Late_Oral_Written CommunicationsCC 06-03-2025
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From:Seema Lindskog
To:City Clerk
Subject:Images to be shown during my oral communications comments
Date:Tuesday, June 3, 2025 7:19:36 PM
Attachments:Ray Wang Comments on ND.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.
Hi Kirsten,
Would it be possible to please put up this image during my oral comments?
Thanks,
Seema
___________________________________________________________________
"You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
This message is from my personal email account. I am only writing as myself, not as a
representative or spokesperson for any other organization.
CC 06-03-2025
Item No. 2
Santa Clara County
FireSafe Council
Presentation
Written Communications
Cupertino City Council Meeting
June 3, 2025
Santa Clara County FireSafe Council
Projects/Programs/Technology &
Firewise USA
Seth Schalet
CEO
We all face a new realty. Wildfires are no longer an event,
they are an increasing part of our lives, impacting everyone.
The FireSafe Council exists
to mitigate the impact of
wildfires in our county.
Cupertino City Council Meeting-June 3, 2025 2
Who is the SCC FireSafe Council?
•Established in 2001 as 501(c)(3)
•Organization of wildfire, forestry and
technology experts focused on innovative
wildfire mitigation solutions
•Provides program leadership for large
scale hazardous fuel reduction &
technology implementation projects
•Conducts community education and
facilitates Firewise®communities
•Authors the SCC Countywide Wildfire
Protection Plan and partner collaborations
Cupertino City Council Meeting-June 3, 2025 3
Important Contributions from the FireSafe Council
Trusted Advisor
•Wildfire and forestry expertise
•Non-profit with genuine mission: Independent 501(c)3
Public and Private Sector Enabler
•Brings together multiple jurisdictions or contractors
•Fewer regulations and bureaucracy, lower cost
•More agile and nimble to speed progresses to completion
•Can drive new, advanced innovations very quickly
Community Action Leader
•Educator and resource warehouse
•Detailed risk assessments and mitigations
•Firewise Communities facilitator
•Trusted partner
Cupertino City Council Meeting-June 3, 2025 4
Current Projects
•Forest health treatments throughout the Santa Cruz Mountains (2,000 acres)
•San Jose Water & Stanford University/Palo Alto/Woodside Fire Protection District 70 AI Wildfire Smoke Sensors•West Santa Clara Landscape Resilience Project (~130,000 of CEQA in Santa Cruz Mountains)•Completing a phased escape route project along Mt. Madonna and Summit Roads•Roadside vegetation removal in Aldercroft Heights •Updating and maintenance of the county-wide CWPP
Current Programs
•Home Ignition Zone (HIZ) Assessment Program
•Community Chipping Program•Community Ambassador Program (Firewise USA support and resident training)•Rebate and support programs‣Dead Tree Rebate Program (currently only offered in Saratoga)‣HIZ Rebate Program (specific to LAHCFD)‣Special Needs Assistance Program (SNAP)•Community Outreach and Education
Santa Clara County FireSafe Council
Technology Partnerships
FireReady911
•Administered by the National Fire Protection
Agency (NFPA)•CAL FIRE manages the program on the state
level•Reginal Coordinators (like the FireSafe
Council) support communities on the local
level•Provides a framework and annual renewal
process that keeps community-level wildfire
resilience work going strong•Connects communities to local resources
What is Firewise USA®?
Neighbors helping neighbors!
Your community has already been doing the work!
The FireSafe Council and our partners can take what
you have already been doing and increase your
success by supporting you to get your Firewise
USA® recognition
•Access to grants and incentive programs •Help to organize community events•Access to training opportunities•Connect to local resources •Insurance discounts
Why Apply for Firewise USA®
Recognition?
Current Local Firewise Communities
Prepare
Detect
Predict
Evacuate
Protect
Restore
Coordinated wildfire response and
optimized community protection built
on detailed planning and collaborations
Predictive mapping of wildfire
behavior and path expectations to
inform emergency responders
Automatic fire detection and
alarming at earliest ignition point
using cameras and smoke sensors
Individualized, multi-channel notification for
coordinated evacuation. Escape route
assessments and fire fuel risk reductions
Local Communities: Education and outreach, hazardous
fire fuel reduction, home hardening solutions, defensible
space assessments with prioritized action plans. Support
for Certified Firewise communities.
Insurance collaborations for timely
recovery and property restoration
leveraging new programs for wildfire-
ready structures and landscaping
County: CWPP (Countywide Wildfire Protection Plan)
integrated across stakeholders and the public serving as
the Master Plan and prioritized list of highest risk areas
Building Integrated Wildfire Mitigation Solutions
SCC FireSafe Council
AI and Cloud-based Solutions
Cupertino City Council Meeting-June 3, 2025 11
Thank You!
sccfiresafe.org
sccfiresafe.org/CWPP
Seth Schalet
CEO
(650) 678-2022
sschalet@sccfiresafe.org
CC 06-03-2025
Item No. 9
Consider a potential
purchase of and appoint
negotiator for 10480
Finch Ave
Written Communications
From:Seema Lindskog
To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:Recuse Councilmember Ray Wang on all agenda items which include bike lanes on major streets
Date:Tuesday, June 3, 2025 4:43:39 PM
Attachments:Ray Wang ND Comment on ATP May 25 2025.png
Ray Wang ND Comment on bike lanes May 25 2025.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.
Dear city council and city attorney,
I am on the Planning Commission but I'm writing today as a resident. Please include this email in the
public comments for the Council meeting of June 3, 2025.
I just saw the comments made by Councilmember Ray on Nextdoor on May 25, 2025 on the Active
Transportation Plan (ATP) in general and specifically about bike lanes on major streets in Cupertino.
It is a Brown Act violation if a city council member makes up their mind about how they will vote on an
issue before having a public hearing and listening to all the evidence and public comment. This is
because the Brown Act mandates that local government business and deliberations be conducted openly
to ensure public access and transparency in the decision-making process
Undermining Public Participation: The Brown Act requires that the public have the opportunity to
address every item before it's acted upon by the council. If a council member has already made up their
mind before the hearing, they are not genuinely open to considering the public's input or new information
presented during the hearing, which undermines the spirit of open government and public participation.
Pre-arranged Decision: The Brown Act aims to prevent decisions from being made outside of the
public eye. While individual research and consideration of information prior to a meeting are allowed, if a
council member predetermines their vote without open deliberation or consideration of public testimony, it
could be seen as a form of pre-arranged decision-making, which violates the principles of the Brown Act
Given that, as a sitting councilmember, he has expressed these very strong views against the ATP and
against bike lanes on major city streets, I am requesting that Councilmember Ray Wang recuse himself
from votes and discussions on all council agenda items which include bike lanes on major streets of the
city such as the ATP, the Stevens Creek Boulevard protected bike lanes, Bollinger Rd, and others or he
will be in violation of the Brown Act.
Regards,
Seema Lindskog
___________________________________________________________________
"You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
This message is from my personal email account. I am only writing as myself, not as a
representative or spokesperson for any other organization.
From:Lisa Warren
To:City Clerk; Liang Chao
Cc:City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Re: Agenda Item 9 - City Council regular meeting June 3, 2025
Date:Tuesday, June 3, 2025 4:42:09 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 the question Mayor Chao.
You can refer to the info below which was taken from the minutes of CUSD
Board meeting Aug 22, 2024.
You could also hear full Q & A on the youtube recording of the same
meeting.
I have heard more specific statements in the past (going back a decade or
more).
It is likely possible to get more 'quotes', but I have not time at this
moment.
Lisa Warren
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Updates on the District's Real Property Matters (https://youtu.be/cVcqGwjsd2g&t=34m58s)
CBO Jew shared an update on the Luther and Serra leases:
all current tenants accepted the updated District's long-term (LT) lease terms
tenants have requested a 10-year lease at their existing spaces at the rate of
$3.75/sq. foot, effective July1, 2025
staff will bring the new lease agreements to the Board for approval at a
subsequent Board meeting
CBO Jew invited Scott Sheldon and Barry Schimmel from Terra Realty to present options for
the Finch property
Mr. Sheldon gave a brief review of the Finch property:
about 1.4 acres of land next to Sedgwick
the District acquired the property 17 years ago at approximately $5.6M
Superintendent Yao shared that:
the District is considering all possibilities for the property
the Board has not made any decision on the property
after today's discussion, staff will look to the Board for direction regarding next steps
Mr. Sheldon shared that there are four available options (slide 6):
Option 1 - District Educational or Recreation needs:
examples include CuperDoodle, before and after school programs, sports
the lot is currently vacant, so the District will need to consider the initial
capital/infrastructure outlay and ongoing operational costs
Option 2 - City of Cupertino's needs/parks:
staff have been told by City staff that the City does not have funds to pay for
the property
if the property is to be turned into a public park, the District will probably need
to donate the land and spend District funds to develop the land
Option 3 - Work Force Housing:
to obtain the most efficiency, these would be higher density housing e.g. a
minimum of 10 units
economic impacts on the District's financials (slides 7 and 8) - possible issuance
of bonds, donation of land, capital infusion
at present, work force housing costs more than its market value
case study: Jefferson Union SD in Daly City
Option 4 - Revenue Generation:
highest and best use of the property is residential housing development
slide 12 shows the value, pros and cons, and potential revenues from (1)
senior project/ground lease; (2) single family project; and (3) townhome
project
slide 13 shows the development process the District needs to go through
for any of these projects
exchanges and other options
legal provisions as specified by Ed Code, ITS guidelines and Deed of
Trusts (slide 15)
Net Net Net (NNN) Lease - tenants responsible for all operating costs;
the District just collects the lease payments
whatever the Board decides, Terra recommends the Board NOT to get rid of the asset
the Board asked clarifying questions/commented:
do NNN leases tend to be commercial?
it depends; it's typically commercial
for NNN leases, the District does not need to manage them, whether they be
commercial or residential
is a NNN lease a good fit for the Finch property?
the location is not desirable for commercial NNN for neighbors
would recommend a residential NNN
when did the City advise us that they have no money for the property? who
at the City said there was no money?
in spring just before schools got out
it was communicated by the City Community Development staff, not
at the City Council level
if we keep the property as is, what's our expense?
minimal maintenance at the site
state accesses fees if a site is not used as a school; the fee is 1% of the
assessed value of the property
what is the history on the purchase of this property?
the original owner presented the opportunity to CUSD
the thought at that time was the District might need more space to add
classrooms
would what we did for the Montebello property be applicable to this property as
well?
probably, but short-term though
how does residential development affect the prices for the nearby homes?
their property value would probably be elevated
slide 13 shows the development process, but we didn't do that for the Montebello
property?
Terra staff did the work for the District
if we were to do a trade, does that require a 2/3 Board vote?
yes
comment - teacher housing has negative financial impacts for the District
comment - perhaps work with the county instead of the City of Cupertino for
financing options
four members of the public submitted a comment card on time for this agenda item:
Mark Wright - not present when invited to speak
Jennifer Griffins - expressed the need for a public park at this location; mentioned that
the City should have funds to do so
Anjali Sagdeo - not present when invited to speak
Lisa Warren - gave additional history regarding the District's purchase of the Finch
property; talked about the need to turn the property into a public park or
educational/recreational uses
the Board further commented:
Trustee Madhathil:
keep the discussion ongoing with the City of Cupertino
prefers Option 1 - educational purposes for our kids
Trustee Liu:
wants the District to take action regarding Finch and spend the resulting funds
in the classrooms
preference is use the property for District educational; not CuperDoodle, though
if there are no educational needs for this property, then use it for recreational
purposes e.g. parks
not considering Options 3 or 4
requests the City Manager to consider putting this on the City Council agenda
with recent development agreements with the City, project/get generation
numbers to see if we need to add to Sedgwick
Trustee Leong:
Option 1 - get analysis with the addition of the Vallco units and what the impact
on Sedgwick might be
Option 2 - if the City were to purchase the property, do we have to sell at a
discount?
don't believe so, but the District will have to go through an appraisal
process
Option 3 - it's too small a site for work force housing
Option 4 - open to this option, but try to keep the neighborhood as much status
quo as possible
Trustee Chiao:
Option 1 - may not be viable because:
CuperDoodle generates only $2M annually and the other options
generate more revenues
the Rise takes about ten years to build, and it's still early in the process
to estimate its enrollment impact
the District determines school assignment, and it may be at Collins which
is closer to the Rise instead of at Sedgwick
Option 2 - there are news reports that the City is in debt; believe that the City
has no money
Option 3 - if there are staff/social needs, look at financing options to lessen the
net cost to the District
Option 4 - maintain the area as residential and not commercial
Trustee Vogel:
Option 1 - first choice; interested to see the generation numbers
Option 2 - second choice; explore with the City for finances; parks are lacking in
this area
Option 3 - not interested
Option 4 - third choice if we can do a trade to create additional revenues
Mr. Sheldon added:
there will be developer fees to be collected from the Rise project
there were precedents in the past that school districts have gone back to the
developers for add-on fees to mitigate the expense of educational experience
enhancements such as science labs, media centers
Superintendent Yao commented that staff has enough information from the Board as to next
steps and will update the Board in subsequent meetings
On Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 02:58:36 PM PDT, Liang Chao <lchao@cupertino.gov> wrote:
Removed the Council.
Lisa,
Thank you for sharing the history of this property with us.
Has the wishes of Mrs. Pestarino and her descendants been recorded any where?
Perhaps, mentioned in an email or public comment at a school board meeting?
Thanks,
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
From: Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 2:48 PM
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>; City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.gov>
Cc: City Attorney's Office <cityattorney@cupertino.gov>; Cupertino City Manager's Office
<citymanager@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Agenda Item 9 - City Council regular meeting June 3, 2025
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.
Please include this message in Written Communications for Item 9. 10480
Finch Ave Property potential Purchase 6/3/25
Thank you.
Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council members, and Staff,
I attended and spoke at CUSD Board meetings approximately a decade
ago when deliberation about the possibility of purchasing 10480 Finch
Avenue was taking place.
I have also listened to, CUSD Board members, staff and consultant give
presentations and discuss ‘options’ for this property last Fall. I have send
comments via email. Some including pieces of ‘history’ related to how
and why the ‘Finch site’ was purchased by the district. CUSD agendas
referred such a purchase as ‘Sedgwick Expansion’. The positioning of the
school district to acquire the residential portion of a much larger piece of
land (originally farm land) that would be used for expanding the districts
assets and allow for anticipated growth that would accommodate growing
enrollment (Vallco housing, etc.)
The idea was proactive. Bond measure funds were available. The land
was purchased.
The property at 10480 Finch Ave. APN 375-40-067, was NOT on the MLS,
or Multiple Listing Service. The reason that it became available to the
school district is that the children/Trustees of the estate reached out to the
district to open a dialogue focused on whether the district would be
interesting in purchasing that corner adjacent to the school site. The
trustees were honoring their mother’s hope/wish that the home and
property where she lived for so very long, would be used for the benefit of
children and education. While I am disappointed that CUSD has chosen to
sell the now vacant property, I believe that it would be truly a disgrace if
the land was not used in a way that Mrs. Pestarino would comfortable
with.
I am so very grateful that a public discussion related to the possible
purchase of 10480 Finch Ave by the City of Cupertino is taking place.
There were several months where I believe that city was making claims
and having no public discussion about this opportunity. I sense, and hope,
that CUSD Board majority has the same vision as Mrs. Pestarino did. I
applaud her heirs for making efforts to honor her wishes. I encourage the
city of Cupertino to do the same.
A ‘PARK’ on the East side of the city, that could be used by all residents
that live in the park starved area… and all other residents as well.
The definition of a park can be greatly varied. Let’s get creative and give
life to something special and unique to the city. It can, and perhaps
should be, ‘simple’.
Thank you.
Lisa Warren
From:Steve LeFevre
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:ATP - a vote to continue work
Date:Tuesday, June 3, 2025 4:09:54 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.
Hello -
As a long-time citizen of Cupertino, I am writing to encourage a vote in favor of continuing work on the City of
Cupertino ATP. The ATP is fully grant funded so would not require City of Cupertino funding and has been a long
time in the planning and feedback phases. The City staff and residents have provided significant input and feedback
into the plan and canceling it would send a message that the City of Cupertino is not interested in hearing from their
residents or in the safety of it’s pedestrians and cyclists. With the majority of cyclists in the City of Cupertino being
in the 10-18 years range, the risk of not addressing safety concerns is very concerning and sends a message to our
citizens that the City Council is not interested or concerned with their safety.
Again, please vote to continue the work on the ATP.
Best regards,
Steve LeFevre
Cupertino resident