuing system,
friendly players, and the ideal social environment. Additionally, this is not a one-way street, as
Cupertino residents also visit other cities to play on their free courts and frequent their local
businesses.
Moreover, the claim that public park pickleball courts in San Francisco are restricted to
residents is not accurate according to information from the San Francisco Recreation and Park
Department.
As a member of the Cupertino community, I must express my opposition to any proposals that
would discriminate against my friends who live outside our city.
**Court Use Efficiency:**
Pickleball is an exceptionally efficient use of court space. Data from 128 observations reveals
that an average of 28.5 individuals were utilizing each of the two tennis courts designated for
pickleball, with nearly half of them in the queue. In contrast, only an average of 1.25 tennis
players used each of the other four courts.
**Sound Reduction for Neighbors:**
Addressing sound reduction for our neighbors is both urgent and a worthy cause for our tax
neighbors while maintaining an inclusive and competitive pickleball experience.
Reducing access by limiting morning and evening hours would negatively impact many who
work throughout the day. Today, pickleball has become a popular sport for all ages, and
playing before or after work is essential for stress relief, subsequently enhancing our
workforce productivity.
Concerns have been raised regarding the use of quieter paddles and balls, as they play
differently and may not be feasible for competitive players or those with constrained budgets
—the cost of these quiet balls is quite high, reaching up to $30 each. Since the request made
by City Manager Kapoor at the end of June, players at CMP have already spent thousands of
dollars on quieter paddles, yet these items are beginning to wear out, and the neighboring
residents have noticed little to no significant change in sound levels.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. I believe that by considering the diverse
perspectives and needs of our community, we can work toward solutions that benefit everyone
involved.
Respectfully,
Carol Satterlee
From:irit go
To:City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander
Subject:12/2/25 City Council meeting.
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 7:13:03 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.
Dearest City Clerk,
Please include this email as part of the written communications for the 12/2/25
City Council meeting.
Dear City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Directors Sander
and Mosley,
I’m writing as a Sunnyvale resident who regularly plays at Memorial Park
— even though we have free courts in my own city. And here’s the honest
truth: CMP is simply the friendliest, most welcoming, most community-
oriented pickleball environment in the entire area.
I also play at Mitchell Park and John Mise, so I get a pretty good sense of
the culture across different cities. Nothing comes close to the warmth,
fairness, and camaraderie of Memorial Park.
Because of that, I want to share a few observations that matter deeply.
On residency:
The idea that 90+ percent of players are non-residents just isn’t accurate.
Polling shows more than 30 percent are Cupertino residents — and if you
include people who work in Cupertino, it rises above 50 percent. These are
people who shop here, eat here, buy coffee here, and pour money into your
local businesses every week.
And let’s be real — people aren’t driving from other cities because it’s free.
We all have free courts where we live. We come because the queuing
system is fair, the atmosphere is friendly, and the players treat newcomers
like family.
Cupertino residents also play in other cities — Sunnyvale, Mountain View,
Palo Alto — and support their businesses too. That’s how community
recreation works. It’s reciprocal.
On the claim that SF parks limit access to residents:
This is not correct. Their published policies say otherwise, and the
information is publicly available.
I may not live in Cupertino, but I am strongly opposed to anything that
would discriminate against non-residents. Some of the kindest, most
generous players I know travel between cities, and we all lift the
community up together.
On court efficiency:
Pickleball is an incredibly efficient use of space. Data from 128 samples
shows an average of 28.5 players using the two converted tennis courts —
nearly half of them in the queue — compared to 1.25 tennis players on each
of the remaining tennis courts. This is a staggering difference.
Personally, every evening I visit CMP, I see 40+ paddles in queue waiting
for one of just eight courts to finish a game. That’s a sign of a thriving
community — and a huge unmet recreational demand.
On sound concerns:
The real and only sustainable solution is a proper sound attenuation project.
It’s urgent, and it’s the only path that both supports neighbors and
preserves inclusive pickleball play.
Restricting morning or evening play would exclude most working adults —
and pickleball is no longer a retirees-only sport. Many players rely on early
or late hours to manage stress, stay active, and build community.
Quiet paddles and balls simply aren’t a viable long-term fix. They play
differently, they’re expensive, and even after thousands of dollars spent by
players since June, neighbors report little to no improvement.
Thank you so much for considering these perspectives. It would be so great
if you could kindly focus on solutions that strengthen community access
rather than limit it.
All my very best,
Irit Eizips
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From:DD
To:City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander
Subject:Continued Support of Cupertino pickleball at Memorial Park
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 6:17:57 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 Clerk,
Please include this email as part of written communications for the 12/2/25 City Council
meeting.
Dear City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Directors Sander and Mosley,
Thank you for your ongoing support of Cupertino Memorial Park Pickleball and for the sense
of community it has provided for many of us. Our group, now over 1,000 members strong, has
benefitted immensely from the physical and mental health benefits of outdoor activity and
social connection.
We recognize and respect the concerns raised by nearby residents about noise levels. Although
many players have invested in quieter equipment and adhered to quiet hours, feedback
indicates that noise can be disruptive throughout the day for some neighbors.
Thus, we really need to get the noise barriers installed on the fence, on just one side
facing Christensen Drive. I've seen these barriers at Los Altos McKenzie Park or Mountain
View's Rengstorff Park, and they are quite effective. The City Manager had mentioned
previously that it was the next step for the City to install noise barriers. Please consider
putting these plans back in place and install the barriers soon.
We appreciate the City’s attention to balancing recreation with neighborhood peace and the
opportunity to keep this valuable community activity thriving. Our group remains committed
to being good neighbors, and working collaboratively to minimize disruption while preserving
the positive impact of pickleball on the community.
Sincerely,
Diana Yen
From:Chris Satterlee
To:City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Rachelle Sander
Subject:Pickleball for All at Memorial Park
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 7:35:26 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.
City Clerk,
Please include the below in the written communications for the 12/2/25 council meeting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and P&R Director Sander,
My name is Chris Satterlee, and I have been a Cupertino homeowner, resident, taxpayer, and
voter for 32 years. I am writing to respond to a submission to the 11/18/25 written
communications that suggested drastically limiting or even banning pickleball at Memorial
Park. I am also responding to some suggestions that were made at the 11/10/25 Mayor's chat.
In July, I wrote about how pickleball has changed my life for the better since I started playing
1.5 years ago. But I will get right to my points.
The pickleball community at Cupertino Memorial Park is a perfect blend of residents and our
friends from nearby cities. It would be a tragic mistake to limit court usage to residents.
The assertion that 90+% of Memorial Park pickleball players are non-residents is
untrue. Our polling indicates that residents make up over 30% of the players. Including
players who work in Cupertino pushes the number over 50%.
Nearly all CMP players, regardless of residency or employment, contribute to the
Cupertino economy by patronizing local businesses.
People do not come from other cities to play at CMP because it is free. They have their
own free courts. They come for the friendly queuing system, friendly players, and the
ideal social setting.
It's not all in one direction. Cupertino residents go to other cities to play on their free
courts (and patronize their businesses) too.
The claim that SF public park pickleball courts are limited to residents is not true,
according to https://sfrecpark.org/1584/Pickleball and
https://pickleballsf.com/locations/outdoor-venues/
I am opposed to implementing a use pass system at CMP. This would not be compatible
with our queueing system, which is what makes CMP friendly for individual players.
Being able to just show up and play is essential to our community.
As a Cupertino resident, I am opposed to any proposal that would discriminate against
my non-Cupertino friends.
There are currently 8 pickleball courts overlaid on two tennis courts. Any suggestion that
tennis players are impacted by this is clearly untrue. Pickleball is a very efficient use of court
space.
There are very few times when all tennis courts are in use. There are MANY times
when none of the four are in use AND all eight pickleball courts are not only full, but
there is a long waiting queue.
Based on 128 samples, an average of 28.5 people were using each of the two tennis
courts allocated for pickleball (nearly half of them in the queue) compared to an average
of 1.25 tennis players using each of the other four courts.
A sound attenuation solution is urgent and worthy of spending our tax dollars. It is the only
way to give the neighbors relief while maintaining inclusive and competitive pickleball.
Reducing or constraining morning and evening hours would exclude most people who
work. Pickleball is no longer a sport for retirees. Playing before or after work is the
perfect way to reduce stress and results in a more productive workforce.
Quiet paddles and balls play differently and are not an option for the more competitive
players and those on limited budgets (they are expensive - as much as $30 for one quiet
ball!)
Collectively, players at CMP have spent thousands of dollars on quiet paddles since City
Manager Kapoor's request at the end of June. They are already starting to wear out, and
the neighbors have noticed little difference.
Please consider all of the benefits to the MANY Cupertino residents who play pickleball along
with our friends from nearby communities, before making any changes. The one change that
MUST happen is sound attenuation. I am optimistic that an affordable solution is possible and
am working to facilitate that. However, even if it costs more than previously thought, it is
necessary.
Chris Satterlee
From:Rhoda Fry
To:Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Oral Communications December 2 City Council councilmember conflict of interest
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 5:52:06 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.
Oral Communications Cupertino City Council December 2, 2025 councilmember conflict of
interest
Dear City Council,
It can be quite instructive to peruse public records requests. The following request was not
submitted by me, but has raised grave concerns regarding Councilmember JR Fruen’s
potential conflict of interest toward benefitting his employer where he is chief of staff for San
Jose City Councilmember Rosemary Kamei, at the expense of his duty as an elected official of
the City of Cupertino. These documents demonstrate that Cupertino Councilmember Fruen has
participated in small group meetings as a representative for the City of San Jose on the Stevens
Creek Vision Study Steering Committee and Working Groups. I would ask that
Councilmember Fruen recuse himself from any interagency decisions that come to Cupertino
City Council that involve any discussion of the City of San Jose.
Link to the PRR: https://cityofcupertinoca.nextrequest.com/requests/25-256
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
From:Cindy Lin
To:City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander
Subject:YES TO PICKLEBALL IN CUPERTINO
Date:Friday, November 21, 2025 1:08:42 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.
To those that this may concern,
My name is Cindy Lin. I live right across the street from Cupertino High School and have
been living in Cupertino for almost 5 years now. I graduated from CHS in 2024, but my
family still lives there and I go back home regularly, and almost EVERYTIME I return to
Cupertino, I utilize the public pickleball courts located at memorial park. Politely refuting
Santosh Rao, No, Cupertino residents do not only make up 10% of the population that uses
those pickleball courts, and No, if you had to say a sport was in high demand, I would 100%
say that pickleball is the sport that is truly in high demand by Cupertino residents, as seen by
the ridiculously long queues present for pickleball that isn't seen for tennis (AND I PLAY
TENNIS TOO). Additionally, even if non-residents come to Cupertino to use our PUBLIC
pickleball courts, it is most definitely beneficial to the city as well because they will purchase,
shop, and dine in Cupertino. Last but not least, pickleball is more than merely "mini-tennis", it
is a community that Cupertino residents have been fostering for years, bringing together
different age groups, religions, race, cultures, and will continue to do so even in the face of
those that oppose this amazing sport with false reasoning and bitter malice. Thank you for
your time.
City Clerk,
Please include this email as part of written communications for the next City Council meeting.
Thank you.
Regards,
Cindy Lin
From:Walter Li
To:City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor
Subject:Mary Ave Villas -- Null and Void Due to Brown Act Violations, ROW Defects, SLA Conflicts, and Fire-Code
Violations
Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 12:24:57 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 communication for the upcoming City Council meeting.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, City Council, City Manager Kapoor, City Attorney,
I am submitting this letter to formally object to the City’s claim that the Mary Avenue Villas
housing development remains “pending,” and that this status eliminates the City’s exposure to
Brown Act violations, Surplus Land Act violations, right‑of‑way defects, and setback liabilities.
This claim is legally incorrect, contradicted by the City’s own record, and inconsistent with
governing state law.
---
1. Brown Act Violations Cannot Be Erased by “Pending” Status
(Gov. Code §54950 et seq.)
Multiple actions were taken regarding Mary Avenue Villas without proper agendizing,
including:
• Direction to staff related to the Mary Avenue ROW, which was never legally vacated
• Discussions and steps concerning negotiation of lease terms for a parcel with no legally
established boundaries
• Decisions made outside publicly noticed meetings
Because the ROW was never vacated, any movement toward lease negotiations or land‑use
commitments occurred without a legal foundation.
Under these circumstances, the Brown Act violations cannot be cured.
This is consistent with International Longshoremen’s v. Los Angeles (2004), which held that
Brown Act violations occur when decisions are made outside properly agendized public
meetings and cannot be retroactively cured.
---
2. Setback Waivers Violate Mandatory State Fire-Safety Codes
The setback waiver requests processed by the City (down to 4–7 feet) for Mary Avenue Villas
violate multiple fire‑safety requirements:
• CFC §503.1 & §503.2.1 → minimum 20 ft fire access
• CBC Appendix D103.1 → apparatus roadways require 20 ft clearance
• CBC Table 602 & §705.2 → exterior wall fire‑separation requirements
• PRC §4290 & §4291 → defensible space requirements
• Title 19 CCR §3.05 & §3.07 → emergency operational clearance
Under Gov. Code §65915(e)(1), the City must deny waivers that create unmitigable safety
impacts. The requested setbacks cannot legally be approved.
---
3. The Mary Avenue Right-of-Way Was Never Vacated — Defect Cannot Be Cured
(Streets & Highways Code §§8320–8325)
The City relied on an assumption that the ROW had been vacated. However:
• No ROW vacation was recorded
• No Council action occurred
• No public hearing was held as required
Because the ROW was never vacated:
• Parcel boundaries for Mary Avenue Villas were legally defective
• Lease‑term negotiations occurred without authority
• Staff and Council actions relied on an invalid legal foundation
This is consistent with City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court (1996), which held that ROW
vacations require formal public action and cannot be implied or retroactively fixed.
---
4. Surplus Land Act (SLA) Violations Cannot Be Erased
(Gov. Code §54221)
The City attempted to treat the Mary Avenue Villas parcel as surplus after housing processing
had already occurred. This violates the SLA, which prohibits surplus designation after a
commitment to housing or public use. “Pending” status does not retroactively cure this
statutory violation.
---
5. The “Pending” Label Cannot Be Used as a Liability Shield
The City’s current position conflicts with:
• Its own acceptance and processing of Mary Avenue Villas
• Setback waiver processing
• Staff reliance on an unvacated ROW
• SLA steps taken after housing commitment
Legal consequences arise from actions, not retroactive labels.
---
6. Project Must Be Halted
The Mary Avenue Villas housing development is null and void. The City Council must adopt a
formal resolution to stop this project. Developers should be required to find an alternative
location.
Cupertino City should not provide subsidies or incentives to developers without the explicit
approval of Cupertino residents. Any continuation of the project under the current framework
would violate state law, public safety requirements, and community trust.
I urge you to address the above immediately to avoid further legal exposure for the City.
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
---
References / Oversight
• Brown Act: Gov. Code §54950 et seq.; International Longshoremen’s v. Los Angeles (2004)
• ROW: Streets & Highways Code §§8320–8325; City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court
(1996)
• Surplus Land Act: Gov. Code §54221
• Fire Codes: CFC, CBC, PRC, CCR provisions listed above
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Gian
Martire
Subject:Brown Act Violations Require a Full Reset and Restart.
Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 10:51:46 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 communication for the upcoming City Council meeting.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino taxpayer, voter, resident]
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council members, CM Kapoor,
Subject: Brown Act Violations Require Reset. All prior Action Must Be Declared Void.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Council Members, CM Kapoor, and CAO,
I am writing because Brown Act violations have already occurred. These violations cannot
be cured. The only lawful path forward is to hit the reset button and start over.
1. July 15 Action Is Null and Void
The July 15 session must be declared null and void.
Liability attaches upon action, not approval.
The Brown Act is violated the moment decisions or commitments are made outside a properly
noticed, agendized public meeting.
This has already happened.
International Longshoremen’s v. Los Angeles (2004) makes this clear:
Violations occur when decisions are made outside open meetings, not later in the approval
phase.
2. The Application Must Be Rejected
The application received is improper.
The parcel has not been vacated.
It is still roadway and public right-of-way.
Under City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court (1996), ROW vacations require formal
public action before any application or deal is processed.
Processing an application on an active ROW parcel is unlawful.
Again: liability attaches upon action, not approval.
3. The $3M Allocation Must Be Clawed Back
Funds were allocated based on an invalid, non-public process.
This action is tainted by Brown Act violations.
It must be reversed and reset.
4. Required Sequence to Comply With Law
You must return to first principles and follow the required statutory order:
1. Community noticing to collect input on whether the public ROW should even be
vacated.
2. Two public hearings for the ROW vacation, as required by law.
3. Only after that: formal action on whether to deem the land surplus.
4. Then submission to HCD for review.
5. Then NOA issuance.
6. Only after all the above can Charities, Rotary, or any applicant legally participate.
This order is not optional.
SB 35 and HCD guidance make clear that obligations attach the moment processing
begins.
Once again: liability attaches upon action, not approval.
5. Reset Now
The violations cannot be patched over.
They cannot be band-aided.
They cannot be “cured.”
The only lawful solution is:
Void the July 15 action. Reject the application. Claw back the $3M. Restart the process
in full compliance with open-meeting and land-use law.
I urge you to address this immediately to avoid further legal exposure for the City.
Respectfully,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino taxpayer, voter, resident)
From:Michael Chang
To:City Clerk
Subject:December 2, 2025 meeting City of Cupertino Council Meeting [Open Session Materials]
Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 6:37:41 AM
Attachments:2025-12-01-ArroyoVillage-MorroBayTerrace.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning,
I am hoping that I will be able to speak during tonight's Open Session (Public Comment), and
would like City Council to have access to these summary slides in the event that I am able to
do so.
Thank you,
Michael
•Morro Bay Terrace is used as a ‘short-cut’ to Stevens Creek Blvd, with lots of traffic funnelling onto this narrow laneway
•installed speed bumps by Related California (Westport) have caused excessive noise day and night as vehicles drive over these bumps
•intersection of Dana Point Lane and Morro Bay can be dangerous, as cars speed (from Glenbrook Apartments) across Mary Avenue
•Morro Bay has no posted speed limits nor lane markers, and vehicles continue to speed on this narrow road even with speed bumps
Arroyo Village Noise/Traffic Complaints (Westport Senior Complex/Related California)
Glenbrook
Apartments
HWY 85
Traffic
funnelling onto
Morro Bay
Arroyo Village Speed Bumps
Speed Bump #1 Speed Bump #2
Arroyo Village Speed Bumps
Video over Speed Bump #2
Newly-Erected Signage by the City of Cupertino (Morro Bay Terrace at Mary Avenue)
From:Rhoda Fry
To:Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:Cupertino City Council: December 2 - Oral Communications non-agenda - The Insight agreement renewal does
not seem to have gone to City Council, why?
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 4:15:26 PM
Attachments:06-106 Insight_Amendment #8 dated 6-30-25.pdf
RevenueTaxSharingAgreementReportedByJurisdictions (1).xlsx
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 this email and attachments in the online public comments for
the December 2, 2025 City Council Meeting. Thanks! : )
Dear City Council,
The Insight agreement renewal does not seem to have gone to City Council, why?
As you know, Cupertino has a tax-sharing agreement with Insight.
According to the State, the tax-sharing agreement with Insight expired in June 2025.
I obtained the second attachment by running a report using the link below.
https://cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?
url=RevenueTaxSharingAgreementReportedByJurisdictions
Additionally the City website states that the Insight agreement terminated in 2025.
The third attachment is a snip of the Cupertino City webpage below.
https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Divisions/Finance/Tax-Revenue-Sharing-Agreements
I learned at the last city Council Meeting that the Insight agreement was extended through to
June 2026.
See the first attachment that I found by searching through agreements in the digital archives.
(I shrunk the actual document from 12MB to 6MB so that I could email it to you).
The revised agreements is in the archives from 2006 so that it can be with the other
agreements (but it took a bit of digging to find it).
Here is the link:
https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?
id=1181592&dbid=0&repo=CityOfCupertino
I looked through the City Council Agendas and did not find an Insight renewal
agreement on any agenda.
Did City Council vote on this?
Should City Council have voted on this or known about it?
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
PS – the Apple agreement remains in force through 2033, so items purchased at the Apple
store in Cupertino generates some income for the City, 65 cents for every $100 spent, with
Apple receiving a 35 cent rebate. When people shop at other stores in Cupertino and buy
taxable items, the City receives $1 for every $100 spent.
1
EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT 107
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND INSIGHT
CONSULTING SERVICES FOR CONSULTATION
SERVICES
This Eighth Amendment to Agreement 107 is by and between the City of Cupertino, a
municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and Insight Consulting Services, a limited liability
company (“Consultant”) whose address is PO Box 731069 Dallas, Texas 75373, and is made with
reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. The City and the Consultant entered into an Agreement for Consultation Services
Original Agreement”) effective July 1, 2006, with a term expiring on June 30, 2011.
B. The City and the Consultant entered into a First Amended and Restated Agreement for
Consultation Services (“First Amended Agreement”) effective July 1, 2011 with a term
expiring on June 30, 2016; and
C. The City and the Consultant entered into a Second Amended and Restated Agreement
for Consultation Services (“Second Amended Agreement”) effective July 1, 2016 with a term
expiring on June 30, 2020; and
D. The City and the Consultant entered into a Third Amendment to the Agreement
Third Amended Agreement”) effective July 1, 2020 with a term expiring on June 30, 2021;
and
E. The City and the Consultant entered into a Fourth Amendment to the Agreement
Fourth Amended Agreement”) effective July 1, 2021 with a term expiring on June 30, 2022;
and
F. The City and the Consultant entered into a Fifth and Restated Agreement for
Consultation Services (“Fifth Amended Agreement”) effective July 1, 2022 with a term
expiring on June 30, 2023; and
G. The City and the Consultant entered into a Sixth Amendment to the Agreement
Sixth Amended Agreement”) effective July 1, 2023 with a term expiring on June 30, 2024;
and
H. The City and the Consultant entered into a Seventh Amendment to the Agreement
Seventh Amended Agreement”) effective July 1, 2024 with a term expiring on June 30,
2025; and
I. The Original Agreement, First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment,
Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and Seventh Amendment are
collectively referred to as the “Agreement” unless otherwise indicated.
J. Section 6(c) of the Second Amended Agreement states the “City shall have six one-
year options that the City may exercise in its sole discretion and if it chooses to exercise any
2
option(s) unless the parties mutually agree to amend any term or condition of this Agreement;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between and undersigned parties as
follows:
1. The City of Cupertino shall exercise the sixth of six one-year options to extend the
consultation services. This extension begins on July 1, 2025 and ends on June 30, 2026,
unless terminated earlier pursuant to the terms of the Second Amended Agreement.
2. Consultant shall maintain insurance coverage as provided in Exhibit D, attached hereto.
3. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the
Second Amended Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of
Agreement to be executed.
CONTRACTOR
By
Title
Date
CITY OF CUPERTINO
By
Title
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Senior Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date
06/30/2025
SVP Tax and Treasurer
06/30/2025
Interim City Manager
06/30/2025
Exh. D-Insurance Requirements for Design Professionals & Consultant Contracts
1
Version: May 2025
Consultant shall procure prior to commencement of Services and maintain for the duration of the contract, at its
own cost and expense, the following insurance policies and coverage with companies doing business in California
and acceptable to City.
INSURANCE POLICIES AND MINIMUMS REQUIRED
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL) with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office
ISO) Form CG 00 01, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 general
aggregate. The policy shall include a per project or per location general aggregate endorsement as
broad as CG 25 03 or CG 24 04. If a per project/location endorsement is not available, the limit of
the general aggregate shall be doubled.
a. It shall be a requirement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the
specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits shall be made available to the
Additional Insured and shall be (i) the minimum coverage/limits specified in this agreement; or (ii) the
broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy, whichever is greater.
b. Additional Insured coverage under Consultant's policy shall allow and be endorsed "primary and
non-contributory," will not seek contribution from City’s insurance/self-insurance, and shall be at least
as broad as the most recent edition of ISO Form CG 20 01.
c. The limits of insurance required may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess
liability insurance, provided each policy follows form of the underlying policy and complies with the
requirements set forth in this Contract. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to
contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary basis for the benefit of City. The
City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall not be called upon.
2. Automobile Liability: Coverage shall be provided using ISO CA 00 01 covering any auto (including
owned, hired, and non-owned autos) with limits no less than $1,000,000 each accident for bodily injury
and property damage.
Not required. Consultant shall be fully remote and not use automobiles to provide the service.
In the event Consultant uses an automobile or automobiles in the operation of its business to provide
services under this Agreement, the Consultant shall, prior to such use, provide the City with evidence
of Business Automobile Liability insurance coverage in the amount required under this Section 2 for
owned, non-owned and hired autos (any auto-Symbol 1), or if Consultant does not own autos (hired
autos-Symbol 8 and non-owned autos-Symbol 9). Evidence shall be provided with a Certificate of
Insurance, along with an additional insured endorsement in favor of the City, primary and non-
contributory coverage and endorsement, and waiver of subrogation coverage and endorsement under
the policy prior to the use of any automobile.
Consultant has provided written confirmation that it does not own any autos. Consultant shall provide
coverage for hired autos-Symbol 8 and non-owned autos-Symbol 9. Primary and Non-Contributory
coverage and Waiver of Subrogation coverage is waived under the Automobile Liability hired and
non-owned only coverage. In the event Consultant uses an owned automobile or automobiles in the
operation of its business to provide services under this Agreement, the Consultant shall, prior to such
use, provide the City with evidence of Business Automobile Liability insurance coverage in the
amount required under this Section 2 for owned, non-owned and hired autos (any auto-Symbol 1).
EXHIBIT D
Insurance Requirements
Design Professionals & Consultants Contracts
Exh. D-Insurance Requirements for Design Professionals & Consultant Contracts
2
Version: May 2025
In lieu of Business Automobile Liability, Consultant shall maintain throughout the term of this
Agreement and provide the City with evidence (including the policy Declarations Page) of personal
automobile insurance coverage in accordance with the laws of the State of California. As available
under the policy, evidence shall be provided with the Certificate of Insurance, along with an additional
insured endorsement in favor of the City, primary and non-contributory coverage and endorsement,
and waiver of subrogation coverage and endorsement. City approval of coverage is required prior to
commencement of services.
3. Workers’ Compensation: As required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits and Employer’s
Liability Insurance of no less than $1,000,000 each accident/ disease.
Not required. Consultant has provided written verification of no employees.
4. Professional Liability for professional acts, errors and omissions, if applicable and as appropriate to
Consultant’s profession, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000
aggregate. If written on a claims-made basis form:
a. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the Effective Date of the Contract.
b. Insurance must be maintained for at least five (5) years after completion of the Services.
c. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a
Retroactive Date prior to the Contract Effective Date, the Consultant must purchase “extended
reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of the Services.
OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS
The aforementioned insurance policies shall contain, be endorsed and have all the following conditions and
provisions:
Additional Insured Status
The City of Cupertino, its City Council, officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers (“Additional
Insureds”) are to be covered and endorsed as additional insureds on Consultant’s CGL and automobile liability
policies. General Liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to Consultant’s insurance
at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 (11/ 85) or if not available, through the addition of both CG 20 10 and
CG 20 37 forms, if later editions are used).
Primary and Non-Contributory Coverage
Except Workers Compensation, coverage afforded to City/Additional Insureds shall allow and be endorsed
primary insurance. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers, officials, employees, or
volunteers shall be excess of Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute to it.
Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy shall state that coverage shall not be canceled or allowed to expire, except with written
notice to City 30 days in advance or 10 days in advance if due to non-payment of premiums. If a carrier will
not provide the required notice of cancellation or policy modification, the Consultant shall provide written
notice to the City of a cancellation or policy modification no later than 30 days in advance or 10 days in
advance if due to non-payment of premiums.
Waiver of Subrogation
Consultant waives any right to subrogation against City/Additional Insureds for recovery of damages to the
extent said losses are covered by the insurance policies required herein. Specifically, the General Liability,
Automobile Liability and Workers’ Compensation policies shall allow and be endorsed with a waiver of
subrogation in favor of City, its employees, agents and volunteers. This provision applies regardless of whether
or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
Exh. D-Insurance Requirements for Design Professionals & Consultant Contracts
3
Version: May 2025
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City (Insert on the Certificate
of Insurance, if zero, insert “$0”). At City’s option, either: the insurer must reduce or eliminate the deductible
or self-insured retentions as respects the City/Additional Insureds; or Consultant must show proof of ability to
pay losses and costs related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. The policy shall provide,
or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insuredretention may be satisfied by either the insured or the City.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance shall be placed with insurers admitted in the State of California and with an AM Best rating of A-
VII or higher.
Verification of Coverage
Consultant must furnish acceptable insurance certificates and amendatory endorsements (or copies of the policies
effecting the coverage required by this Contract), including a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page
of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements prior to commencement of the Contract. City retains the right
to demand verification of compliance at any time during the Contract term.
Subconsultants
Consultant shall require and verify that all subconsultants maintain insurance that meet the requirements of this
Contract, including indemnification, defense, and naming the City as an additional insured on subconsultant’s
insurance policies.
Higher Insurance Limits
If Consultant maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, City shall be
entitled to coverage for the higher insurance limits maintained by Consultant.
Adequacy of Coverage
City reserves the right to modify these insurance requirements/coverage based on the nature of the risk, prior
experience, insurer or other special circumstances, with not less than ninety (90) days prior written notice.
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE
THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.
INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURER F :
INSURER E :
INSURER D :
INSURER C :
INSURER B :
INSURER A :
NAIC #
NAME:
CONTACT
A/C, No):
FAX
E-MAILADDRESS:
PRODUCER
A/C, No, Ext):
PHONE
INSURED
REVISION NUMBER:CERTIFICATE NUMBER:COVERAGES
IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.
If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on
this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS
CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES
BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.
OTHER:
Per accident)
Ea accident)
N / A
SUBR
WVD
ADDL
INSD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD
INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,
EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY (Per accident)
BODILY INJURY (Per person)
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
AUTOS ONLY
AUTOSAUTOSONLY
NON-OWNED
SCHEDULEDOWNED
ANY AUTO
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Y / N
WORKERS COMPENSATION
AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
Mandatory in NH)
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
If yes, describe under
ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
EROTH-STATUTEPER
LIMITS(MM/DD/YYYY)
POLICY EXP(
MM/DD/YYYY)
POLICYEFFPOLICYNUMBERTYPEOFINSURANCELTRINSR
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)
EXCESS LIAB
UMBRELLA LIAB $EACH OCCURRENCE
AGGREGATE
OCCUR
CLAIMS-MADE
DED RETENTION $
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG
GENERAL AGGREGATE
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY
MED EXP (Any one person)
EACH OCCURRENCE
DAMAGE TO RENTED $
PREMISES (Ea occurrence)
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:
POLICY
PRO-
JECT LOC
CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)
CANCELLATION
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
ACORD 25 (2016/03)
1988- 2016 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.
CERTIFICATE HOLDER
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
HIRED
AUTOS ONLY
B
1,000,000
04/15/2026
3606-77-62
X
LOS-002486230-20
1,000,000
1,000,000
90-05749-002 (MA,WI,HI)
X
20281
1,000,000
Aggregate
Phoenix, AZ 85016
N
X04/15/2025
Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company
04/15/2026
04/15/2025
28460
04/15/2026
7362-08-62
Professional Technology E&O
C
2,000,000
1,000,000
X
24988
Federal Insurance Company
1,000,000
X
E
X
04/14/2025
2,000,000
04/15/2025
2,000,000
The City of Cupertino, its City Council, officers, officials, employees, agents, servants and volunteers are included as additional insured where required by written contract with respect to general and auto liability.
This insurance is primary and non-contributory over any existing insurance and limited to liability arising out of the operations of the named insured subject to policy terms and conditions with respect to general and
X
04/15/2025
Cupertino, CA 95014
City of Cupertino
Sentry Casualty Company
auto liability. Waiver of subrogation is applicable where required by written contract and subject to policy terms and conditions with respect to general liability, auto liability, workers' compensation.
A
Sentry Insurance Company
CN101234622-STND-GAUWP-25-
Per Claim
10,000
04/15/2026
1,000,000
7819-44-10
and Cyber
D
2,000,000
20303
1,000,000
1,000,000
04/15/2026
X
90-05749-001 (AOS)
2325 E. Camelback Road
MARSH USA LLC.
X
Suite 600
Attn: Phoenix.CertRequest@marsh.com
Insight Public Sector, Inc.
Insight Enterprises, Inc.
Chandler, AZ 85286
2701 E. Insight Way
X
ANP30084357500
04/15/2025
10300 Torre Avenue
04/15/2025
A
04/15/2026
41718
Great Northern Insurance Company
Ed. 4-84)
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY WC 00 03 13
WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT
We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not
enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. (This agreement applies only to the
extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.)
This agreement shall not operate directly or indirectly to benefit anyone not named in the Schedule.
Schedule
Name:
Address: HI, MA, WI
Description of Waiver:Any person or organization for whom the Named Insured has agreed by written
contract executed prior to loss.
JobID:
The information below is required only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.)
Endorsement Effective Policy No.Endorsement No.
Insured Premium
Insurance Company Countersigned by
This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached and is effective on the date issued unless otherwise stated.
1983 National Council on Compensation Insurance.
WC 00 03 13
Ed. 4-84)
Page 1 of 1
04/09/20259005749002
Sentry Casualty Company
00001 0000000000 25099 0N1 3f5e38ac-136f-4de3- a7ed-d85b3ed2433b3f5e38ac-136f-4de3-a7ed-d85b3ed2433b
Ed. 4-84)
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY WC 00 03 13
WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT
We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not
enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. (This agreement applies only to the
extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.)
This agreement shall not operate directly or indirectly to benefit anyone not named in the Schedule.
Schedule
Name:
Address: AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, LA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO,
MS, MT, NC, NE, NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, VA, VT, WV
Description of Waiver:Any person or organization for whom the Named Insured has agreed by written
contract executed prior to loss.
JobID:
The information below is required only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.)
Endorsement Effective Policy No.Endorsement No.
Insured Premium
Insurance Company Countersigned by
This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached and is effective on the date issued unless otherwise stated.
1983 National Council on Compensation Insurance.
WC 00 03 13
Ed. 4-84)
Page 1 of 1
04/09/20259005749001
Sentry Insurance Company
00003 0000000000 25099 0N1 f4b3562c-fa28- 41fe-9536-455a5aba2c9bf4b3562c-fa28- 41fe-9536-455a5aba2c9b
Insight - 8thAmendment
Final Audit Report 2025- 07-01
Created:2025-06-30
By:Webmaster Admin (webmaster@cupertino.org)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAALZ8Yo30jx6jYF7_WFR17w-k_Z1pLZZZ5
Insight - 8th Amendment" History
Document created by Webmaster Admin (webmaster@cupertino.org)
2025-06-30 - 4:57:37 PM GMT- IP address: 35.229.54.2
Document emailed to Janet Liang (janetl@cupertino.org) for approval
2025-06-30 - 5:01:26 PM GMT
Email viewed by Janet Liang (janetl@cupertino.org)
2025-06-30 - 5:01:38 PM GMT- IP address: 44.195.36.123
Document approved by Janet Liang (janetl@cupertino.org)
Approval Date: 2025-06-30 - 5:09:37 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 64.165.34.3
Document emailed to Araceli Alejandre (aracelia@cupertino.org) for approval
2025-06-30 - 5:09:40 PM GMT
Email viewed by Araceli Alejandre (aracelia@cupertino.org)
2025-06-30 - 5:09:58 PM GMT- IP address: 34.239.45.117
Document approved by Araceli Alejandre (aracelia@cupertino.org)
Approval Date: 2025-06-30 - 8:20:20 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 71.202.76.156
Document emailed to lynn willden (lynn.willden@insight.com) for signature
2025-06-30 - 8:20:24 PM GMT
Email viewed by lynn willden (lynn.willden@insight.com)
2025-06-30 - 8:28:58 PM GMT- IP address: 172.226.3.32
Document e-signed by lynn willden (lynn.willden@insight.com)
Signature Date: 2025-06-30 - 11:17:34 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 198.187.200.254
Document emailed to Tina Kapoor (tinak@cupertino.org) for signature
2025-06-30 - 11:17:38 PM GMT
Email viewed by Tina Kapoor (tinak@cupertino.org)
2025-06-30 - 11:17:44 PM GMT- IP address: 52.87.219. 119
Document e-signed by Tina Kapoor (tinak@cupertino.org)
Signature Date: 2025-07-01 - 0:20:45 AM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 73.70.218.26
Document emailed to Michael Woo (michaelw@cupertino.org) for signature
2025-07-01 - 0:20:49 AM GMT
Email viewed by Michael Woo (michaelw@cupertino.org)
2025-07-01 - 0:20:59 AM GMT- IP address: 34.239.45.117
Document e-signed by Michael Woo (michaelw@cupertino.org)
Signature Date: 2025-07-01 - 0:22:11 AM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 73.170.186.236
Document emailed to Kirsten Squarcia (kirstens@cupertino.org) for signature
2025-07-01 - 0:22:16 AM GMT
Email viewed by Kirsten Squarcia (kirstens@cupertino.org)
2025-07-01 - 0:22:24 AM GMT- IP address: 34.239.45.117
Document e-signed by Kirsten Squarcia (kirstens@cupertino.org)
Signature Date: 2025-07-01 - 0:47:53 AM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 64.165.34.3
Agreement completed.
2025-07-01 - 0:47:53 AM GMT