HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 04-01-2026 Item No. 4 Mary Ave Villas Project_Written CommunicationsCC 4-01-2026
#4
Mary Ave Villas Project
Written Communications
From:Mahesh Gurikar
To:City Clerk; City Council; Public Comments; Luke Connolly
Subject:Mary Avenue Villas Project
Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 7:20:05 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 to Citi Clerk,
Please include this under Written Public Commets for April 1, 2026 meeting.
Thank you.
Public Comment Opposing Vacation of Public Right-of-Way (Mary Avenue Villas Project)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
We strongly oppose the proposed vacation of a public right-of-way (ROW) on Mary Avenue in connection with the
Mary Avenue Villas Project.
We believe this action raises serious legal, safety, and public interest concerns that should not be overlooked.
1. Improper Transfer of Public Assets for Private Benefit
The proposed ROW vacation effectively transfers public land to a private developer. Public right-of-way exists to
serve the broader community—transportation, safety access, utilities, and long-term planning—not to subsidize
private development. This sets a dangerous precedent and undermines public trust.
2. Potential Violation of the Surplus Land Act
3. CEQA Concerns and Lack of Proper Environmental Review
The permanent removal of public right-of-way, changes in traffic circulation, and cumulative neighborhood impacts
are not trivial and deserve full environmental review.
4. Public Safety and Circulation Risks
Mary Avenue serves as an important corridor. Reducing or eliminating public right-of-way could:
- Limit emergency vehicle access
- Increase traffic congestion and unsafe conditions
- Reduce pedestrian and cyclist safety
These impacts directly affect existing residents and should not be dismissed.
Also, changing the configuration of Mary Avenue will negatively impact the safety of users of Mary Avenue and
nearby residents.
5. Inadequate Public Process and Transparency. Actions such as coordinated approvals, bundled determinations, and
limited meaningful public engagement undermine confidence in the integrity of the process.
6. Irreversible Loss of Public Infrastructure
Once public right-of-way is vacated and conveyed, it is effectively gone forever. The City should not permanently
give up public land without overwhelming, clearly demonstrated public benefit—which has not been shown here.
We respectfully urge the City Council to:
- Reject the vacation of the Mary Avenue public right-of-way
- Require full legal and environmental review, including CEQA compliance
- Ensure compliance with the Surplus Land Act
- Prioritize public safety, transparency, and the long-term interests of residents
Public land should remain in public hands unless there is a clear, lawful, and compelling public benefit. That
standard has not been met.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mahesh
Cupertino Resident
From:Walter Li
To:City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment Opposing Vacation of Public Right-of-Way (Mary Avenue Villas Project)
Date:Monday, March 23, 2026 11:49:12 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.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed vacation of a public right-of-way (ROW) on Mary
Avenue in connection with the Mary Avenue Villas Project.
This action raises serious legal, safety, and public interest concerns that should not be
overlooked.
1. Improper Transfer of Public Assets for Private Benefit
The proposed ROW vacation effectively transfers public land to a private developer. Public
right-of-way exists to serve the broader community—transportation, safety access, utilities,
and long-term planning—not to subsidize private development. This sets a dangerous
precedent and undermines public trust.
2. Potential Violation of the Surplus Land Act
The City’s determination that this property is exempt from surplus land requirements is highly
questionable. Government Code §54221 et seq. is intended to ensure public land is prioritized
for affordable housing and public benefit through a transparent process. Bypassing these
requirements without clear justification raises serious compliance concerns.
3. CEQA Concerns and Lack of Proper Environmental Review
Declaring the project and ROW vacation exempt from CEQA appears inconsistent with the real
impacts. The permanent removal of public right-of-way, changes in traffic circulation, and
cumulative neighborhood impacts are not trivial and deserve full environmental review.
4. Public Safety and Circulation Risks
Mary Avenue serves as an important corridor. Reducing or eliminating public right-of-way
could:
• Limit emergency vehicle access
• Increase traffic congestion and unsafe conditions
• Reduce pedestrian and cyclist safety
These impacts directly affect existing residents and should not be dismissed.
5. Inadequate Public Process and Transparency
The community has serious concerns that decisions regarding this project were effectively
predetermined. Actions such as coordinated approvals, bundled determinations, and limited
meaningful public engagement undermine confidence in the integrity of the process.
6. Irreversible Loss of Public Infrastructure
Once public right-of-way is vacated and conveyed, it is effectively gone forever. The City
should not permanently give up public land without overwhelming, clearly demonstrated
public benefit—which has not been shown here.
---
Conclusion
For all of the reasons above, I respectfully urge the City Council to:
• Reject the vacation of the Mary Avenue public right-of-way
• Require full legal and environmental review, including CEQA compliance
• Ensure compliance with the Surplus Land Act
• Prioritize public safety, transparency, and the long-term interests of residents
Public land should remain in public hands unless there is a clear, lawful, and compelling public
benefit. That standard has not been met.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Walter Li