HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 04-07-2026 Oral CommunicationsCC 4-07-2026
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From:Sanat Sangamalli
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Mary Villa Housing Project Objection
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 10:07:59 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,
My name is Sanat and I am a 21 year resident of Cupertino in the Garden Gate
neighborhood. I am writing to formally submit my opposition to the Mary Ave Villas project
scheduled for discussion during Wednesday April 1, 2026’s public hearing. As I am unable
to attend the meeting in person, I request that this correspondence be included in the
official public record.
I am deeply concerned that the city is moving forward with the vacation of the public right-
of-way on Mary Avenue to facilitate a project that presents significant safety and procedural
risks:
Public Safety and Traffic Congestion: The proposed plan to narrow Mary
Avenue and eliminate 89 existing parking spaces is irresponsible. This area is a
critical corridor for residents and visitors to Memorial Park. Reducing the street
width and removing parking will inevitably lead to increased congestion and, more
importantly, could impede emergency vehicle access during peak hours or
community events.
Inadequate Site Capacity: The 0.79-acre "sliver" of land is physically insufficient
to safely support 40 units. Shoehorning high-density housing into a narrow buffer
zone against the Highway 85 sound wall raises serious questions about the quality
of life and air quality for the future residents, particularly those with intellectual and
developmental disabilities.
Procedural and Legal Concerns: I urge the Council to reconsider the declaration
of this parcel as "Exempt Surplus Land." Given the ongoing litigation and the
community’s concerns regarding CEQA exemptions and soil toxicity (lead/arsenic)
near the highway, the city should halt the land transfer until a full, transparent
environmental and fiscal audit is completed.
I oppose the Vacation of the Right-of-Way because it permanently removes public
parking and narrows a critical roadway, creating a safety hazard. Furthermore, the
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) as currently written does not provide
enough protection for the surrounding neighborhood regarding traffic mitigation and
environmental safety.
Cupertino deserves affordable housing solutions that are safe, well-vetted, and compatible
with the surrounding neighborhoods. This specific proposal fails those tests. I ask the
Council to vote NO on the vacation of the right-of-way and the Disposition and
Development Agreement.
Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of your constituents.
Sincerely,
Sanat Sangamalli
10682 pebble place, Cupertino CA
From:Bhuvna Ayyagari
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Subject: Mary Villa Housing Project Objection
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 10:03:52 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,
My name is B. Ayyagari and I am a 24 year resident of Cupertino in the Garden Gate
neighborhood. I am writing to formally submit my opposition to the Mary Ave Villas project
scheduled for discussion during Wednesday April 1, 2026’s public hearing. As I am unable
to attend the meeting in person, I request that this correspondence be included in the
official public record.
I am deeply concerned that the city is moving forward with the vacation of the public right-
of-way on Mary Avenue to facilitate a project that presents significant safety and procedural
risks:
Public Safety and Traffic Congestion: The proposed plan to narrow Mary
Avenue and eliminate 89 existing parking spaces is irresponsible. This area is a
critical corridor for residents and visitors to Memorial Park. Reducing the street
width and removing parking will inevitably lead to increased congestion and, more
importantly, could impede emergency vehicle access during peak hours or
community events.
Inadequate Site Capacity: The 0.79-acre "sliver" of land is physically insufficient
to safely support 40 units. Shoehorning high-density housing into a narrow buffer
zone against the Highway 85 sound wall raises serious questions about the quality
of life and air quality for the future residents, particularly those with intellectual and
developmental disabilities.
Procedural and Legal Concerns: I urge the Council to reconsider the declaration
of this parcel as "Exempt Surplus Land." Given the ongoing litigation and the
community’s concerns regarding CEQA exemptions and soil toxicity (lead/arsenic)
near the highway, the city should halt the land transfer until a full, transparent
environmental and fiscal audit is completed.
I oppose the Vacation of the Right-of-Way because it permanently removes public
parking and narrows a critical roadway, creating a safety hazard. Furthermore, the
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) as currently written does not provide
enough protection for the surrounding neighborhood regarding traffic mitigation and
environmental safety.
Cupertino deserves affordable housing solutions that are safe, well-vetted, and compatible
with the surrounding neighborhoods. This specific proposal fails those tests. I ask the
Council to vote NO on the vacation of the right-of-way and the Disposition and
Development Agreement.
Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of your constituents.
Sincerely,
B. Ayyagari
10682 Pbble Place
Cupertino, CA 95014
From:Walter Li
To:City Council; City Attorney"s Office; Public Comments
Cc:Lina; Shaun Fong; Brian Avery; Roberta Murai
Subject:City Council Meeting Time Exceeding City"s Own Policy
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 8:18:37 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 Attorney and Members of the City Council,
I am writing on behalf of concerned residents and members of the Coalition of Mary Ave
regarding the conduct of recent public hearings on April 1, 2026, related to the Mary Ave
Villas project.
We respectfully raise serious concerns about the City’s practice of continuing public meetings
into the early morning hours of April 2, 2026, including past midnight and reportedly as late as
2:00–3:00 AM. While we understand that the City Council may vote to extend meetings
beyond typical adjournment times, the repeated use of late-night hearings for significant and
controversial agenda items raises substantial concerns regarding fairness, accessibility, and
legal compliance.
Public participation is a cornerstone of open government under California law, including the
Ralph M. Brown Act. While the Brown Act may not impose a strict time limit on meetings, it
requires that public participation be meaningful, not merely technical. When hearings extend
into the early morning hours, many residents—including working individuals, seniors, families,
members of the Coalition of Mary Avenue and even legal representatives—are effectively
excluded from participating (procedural abusive and suppress public participation). This
creates a structural imbalance in access to decision-making and undermines the integrity of
the public process. Particularly, since many people in attendance are against the development
project, the long drawn out meeting way past mid night was definitely felt to keep people
from giving their comments to the city council.
Additionally, the City of Cupertino has adopted procedural guidelines that contemplate
adjournment around 11:00 PM, with extensions requiring formal action. The repeated
suspension of these guidelines for high-impact agenda items suggests a pattern that may
constitute procedural abuse, even if technically permissible in isolated instances.
We respectfully request the following:
1. That the City Attorney review whether the practice of holding hearings past midnight—
particularly on controversial matters—complies with both the letter and the intent of the
Brown Act.
2. That the City Council adopt and enforce a reasonable cutoff time for public hearings (e.g.,
no later than 11:30 PM or midnight), especially for items requiring substantial public input.
3. That any agenda items not reached by a reasonable hour be continued to a future meeting
to ensure full and fair public participation.
4. That major agenda items be scheduled earlier in the evening to avoid foreseeable exclusion
of community members.
We also request that this letter be included in the official public record for all future
proceedings related to the Mary Ave Villas project.
Please note that continued reliance on late-night hearings for controversial matters may
expose the City to legal challenge based on impairment of public participation and procedural
fairness. We urge the City to take proactive steps to ensure that its processes remain
transparent, inclusive, and consistent with both legal requirements and public trust.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Walter Li
On behalf of the Coalition of Mary Ave
408-781-7894
From:Michael Chang
To:Public Comments; City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Ongoing Arroyo Village Shared Access Issue and Need for Clear City Standards [Input to Planning Commission
meeting, 2026-03-24]
Date:Friday, March 27, 2026 6:46:48 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,
I am writing as a resident of Arroyo Village, and would like to provide input on shared access
and driveway governance, based on an ongoing issue that has now persisted in our
community for over one year.
On a shared access roadway (Moro Bay Terrace) serving multiple parties, including nearby
residents and the Westport Senior Apartments, multiple speed bumps located less than 25
feet away from residences were installed unilaterally by one parcel owner last year without
consultation or agreement from other affected residents.
Since installation, these measures have caused sustained and significant noise disturbance at
all hours of the day due to vehicles traveling or speeding over the speed bumps, as well as
heavy trucks using this roadway as a shortcut to Stevens Creek Boulevard, despite posted City
"No Through Traffic" signage. These speed bumps have affected not only our household, but
also neighboring residents and occupants of the Westport Senior Center, while doing little to
meaningfully reduce speeding or through traffic. Multiple complaints, including those raised
by residents of Westport have, to date, not been substantively addressed.
This situation has involved outreach over time, including engagement with the Mayor and
former Mayor, and more recently, efforts by the City to help facilitate discussions among
stakeholders. However, because the roadway is considered private, there is no clear
mechanism to resolve disputes or prevent unilateral actions that materially affect others.
This points to a broader and recurring issue: developments involving shared access are being
approved without clearly defined, enforceable frameworks governing:
1. Authority over physical modifications (e.g., speed bumps or barriers)
2. Required consultation or consent among affected users
3. Responsibility for impacts such as noise, safety, and accessibility
4. Mechanisms for dispute resolution when conflicts arise
In the absence of such structure, affected residents have been left in a sustained and
unresolved situation causing ongoing disruption and measurable quality-of-life impacts, with
no clear path to resolution.
I respectfully urge the City to consider establishing consistent standards for shared access
arrangements, including:
1. Clearly recorded and enforceable easements defining rights and limitations
2. Explicit requirements for notice and consent prior to physical modifications
3. Defined processes for addressing disputes among users
4. Consideration of secondary impacts (such as noise and safety) before and after
implementation
5. A framework for City involvement when private arrangements create ongoing
community impacts
While my comments are grounded in my Arroyo Village experience, my goal is to help prevent
similar shared access conflicts from arising elsewhere in the city. Addressing this at a policy
level would help prevent future conflicts and provide clarity for all parties.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael Chang
408-204-2853 (C)
From:Walter Li
To:Tina Kapoor; Public Comments
Cc:Lina; Shaun Fong; Brian Avery
Subject:Re: Can we erect any signage onto public space?
Date:Thursday, March 26, 2026 3:51:59 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.
Thank you for your quick reply, Tina.
This bike rack at Memorial Park is set up in the middle of a large green lawn area. That means
the City expects bikers to ride into the park, along the walking trails and then park their bikes
where the rack is? Does the park allow regular bike riding on the walking paths? I walked to
the park from my home about 3-4 times a week for the past 10+ years. I can confidently say
that I have not seen a regular bike rider riding into the park. Mostly, there are kids riding their
small bikes or bikes with training wheels. Why the City approved and installed bike racks in
the middle of the park instead of near parking lots is beyond me. I wish Mr. Mosley can
enlighten me.
It is much easier for me to believe that the City is playing favorites allowing Rotary Club to do
this installation than putting in bike racks to serve the community and public. Why only 1 bike
rack planned and a small one at that?
Unless the City removes the bike rack, I cannot see how you can deny any other organizations
from here onward from requesting to put their own signages with their own organization
names at the park and other public places. You approved this one for Rotary Club, can you
refuse other organizations? I have not done a search on this topic to see if the City has
already violated its own city code. Even an ordinary resident like me would think there is
something very wrong to allow a private organization to install its own signage on public land
and parks.
To say "the City Council will be reviewing the City’s policies related to sponsorships,
donations, and naming rights in the near future" is too little too late. Please remove the
current signage plus check if you have violated city law / codes.
Best regards
Walter LI
From: Tina Kapoor <tinak@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 1:55 PM
To: Walter Li <wmbjt@hotmail.com>; Public Comments <publiccomment@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Lina <lina.lang41@gmail.com>; Shaun Fong <shaun.fong@gmail.com>; Brian Avery
<brianbavery@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Can we erect any signage onto public space?
Hello Walter (and Council bcc’d):
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns regarding the installation in
Memorial Park.
The item you are referencing is part of a bike rack initiative that was previously included
in the City Council’s Work Program. The installation and the partnership with the
Cupertino Rotary was intended to support park amenities and encourage bicycle use.
Staff issued an informational memo to council in January, which can be found here.
I understand your concerns regarding the installation. Staff is continuing to evaluate the
placement and design of these bike racks, including the one located at Memorial Park,
to ensure they are appropriate for their surroundings and do not create unintended
safety issues.
More broadly, the City Council will be reviewing the City’s policies related to
sponsorships, donations, and naming rights in the near future. This discussion will help
establish clearer guiding principles for how community organizations are recognized in
public spaces going forward.
We appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention and sharing your perspective.
Your feedback is helpful as we continue to evaluate this project and refine our policies.
Regards,
Tina
Tina Kapoor
City Manager
City Manager's Office
TinaK@cupertino.gov
(408)777-7607
From: Walter Li <wmbjt@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 11:47 AM
To: Tina Kapoor <tinak@cupertino.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>; Public
Comments <publiccomments@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Lina <lina.lang41@gmail.com>; Shaun Fong <shaun.fong@gmail.com>; Brian Avery
<brianbavery@gmail.com>
Subject: Can we erect any signage onto public space?
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.
Hello City Manager Tina,
Can any organization put an advertising sign on public grounds such as a park? Does the
public community need to be notified and approved such an installation?
This item / signage has been installed in Memory Park (Mary Avenue) for months. Seems to
me it serves no public service at all, except to advertise Rotary Club Cupertino. In fact, I have
seen kids playing on it. It could pose a danger to small toddlers if they are stuck in the
openings, or fall down from it.
What kind of conditions, donations, processes or relationship with the City, does the City
require to allow such a signage item on a public park or land? Can anyone apply for such an
installation with their own organization names?
Please consider to disassemble this item from the park. It is not appropriate for Rotary Club to
advertise on public land. Nor is it legal if the public community is not notified, or allow to give
approval or denial. What did Rotary Club do for Cupertino to allow this installation?
Thank you for your consideration.
Walter Li
408-781-7894
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City Council
Subject:Fwd: Community Meetings on SB 330 Projects, Especially Finch/Stevens Creek Hanover Project
Date:Wednesday, March 25, 2026 7:54:17 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 consider the following as Public Input for the April 1, 2026 City Council meeting.
Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Community Meetings on SB 330 Projects, Especially Finch/Stevens Creek Hanover
Project
From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026, 7:51 AM
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org,cityclerk@cupertino.org
CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com
Dear City Council:
(Please include the following as Public Input for the Cupertino City Council Meeting on April
1, 2026.)
Can the city please have Community Meetings on the SB 330 Projects in the city? Can the city
list
These meetings on the City Website and send postcards out about them? There is a huge SB
330
Project proposed for Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd. with 365 housing units. To date I
have
heard nothing about it. Are there any Community Meetings planned? This project is going to
be
A big problem with traffic and it will be getting rid of banks, retail stores, a daycare, a big
office
Building and trying to fight for driveway space with Cupertino's Affordable Senior Housing
project called
The Terraces further east down Stevens Creek Blvd.
How do we stay up to date on this SB 330 and other SB 330 projects we need to know about?
The city used to send
postcards. That worked well. Let's start doing that again. The SB 330s are wrecking havoc
with retail in
The city and the public needs to know how and where this is happening so we do not become
victims of
SB 330, the "retail crisis" bill. Our state electeds also need to know what is happening in the
aftermath of this
bill. I hope Cupertino will reach out to Senator Becker and Assemblyman Ahrens to let them
know
About the problems associated with SB 330. Maybe they can fix these problems in the state
level.
Also, our state representative should know also.
SB 330 (in its first incarnation) let the public have five Community Meetings about SB 330
projects.
Are we even getting those? I don't see a lot of effort to get even those meetings publicized. It
is
also a hassle to see any plans of these projects or anything at all for that matter. Staff is trying
their
Best with what limited means the state now allows, but you have a lot of the public or seniors
who
can never see the plans. It is getting to be a ridiculous sort of a cover-up. Can the city ask what
the
Current situation is of the "hide and seek" housing bill plan-sets is? Surely there are some
current
decisions and rulings based on this. Common sense on these "building plans" availability has
gone out the
window. Stick fighters drawn on a napkin by an architect would be a better substitution than
what we
have now. I guess the housing bill authors don't want us to see housing plans. I get it. But,
seriously, what
are they trying to hide? What are they trying to build any way?
Please let there be Community Meetings on the SB 330 projects, especially the Finch/Stevens
Creek
Blvd. Hanover SB 330 Project site. This SB 330 is going to be a major issue for Eastern
Cupertino,
traffic, loss of retail, danger to students going to school or waiting for the bus, gridlock,
infrastructure
Problems etc. etc. Residents need to know about all of this so they can be a part of the voice
seeking
solutions for a better day.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
Eastern City Resident
From:Jeffrey Herdman
To:Public Comments
Subject:Support New Family Housing at 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Blvd!
Date:Thursday, March 19, 2026 11:21:27 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.
Official Record Public Comment,
Dear Cupertino Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to strongly urge you to recommend approval for the proposed residential project at
20807-20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard. This development represents a rare and vital
opportunity to create 122 for-sale townhomes in our city, providing the high-quality, family-sized
housing that Cupertino desperately needs.
By building 100% three- and four-bedroom units and including a significant 20% on-site
affordable component, this project ensures that both growing families and our local workforce
have a path to homeownership. This is a smart, logical conversion of an underutilized
commercial site that will actually benefit the surrounding neighborhood by reducing net daily
traffic by 40%. Furthermore, the project team’s commitment to preserving the historic pear
trees and creating a new public linear park shows a clear dedication to enhancing our
community’s character and green space.
Cupertino must approve thoughtful infill projects like this to meet our housing goals and remain
a welcoming city for families of all income levels. I respectfully ask that you vote yes and move
this project forward to the City Council.
Jeffrey Herdman
jherdman123@gmail.com
San Jose, California 95129