The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 03-03-2026 Item No. 8 Vacating a Portion of Public Right-of-Way on Mary Avenue_Written Communications_2CC 3-3-2026 #8 Vacating a Portion of Public Right-of-Way on Mary Avenue Written Communications From:Kitty Moore To:City Clerk; Lauren Sapudar Subject:Written Communications Agenda Items 8 and 9 Mary Ave. Villas Date:Monday, March 2, 2026 6:05:41 PM Attachments:Pages from NR 26-47 Response 1_Redacted.pdf Re Your Vote on Mary.pdf Dear City Clerk, Please include the attached documents and this email in the official administrative record for the Mary Avenue Villas project (Agenda Items 8 and 9) for tomorrow's meeting. These materials—one discovered through a Public Records Act search and the other sent directly to me—are being submitted specifically to protect the integrity of the quasi- judicial process. Formal inclusion ensures full transparency and upholds the procedural due process required for this project. Contextual Note: These records involve communications with Joshua Safran, the legal counsel for the project opposition, and John Anzur (who appears to be attorney John Andrew Anzur), regarding legal coordination against the project apparently with Councilmember Wang as intermediary. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Mayor City Council KMoore@cupertino.gov (408)777-1389 From: R "Ray" Wang <ray@ray4cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2026 10:24 PM EST To: Lina <S Brian Avery ; Walter Li Subject: Re: Mary Avenue >; Theresa Horng [i ran@strategylaw.com>; Roberta Murai ; City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.gov> Hello Mary Avenue team, This person wants to help you. I'll let you assess if he’s friend or foe but | can tell you he wrote a scathing letter to council and Kitty for her lack of support. Warmest regards R “Ray” Wang Member, Cupertino City Council www.ray4cupertino.org Cupertino City Council Residents First e Fiscal Responsibility e Quality of Life On Feb 9, 2026, at 14:55 wrote: Ray, writing u on this email. You can forward my email to the leaders of the save cupertino stop mary. We would be willing to donate something to the legal fight to stop it. The newspaper said some legal corners were cut by the city and maybe a court will stop it. Tks, john 1 of 2 Monday, March 2, 2026 at 14:24:05 Pacific Standard TimeMonday, March 2, 2026 at 14:24:05 Pacific Standard Time Subject:Subject:Re: Your Vote on Mary Date:Date:Friday, February 20, 2026 at 7:30:01 AM Pacific Standard Time From:From: To:To:Kitty Moore CC:CC:R "Ray" Wang, John Andrew Anzur 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 Ms Moore, Following up on this email which you did not respond to or even acknowledge. Referring back to the election, you and Ray Wang were elected speciﬁcally because of your ability to form an anti development majority on the Board. Instead you cast a deciding vote to move forward a very locally unpopular development project on Mary. Why do this? Simply asking for an explanation how u possibly could vote ,and be the deciding vote, to move this forward. It is a betrayal to those who voted u in . I also understand from the press that not all the legalities were followed. Can y explain this please? Can you also forward my email to the citizens who led the opposition to this project, or send us their email. Finally, why spar with your colleague. U two were voted in together. The press report some petty retribution. Focus on the important issues. When these things get built they are permanent. Your decision has long lasting bad implications for this neighborhood. Look forward to hearing from you . On Feb 9, 2026 12:55 PM, wrote: Dear Ms Moore, What happened on your vote on Mary Avenue? If you had voted with Wang the ridiculous locally unpopular project was dead (2-2-1). We elected u and Wang as a block to slow development and u ignored your voter block. Really? Would like an explanation why u didnt follow your promises to voters and voted contrary to Wang. Thank you. From:Cupertino ForAll To:City Council Cc:Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject:Support for Mary Avenue Villas Date:Monday, March 2, 2026 6:07:14 PM Attachments:image.png 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. March 02, 2026 Please include the following letter in the Written Communications for City Council Meeting on March 3, 2026. ______________________________________________________ Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers, Subject: Agenda Items 8 & 9, City Council Meeting March 3, 2026, Mary Avenue Villas Project Cupertino For All (CFA) strongly advocates in favor of, and urges City Council to approve both Agenda Items 8 & 9, re-stated from Staff Reports below: Agenda Item 8: Consider Adopting a Resolution Vacating a Portion of Public Right- of-Way Located Along the Westerly boundary of Mary Avenue (APN 326-27-053) Recommended Actions: Find project exempt from CEQA 1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 2. Adopt Resolution No. 26-XXX approving the vacation of a portion of public right-of- way located along the westerly boundary of Mary Ave (APN 326-27-053) Agenda Item 9: Consider Adopting a Resolution Declaring the Mary Avenue property (APN 326-27-053) Exempt Surplus Land under the California Surplus Land Act. Recommended Actions: 1.Find project exempt from CEQA 2. Adopt Resolution No. 26-XXX declaring the Mary Avenue property (APN 326-37- 053) to be exempt surplus land pursuant to the provision of the Surplus Land Act codified at California Government Code subsection 54221(f)(1)(F)(i) Mary Avenue Villas fills a critical need. With this housing, Cupertino joins the region in building homes for our most vulnerable residents. This, also, fulfills another goal of the city: preventing people from becoming unhoused. We honor the dedicated advocates for Extremely Low Income (ELI) Housing for those who are Intellectually Developmentally Disabled (IDD). These advocates have dreamed and worked for this housing for two decades. Many organizations and families have borne witness to the need. Thank you to several City Councils for their attention and support over many years as this project worked its way through regulatory meetings and decisions required. In 2019, Mayor Scharf put the project for ELI/ IDD housing on the City Priorities which provided City leadership from that time to this important day. Thank you to Cupertino’s knowledgeable, dedicated City Staff, and excellent Attorneys, who have worked diligently over the years to complete the long, detailed list of regulatory steps for this unique site and special-needs housing. As stated in the Staff Reports for both Agenda Items, many actions have been taken, meetings held, findings made, and affirmative decisions made, to move Mary Avenue Villas Project toward final approval. Thank you to the Public who have spoken and written over the years in support of this critical housing for vulnerable residents. Your warmth and generosity have shone through your presence and words. Cupertino For All strongly advocates in favor of, and urges City Council to approve, both Agenda Items 8 & 9. We are here to advocate that this City Council join the several prior Councils that have moved this project forward with the necessary approvals, funding, and with these actions, the land needed to build a place for our most vulnerable neighbors. A place for them to become. A place for them to enjoy independent lives that allow them to continue to learn and grow, throughout their lives. A place for them to create a community. Those of us who enjoy the independence of our own homes can watch with joy as 40 new homes are added to Cupertino’s housing stock to provide such independence to others. We urge you to vote “yes” without further delay. Sincerely, Cupertino For All Board of Directors From:louise saadati To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:Agenda Items 8 & 9 of City Council Meeting March 3, 2026, Mary Avenue Villas Project Date:Monday, March 2, 2026 5:33:30 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. March 02, 2026 Please include the following letter in the Written Communications for City Council Meetings for March 3, 2026 _________________. Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Liang and Councilmembers: Please vote yes for both Agenda Items 8 and 9 in the 3/3/26 council meetings. This yes vote is needed to allow the Mary Avenue Villas to progress to final approval and development. It has been a slow arduous 20 year process starting with grassroots Cupertino community including advocates for Extremely Low Income (ELI) Housing for Intellectually and those who are Developmentally Disabled (IDD); then obtaining support from the Rotary for more than 10 years; and then Steve Scharf in 2019 to meet the need in Cupertino for some affordable housing for EDD and IDD. This site is part of the required Housing Element that HCD approved. June 16, 2026 is the HCD deadline for Cupertino to meet the Housing Element requirement for below market housing. We need this Mary Avenue Villa to be approved before June 16, 2026 to KEEP CUPERTINO FREE FROM BUILDERS’ REMEDIES. Please approve Items 8 and 9 on 3/3/26 Council Meeting and expedite its progress to development and meeting Cupertino’s Housing Element requirements. Thank you to the City Councils, Commissions, City Staff, advocates and community who have worked hard over a 20 year period to make this project be possible and come close to final approval. Thank you , Louise Saadati From:Joshua Safran To:Lauren Sapudar; City Clerk; City Council Cc:Tina Kapoor; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Kirsten Squarcia; Benjamin Fu; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Floy Andrews; City Attorney"s Office Subject:Demand Letter to City Council of Cupertino re Mary Avenue Villas Project (March 3, 2026) Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 2:36:00 PM Attachments:image001.png Demand Letter to City Council of Cupertino re Mary Avenue Villas Project (March 3, 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 Agenda Items 8 & 9 of City Council Agenda of March 3, 2026: Proposed Right-of-Way Vacation (Res. 26-024) and Exempt Surplus Land Declaration (Res. 26-025) for Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737) for due Council consideration and inclusion in the public record. All the best, Joshua Best Regards, Joshua Safran One Almaden Boulevard, Suite 700 San Jose, California 95113 Phone: 408.478.4100 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. One Almaden Boulevard, Suite 700 San Jose, CA 95113 P: (408) 478-4100 F: (408) 295-4100 www.strategylaw.com March 3, 2026 JOSHUA SAFRAN, ESQ. jsafran@strategylaw.com Cupertino City Council City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 By Email (citycouncil@cupertino.gov) Request for Compliance with Law and Objections to Agenda Items 8 & 9 of City Council Agenda of March 3, 2026: Proposed Right-of-Way Vacation (Res. 26-024) and Exempt Surplus Land Declaration (Res. 26-025) for Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737) Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the City Council: We represent the Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Avenue Safety (the “Coalition”), an unincorporated association of residents and community members directly and adversely affected by the proposed Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737) (the “Project”), and the City’s related approvals and commitments affecting the Mary Avenue right-of-way and public parking resources. The Coalition respectfully objects to the actions proposed for tonight under Agenda Items 8 and 9, including the City’s request that the Council (i) again find these actions CEQA- exempt, and (ii) adopt resolutions to vacate a portion of the Mary Avenue public right-of-way and to declare City-owned land “exempt surplus land” under the Surplus Land Act. At a minimum, Items 8 and 9 should be continued. The record demonstrates that the City has been proceeding in a rushed, backward, and legally indefensible manner – approving and committing first, and attempting to supply required findings and lawful sequencing later – driven by an external financing timeline. Proceeding tonight would compound those defects and further prejudice affected residents. I. Tonight’s Actions Are Not “Mere Implementation” and Cannot Lawfully Proceed on a Categorical Exemption Item 8’s staff report asks the Council to “[f]ind the project exempt from…CEQA” and adopt the street vacation resolution. Item 9 likewise asks the Council to “[f]ind the project exempt from…CEQA” and adopt the exempt surplus land declaration. The draft exempt-surplus resolution goes further, asserting that “none of the exceptions” apply and that the action is “not…a separate project under CEQA” but “an implementation action within the scope” of the housing development. Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737) Page 2 The Coalition has already shown, supported by evidence in the record and supplemental expert analysis, that CEQA’s categorical exemption criteria and exceptions are not satisfied and that the City’s CEQA approach reflects improper segmentation of an integrated undertaking. As explained in the Coalition’s Petition for Reconsideration (the “Petition”) filed on February 27, 2026, the DDA approval, public land conveyance, and right-of-way vacation enabling development constitute a single integrated undertaking that must be evaluated as the “whole of the action.” II. The City Is Inappropriately Attempting to “Cure” Required Findings After Committing Itself through the DDA A. The City’s Own Staff Report Confirms these Actions Are Conditions Precedent to Perfecting the Transfer under the DDA The staff report for Item 9 acknowledges that on February 3, 2026 the Council voted to enter into a contingent DDA, and that the City cannot transfer the City-owned property unless contingencies are satisfied, including (1) declaring the property “exempt surplus land,” and (2) vacating 0.79 acres of public right-of-way. It further states that only after those contingencies are satisfied “may a transfer of property be perfected.” In other words, tonight’s items are not ministerial follow-through; they are the City’s effort to fulfill legal prerequisites that should have been lawfully analyzed and sequenced before the City committed itself through the DDA and related approvals. B. The Record Demonstrates “Cart Before the Horse” Sequencing Driven by Applicant Financing Deadlines As the Coalition already documented in the Petition, the City’s process for this Project has proceeded as a deadline-driven rush where the City approves and commits first, and attempts to supply legally required findings and sequencing later. That is precisely what is happening again tonight: staff explicitly links the exempt surplus declaration to “the Project’s financing timeline and regulatory commitments.” Deadline pressure is not a lawful substitute for sequencing required by CEQA, the Surplus Land Act, and right-of- way vacation law. C. Belated Planning Commission Actions Cannot Retroactively Legitimize an Invalid Process In the Petition, the Coalition has already explained that a belated Planning Commission consistency determination cannot retroactively legitimize an invalid CEQA process or cure improper project segmentation, and that the appropriate course is to reset the process and comply with the sequencing and findings requirements imposed by state law. Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737) Page 3 Separately, the Coalition has shown that the Planning Commission was inappropriately asked to bless the abandonment of public right-of-way before the City had established what public functions will be eliminated, modified, or displaced, and that this sequencing deprived the Commission and public of a meaningful ability to evaluate General Plan consistency. D. The DDA Reflects Impermissible Predetermination of Approvals. As set forth in the Coalition’s prior submissions, the DDA is not “implementation”; it independently commits the City to convey public land and vacate public rights-of-way and constitutes unlawful predetermination whereby commitments are made before lawful completion of CEQA compliance, surplus land determinations, and right-of-way vacation findings. III. The City Cannot Declare “Exempt Surplus Land” on Conclusory Findings that Ignore the Property’s Functional Public Use and Rely on Bootstrapping. The Item 9 staff report confirms the “Property” includes 0.79 acres of right-of-way and “some on- street parking.” The Coalition has already demonstrated that the Surplus Land Act requires a good- faith determination that property is not necessary for present or foreseeable public use, grounded in the property’s actual functional use, and that the City’s approach improperly bootstraps surplus status to the redevelopment decision. This is not a technicality. Staff expressly states that adoption of the exempt surplus declaration “authorizes the City to proceed toward disposition…in accordance with the Project’s financing timeline.” The City should not dispose of public assets on conclusory “not necessary” recitals where the record contains substantial evidence of ongoing public use and displaced impacts. IV. The Right-Of-Way Vacation Is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence and Cannot Be Treated as “Without Adverse Effect.” Item 8’s staff report repeatedly asserts that the City “must vacate” the right-of-way “[t]o facilitate the project’s construction,” and that if the Council does not adopt the vacation “the approved development project would not be able to move forward.” That is not the legal standard. A right- of-way vacation is a permanent abandonment of a public asset, requiring findings supported by evidence that the area is unnecessary for present or prospective public use. The Coalition’s Petition and supporting submissions also explain that the record contains substantial evidence of adverse traffic/parking/circulation and safety impacts, which further undermines any finding that the vacation (and related actions) can proceed under a categorical exemption. Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737) Page 4 V. Councilmembers With Demonstrated Prejudgment/Bias (and Other Disqualifying Relationships) Must Recuse Themselves for Disqualifying Conflicts of Interest The Coalition has separately requested that the Council proceed only after compliance with disqualifications due to conflicts of interest. This issue is not abstract; it goes to the validity of any action taken tonight if the voting body is not impartial. A. The Petition Documents Record Evidence of Prejudgment and Lack of the Requisite “Open Mind.” The Petition explains that a fair quasi-judicial hearing requires decisionmakers to maintain an “open mind,” decide based on law and evidence, and not proceed based on animus, moral condemnation, or prejudgment; it identifies extensive remarks by Councilmember J.R. Fruen that the Coalition contends demonstrate prejudgment and partiality. The Petition further notes that Councilmember Fruen was the “deciding majority vote,” that he seconded the principal motion, and that if he had recused himself “the Decision would not have been made.” The Petition therefore requests that any rehearing be conducted only after “recusal of any Councilmember who has demonstrated prejudgment or bias inconsistent with an ‘open mind.’” Those same principles apply to tonight’s continued, consequential actions that further implement and entrench the challenged approvals. B. Participation Tied to Organizations Promoting the Project Raises Additional Conflict Concerns The record also includes a specific request, out of an abundance of caution and to avoid the appearance of impropriety and self-dealing, that Councilmembers who are part of the Rotary Association (associated with and/or promoting the Project) should recuse themselves, and that any city council member who has a conflict of interest must recuse themselves from voting on this Project. VI. Requested Relief for Tonight’s Meeting For the reasons above, the Coalition respectfully requests that the City Council: 1. Continue Agenda Items 8 and 9 (Res. 26-024 and 26-025). 2. Direct staff to proceed only after full compliance with applicable law, including lawful CEQA review of the whole action, antecedent Government Code § 65402 determinations, right-of-way vacation findings/procedures, and Surplus Land Act compliance. 3. Ensure a lawful and impartial decisionmaking body by requiring recusal of any Councilmember with a disqualifying conflicts of interest, including prejudgment/bias Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737) Page 5 inconsistent with an “open mind,” and addressing the additional conflict concerns described above. 4. Decline to make or reaffirm categorical exemption findings for these actions where the record shows substantial evidence of impacts and legally defective segmentation/sequencing. This letter is submitted without prejudice to, and shall not be deemed to waive, any claims, objections, arguments, or remedies available to the Coalition under CEQA, state law, local ordinance, or common law. All such rights and remedies are expressly reserved. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Very truly yours, STRATEGY LAW, LLP Joshua Safran, Esq. cc: Tina Kapoor, City Manager (Tinak@cupertino.gov; citymanager@cupertino.gov) Kirsten Squarcia, Interim Deputy City Manager (kirstens@cupertino.gov; ) Lauren Sapudar, Acting City Clerk (LaurenS@cupertino.gov; cityclerk@cupertino.gov) Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development (BenjaminF@cupertino.gov; planning@cupertino.gov) Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney (fandrews@awattorneys.com; cityattorney@cupertino.gov)