CC 06-17-2025 Item No. 16 Potential purchase of 10480 Finch Ave_Written ComunicationsCC 06-17-2025
Item No. 16
Potential purchase of
10480 Finch Avenue
Written Communications
From:Lisa Warren
To:City Clerk; City Council
Cc:City Attorney"s Office; citymagager@cupertino.gov
Subject:Agenda Item 16- City Council regular meeting June 17, 2025 - 10480 Finch Ave
Date:Monday, June 16, 2025 9:41:58 PM
Attachments:LW response to Mayor with CUSD mtg minute info Aug 22 2024 ..... Written Communications for City Council
JUNE 3 2025 mtg ITEM 9 - FINCH property.pdf
Written Communications for City Council JUNE 3 2025 mtg ITEM 9 - FINCH property.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.
City Clerk,
Please include this email message in Written Communications for Item 16
of City Council June 17, 2025 regular meeting. (please confirm rcpt)
Also please include a full version of the attached documents to this email
for the same Item 16, CC Agenda 6/17/25. (please confirm rcpt)
Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council Members,
Below, I have included late afternoon information (a response to an email
from Mayor Chao on June 3, 2025) to my comments emailed on June 3,
2025 for public record on the NOW Agenda Action Item 16,
regarding 10480 Finch Ave Property potential Purchase discussion that
was previously item 9 on June 3, 2025 City Council agenda.
I have attached other documents, including one with three emails that
were sent in for the June 3, 2025 CC mtg where this item was the
Postponed agenda item #9. Emails were from myself, Jeff Whited, and
Jennifer Griffin. Please revisit those communications.
Mr. Whited has an excellent idea, and an informed vision for the Finch
property. While the school district is wanting to sell the property, students
could most certainly benefit from a space as he describes just as all
residents could. It would be exciting if CUSD would partner with the city in
some way to provide science based learning in a space that he has
outlined.
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
______
I would also like to note that a former Cupertino mayor had, years ago and
more than once, suggested on the dais and recorded, that the city
purchase 10480 Finch Avenue from CUSD, OR partner with CUSD to create
a park on the site. Stating that the east side of the city needed more
parks.
Over past years, there have been several 2X2 City/CUSD meetings held
that included such an idea.
______
There is a typo in the minutes from CUSD Aug 22, 2024
Correction : It was January 5, 2017 when the property was purchased off market. Close to 7 years, 7
months prior to August 2024 meeting.
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
______
In addition, please be aware that Agenda Item 16 and supporting
documents refer incorrectly to CUSD as Cupertino Unified School
District and should be corrected on all documents to Cupertino
Union School District. Thank you.
Thank you.
Lisa Warren
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net>
To: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.gov>; Liang Chao <lchao@cupertino.gov>
Cc: City Attorney's Office <cityattorney@cupertino.gov>; Cupertino City Manager's Office
<citymanager@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 04:41:54 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 9 - City Council regular meeting June 3, 2025
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 presentation and 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 no 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 sent
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 farmland) 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. This is verifiable on MLS. 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 Pestarino 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 huge disgrace if the land was not used in a way that Mrs.
Pestarino would be comfortable with.
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:Jeff Whited
To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:CC mtg June 3 2025 Agenda Item 9 Public Comment
Date:Sunday, June 1, 2025 9:31:57 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 Cupertino City Council Member, City Leadership Team member;
I am writing to you concerning the possible interest of the City of Cupertino in purchasing the Finch property
currently in possession of the Cupertino School District. I wish to offer a suggestion as to what the city might do
with the space once it has acquired it (should the city acquire it).
And while I have the brunt of your attention early on in this correspondence, let me say that the development of this
land into a public facility can be done in such a way that is economical to construct, practically self-sustaining once
constructed, requires less maintenance funds and manpower than a standard “turf and barbecue pit” park facility,
and actually becomes less expensive to maintain as the facility matures.
With the west side of Cupertino already rife with outdoor walking and interactive nature trails and facilities
(Blackberry Farm, walking trails along the foothills, Stevens Canyon trails and outdoor event facilities, etc.), this is
an opportunity for our city to provide the same amenity to the eastern population of the city, within their
neighborhood. Therefore I propose that this acre-and-a-half tract of land be transformed into a public space where
the citizens of Cupertino, along with groups of Sedgwick Elementary School students, can retreat to in order to
become immersed in a natural setting. You can call it a park, but it’s not the typical mow-and-blow park one would
see around our city.
This facility would be an exercise in permaculture, a food forrest, a semi-natural setting with guilds (strategic
groupings of plants) of flora and any of the fauna that find living with it desirable and sustainable. A meandering,
slightly elevated pathway would be the public’s access to and through the facility, with strategically placed table
settings and seatings where people can sit and contemplate, meditate, view nature, greet and converse with their
neighbors, settle in with friends and family to have a game of Mahjong, chess, dominoes, read a book, or have a
connecting conversation. You see, this is not a park for physical recreation, although the walk through it would be a
physical exercise, but a retreat for the mind, be it stimulating, contemplative, or restorative in nature.
This facility would also be educational. The flourishing plant guilds would offer botanical suggestions and
possibilities, and pathways shaded and cooled by the surrounding trees and the transpiration they provide would
remind the public that simple steps are all that is needed to make some progress towards reducing local, and possibly
global, temperatures.
With all of the development currently taking place in our neck of the “woods,” in addition to all of the development
slated for this area still of the drawing board, I think a balance must be struck, and the transformation of this space
into a natural public setting would be the leveling agent needed to do just that.
Thank you for your time,
Jeff Whited
Rancho Rinconada resident
From:Lisa Warren
To:City Council; City Clerk
Cc:City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Agenda Item 9 - City Council regular meeting June 3, 2025
Date:Tuesday, June 3, 2025 2:48:24 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.
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:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Council; City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Purchase of Finch Property
Date:Tuesday, June 3, 2025 10:00:02 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 Council:
(Please include the following as input for Item 9 on the Cupertino City Council Agenda for
June 3, 2025).
I am very happy Cupertino is considering purchasing the Finch Property (adjacent to Sedgwick
Elementary School). This is Item 9 in the City Council Agenda for 6/3/25. This is a very
Nice piece of property with a huge redwood tree on the property, and it will make a wonderful
Park for the area which does not have many parks. It will be a great place to have a neighborhood
Park and having it close to the school is an added bonus.
The property is fairly deep into the neighborhood and it will have great use by the folks who
Live around the park. The redwood tree is a wonderful addition to the park and will most
Likely have a host of bird inhabitants already which will be wonderful to study and observe.
I am so excited to think a new park will come from this purchase of the Finch property! Think
Of all the years to come of enjoyment that this park purchase will bring for everyone!
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin