The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 02-19-2026 Oral CommunicationsCC 2-19-2026 Oral Communications Written Comments From:Joseph Hauser To:Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor Subject:Mary Ave Villas Date:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 1:38:34 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. The Mary Ave Villa project is the right project at the wrong location. There is no doubt that challenged individuals need their own housing, but we as a society need to make sure that we are providing the best possible housing. The Mary Avenue site, being adjacent to a freeway has several major problems. The exhaust from cars is known to be very unhealthy, and the wall between the proposed housing and the freeway will not stop that pollution from affecting those individuals who can tolerate it the least. Furthermore, the freeway noise, is constant. Imagine looking out your rear window and seeing nothing but a wall. The postage stamp size apartment leaves little room for a comfortable life. There are several alternatives that could alleviate these problems. For example, the section of Memorial Park adjacent to Stevens Creek Blvd would give the occupants a closer walk to public transportation, grocery and retail, as well as green space to look at from their windows. However, the city has appeared to decide that pickleball courts are more important than the health, and well being of these individuals. In addition, the city could use small sections of other city parks. There are also undoubtably other alternatives that could have been negotiated which would provide for more room, and more units. To try to shoehorn this project into a space that does not lend itself for such a project, and can affect the health and well being of project residents, as well as severely affect current residents, is shameful at best. Let’s be more responsive to those of us who you represent. Do the right thing. Find a more suitable place for those who need it the most. Please give this project more thought. Joe Hauser Sent from my iPad From:Vidya Gurikar To:City Clerk; Public Comments Subject:Mary Avenue ROW Vacation Date:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 12:41:33 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 Councilmembers, The proposed right-of-way vacation raises significant concerns in the community. Because vacating public land is a legislative act, residents may have the right to pursue a referendum if the Council approves it. While that is a legal option available to voters, it would be far preferable for the Council to ensure that any action taken is fully supported by clear evidence and broad community support. Community engagement is critical. Many residents feel that the evidentiary basis for declaring this right-of-way unnecessary has not been demonstrated. Please consider whether the legal findings required for vacation are truly supported. A decision of this magnitude deserves caution, transparency, and community confidence. Please do not rush this issue until all of community concerns have been addressed and resolved. Thank you, Sincerely, Shrividya Gurikar Cupertino Resident ⸻ From:Mahesh Gurikar To:City Council; Public Comments Subject:Mary Avenue Vacation of Public Right of Way Date:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 10:42:44 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 Mayor and Councilmembers, The proposed right-of-way vacation raises significant concerns in the community. Because vacating public land is a legislative act, residents may have the right to pursue a referendum if the Council approves it. While that is a legal option available to voters, it would be far preferable for the Council to ensure that any action taken is fully supported by clear evidence and broad community support. Community engagement remains critical. Many residents feel that the evidentiary basis for declaring this right-of- way unnecessary has not been demonstrated. Please carefully consider whether the legal findings required for vacation are truly supported. A decision of this magnitude deserves caution, transparency, and community confidence. Thank you for your service. Sincerely, Mahesh Gurikar ⸻ From:Walter Li To:Public Comments; City Council Cc:Lina; Brian Avery; Theresa Horng; Shaun Fong Subject:Right-Of-Way (ROW) Vacation -- Insufficient Evidence Date:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 10:33:27 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 Councilmembers, The item before you this Thursday is a right-of-way vacation — not a General Plan matter. Before vacating public land, the City must demonstrate with substantial evidence that the right-of-way is no longer needed for public use. No such evidence has been presented and shared with residents. Public land should not be transferred or extinguished without strict compliance with state law and full transparency. Please do not approve the vacation without clear, legally sufficient findings supported by evidence. Thank you for your consideration. Long Time Cupertino Resident Walter Li 408-781-7894 wmbjt@hotmail.com From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City Council Subject:Fwd: SB 330 at Panera Bread/Voyager Coffee on March 17 City Council Date:Monday, February 16, 2026 10:35:46 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 consider the following as public input for the February 19, 2026 City Council meeting. Thank you. Best regards. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: SB 330 at Panera Bread/Voyager Coffee on March 17 City Council From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026, 10:29 PM To: citycouncil@cupertino.org,cityclerk@cupertino.org CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com Dear City Council: (Please consider the following as public comment for the February 19, 2026 City Council meeting). I see that the SB 330 for the Panera Bread/Voyager Coffee site on the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd and South side of Alves Road is going to be heard at the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting. This is the seventh SB 330 project to be considered and it is taking down active retail. The bulk of it is along Stevens Creek Blvd. I have very serious doubts about SB 330 or why Senator Skinner ever introduced this bill. I don't think She wanted to kill all retail in a city. Maybe it was a legitimate try on her part to produce some sort of Housing, but the result is a serious fiasco and blow to the retail industry, especially in a Town for size of Cupertino. Will the Panera/Voyager Coffee SB 330 go to the Planning Commission before March 17? These SB 330s must be a nightmare for the city staff to deal with. There are so many of them. Are there any Community Meetings planned for the Panera/Voyager Coffee site? It is really disheartening to see a shopping center That we planned so carefully just 12 years ago be torn apart for housing. We thought we were building Retail to last years and years. It is so sad to see more retail go down in our city. And this is active retail in A prime location. No one would want to shut down active retail. SB 330 has become a major problem in the city. I hope The city can address this growing problem soon. What have other cities been doing to prevent the Mowing down of their retail to SB 330? Also, in terms of Refugee Retail, is the city reaching out To Panera Bread and Voyager Coffee to help them find alternative sites in the city so we don't lose Them to Sunnyvale or Santa Clara or San Jose? Look at the sad fate of Staples. Now our city has no office supply or computer supply store anymore. Was there no place in town for this chain? Yes, we have a lot of problems in the city. One of the major ones is loss of retail. SB 330 is a useless piece of legislation which is creating massive problems in the city. It wants to create luxury housing and It also destroys retail, especially active retail. What are other cities doing to deal with this fallout from SB 330? It is time to ask this question. Not only Do we have to dodge the SB 79 fallout from Senator Wiener's legislation, we have to deal with the Fallout from Senator Skinner's SB 330 legislation. Hand in hand they are creating uproar and havoc in our city. SB 330 has created a Retail Crisis. The Panera Bread/Voyager Coffee site needs to be adequately studied. Please let the public know if there are any Community Meetings on it and if it is going to the Planning Commission. How will this Affect Saich in the future? Thank you. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City Council Subject:Fwd: Retail and Gas Station Issues in Cupertino: Is a Crisis Emerging? Date:Monday, February 16, 2026 4:53:21 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 consider the following as public input for the February 19, 2026 Cupertino City Council Meeting. Thank you. Best regards. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Retail and Gas Station Issues in Cupertino: Is a Crisis Emerging? From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026, 4:50 PM To: citycouncil@cupertino.org,cityclerk@cupertino.org CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com Dear City Council: (Please consider the following as public input for the City Council meeting on February 19, 2026) I have seen an article that says the Big Target site in Cupertino by Stevens Creek Blvd. and Bandley is up for sale. I cannot begin to state what a retail crisis is evolving in Cupertino. Big Target Is one of the key anchor retail sites in Cupertino. There has been a grocery store/department store at this site since the days of Gemco where my family, my grandmother and my husband's family shopped. We must make sure that the Big Target site remains retail and does not go to housing. There is already The threat of six other SB 330/Builders Remedy sites wiping out retail up and down Stevens Creek Blvd. from the Western City Limits to the Eastern City Limits. The Housing Element does not care if we have Any retail left in Cupertino. It is a useless, unrealistic mandate from some ill-advised, over- zealous Tyrants in Sacramento. Cupertino might need to buy the Big Target site itself to make sure the retail In the city is not wiped out once and for all. Also, what about protection of gas stations and car repair sites in the City? The gas station at Foothill Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. now has a fence around it and says it is moving to Imperial Avenue? There is no other gas station or car repair in this remote part of the city. The other station became housing ten years ago. Are they going to put housing on this site too at Foothill Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd.? What is becoming of the city? Are we the new bedroom community for Sunnyvale and Los Altos and San Jose? We won't have any place to buy gas or get cars repaired? These are vital services. Will the city have to buy gas stations too to keep them from becoming Housing? Is this another Crisis in the making? A real energy crisis? No fuel? No place to repair A car? We must have better insight than just converting all our retail and gas stations to housing. We can't depend on Sacramento to look out for us. We must depend on ourselves. The loss of Local Control also means we will have no retail or gas stations or other vital services like pharmacies or grocery stores. We must make sure our city does not lose all of its important services that everyone relies on. That means if the City must start buying up Target stores and gas stations and drug stores so be it. We can't look to Sacramento to help us. That is totally obvious. We have a true retail and gas station emergency and crisis in Cupertino. Please do all you can to help protect Big Target and retail in general in Cupertino as well as vital Services such as the gas station at Foothill Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. If the Target Store in Scotts Valley is booming, why isn't ours? Thank you. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin From:Santosh Rao To:City Clerk; City Council; Tina Kapoor; Luke Connolly; Chad Mosley Subject:Fw: Public Comment | 02-10-26 | Item #4 Mary Avenue Public Right-of-Way; Revised Letter for the Record Date:Monday, February 16, 2026 9:43:46 AM Attachments:Public Comment 02-10-26 Item #4 Mary Avenue Public Right-of-Way_rev 1 021526.pdf Dear City Clerk and City Council, The Planning Commission received the below updated written communications after the hearing at Planning Commission. I am forwarding the same for your inclusion in written communications and council materials for your reading. Thank you. Santosh Rao Chair, Planning Commission SRao@cupertino.gov From: Paul Krupka <paul@pkrupkaconsulting.com> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2026 2:05 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <planningcommission@cupertino.gov> Cc: Lina Meng <lina.lang41@gmail.com>; Brian Avery <brianbavery@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Public Comment | 02-10-26 | Item #4 Mary Avenue Public Right-of-Way; Revised Letter for the Record 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: I revised my February 10, 2026, public comment letter to correct some typographical errors. It is attached for the record. Sincerely, Paul Krupka _____________ On Feb 10, 2026, at 3:53 PM, Paul Krupka <paul@pkrupkaconsulting.com> wrote: Dear Planning Commission Members: Please accept and consider my attached public comment letter during your deliberations on February 10, 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 Georgia t 50.png> <Public Comment | 02-10-26 | Item #4 Mary Avenue Public Right-of-Way.pdf> Paul J. Krupka, PE (he/him/his) KRUPKA CONSULTING Trusted Advisor | Transportation 650.504.2299 paul@pkrupkaconsulting.com February 10, 2026 by email only > planningcommission@cupertino.gov Planning Commission Members City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: Public Comment – February 10, 2026 – Item #4: Mary Avenue Public Right-of-Way  Dear Planning Commission Members: I am supporting Brian Avery, owner of the Glenbrook Apartments, Lina Meng, a neighbor, and the Garden Gate Neighborhood Group in providing transportation advisory services and a professional opinion on the Mary Avenue Villas Project. This letter documents my opinion that 1) the vacation of the Mary Avenue public right-of-way and the disposition of the Mary Avenue project site are not consistent with the General Plan, and 2), regarding Environmental Impact, certain Project impacts contradict ﬁnding d) “approval of the project would not result in any signiﬁcant eﬀects relating to traﬃc…”. 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 45 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. Finally, I have authored and managed dozens of transportation and circulation studies supporting development and disposition agreements and environmental impact reports for transportation improvements and development projects of all sizes and types. Preparation I have visited the Project site and surroundings, observed traﬃc and parking activities, surveyed peak parking occupancy on Mary Avenue and at Memorial Park, reviewed recent photographic evidence of related parking conditions during Memorial Park events, developed parking estimates, and read many comments and concerns expressed by Garden Gate Neighborhood Group members and other residents. 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.  KRUPKA CONSULTING 431 Yale Drive | San Mateo, CA | 94402 650.504.2299 | paul@pkrupkaconsulting.com | pkrupkaconsulting.com Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 2 Comments Mary Avenue Is Not Underutilized Right-of-Way – The Mobility Element of the General Plan deﬁnes Mary Avenue as a Neighborhood Connector. The street is actively used, as set forth in the Mobility Element of the General Plan, providing parking, access, and circulation for the residential neighborhood and serving as a crucial linkage to Memorial Park in line with these Goals. •M-2 Promote improvements to city streets that safely accommodate all transportation modes and persons of all abilities •M-3 Support a safe pedestrian and bicycle street network for people of all ages and abilities •M-5 Ensure safe and eﬃcient pedestrian and bicycle access to schools while working to reduce school-related congestion •M-6 Promote innovative strategies to provide eﬃcient and adequate vehicle parking Therefore, the vacation of the Mary Avenue right-of-way is inconsistent with the General Plan, and it follows that the location, purpose, and extent of the disposition of the Mary Avenue project site are not consistent with the General Plan. Approval of the Project Will Create a Deﬁciency - These comments from my February 3, 2026, letter to the City Council (attached) established my opinion that the Project’s impact - reduction in parking supply - creates an unsustainable deﬁciency that aﬀects residents and visitors alike. The parking evaluation (in the Transportation Study) describes typical conditions on Mary Avenue during three weekdays and one weekend day in April 2025. It documents the Project’s parking impact on Mary Avenue - a net loss of 89 spaces of public on- street parking, plus the recommended removal of six additional spaces to address a deﬁciency in driveway sight distance, resulting in a total net loss of 95 spaces on Mary Avenue. This 39% reduction in on-street parking supply will directly aﬀect residents who rely on it, spreading parking demand further into residential neighborhoods. It is surprising to me that the analyst simply notes that there “…would still be enough spaces to meet the anticipated parking demand along the Project frontage.” The parking evaluation does not address the parking conditions on Mary Avenue during a major festival at Memorial Park, when the street is eﬀectively inundated with festival parking. This is insuﬃcient, given that six major festivals and numerous other events are held at Memorial Park each year, and aﬀected residents have voiced signiﬁcant concerns to City staﬀ and oﬃcials about the Project's impact in this light. Additional study is required to provide ﬁndings that inform the reader, City staﬀ, other review agencies, and decision-makers about the Project’s impact on parking and potential improvements to address it. I reviewed photographic evidence of parking conditions on Mary Avenue during major festivals and events at Memorial Park on Saturday, August 23, 2025 (Summer Concert SeriesKids 'N Fun Festival), Friday, August 29, 2025 (Movies in the Park), September 13, 2025 (Silicon Valley Fall Festival) Saturday, September 20, 2025 (Heritage India Faire Festival), and Saturday, October 29, 2025 (Bay Area Diwali Festival). The sample photos below provide drivers’ views of vehicles parked end-to-end on Mary Avenue, from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Lubec Street, during the Saturday, August 23, 2025 event.   Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 3 Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 4 A major festival at Memorial Park has a dramatic eﬀect on parking conditions on Mary Avenue without the Project. The Project’s impact - reduction in parking supply - creates an unsustainable deﬁciency that aﬀects residents and visitors alike. Further study and development of alternative improvements are necessary to enable a fully informed decision on the Project. I developed estimates of parking occupancy during two festivals cited in my above comments – August 23, 2025, and September 13, 2025, which found between 140 and 229 vehicles parked on Mary Avenue. The following tables present these estimates, along with the existing parking conditions from the Transportation Study and the with-Project conditions. It is clear that festival parking inundates Mary Avenue under existing conditions, and the Project’s impact - reduction in parking supply by 95 spaces - overloads the system with demand meeting and exceeding supply and creates an unsustainable deﬁciency.  ESTIMATED PROJECT PARKING IMPACT TYPICAL AND FESTIVAL CONDITIONS FESTIVAL: SILICON VALLEY FALL FESTIVAL, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2025 CONDITION PARKING SUPPLY PARKED VEHICLES OCCUPANCY TYPICAL EXISTING 241 37 15% TYPICAL EXISTING WITH PROJECT 146 37 25% FESTIVAL EXISTING 241 140 58% FESTIVAL WITH PROJECT 146 140 96% Sources: Typical Conditions - Transportation Study Festival Condition - Krupka Consulting ESTIMATED PROJECT PARKING IMPACT TYPICAL AND FESTIVAL CONDITIONS FESTIVAL: SUMMER CONCERT SERIESKIDS ’N FUN FESTIVAL, SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 2025 CONDITION PARKING SUPPLY PARKED VEHICLES OCCUPANCY TYPICAL EXISTING 241 37 15% TYPICAL EXISTING WITH PROJECT 146 37 25% FESTIVAL EXISTING 241 229 95% FESTIVAL WITH PROJECT 146 229 157% Sources: Typical Conditions - Transportation Study Festival Condition - Krupka Consulting Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 5 The Transportation Study did not consider large, wide vehicles, which frequent Mary Avenue to and from the Service Center and provide routine waste and recycling services. The vehicles involved are 10 to 128 to 10 feet wide and often encroach on adjacent travel and parking lanes, as shown in the photo below. This reduces safety and is especially critical to the northbound lane, which is currently 11.5 feet wide. The southbound lane, which is 14 feet wide, accommodates these larger vehicles with less encroachment. The Project calls for two 11-foot lanes, which will create additional conﬂicts with large vehicles and exacerbate safety issues. Similarly, the Transportation Study did not consider the necessary door swing required for access to parked vehicles, which encroaches on the adjacent travel lane, causes conﬂicts, and reduces safety. The photo below is an example. The Project calls for 11-foot lane widths, which will create additional conﬂicts with street traﬃc and exacerbate safety issues. These Project impacts contradict ﬁnding d) “approval of the project would not result in any signiﬁcant eﬀects relating to traﬃc…” and require further study and development of alternative improvements to enable a fully informed decision on the Project. Other Approved and Planned Developments Will Exacerbate this Project Deﬁciency: The following nearby projects will increase parking demand, aﬀecting Mary Avenue. Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 6 •Memorial Park enhancements, intended to serve existing and new patrons, will increase parking demand in the neighborhood and on Mary Avenue. The following observations underscore parking conditions at the park. •Observations on NovemberSeptember 13, 2025, during the Silicon Valley Fall Festival, indicated that only 34 of the 256 oﬀ-street parking spaces (13%) at Memorial Park were available to festival visitors, given that most parking areas were used for food vendors (including loading and unloading, portable restrooms, handwashing, and preferential parking). •The only other Park-adjacent residential streets (Christensen Drive, Lauretta Drive, and Ann Arbor Court) are not accessible to Park visitors as they require permits from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. •Notably, the Memorial Park Parking Study (for the Memorial Park Speciﬁc Plan) did not include Mary Avenue, even though it provides parking for Memorial Park, and it cited “Maintain Current Parking Conﬁguration Along Mary Avenue” as a recommended management strategy. •Three phases of work are involved in implementing the Park Concept, and the suggested timeline, depending on available funding, is as follows: Phase 1 can be completed in 0 to 5 years, Phase 2 in 6 to 10 years, and Phase 3 in 11 to 15 years. •Completion of the Westport Mixed-Use Project, which involves a 36-month buildout period, will reduce residential and retail areas, associated vehicle trips, and the total parking supply, but will require accommodating the resulting retail parking demand oﬀ-site along Mary Avenue. As a condition of approval, the applicant must update the site plan to add at least 20 on-site parking spaces before building permits are issued. •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. This Foothill-De Anza Community College District Measure G project is generally deﬁned below based on publicly available information. •Uses: College events, performing arts | cultural events, and community rentals | regional events. •Spaces: Primary performance/event space with approximately 1,000 seats; Secondary performance/meeting space with approximately 300 seats. •Expected Parking Demand: 1 parking space per 4 ﬁxed seats. For 1,000 seats, 250 parking spaces. The idea is to use the existing on-site parking supply and improve parking and circulation to suit the project. •Cost: $30 million. •Development Program and Timeline: Not stated. I appreciate your consideration. Sincerely, KRUPKA CONSULTING Paul Krupka, P.E. Owner Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 7 Attachment Cc (with Attachment): Brian Avery, Lina Meng From:Kieran Hau To:Melissa Robertson Cc:City Clerk Subject:Re: Public Comment on General Plan Consistency – Proposed Mary Avenue ROW Vacation Date:Wednesday, February 11, 2026 4:26:48 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. Yes, please do. Thank you, Kieran On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 4:14 PM Melissa Robertson <MelissaR@cupertino.gov> wrote: Dear Kieran, We have received your written communication for the February 10, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. We also noticed that your message was sent to the Public Comments email address. Could you please confirm whether you would like your comments to be included in the written communications for the next regular City Council meeting as well? Please let us know how you’d like to proceed. Thank you, Melissa Robertson Administrative Assistant City Manager's Office MelissaR@cupertino.gov (408)777-3148 From: Kieran Hau <kieranshau@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 3:55 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <planningcommission@cupertino.gov>; City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.gov>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>; Public Comments <publiccomment@cupertino.gov> Subject: Public Comment on General Plan Consistency – Proposed Mary Avenue ROW Vacation 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 Commissioners, I am submitting this comment for inclusion in the public record in connection with the Planning Commission’s review of General Plan consistency for the proposed vacation of a public right-of-way (ROW). While the Commission’s role is limited to determining whether a proposed action is consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan, that determination must be made within the framework of applicable state law. Under California law, General Plan consistency findings cannot be divorced from statutory requirements that govern the existence, use, and disposition of public streets and rights-of-way. Accordingly, in evaluating whether the proposed ROW vacation conforms to the General Plan, the Commission must consider the following state-law constraints: 1. Subdivision Map Act (Government Code §§ 66410–66499.58) The Subdivision Map Act establishes statewide standards governing access, circulation, and streets that directly inform General Plan assumptions. Relevant provisions include: - Section 66424, which requires subdivision-related actions to comply with applicable general plans within the Act’s statutory framework; - Section 66473.5, which addresses legal access requirements fundamental to circulation planning; and - Section 66499.20a, which requires streets shown on subdivision maps to be properly dedicated or already public, underscoring the legal significance of existing public ROWs. 2. Streets and Highways Code (Sections 8300–8368) The vacation of public streets and rights-of-way is governed exclusively by the Streets and Highways Code. These statutes directly affect whether a proposed ROW vacation can be consistent with General Plan circulation and infrastructure policies. In particular: - Section 8324 requires notice, public hearing, and legislative approval; and - Section 8333 provides that a vacation does not take effect until the adopting action is recorded. Until these requirements are satisfied, the ROW remains public and must be evaluated as such for purposes of General Plan consistency. 3. Government Code Section 27281 (Recordation of Property Interests) Government Code section 27281 confirms that only instruments affecting title to real property may be recorded. A public right-of-way does not constitute private property unless and until it has been lawfully vacated. This legal status bears directly on whether assumptions regarding the removal or conversion of public land may be relied upon in a General Plan consistency finding. 4. Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code §§ 65300–65763, including § 65860) The Planning and Zoning Law requires that land-use actions affecting streets and public infrastructure be consistent with the General Plan, particularly the Circulation and Land Use Elements. A proposed ROW vacation that conflicts with those elements, or that relies on assumptions inconsistent with state law, cannot be found consistent. In sum, a valid General Plan consistency determination concerning a public right-of-way vacation must consider whether the proposed action is authorized under controlling state law. Where the statutory prerequisites governing the existence or vacation of a public ROW have not been met, the Planning Commission cannot lawfully conclude that the proposed action conforms to the General Plan. This comment is intentionally limited to the issue of General Plan consistency as it relates to the proposed vacation of a public right-of-way. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for ensuring that General Plan findings are grounded in applicable state law and supported by the administrative record. Respectfully, Kieran Cupertino Resident From:Mahesh Gurikar To:Melissa Robertson Subject:Re: Mary Avenue - Right of Way vacation Date:Tuesday, February 10, 2026 2:50:07 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. Melissa, Yes, please include it in the written communications for the next City Council meeting. Thank you, Mahesh Gurikar On Feb 11, 2026, at 6:04 AM, Melissa Robertson <MelissaR@cupertino.gov> wrote: Dear Mahesh, We have received your written communication for the February 10, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. We also noticed that your message was sent to the Public Comments email address. Could you please confirm whether you would like your comments to be included in the written communications for the next regular City Council meeting as well? Please let us know how you’d like to proceed. Thank you, Melissa Robertson Administrative Assistant City Manager's Office MelissaR@cupertino.gov (408)777-3148 From: Mahesh Gurikar <mgurikar@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 7:08 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <planningcommission@cupertino.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>; City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.gov>; Luke Connolly <lukec@cupertino.gov>; Public Comments <publiccomment@cupertino.gov> Subject: Mary Avenue - Right of Way vacation 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 Members of the Planning Commission, Please include the following in the public record, limited specifically to the Planning Commission’s review of General Plan consistency concerning the proposed vacation of a public right-of-way (ROW). Although the Commission’s role is to assess consistency with the City of Cupertino’s adopted General Plan, such determinations must be made within the bounds of applicable state law. California statutes governing public streets, access, and land use are controlling and cannot be disregarded or assumed satisfied for purposes of a General Plan consistency finding. In evaluating whether the proposed ROW vacation conforms to the General Plan, the following state-law considerations are directly relevant and must be addressed: 1. Statewide Requirements Governing Streets and Access (Subdivision Map Act) 2. Statutory Control of Public Right-of-Way Vacation (Streets and Highways Code) The vacation of public streets and rights-of-way is governed exclusively by the Streets and Highways Code (Sections 8300–8368). These provisions directly affect whether a proposed ROW vacation can be consistent with the General Plan. 3. A public ROW does not become private property until it is lawfully vacated in accordance with state law. This legal distinction bears directly on whether removal or conversion of public land can be assumed for General Plan purposes. 4. Consistency Requirements Under Planning and Zoning Law A valid General Plan consistency determination regarding a public right-of-way vacation must account for whether the proposed action is authorized under controlling state law. Where statutory requirements governing the existence, use, or vacation of a public ROW have not been satisfied, a finding of General Plan conformance cannot lawfully be made. This comment is intentionally limited to General Plan consistency considerations related to the proposed ROW vacation. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for ensuring that General Plan findings are fully supported by applicable state law and the administrative record. Respectfully, Mahesh Gurikar