HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 02-03-2026 Item No. 8 Mary Ave Villas Project_Written CommunicationsCC 2-03-2026
#8
Mary Ave Villas Project
Written Communications
From:Paul Krupka
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Public Comments
Cc:Brian Avery; Lina Meng
Subject:Public Comment – January 27, 2026 – Mary Avenue Public Right-of-Way
Date:Tuesday, January 27, 2026 2:28:38 PM
Attachments:krupka Georgia t 50.png
Cupertino PC re Mary Avenue Villas 012726.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.
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Please accept and consider my attached public comment letter during your deliberations on
January 27, 2026.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Paul Krupka
Paul J. Krupka, PE
(he/him/his)
KRUPKA CONSULTING
Trusted Advisor | Transportation
650.504.2299
paul@pkrupkaconsulting.com
KRUPKA CONSULTING
431 Yale Drive | San Mateo, CA | 94402
650.504.2299 | paul@pkrupkaconsulting.com | pkrupkaconsulting.com
January 27, 2026
by email only > planningcommission@cupertino.gov & publiccomment@cupertino.gov
Planning Commission Members
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Public Comment – January 27, 2026 – Mary Avenue Public Right-of-Way
Dear Planning Commission Members:
I am supporting Brian Avery, owner of the Glenbrook Apartments, and Lina Meng, a neighbor, both
of whom represent the Garden Gate Neighborhood Group, in providing transportation advisory
services and a professional opinion on the Mary Avenue Villas Project. Please see my attached
letter to the City Council Members, dated December 11, 2025, which presents my opinion that the
Mary Avenue Villas Project will have a significant impact on parking, for which appropriate
mitigations have not been adequately studied.
I appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
KRUPKA CONSULTING
Paul Krupka, P.E.
Owner
Attachment
Cc: Brian Avery (with attachment)
Lina Meng (with attachment)
KRUPKA CONSULTING
431 Yale Drive | San Mateo, CA | 94402
650.504.2299 | paul@pkrupkaconsulting.com | pkrupkaconsulting.com
December 11, 2025
City Council Members by email only > publiccomment@cupertino.gov
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Public Comment – Special Meeting on December 12, 2025 – Study Session on the Mary
Avenue Project (“Project”)
Dear City Council Members:
I am supporting Brian Avery, owner of the Glenbrook Apartments, and Lina Meng, a neighbor,
both of whom represent the Garden Gate Neighborhood Group, in providing transportation
advisory services and a professional opinion on the Mary Avenue Villas Project. I offer the
following information and comments for your consideration.
Qualifications
I am a registered Civil Engineer and Traffic Engineer in California and have over 40 years of
diverse experience across all phases of project delivery, including preliminary assessment,
conceptual planning, feasibility analysis, design, and construction. I have demonstrated
expertise in transportation, traffic, and transit planning, engineering, and design related to
transit-oriented development, transit facilities, parking facilities, roadway and highway
improvements, large and small development projects, neighborhood, community, downtown,
city, subarea, county, and sub-regional plans, and transit and highway corridors.
Comments
I have visited the Project site and surroundings, observed traffic and parking activities, surveyed
peak parking occupancy on Mary Avenue and at Memorial Park, and reviewed recent
photographic evidence of related parking conditions during Memorial Park events. I have
reviewed the Transportation Study for Proposed Affordable Housing Project on Mary Avenue
(Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., November 13, 2025, the Memorial Park Specific
Plan (City of Cupertino, February 2024), including the Memorial Park Parking Study (City of
Cupertino, January 2024), the Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report
Addendum No. 1 (PlaceWorks, December 2024), and information on current and planned
development at De Anza College.
The Project will have a significant impact by removing 89 spaces of public on-street parking on
Mary Avenue (95 spaces with recommended Project changes in the aforementioned
Transportation Study), amid heavy observed demand for this parking (upwards of 60 percent
occupied) during many major events at Memorial Park. This 37+% reduction in on-street parking
supply will affect residents who rely on it, spreading parking demand further into residential
neighborhoods. This impact was documented in the formal Project application in April 2025. It
was acknowledged in the aforementioned Transportation Study. Still, it was seemingly
dismissed with this simple conclusion – “With the Project, there would be 152 on-street
City of Cupertino City Council Members
December 11, 2025, Page 2
parking spaces…, which would still provide enough spaces to meet the anticipated parking
demand…along the project frontage.” The anticipated parking demand noted was only 37 spaces,
which reflects a non-Memorial Park event condition.
My peak parking occupancy survey on Saturday, November 1, 2025, found a demand of 42 spaces
(17% occupied (42/241)) on Mary Avenue (total parking supply of 241 spaces). The photographic
evidence I cited above indicated a demand of approximately 140 spaces (58% occupied) during
Memorial Park events. With the Project, this level of demand would equal 96% of the total
parking supply (146 spaces).
Other approved and planned developments will exacerbate this significant impact.
• Memorial Park enhancements, intended to serve existing and new patrons, will increase
parking demand in the neighborhood and on Mary Avenue. While the aforementioned parking
study did not include Mary Avenue, it cited “Maintain Current Parking Configuration along Mary
Avenue” as a recommended management strategy.
• Completion of the Westport Mixed-Use Project will reduce residential and retail areas,
associated vehicle trips, and the total parking supply, but will require accommodating the
resulting parking demand off-site along Mary Avenue.
• The replacement of the Flint Center at De Anza College will enhance opportunities for public
and on-campus entertainment and increase public reliance on off-site parking on Mary Avenue.
Conclusion
The project's significant impact has not been adequately studied to determine appropriate
mitigations.
It is in your community's best interests that you strongly consider doing so.
I appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
KRUPKA CONSULTING
Paul Krupka, P.E.
Owner
Cc: Brian Avery
Lina Meng
From:Joshua Safran
To:City Council
Cc:Caitlyn Grady; Tina Kapoor; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Kirsten Squarcia; Lauren Sapudar; City Clerk;
Benjamin Fu; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; fandrews@awattorneys.com; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:Demand Letter to City Council of Cupertino re Mary Avenue Villas Project (February 1, 2026)
Date:Sunday, February 1, 2026 11:58:06 PM
Attachments:Demand Letter to City Council of Cupertino re Mary Avenue Villas Project (February 1, 2026).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.
Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the City Council,
Please find attached our Request for Compliance with Law and Objections to Unlawful Proposed
Approvals for Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737) for Item #8 of the City Council Agenda of
February 3, 2026 for due Council consideration and inclusion in the public record.
All the best,
Joshua
Joshua Safran, Esq.
One Almaden Boulevard, Suite 700
San Jose, California 95113
Phone: 510.384.7627
Email: jsafran@strategylaw.com
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential, and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privilege. If
you are not the intended recipient, any review, disclosure, distribution, or use of such information is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please destroy it and notify the sender immediately.
From:Lina
To:Public Comments; City Clerk
Subject:Public Comment - Agenda Item #8 - Feb 3, 2026 City Council Meeting
Date:Monday, February 2, 2026 11:36:00 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.
Mary Ave Villas Project Proposal CEQA Violations; Application no ASA 2025-006 Location
APN: 326-27-053
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers.
My name is Lina and I live in the Garden Gate neighborhood. I’m writing because approving this
project without environmental review would violate the California Environmental Quality Act,
CEQA.
CEQA exists for a simple reason: before a city makes a decision that changes the physical
environment, it has to actually study the impacts. Exemptions are supposed to be narrow, and the
City, not the public, has the burden of proving that an exemption really applies.
Here, the City claims this project is exempt as routine “infill” housing. But that claim ignores
what’s actually in the record.
This project would permanently eliminate at least 89 public parking spaces, and possibly more, on
a street that already experiences heavy demand. The City’s exemption analysis assumes parking
demand of just 37 cars and explicitly ignores peak conditions. That assumption is contradicted by
a licensed traffic engineer who documented that parking demand regularly reaches around 140
vehicles, and that this project would push the area close to complete parking failure.
Under CEQA’s “fair argument” standard, that kind of expert evidence alone is enough to require
environmental review.
There are other issues too: construction in a narrow former right-of-way, next to a freeway and a
park; acknowledged lead contamination in the soil that still requires investigation and remediation;
and the loss of public circulation space. None of that is “routine infill.”
Even if the City believed an exemption might apply, CEQA forbids using exemptions where there
are unusual circumstances, cumulative impacts, or unresolved factual disputes. Those conditions
are clearly present here.
Finally, the City’s Notice of Exemption doesn’t even describe the whole project. It leaves out key
actions like vacating a public right-of-way and committing City land through a development
agreement. CEQA requires agencies to evaluate the whole action, not pieces of it.
For all of these reasons, approving this project as exempt would violate CEQA and expose the
City to serious legal risk.
We are simply asking the City to follow the law, do the required environmental review, and make
an informed decision. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lina
Garden Gate Cupertino resident
From:Brian Avery
To:Public Comments; City Clerk
Subject:SERIOUS Request for Compliance with Law, and Objections to Unlawful Proposed Approvals: Mary Avenue Villas
Project (File #: 26-14737) Item #8 of the City Council Agenda of February 3, 2026 for due Council consideration
and inclusion in the public record.
Date:Monday, February 2, 2026 2:10:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
My name is Brian Avery and for 47 years I have represented the 1,000 person
community at Glenbrook Apartments, 10100 Mary Avenue.
Glenbrook is a nationally award-winning property that my family constructed with
our own crews, and manages with 30 of our own employees. I am at
Glenbrook each week during the days, nights, and often on weekends. I have
witnessed the confrontations that my staff has with:
a. Daily confrontations with De Anza students seeking to avoid buying parking
permits at De Anza; and
b. Confrontations with outside parkers within our residential property due to 11
events at the Park next door; and
c. ON A WEEKLY BASIS, there are confrontations with residents who have
multiple vehicles in the new Westport Development across the street which is
grossly under-parked.......supposedly the local bus system was going to prevent this
from happening :)
d. How do you think the future looks for us when the second half of Westport is
constructed? Mathematically, this means the Westport population, which shoves
overflow parking from an underparked development onto our property, will send us
twice the number of confrontations and illegal parking incidents.
Approving the Mary Avenue FREEWAY SOUNDWALL housing project and the
removal of 89 parking spaces (which reduces the street width) without
environmental review would violate the California Environmental Quality Act,
CEQA. CEQA exists for a simple reason: before a city makes a decision that
changes the physical environment, it has to actually study the impacts. Exemptions
are supposed to be narrow, and the City, not the public, has the burden of proving
that an exemption really applies. Here, the City of Cupertino claims this project is
exempt as routine “infill” housing. But that claim ignores
what’s actually in the record.
This project would permanently eliminate at least 89 public parking spaces,
and possibly more, on a street that already experiences heavy demand. And the
City Council refuses to mathematically project the SIX future demands on
Mary Avenue: second half of Westport soon under construction, three future
buildings directly across the street at De Anza College, resumption of paid
parking at De Anza, and the addition of amenities and usess withing Memorial
Park......a very large park that has a very VERY low # of parking stalls after
excluding CITY STAFF parking, an RETIREMENT CENTER parking.
The City’s exemption analysis assumes parking demand of just 37 cars and
explicitly ignores peak conditions. That assumption is contradicted by a licensed
traffic engineer who documented that parking demand regularly reaches around 140
vehicles, and that this project would push the area close to complete parking failure.
De Anza college is building huge new facilities across the street from Mary
Avenue:
a. Student Union/Student Services building; and
b. Creative Arts Center building; and
c. A large Events Center which is projected (in writing based on an in-depth study)
to have a constant flow of events versus Flint Center that had a very limited number
of events.
d. The resumption of PAID PARKING at De Anza College (temporarily abandoned
during Covid) means that we will have students who don't like buying parking
permits OR paying daily parking rates! You know it! FOR DECADES, we have
endured De Anza's growing student population and the use of more parking stalls
on Mary Avenue, and even in our property where we have horrible confrontations
with young students yelling and acting aggressive as they depart their cars to walk
across the street to De Anza.
Under CEQA’s “fair argument” standard, the above expert evidence alone is
enough to require environmental review.
Other issues:
1. Construction in a narrow former right-of-way, a few feet from a Freeway
Soundwall and a park; and
2. Acknowledged lead contamination in the soil and there is no comprehensive
current investigation and
remediation;
3. Loss of public circulation space. None of that is “routine infill.”
TWO CONCLUSIONS STARING AT YOU:
A. Even if the City believed an exemption might apply, CEQA forbids using
exemptions where there are unusual circumstances, cumulative impacts, or
unresolved factual disputes. Those conditions are clearly present here.
B. The City’s Notice of Exemption doesn’t even describe the whole project. It omits
key actions like vacating a public right-of-way and committing City land through a
development agreement. CEQA requires agencies to evaluate the whole action, not
pieces of it.
For all of these reasons, approving this project as exempt would violate CEQA and
expose the City to serious legal risk.
GOING FORWARD:
1. You know this is a problematic proposal with legal problems.
2. You know that the City of Cupertino submitted more future affordable units
than required by the state of CA.
This was confirmed in a meeting I was in with the City Manager and Council
Member at City Hall.
3. We all love affordable housing and you can find a MORE LOGICAL and
NON- FREEWAY SOUNDWALL site! For Pete's sake, none of you would
take away 89 parking stalls and reduce street width in your own neighborhood
......in the middle of big developments currently under construction, and the
City's written plans to expand uses within Memorial Park BUT NOT ADD
PARKING STALLS TO A SEVERELY underparked, large park.
4. I am glad to serve on a committee to find a good site for disabled housing. I
am a founder of the Housing Industry Foundation, the most successful private
charity in Santa Clara County & San Mateo County to supply short term
loans to prevent homelessness and renovate emergency shelters, transitional
housing, numerous shelters for battered women, etc. https://www.hifinfo.org/
Brian Avery, Property Manager and Managing Partner of Glenbrook Apartments
10100 Mary Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
brianbavery@gmail.com
From:Linnea WICKSTROM
To:Public Comments
Cc:Per Email; Gia Pham; Linnea WICKSTROM
Subject:YES to Mary Avenue Villas
Date:Sunday, February 1, 2026 1:35:57 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.
Members of the Cupertino City Council,
Though I cannot attend the Council meeting of February 3rd, I want to
add my voice to the many voices of LeadUsHome in asking you to vote
YES for the Mary Avenue Villas.
I’m a client of the San Andreas Regional Center, AbilityPath, and
Housing Choices and I did speak at the January 21st Council meeting to
advocate for the housing proposed for Mary Avenue.
As a person with intellectual and developmental disabilities, I was lucky
to move into a studio apartment in Mountain View in 2015. The City of
Mountain View, First Community Housing, and Housing Choices gave
me the opportunity to begin living independently.
That is a huge step in life, especially for people like me.
On behalf of the 19 people with intellectual or developmental
disabilities who we hope will be able to make a home in the Mary
Avenue Villas, I ask you to commit to that development.
Thank you
Per Maresca
And Linnea Wickstrom
From:Rhoda Fry
To:Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:MORE COMMENT on February 3 City Council Meeting, agenda #8 Mary Ave
Date:Sunday, February 1, 2026 7:27:44 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 Council,
Regarding the Mary Avenue project.
It is my understanding that the money provided from our BMR fund is a loan to this project.
Am I correct?
What are the terms of the loan?
Is there a way to make sure that the repayment terms become more favorable if the project is
sold to a for-profit within 55 years?
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
From:Rhoda Fry
To:Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:February 3 City Council Meeting, agenda #8 Mary Ave
Date:Saturday, January 31, 2026 4:05:57 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 Council,
I am writing regarding February 3 City Council Meeting, agenda #8 Mary Ave.
1. Mary avenue was going to be on the Planning Commission Agenda prior to this meeting
and that meeting was canceled. I just wonder whether we are putting the cart before the
horse and needed to complete the Planning Commission Agenda item first before
moving forward.
2. I am deeply troubled that after all these meetings, I see that buried in the resolutions,
that this project can be sold in 55 years. The land that the City is giving away has value.
And we’re giving it away so that it can be sold at a profit at a future date. That is not
okay with me. What can you do to make sure that Cupertino is compensated for the
land if the project sells?
C – Draft Resolution excerpt:
“the City deems appropriate which includes, among other things, that the Property will
be restricted by a regulatory agreement restricting the Property for affordable housing
uses for 55 years to be recorded at the closing under the DDA”
THIS IS IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT
REQUIRING 99 YEARS!!!
WHAT IF THERE IS A LEGAL DISPUTE?
Excerpt see page H-28 (32nd pdf page):
https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Community-
Development/Planning/Major-Projects/6th-Cycle-Housing-Element-
Update#docaccess-
43dac56f9771852d51ff4f1a89bb0478c6d728c5aa936bc4c8c1d1c327a71cc1
BMR Term. Require BMR units to remain affordable for a minimum of 99 years;
enforce the City’s first right of refusal for BMR units and other means to ensure that
BMR units remain affordable.
For more information on the 55 years, you might want to read up on California Tax
Credit Allocation Committee
(CTCAC) https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/
3. We have had soooo many meetings and this clause has NEVER been mentioned.
Parents who have their young-adult children there will not have the peace of mind that
they are set for life. Cupertino cannot manufacture land. What will we do in 50 years?
The City cannot manufacture land.
4. It seems that there has been a moving target on this project that has limited the number
of organizations that can participate in bringing this project to fruition and that makes
me terribly sad. Also, the unannounced loss of parking. And now, that we are giving
away land that can be sold off at a profit in 55 years.
Regards,
Rhoda Fry
From:Shaun Fong
To:City Council; Public Comments; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Concerns of City Council ramming through Public Right-of-Way Actions and bypassing Planning Commission
Date:Thursday, January 29, 2026 2:40:45 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 Moore and Members of the Cupertino City Council,
Residents of the Garden Gate neighborhood who are directly affected by the Mary
Avenue housing project have repeatedly raised safety and legal concerns at City
Council meetings. Unfortunately, many of these concerns have gone unaddressed. It
is particularly disappointing that the newly appointed Mayor, whom many of us voted
for, has declined to meet with affected residents or engage in substantive dialogue
after multiple attempts.
This letter is submitted for inclusion in the official public record as formal notice of
potential statutory noncompliance arising from City actions involving public right-of-
way (ROW) property associated with the Mary Avenue project.
The issues outlined below raise material questions of law under controlling California
statutes and established case law. These are threshold legal matters, not
discretionary policy choices.
The City is requested to state its legal position, supported by specific statutory
authority and judicial precedent, on the following questions:
1. Rezoning of Public Right-of-Way Prior to Lawful Vacation
Whether the City may rezone a public right-of-way to residential or private use prior to
a lawful vacation conducted in accordance with Streets and Highways Code sections
8300–8333.
California courts have long held that public streets and rights-of-way are held in trust
for public use and may not be diverted, conveyed, or repurposed for private use
absent strict statutory compliance. (People v. Russell (1957) 48 Cal.2d 189; County of
Los Angeles v. Faus (1957) 48 Cal.2d 672.)
2. Vacation Without Statutory Due Process
Whether a public right-of-way may be vacated without notice, public hearings,
required findings, and a determination that the vacation serves the public interest, as
mandated by Streets and Highways Code sections 8320, 8324, and 8330.
Courts have held that failure to comply with statutory vacation procedures renders
such actions void and subject to judicial invalidation. (City of Sacramento v. Jensen
(1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 45.)
3. Surplus or Exempt Surplus Designation While ROW Status Persists
Whether City-owned land that remains a public right-of-way may be designated as
“surplus land” or “exempt surplus land” without first lawfully vacating the right-of-way
and without compliance with the Surplus Land Act, Government Code sections
54220–54234, including mandatory notice to and review by the California Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Courts have confirmed that sequencing actions to avoid or bypass the Surplus Land
Act violates legislative intent and constitutes unlawful circumvention. (California
Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2024) ___
Cal.App.5th ___.)
4. Disposition of Unvacated or Improperly Rezoned Right-of-Way
Whether the City may sell, transfer, encumber, or otherwise dispose of public right-of-
way property that has not been lawfully vacated—or that was rezoned prior to
vacation—without violating Streets and Highways Code sections 8353 and 8354 and
Government Code section 54230.
Municipal actions exceeding statutory authority to convey public streets are ultra vires
and void. (City of Los Angeles v. San Pedro Boat Works (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 484.)
5. Pre-Designation or Exclusive Negotiations
Whether the City may engage in exclusive or single-party negotiations concerning
public right-of-way property prior to a lawful determination of surplus or exempt
surplus status, consistent with Government Code sections 54223 and 54233.
Courts have held that negotiations undertaken prior to lawful surplus designation
undermine statutory safeguards and public transparency. (Bell v. City of San Diego
(2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 102.)
Each of the above issues presents an independent basis for legal challenge,
including, but not limited to, claims for writ, declaratory, and injunctive relief.
Continued action without curing these defects may expose the City to judicial
invalidation, mandatory reversal, and statutory penalties.
This letter provides notice of these concerns and preserves all rights and remedies
available under California law. Written responses clearly identifying the City’s legal
position—supported by specific statutory and case law authority—are respectfully
requested for inclusion in the public record.
Sincerely,
Shaun Fong
Garden Gate Resident
From:Walter Li
To:City Council; Public Comments; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Cc:Lina; Brian Avery; Theresa Horng; Shaun Fong; Joshua Safran; Roberta Murai
Subject:Notice of Statutory Noncompliance and Preservation of Rights - Public Right-of-Way Actions
Date:Thursday, January 29, 2026 12:32:05 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 and Members of the Cupertino City Council,
This letter is submitted for inclusion in the official public record as formal notice of potential
statutory noncompliance related to City actions involving public right-of-way (ROW) property.
The issues identified below raise material questions of law under controlling California
statutes and case law. They are not discretionary policy matters.
The City is requested to state its legal position, supported by statutory authority and judicial
precedent, on the following threshold questions:
1. Rezoning of Public Right-of-Way Prior to Lawful Vacation
Whether the City may rezone a public right-of-way to residential or private use prior to lawful
vacation under Streets and Highways Code §§ 8300–8333.
California courts have long held that public streets and rights-of-way are held in trust for
public use and may not be diverted, conveyed, or repurposed for private use absent strict
statutory compliance. (People v. Russell (1957) 48 Cal.2d 189; County of Los Angeles v. Faus
(1957) 48 Cal.2d 672.)
2. Vacation Without Statutory Due Process
Whether a public right-of-way may be vacated without noticed public hearings, required
findings, and a determination that the vacation is in the public interest, as mandated by
Streets and Highways Code §§ 8320, 8324, and 8330.
Courts have held that failure to comply with statutory vacation procedures renders the action
void and subject to judicial invalidation. (City of Sacramento v. Jensen (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d
45.)
3. Surplus or Exempt Surplus Designation While ROW Status Persists
Whether City-owned land that remains a public right-of-way may be deemed “surplus land” or
“exempt surplus land” without first vacating the right-of-way and without compliance with the
Surplus Land Act, Government Code §§ 54220–54234, including mandatory notice and review
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Courts have confirmed that sequencing actions to avoid or bypass the Surplus Land Act
violates legislative intent and constitutes unlawful circumvention. (California Renters Legal
Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _.)
4. Disposition of Unvacated or Improperly Rezoned ROW
Whether the City may sell, transfer, encumber, or otherwise dispose of public right-of-way
property that has not been lawfully vacated, or that was rezoned prior to vacation, without
violating Streets and Highways Code §§ 8353 and 8354 and Government Code § 54230.
Municipal actions exceeding statutory authority to convey public streets are ultra vires and
void. (City of Los Angeles v. San Pedro Boat Works (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 484.)
5. Pre-Designation or Exclusive Negotiations
Whether the City may engage in exclusive or single-party negotiations concerning public right-
of-way property prior to a lawful determination of surplus or exempt surplus status, consistent
with Government Code §§ 54223 and 54233.
Courts have held that negotiations undertaken prior to lawful surplus designation undermine
statutory safeguards and public transparency. (Bell v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th
102.)
Each of the above issues presents an independent basis for legal challenge, including but not
limited to claims for writ relief, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. Continued action
without curing these defects may expose the City to judicial invalidation, mandatory reversal,
and statutory penalties.
This letter provides notice of these concerns and preserves all rights and remedies available
under California law. Written responses identifying the City’s legal position, supported by
specific statutory and case law authority, are requested for the public record. Previous
notices to the City requesting for written responses had met with zero response, zero
acknowledgements. Hopefully, under new mayor, this behavior will change.
Sincerely
Walter Li
Long time Cupertino Resident
408-781-7894
From:Mahesh Gurikar
To:Public Comments
Cc:City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject:Mary Avenue Villas
Date:Thursday, January 29, 2026 7:09:17 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 add this to Public Comments for February 3rd City Council meeting.
Thank you.
I strongly oppose City of Cupertino going ahead with the Mary Avenue Villas project despite
concerns of residents in the neighborhood.
The Mary Ave Villas project is a financial and legal expisure for the city. These financial and
legal risks must be fully studied and assessed. Hi
This project should not move to council until the financial and legal aspects of it are fully
studied and the public hears the study results and can participate with input.
As City council members it is your duty to protect the city from financial and legal risks.
Please add to agenda the study sessions for this. Further please consider sending this to
planning commission for study sessions and recommendations before sending it back to
council for study sessions.
Finally a new council in November 2026 may decide to undo any hurried passing of this right
now. Please consider the consequences of that and ensure that if you do proceed that any
ground lease contract is written so that it could be terminated at any time and funding clawed
back at any time with the recipient of the funding expected to be able to only drawdown on
funding in stages and with ability to retract and claw back funding provided.
Please do not rush through approvals on Mary Ave Villas. Please send this first to planning
commission for study sessions. Please allow the proceedings of planning commission study
sessions to feed into further council study sessions. Please hold additional community
meetings that are conducted by the city. I believe the city as the owner needs to hold these
meetings and not Charities who are not owners of the land.
Thank you for paying careful attention to the financial and legal liabilities of this project to the
city.
Thank you,
Mahesh Gurikar
From:H Krishnapriyan
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk; Luke Connolly; City Council; Public Comments
Subject:Concerns regarding the proposed construction on Mary Avenue Parcel(APN 324-27-053
Date:Tuesday, January 27, 2026 3:41:47 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.
Hi,
I had written earlier in November last year regarding this proposed construction. I write again
to express my family's concern regarding this. The area is a busy artery serving residents in
this area in getting to the expressways, to schools and access to Memorial park. Narrowing of
the road and the loss of parking spaces in the area will have a big impact on the safety and
convenience of the residents.
I request that these concerns be addressed before any action is taken.
Regards,
H. Krishnapriyan
21251 Gardena Drive
Cupertino CA 95014
From:Walter Li
To:Public Comments; City Clerk; Luke Connolly; City Council; Santosh Rao; Tracy Kosolcharoen; David Fung; Seema
Lindskog; Steven Scharf
Subject:The City Has No Legal Authority to Give Public Streets to Private Developers
Date:Tuesday, January 27, 2026 12:30:34 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 and City Staff,
I am writing to formally object to the City’s attempt to include public street parking areas and
portions of a public avenue in a private development proposal. This action is not only
inappropriate — it is legally impermissible.
A public street is not ordinary “city land.” Under California law, a street or parking lane is a
public right‑of‑way held in trust for the public, not a municipal asset that can be handed to
private developers. The City has no authority to convert a right‑of‑way into private
development land unless it first meets strict state‑law requirements — requirements that
have not been met.
The controlling law is the California Streets & Highways Code, Sections 8300–8363, which
governs any attempt to abandon, repurpose, or transfer a public street. These statutes impose
mandatory obligations on the City, including public findings that the street is unnecessary for
present or future public use. No such findings have been made, and no lawful process has
occurred.
Until the City complies with state law — which it has not — the right‑of‑way remains
protected public property. It cannot be merged into a developer’s site plan, used to satisfy
private project requirements, or treated as a bargaining chip in negotiations.
Attempting to do so raises serious concerns about favoritism, misuse of public assets, and
violation of the City’s fiduciary duty to its residents. Public streets exist for public use, not for
private enrichment.
I request that the City immediately remove all public right‑of‑way areas from the development
proposal and provide a written explanation of the legal authority the City believes it has to
include public streets in a private project. If no such authority exists — and none appears to —
the City must halt this action.
Residents expect transparency, fairness, and compliance with state law. Anything less
undermines public trust.
Sincerely,
Walter Li
Long Time Cupertino Resident
408-781-7894