Cupertino Matters
- Cost to the City to Dismiss City Manager Pamela Wu
- UPCOMING – City Council, Tues., June 17, 2025, 6:45 p.m.; Closed Session 5:30 p.m.
- RECAP – Planning Commission, Tues., June 10, 6:45 p.m.
What a celebration at the ribbon-cutting at Jollyman Park, featuring the newly constructed All-Inclusive Playground! While there were the usual speeches and entertainment, as soon as the playground was officially opened, it was filled with kids exploring this amazing amenity. The playground is designed to be accessible for individuals of all ages and abilities, promoting recreation and social interaction for people with and without special needs. Funding was provided by significant grants from then-Supervisor Joe Simitian and Assemblymember Evan Low, underscoring the value of strong relations with Sacramento and other jurisdictions.
The financial costs of the personality conflict between Mayor Liang Chao and former City Manager Pamela Wu still remain to be determined, as noted in this Cupertino Today article Cupertino City Manager Pamela Wu steps down after pricey and murky settlement reached with City. San Jose Spotlight also covered the story in an article entitled Cupertino city manager steps down as part of settlement , emphasizing the city agreed to discontinue investigations into her conduct and destroy all associated documents.
The overall cost to the city has yet to be determined. While the $311,089.53 settlement by the city is the public statement, there are more costs. How much will the city have to pay the contract city attorney who racked up substantial billable hours? How much was paid for the private investigator? The Consent Calendar Item No. 8 Ratification of Accounts Payable for March lists payments of $64,038.50 and $10,737.00 to Aleshire & Wynder, the firm for the contract interim city attorney, with NO explanation of expenditures. What about April and May costs? How much staff time was involved? Scheduling and staffing meetings is a cost. Activity like the number of closed sessions on the city manager provokes numerous document requests under the Public Records Act. Those requests take substantial time to process and redact–yet another cost. All of this comes before more anticipated future costs, such as in the recruitment process for a new city manager.
UPCOMING – CITY COUNCIL, Tues., June 17, 2025, 6:45 p.m. Regular; Closed Session; 5:30 Closed Session
Closed Session: 5:30 p.m.
Item No. 1:Conference with Labor Negotiators, unrepresented employee; Title: Acting City Manager; California Government Code Sections 54954.5(f) and 54957.6(a)
Item No. 2: Public Employee Employment; Title: City Manager Recruitment; California Government Code Sections 54954.5(e) and 54957(b)(1)
Open Session; 6:45 p.m.
Closed Session Report
Ceremonial Items are:
Item No. 1: Proclamation recognizing Friends of the Cupertino Library
Item No. 2: Proclamation recognizing the Cupertino-De Anza Optimist Club
Item No. 3: Certificates of Recognition to Kennedy Middle School Science Olympiad Team, second place winners at 2025 Science Olympiad National Tournament
Oral Communications from the public on non-agenda items precede the Consent Calendar, which contains eight routine items. Note that Item No. 8 Ratification of Accounts Payable lists payments of $64,038.50 and $10,737.00 to Aleshire & Wynder, the firm for the contract interim city attorney, with NO explanation of expenditures. Item No. 11 is an Amendment to a 2019 Agreement with Apple for street projects to include the I-280 / Wolfe Road Interchange project. This important $124 million project faces a shortfall of $4 million. Apple is not required to do so, but has agreed to shift funds and provide additional funding to meet this shortfall.
Members of the public may speak on any or all consent calendar items when the mayor asks for public comment on the Consent Calendar. If an item is pulled from the Consent Calendar, council’s procedural rules require it to be addressed after all regularly scheduled action items, unless council votes to reorder items on the agenda. Members of the public may comment on that item when it is considered.
Item No.12: Brush Abatement Program hearing to hear objections to proposed removal of brush and order abatement of the public nuisance; Resolution ordering abatement of potential fire hazard pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code (Section 16.40.200) regarding Defensible space (brush) and Resolution No. 25-029. Annually, the county Agricultural Departments conducts a Brush Abatement Program hearing to consider objections of owners of properties which have been identified as non-compliant in removing brush. Three property owners have been notified to either remove the brush or the county will remove it at the owners’ cost. This is an important program to reduce fire hazards. Note that it is a different program than the county Weed Abatement Program overseen by the Consumer and Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA)
Item No.13: Approve agreements for post-collection services and destination facilities for garbage and construction and demolition (C&D) debris with attendant rate increases Garbage collection is complex with multiple agreements. Residents pay a single bill to Recology which collects garbage, but the contents of the three garbage containers and debris boxes are processed differently. Agreements for processing the blue and green containers will remain the same. Agreements for processing for the gray container (garbage) and debris boxes expire in November of 2025, so staff is bringing forward options to increase recovery of recyclable materials by post-processing garbage rather than sending these collections directly to landfill. Staff is recommending continuing the current Newby Island agreement until the SMaRT Station in Sunnyvale is upgraded by 2027. The SMaRT Station option, while increasing rates by an estimated $6.25 per month, offers more options for recycling available 7 days a week. Currently, Recology provides more limited options for household recycling. Staff is also recommending switching debris box processing to Zander Greenwaste, which has a slightly higher recovery rate, and is closer to Cupertino.
Item No.14: Introduce Municipal Code amendments to Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.96, Sections 2.96.010 Established-Composition and 2.96.020 Terms of Office, pertaining to the Economic Development Committee. This is a minor modification to the composition of the committee, substituting a Planning Commission representative for a Sustainability Commission representative. The length of terms is also clarified.
Item No. 15: Options on preservation and anti-displacement of Below Market Rate (BMR) units; Consider approval of BMR Anti-Displacement Policy. The city administers BMR housing in seven market rate properties. Agreements with three of the properties will expire in 2026, which would displace 39 residents in the next two years, with a total of 114 units expiring by 2040. The city explored a number of options with the following results: (1) Purchasing properties is not financially feasible, (2) Rent stabilization is not legal, (3) Limiting deposit/fee assessments doesn’t address affordability, (4) Preventing evictions though rents would still increase, (5) Rehoming residents using a county waitlist, which doesn’t exist, and (6) Providing development incentives to extend agreements, with little interest.
The fundamental issue is that there isn’t enough BMR housing in the city, and there isn’t enough housing production to provide additional units. Based on demographic research of the first three expiring buildings, about 61% of the tenants in the program are over the age of 50, the average household size is 2.4 people, and the average household has participated in the program for 6 years. With limited options, the staff recommendation is to (1) prioritize displaced BMR residents for the city BMR waitlist giving them 3 extra points, and to (2) require landlords to provide relocation assistance.
Item No. 16: Consider the potential purchase of and appoint a negotiator for the potential purchase of 10480 Finch Avenue, owned by the Cupertino Unified School District, adjacent to Sedgwick Elementary School (postponed from June 3, 2025). (NB: the term “Unified” is a mistake in the original item description on the agenda and should instead be “Union” as CUSD is K-8 school district only.) The District purchased this property for potential expansion of Sedgwick Elementary that didn’t materialize. Annually, CUSD reviews district properties for revenue potential, and the Finch property is under consideration for a third party exchange in order to generate ongoing revenue. The staff recommendation is to appoint the Acting City Manager and Interim City Attorney to explore negotiations with CUSD after spending approximately $10,000 for due diligence reports. The site sits at the end of Finch Avenue down the street from Cupertino High School where the street dead-ends into Phil Lane. It was previously improved with a single-family home that has long since been demolished and now sits vacant.
Item No. 17: City Manager Report, (now submitted in written form).
Item No. 18: Council Reports, (now submitted in written form) are provided by Mayor Chao, and Councilmembers Fruen and Mohan.
Future Agenda Items
RECAP – Planning Commission, Tues., June 10, 2025, 6:45 p.m., Regular meeting
YouTube: 1 hr. 50 min.
The sole action item on the agenda was Item No. 2: Consider a Development Permit, Use Permit, Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit to consider the construction of a 59-unit townhome condominium development. The project utilizes Senate Bill 330 and provisions of State Density Bonus law. (Application No(s): DP-2024-002, U-2024-007, TM-2024-001, ASA-2024-005, TR-2024-024; Applicant(s): SummerHill Homes, LLC; Location: 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd; APNs: 359-08-025, -026, -027, and-028 (partial). Staff and the developer gave extensive presentations, followed by commissioner questions. This project application was submitted on January 29, 2024 prior to approval of the Housing Element, thus, as a housing development application protected by SB 330, the existing land use entitlements at the time of the application govern. Commissioners noted that the inclusion of 12 BMR units was significant, as well as $2,538,000 provided as an in-lieu parkland fee, along with $550,000 for school fees, and $120,000 for Stevens Creek Boulevard improvements. Commissioners’ comments were generally positive, noting the thoughtfulness of the projects, as well as the need for starter townhome housing. The Commission approved unanimously.
CUPERTINO COURIER: June 13, 2025
The front page and community brief on page 5 is entitled Everyone is welcome: Cupertino set to cut the ribbon on all-inclusive playground at Jollyman Park. Community briefs are (1) Inclusive event, (2) The reading game, (3) League elects officers. Page 8 has two previously published articles from the Mercury News: (1) Leader officially vacates position, regarding City Manager Pamela Wu and (2) New budget makes room for the city’s many needs: long awaited fund requests from several city departments OK’d. Legal notices include (1) Public Hearing Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Fee Schedule at July 1 council meeting, ( 2) Second Reading of Ordinance 25-2271 regarding closed sessions, (3) Municipal Code Amendments regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to be heard at the Planning Commission on July 8, and City Council on Sept. 3, and (4) Administrative Hearing Meeting on June 26 regarding a subdivision of a lot at 19933 Hillcrest Road.
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
Cupertino Matters
Publisher and Editor
