The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC 02-10-2026 Item No. 4. Mary Avenue_Updated Written Communications1 Eva Momoki From:Aditya Agrawal <aditya_lucknowi@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, January 26, 2026 11:39 PM To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Strong Objection to Mary Ave villas CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, I am a resident of CuperƟno for more than 25 yrs and I am extremely disappointed in the way Mary Ave villas project is being pushed through inspite of heavy resident opposiƟon. In more sane Ɵmes, this would never have been the case. I am starƟng to strongly suspect about the real moƟve of the vested interests and who stands to beneﬁt from this project really. I don’t think it’s the current residents to whom the city administraƟon should be answerable to. Is it the Rotary club? Or the newly hired, highly paid city manager ? Or the new mayor? Please listen carefully to the public opposiƟon and stop this project before the anger boils over and we in the opposiƟon start legal proceedings to invesƟgate abnormaliƟes in the way this is being pushed forward. It would be shame if that’s the path a city like CuperƟno had to take instead of resolving this through respecƞul dialog. Thank you Aditya Agrawal 1 Eva Momoki From:Joshua Safran <jsafran@strategylaw.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:53 AM To:Piu Ghosh (she/her); City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:Santosh Rao; Tracy Kosolcharoen; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Steven Scharf; Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; fandrews@awattorneys.com; City Attorney's Office Subject:Demand Letter to Planning Commission of Cupertino (January 27, 2026) re Agenda Item #4 of PC Agenda of January 27, 2026 Attachments:Demand Letter to Planning Commission of Cupertino (January 27, 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 Chair Rao and Members of the Planning Commission: Please ﬁnd attached correspondence addressed to you of today’s date regarding Agenda Item #4 of the Planning Commission’s Agenda of January 27, 2026, for consideration by the Planning Commission and inclusion in the public record. All the best, Joshua Safran, Esq. One Almaden Boulevard, Suite 700 San Jose, California 95113 Phone: 510.384.7627 Email: jsafran@strategylaw.com The informaƟon in this e-mail and any aƩachments is conﬁdenƟal, and may be subject to the aƩorney-client or work product privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, disclosure, distribuƟon, or use of such informaƟon is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please destroy it and noƟfy the sender immediately. 1 Eva Momoki From:Paul Krupka <paul@pkrupkaconsulting.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 27, 2026 2:28 PM 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 Attachments: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 1 Eva Momoki From:H Krishnapriyan <h.krishnapriyan@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 27, 2026 3:41 PM 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 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:Rhoda Fry To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:1/27/2026 Planning Commission Agenda #4 concerned about vacation of Mary ave property vacation Date:Monday, January 26, 2026 1:24:13 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. Hi Planning Commission, Regarding 1/27/2026 Planning Commission Agenda #4 concerned about vacation of Mary ave property vacation. Question, what happens if the non-profit fails and one or both buildings are sold to for-profits? In that case, Cupertino would need to be paid fair market value for the vacated portion and for the other portion. Please make sure that we protect Cupertino’s financial interests here. Thanks, Rhoda Fry From:Mahesh Gurikar To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk; Luke Connolly Subject:Mary Avenue Date:Monday, January 26, 2026 9:54:22 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 add this to written comments for tomorrow’s Planning Commission meeting. Thank you. To Members of Planning Commission, I am a resident of the Gardengate neighborhood. I oppose the proposal to change the configuration of the Mary Avenue so residential units can be built on the narrow strip of city land between Mary Avenue and Hwy 85. This piece of land is unsuitable for this project. It will eliminate number of parking spaces and also pose a hazard to both the traffic on Mary Avenue and to the residents of proposed units. The city should not vacate this land. The residents of Gardengate neighborhood oppose this proposal to vacate city owned land. Please do not approve any change to current configuration of Mary Avenue. Thank you, Mahesh Gurikar 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 12:30:35 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