The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 05-19-2026 Oral CommunicationsCC 05-19-2026 Oral Communications Written Comments From:Richard Fu To:Kitty Moore; jchao@cupertino.gov; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Public Comments; Rachelle Sander Subject:Opposition to Proposed Memorial Park Pickleball Restrictions Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 9:04:32 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 Members of the Cupertino City Council, My fiancée and I are long-time Cupertino residents who strongly oppose the proposed additional restrictions on pickleball court usage at Memorial Park, namely: - banning pickleball on Mondays, - prohibiting play before 9am and after 7pm, and - requesting “quiet paddles” at all times. While I understand that a small number of nearby residents have raised concerns regarding noise, these proposed restrictions go far beyond what is reasonable and would disproportionately impact the broader Cupertino community that actively uses and benefits from these public courts. The city has already significantly restricted access over time. Court hours were previously reduced from 10pm to 9pm. Now, the proposal would further reduce weekday access to effectively only daytime and early evening hours. For many working residents with standard work schedules, this would make weekday pickleball participation nearly impossible. Pickleball is one of the few highly social, accessible, and intergenerational recreational activities available to residents of all ages. These courts are heavily used because they provide substantial community value through: - physical exercise, - social connection, - mental health benefits, and - active use of public recreational infrastructure funded by taxpayers. It is deeply concerning that access for hundreds of residents may be curtailed based on complaints from only a small number of adjacent households. Public parks and recreational facilities necessarily generate some level of activity and noise. That is an expected part of living near a community park. I also urge the city to carefully consider whether these restrictions are evidence-based and proportionate. The progression from 10pm to 9pm, and now potentially to 7pm plus additional closures, suggests a continual ratcheting of restrictions without a clear limiting principle. If these changes are approved, what prevents further reductions in the future? Importantly, the Cupertino Pickleball Club has already proposed balanced, good-faith alternatives intended to address neighbor concerns while preserving reasonable public access, including: - construction of noise screens along the north side of the pickleball courts this summer, and - adoption of quiet paddles during the early morning hours of 7am–9am in consideration of nearby residents. These proposals represent a far more balanced compromise than broad restrictions that would effectively eliminate weekday evening access for many working residents. I respectfully urge the City Council to reject these additional restrictions and preserve reasonable court access for the many Cupertino residents who rely on these courts for recreation, exercise, and community engagement. Additionally, I respectfully request that this email be included in the City Council informational packet and public record associated with the proposed pickleball court restrictions at Memorial Park. Sincerely, Richard Fu 10235 Parkwood Dr., Apt 6 Cupertino, CA 95014 Jennifer Shieh 10318 Norwich Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014 From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City Council Subject:Fwd: New SB 330 at Stevens Creek Blvd. & Foothill Blvd. Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 10:10:02 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 Cupertino City Council meeting on May 19, 2026. Thank you. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New SB 330 at Stevens Creek Blvd. & Foothill Blvd. From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026, 10:07 AM To: citycouncil@cupertino.org CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com,cityclerk@cupertino.org Dear City Council: (Please consider the following as public input for the May 19, Cupertino City Council meeting.) There is a new SB 330 Townhouse project proposed for the NW corner of Foothill Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. The project will take up the whole corner next to the Senior Community. I have some questions and concerns about the project. 1. Community Meetings: Are there any community meetings proposed for this project? This is a high visibility project and residents need to know about any meetings. My husband and I saw A bike accident near this area several months ago. Could you please let me know about the meetings? 2. Traffic Concerns: This is a high traffic area with many roads and traffic from the quarry etc. There is a Senior Facility adjacent to the proposed construction site. There needs to be traffic studies done. We cannot depend on AB 130 to address all the CEQA issues. AB 130 is useless when it comes to addressing pertinent CEQA issues. There will need to be appropriate LOS Traffic studies done to make sure all the traffic issues are addressed. 3. Evacuation Routes: This intersection is part of a major evacuation route corridor and is often limited In its ability to carry load during evacustion situations. When the bike accident happened on Foothill Blvd. several months ago, traffic was stuck on Foothill Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd.intersection and could not get out. People were stuck coming down the hill By the Blue Pheasant in heavy traffic. No one could come up Foothill Blvd. from 280. Proper evacuation procedures need to be addressed with alternate routes indicated because of limited Access to roads. Stevens Creek Canyon Road is a major evacuation route in case of wildfire or dam collapse for the whole area up to Stevens Creek Canyon and Parks area and up to Mount Eden Road. This is an evacuation route for Monta Vista, Saratoga and Los Altos. The big quarry trucks go up and down Foothill Blvd. and these need to be part of the traffic equation also. Major upgrades are going to need to be made to the Foothill Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. intersection, including new signals etc. There is too much load on this intersection already and adding more will require significant upgrades. We need to make sure this intersection is safe if this SB 330 goes in. Thank you very much. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City Council Subject:Fwd: Challenge to AB 130 Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:03:32 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 May 19, 2026 Cupertino City Council meeting. Thank you. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Challenge to AB 130 From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 9:00 PM To: citycouncil@cupertino.org,cityclerk@cupertino.org CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com Dear City Council: (Please consider the following as public input for the Cupertino City Council meeting on May 19, 2026.) It is becoming apparent that AB 130 (implemented by Governor Newsom on June 30/July 1, 2025) is not working well. The law was implemented immediately and never studied as to the ramifications of its implementation. The public was clueless as to what was being implemented by the governor, and it was just put into law by putting it in the state budget which is a very Strange way to enact a bill. The governor never explained what was being done or why. Environmental groups and the public protested AB 130 immediately, but nothing was done to explain The bill or why it was even implemented. AB 130 is having a very rocky rollout in the ten months since its birth from the governor putting it in the state budget. It is being used to exempt CEQA studies in projects in the city and it is showing to Have a lot of "holes" in its usage or abilities to try to use it. Its use is allowing serious safety "holes" in process and ignoring previously important areas like Safety, transportation, noise, traffic, timing of effects from successive projects etc. I think that the city should challenge the use of AB 130 in attempting to over ride CEQA in building projects. The city should tell the state AB 130 is not appropriate for trying to over ride CEQA because the law is not usable in its current form and it allows safety issues to not be addressed. The law was Implemented in an extremely vague manner and it is showing to be lacking in its ability to adequately Satisfy the demands of CEQA. AB 130 dumbs down the importance of CEQA. AB 130 is not a good law and the city should protest the state demanding the city's use of it. Thank you. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City Council Subject:Fwd: Transportation Report for CEQA on SB 330 Projects Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:34:13 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. Dear City Clerk: Please consider the following as public input for the May 19, 2026 Cupertino City Council meeting. Thank you. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Transportation Report for CEQA on SB 330 Projects From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 8:31 PM To: citycouncil@cupertino.org,cityclerk@cupertino.org CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com Dear City Council: (Please consider the following as public input for the Cupertino City Council meeting on May 19, 2026.) I am very concerned that the AB 130 (no CEQA) requirement for the SB 330 projects ignores The Transportation Plan and Mobility Plan. The Bandley Townhouse Project didn't have a plan for children walking to school within the large tech park. I don't think the CEQA plan adequately addressed the safety of children walking to school or pedestrians trying to walk throughout this tech park. The current loss of CEQA analysis due to AB 130 is providing safety gaps in the process of trying to vet SB 330 projects and allow the projects to be certified for construction. I feel like we are missing the boat with AB 130 ignoring CEQA. Many things are being left by the wayside in terms of safety. AB 130 is becoming a giant boat anchor, limiting our ability to ask thoughtful questions and get Pertinent answers to our many inquiries about water. I think AB 130 is a dangerous piece of legislation that ignores safety issues in our community. Thank you. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City Council Subject:Fwd: AB 1751: Housing Bill to Ministerially Approve Townhouse Projects Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 5:25:30 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. Dear City Clerk: Please consider the following as public input for the Cupertino City Council on May 19, 2026. Thank you. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AB 1751: Housing Bill to Ministerially Approve Townhouse Projects From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 5:22 PM To: citycouncil@cupertino.org,cityclerk@cupertino.org CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com Dear City Council: (Please consider the following as public input for the Cupertino City Council on May 19, 2026). I am very concerned about a proposed housing bill by Assembly members Buffy Wicks and Sharon Quirk-Silva called AB 1751. This bill was introduced in April, 2026 and it seeks to allow ministerial approval of Townhouse projects and will not allow the public to have any input on the Townhouse projects. It actually says that in the bill text. I was very insulted when I read the bill text last night And called my assemblyman and my senator and Ms Quirk-Silva's offices this morning to voice my outrage at the bill text. That a housing bill would actually say the public can't give input on The Townhouse project or any project is very insulting. Who do they think reads these bill texts anyway? Do they think the public doesn't read the text of these bills? Who are they writing them for anyway? I think it is very presumptive to tell the public they can't give input. Ms Wicks and Ms Quirk-Silva are not my representatives, but I did tell my representatives what I thought of this very insulting bill AB 1751. The bill is called The Townhouse Missing Middle Housing Bill. Townhouses projects are not Missing Middle Housing. They are market rate housing and often sell for above market rate. I think this bill needs a big overhaul and rewrite and redo. I hope it is shut down as soon as possible because As currently written appears to be a give away. Obviously, they think the public will never read it. I don't think giving Townhouse projects ministerial approval and not letting the public give input on Townhouse projects and not having Townhouse projects have to go through CEQA is the basis for a very good housing bill, now or ever. Thank you. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin