Cupertino Matters
- In the News
- UPCOMING – Planning Commission, Sept. 9, 6:45 p.m.
- RECAP – City Council, Tues., Sept. 16, 2025, 6:45 p.m.; Closed Session, 5:45 p.m.
Fall is officially here with the autumnal equinox on Monday, September 22, marking the beginning of much shorter days.
Usually, election season is every two years in even-numbered years. This year, however, there are unexpected statewide and local elections headlined by California Proposition 50, also known as the Election Rigging Response Act, a constitutional amendment in response to other states’ efforts at reinforcing the slim Republican majority in the U.S. Congress by changing their electoral maps mid-cycle. Santa Clara County voters will also vote on a replacement for retired County Assessor Larry Stone, as well as on Measure A, a general sales tax measure to address the loss of more than $1 billion in revenue to the County caused by recently adopted federal budget cuts, that most dramatically impact the local healthcare system. It would temporarily increase the sales tax in Santa Clara County by five-eighths of one cent for five years. If approved by a simple majority of county voters, the sales tax increase would generate about $330 million per year in revenue. The League of Women Voters of Cupertino-Sunnyvale will be holding an in-person (1) Candidate Forum – County Assessor, and (2) Pros and Cons Discussion of the Santa Clara County Ballot Measures on Tues. Oct. 7., at 7 – 8:30 at the Quinlan Center, located at 10185 N. Stelling Road in Cupertino. Register here.
In other news, the next speaker in the Science and Technology Speaker Series, sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, will be Dr. Alonso Vera, Senior Scientist, NASA Ames Research Center. He will be speaking on Earth-Independent Operations for Human Missions to MARS. The event will occur on Wednesday, September 24, at 6:30 to 8:00 in the Cupertino Community Hall. Aerospace innovation has been driving exploration and discovery since 1939 right here within our community, another facet of Cupertino’s unique position at the center of technology.
In council matters, poor governance and dreadful time management were once again on full display at the September 16, 2025, city council meeting which lasted until 12:36 a.m. without finishing the published agenda. Mayor Chao did not start public hearings and the action calendar until 8:00 p.m., after calling the meeting to order at 6:45. Approval of the Consent Calendar dragged on until 10:30 p.m. The council spent an hour and a half of dais time on Consent Item No. 19, the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study second-guessing the unanimous recommendations of the Planning Commission and Bicycle-Pedestrian Commission (BPC), as well as adding additional conditions to the council’s previous consideration of the Study which effectively take Cupertino out of the further involvement in the Study.
At 10:30 p.m., the Council then voted to extend the meeting to 11:30 and began consideration of Item No. 22: Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters (Continued from September 3, 2025). Public comment lasted about an hour, so the council began deliberation at 11:26 p.m. Mayor Chao then spent 13 minutes on a rambling PowerPoint presentation, long exceeding the 5 minute rule in the council procedures manual. Her arguments focused on justifying putting ALL commissions under the purview of the Planning Commission. Vice-Mayor Moore then made a substitute motion to retain the Bicycle-Pedestrian Commission (BPC) as is, adding monitoring the General Plan Mobility Element which is in their mandate, but not currently being done. This motion to keep the current BPC structure was approved 4-1 with Wang voting nay. The meeting was adjourned at 12:36 a.m.
UPCOMING – Planning Commission, Tues., Sept. 23 , 2025, 6:45 p.m., Regular meeting
Other than approval of the minutes for the previous meeting, the sole agenda is Item No. 2: Presentation on the Arts & Culture Commission’s recommendation to the City Council on an Art-in-lieu fee policy. The Arts and Culture Commission is chartered with overseeing the acquisition of public art. A council work item for this fiscal year was to revisit the City’s Municipal Code standards for art in public and private development, including standards in the Municipal Code and developing an art‐in‐lieu fee policy. Often developments required to provide public art are poorly located for public viewing, e.g., Public Storage and The Forum at San Antonio. The current code discourages in-lieu payments, so this clause would be removed.
The overall staff recommendations are:
- Allow the Arts & Culture Commission to approve the in-lieu payment option, instead of requiring city council approval (streamlining processes)
- Value both in-lieu payment and private development consistently at 1%, instead of the current 1.25% for in-lieu payments.
- City Council to be the decision-making body, upon recommendation by the Arts and Culture Commission, for the actual allocation of funds.
- The City to create and maintain a separate art fund which could be used to develop an arts Master Plan, as well as other Commission recommendations, including an
expansion of funding to art programming beyond physical art.
RECAP – CITY COUNCIL, Tues. ,Sept. 16, 2025, 6:45 p.m., Regular; 5:45 Closed Session
YouTube: Part 1: 2 hr. 10 min. Part 2: 3 hr. 32 min. Adjourned at 12:36 a.m.
Open Session; 6:45 p.m.
Closed Session Report: The report out by the city attorney was no reportable action for the three items listed. However, the city manager’s September 3, 2025 report as well as the August 22, 2025 Letter to Council indicates that the city submitted a Letter of Interest to CUSD for the 10480 Finch Avenue property.
Following 20 minutes for Ceremonial Items, there were 18 speakers from the public for Oral Communications regarding non-agenda items, ranging from comments on Planning Chair Santosh Rao’s behavior to a petition by homeowners to accept a generous offer by a resident to donate land for a Varian Creek Trail, as well as other topics. Speakers were limited to 2 minutes, with the Oral Communications ending approximately 8:00 p.m.
The Consent Calendar was chaotic.
Item No. 17 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Cupertino and other local public agencies in Santa Clara County to fund the Composting Education Program in the amount of $9,186.90 (January 2026 – June 30, 2027, with an option for a two-year extension) was postponed on motion of the Mayor.
Item No.19 Conditionally Accept the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study was pulled from consent, then heard immediately after approval of the rest of consent items.
Item No. 11, to Accept Ad-Hoc Legislative Review Committee (LRC) City Council Subcommittee recommendation regarding Senate Bill 63, Senate Bill 707, and Measure A included a letter of opposition to Measure A, the tax measure to save Santa Clara County medical facilities from Trump administration cuts. As part of the consideration of the item, Mayor Chao moved to postpone discussion of the city’s position on Measure A. Now, a special study session is scheduled for October 13 as a legislative update on Measure A, which is consistent with the approach taken by other cities that have entertained discussion of Measure A. To date, no city has taken a position on Measure A, though Mayor Chao is a signatory to the ballot arguments in opposition to the item. As part of public comment on the Consent Calendar, there were 16 speakers on this item, overwhelmingly in favor of Measure A. Councilmember Fruen requested separate votes, so the letters opposing Senate Bill 63 (a bill allowing voters to decide on a sales tax to support regional transit) and Senate Bill 707 (a bill expanding on Brown Act transparency requirements) were approved, with vote on Measure A deferred, on a 3-2 vote, with Councilmembers Fruen and Mohan voting nay.
Item No. 18: Award of a design professional services agreement to DIALOG Design LP for the City Hall Annex Improvements project (420-99-248) for the renovation of an existing building located at 10455 Torre Avenue for a total not-to-exceed amount of $493,243 was not approved on the consent calendar, and will be considered as part of a comprehensive plan.
At 10:30 P.M., Council finally approved the rest of the consent calendar. The agenda was then reordered to consider Item No. 19, followed by Item No. 22, then Item 20 and 21.
Consent Item No. 19: Conditionally Accept the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study. Council failed to act on this item at the July 15, 2025 council meeting though time-critical. It’s a study, not a commitment to any future project or projects along the nine-mile Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street Corridor, emphasizing the need for coordinated planning and transportation improvements across the participating jurisdictions. It was previously approved unanimously by both the Planning Commission and the Bicycle-Pedestrian Commission. However, at the September 3 council meeting, consideration of the item started at 9:40 p.m. and ended at 11:08, an hour and a half of dais time, before returning the item to staff for a new, revised resolution based on changes and conditions offered by Vice-Mayor Moore and Mayor Chao on a 4-1 vote. At this meeting, the council proceeded to spend an hour and 15 minutes adding more conditions based on a last minute lengthy amendment by Mayor Chao. One of the primary changes was to preclude staff or council involvement in the steering committee until the new conditions are met. Other jurisdictions have already unanimously approved the study, so why is Cupertino, as Councilmember Fruen put it “giving up its seat at the table?” It is not clear that the council majority sees any value in working with other jurisdictions on major transportation initiatives. The vote on the cobbled-up version at 10:30 p.m. passed 3-2 with Fruen and Mohan voting nay, citing how “silly” the entire matter had become.
Item No. 22: Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters (Continued from September 3, 2025). Note: Public comment will be reopened for individuals who did not provide comment on September 3. This was extremely controversial when heard at 11:08 p.m. on September 3, with only one minute allowed per public comment. The item was continued to this meeting, and was supposed to be heard early in the meeting. Instead, public comment commenced at 10:30 p.m. for about an hour and which required council to extend permissible meeting time multiple times. The overwhelming number of resident speakers agreed that keeping the Bicycle-Pedestrian Commission largely as-is (Option #3) would be the best option. The most notable exception was Planning Commission Chair Santosh Rao, who would personally benefit from increased powers granted to the Planning Commission.
At roughly 11:30 p.m, the council started deliberation. Mayor Chao burned 13 minutes to present a 16 page PowerPoint slide deck prepared in advance with her reasons (and grievances) for moving the BPC to be subordinate to the Planning Commission and moving all transportation issues to the Planning Commission. She also came prepared with a motion to vastly expand the powers of the Planning Commission to include not just all transportation matters, but also environmental, economic and community development, public health and safety, aesthetics, and more. Commissions report to the council directly. Mayor Chao offered no reasoning for why their advice should be filtered through another layer of review at the Planning Commission.
Vice Mayor Moore made a substitute motion to leave the BPC a fully independent commission, saying, “I…think that they need to be autonomous and report to the council.” (3:03:21) Vice Mayor Moore’s motion included having the BPC begin monitoring the General Plan Mobility Element, which is part of their mandate but has not recently been exercised. Councilmembers Fruen and Mohan agreed, with Councilmember Mohan saying, “We appear to be finding a solution to a non-existent problem.“ (2:48:03)
There were multiple push back attempts from Mayor Chao and Councilmember Wang, with Councilmember Wang requesting a “moratorium on all projects until this is solved.” (3:16:26 ) Ultimately, Vice Mayor Moore’s motion was passed, with a friendly amendment from Councilmember Fruen to improve transparency for specified classes of street improvements, on a 4-1 vote with Councilmember Wang voting no.
Item No. 20: Introduce amendments to Cupertino Municipal Code, adding Title 14, Chapter 14.30 Small Wireless Facilities In Public Rights-Of-Way, pertaining to regulation of wireless facilities within City streets. Council postponed this item due to time limits.
Item No. 21: Revisions to Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual. Council postponed this item due to time limits.
CUPERTINO COURIER: September 18, 2025
The front page photo and article on page 5 is entitled Lunch hotspot revived: Silicon Valley engineer buys Armadillo Willy’s after it abruptly closed., now renamed Empire Armadillo located in Sunnyvale.. The additional community briefs are (1) Midpen grants, and (2) Suicide prevention help. There are no legal notices.
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
Cupertino Matters
Publisher and Editor
