Cupertino Matters
- News
- UPCOMING – City Council, Thurs., Dec. 11, 2025, 5:00 Reception, 6:00 Meeting
- UPCOMING – Planning, Tues., Dec. 9,2025, 6:45 p.m.
- RECAP – City Council, Dec. 2, 2025
- RECAP – City Council, Dec. 1, 2025
December is always a busy month with parties and community events, as well as religious celebrations. This year, there is a runoff election for County Assessor on Dec. 30. The voter information guides arrived last week, and actual ballots will arrive this week. There is only one item–a vote to decide the runoff for County Assessor with two candidates on the ballot: Neysa Flegor (assistant county assessor) and Rishi Kumar (perennial political candidate). The Mercury News published candidate qualifications this weekend and its Editorial Board endorsed Neysa Fligor: Editorial: Fligor is ready to be Santa Clara County assessor. Her opponent is not. Dec. 30 runoff features one contender highly qualified for the job and one seeking to politicize the office. San Jose Inside identified the major issue: Voter Turnout Is Key as SC County Assessor Race Hits Home Stretch.
Dec. 11, 5 p.m., is a special city council meeting to elect the mayor and vice-mayor for 2026 starting with a reception at 5, and the election meeting agenda at 6 p.m. The last meeting of the year will occur on Dec. 16.
Councilmember R “Ray” Wang’s remote participation in council meetings has become even more problematic as he wilfully and deliberately shut down the Dec. 2 council meeting during a discussion item with which he vehemently disagreed. If he had been physically present in the chamber, he could have walked off the dais in protest as Mayor Chao and Vice-Mayor Moore have done in the past. Or he could have voted nay, abstained, or voted “absent.” But due to Brown Act nuances for remote noticed locations, his insistence on terminating his Zoom feed meant the meeting could not legally continue, shocking the other councilmembers and residents present in the chamber. Reaction from the community, via NextDoor and neighborhood meetings was overwhelming outrage. Will Mayor Chao and Vice-Mayor Moore step up and hold Councilmember Wang accountable? Councilmember Wang’s persistent remote noticing of meetings for his personal convenience have presented prior problems. At least two other meetings have terminated early because of Councilmember Wang’s need to catch a plane. He also fails to submit councilmember reports masking his lack of engagement with community groups and regional bodies. He was the sole council no-show at the Chamber of Commerce Star Awards this week, even though he represents the council on the Economic Development Committee. According to an article in San Jose Spotlight, Wang has been absent from the dais for approximately 30% of council meetings. That record has worsened over time, especially including outright absences. Councilmember Wang’s deliberate action to not just disrupt, but to end, the meeting on December 2 wasted valuable staff and community time and prevented Council from conducting the people’s business. Would the Mayor tolerate this action from Councilmembers Fruen or Mohan, with whom she frequently disagrees? Would she tolerate it from members of the public seeking to stop a Council vote?
Councilmember Wang’s termination of the December 2 meeting is especially salient because the topic of the council discussion was an affordable housing development. Housing production shortfalls are becoming more problematic for Cupertino. The Planning Commission is reviewing two townhome developments on Nov. 9, and the City Council will be reviewing another townhome development at their Dec. 16 meeting. These projects will result in fewer homes being built than were planned for these sites under the city’s state-approved Housing Element for moderate income housing, so the city will have to identify more sites to maintain its certification (and avoid more builder’s remedy applications). Progress at The Rise/Vallco is positive, but financial feasibility means a reduction of the number of affordable homes that is also lower than planned under the Housing Element, as articulated in a San Jose Spotlight: Cupertino Vallco development reduces its affordable housing.
Finally, for those concerned about wildfires, fire safety, and wildfire impacts on home insurance rates, CalFire and CERT experts explain how fire maps are made and what they mean for resident safety at a specialized community event, Fire Wise Cupertino. This event occurs Saturday, December 13, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. at the Cupertino Library. What actionable steps can readers take to prepare before wildfires strike and how to respond when they do? Attend, learn, connect, and take action for a safer community.
For research, past issues back to January 2020 of Cupertino Matters are posted on the website. Encourage your friends who would like to become better informed about our community to subscribe to our email newsletter at CupertinoMatters.org.
UPCOMING – City Council, Thurs. Dec. 11, 5:00 p.m., Reception; 6:00 Meeting
Item. No. 1 ELECTION OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR Will Mayor Chao and Vice-Mayor Moore deny Councilmember Wang a leadership position based on his behavior? Councilmember Wang issued an “apology” claiming that he had a battery problem, but the transcript was clear that his actions were deliberate. He mentioned no battery problem at the time.
UPCOMING – Planning Commission, Tues., Dec. 9, 2025, 6:45 p.m., Regular Meeting
Item No. 2: Consideration of a new residential development of 57 townhomes, including 11 affordable units, to replace two office buildings on a 2.6-acre site, located close to the northeast corner of the intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd and Randy Lane. (Application No(s): DP-2025-001, ASA-2024-016, TM-2024-010, TR-2024-045, & U-2025-006; Applicant(s): Dividend Homes; Location: 20085 & 20111 Stevens Creek Blvd. (A.P.N.: 316-23-025, -026). Only one of the lots in this application is included in the Housing Element. This townhome development would replace two aging office buildings on larger lots. The application was submitted under the provisions of SB 330 and the state Density Bonus Law, which allow waivers of most development standards for projects that supply defined amounts of affordable housing. Six waivers are requested, mostly minor. In addition, a concession to eliminate retail/commercial space is requested. Given the state of commercial real estate and empty retail space in the city, there are no grounds for the city to oppose the concessions.
Item No. 3: Consider a new residential development of 32 townhomes, including 6 affordable units, to replace three office buildings on a 1.77-acre site, located mid-block corner on Stevens Creek Boulevard between Randy Lane and Blaney Avenue. (Application No(s): DP-2025-002, ASA-2025-004, TM-2025-002, TR-2025-002, & U-2025-007; Applicant(s): Dividend Homes; Location: 20045 & 20065 Stevens Creek Blvd. (A.P.N.: 316-23-095, -096). This application concerns a property adjacent to the one at issue in Item No. 2 with similar aging office buildings and large lots. Like Item 2, this application relies on SB 330 preliminary vesting rights and the state Density Bonus Law. Seven waivers are requested, likewise mostly minor, as well as two concessions to eliminate commercial/retail space. These buildings were office spaces, not retail, and therefore do not implicate sales tax loss to the city.
RECAP – CITY COUNCIL, Tues. Dec. 2, 2025, 6:00 p.m.,Special Meeting followed by 6:45 Regular Meeting. Councilmember Wang was remote at the Wynn Resort, Las Vegas.
YouTube: Part 1: 1 hr. 47 min; Part 2: 3 hr. 4 min.
Special Meeting
Item No. 1: Submit comments for Draft Plan Bay Area 2050+ and the Draft EIR; Adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and transmit the comment letter to MTC and ABAG. Mayor Chao and Councilmember Wang spent most of this 45-minute meeting ranting about state housing laws and the RHNA assignment requiring Cupertino to plan for 4,588 net new homes by the end of 2031. (This is a separate multi-year process.) They questioned the projections in the plan, misunderstood the time frame and ignored the regional aspects, even though it is explicitly the Bay Area’s federally required regional plan which outlines long-range strategies intended to guide transportation investments, housing needs, economic development, and environmental resilience through mid-century. The letter itself was Mayor Chao’s product and her presentation on the document contained several inaccuracies, which Councilmember Fruen underscored during the council discussion. At the end of the meeting, the letter was approved for submission with an amendment suggested by Councilmember Mohan to request explanations of the numbers and an amendment from Vice Mayor Moore that the document be fact-checked before it is sent. Approved 4-0-1 with Fruen abstaining.
Regular Meeting
Item No. 10: Amendments to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Fee Schedule to establish a new fee for Film Permit Applications and Film Production. The council quickly approved this addition to the fee schedule. The fees are comparable to other cities. However, fees will not be effective until the Second Reading of the Ordinance itself is approved. The Ordinance itself is postponed to address concerns about its breadth. Council approved unanimously.
Item No. 11: OpenGov Budget Format Review Presentation and Finalize Recommendations. This was a pro forma review of various changes to the City’s budget document and format. Council approved unanimously.
Item No. 12: Conduct Study Session on the Mary Avenue Project (“Project”), including project history, project siting, the conditional transfer of City-owned property rights, affordability restrictions, and remaining steps prior to entitlement and closing on the Project; and 2) Consider Appointing Negotiator(s) for the possible transfer of certain rights to City-owned property (APN: 326-27-053), in the form of a ground lease or a sale with the City’s future right to repurchase. This item ran for almost three hours with over an hour of public comment. There were 27 speakers in public comment, both pro and con. The city planner gave a comprehensive five year summary of the project. Project plan approval occurs on a separate ministerial basis, but the city needs to execute an agreement to transfer certain real property rights to the developer via a sale or ground lease, potentially vacating certain interests in the City right-of-way, filing a declaration with the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (“HCD”) stating that the property is exempt surplus land owned by the City that will be used for below market rate housing, and issuing the entitlements under the State’s housing laws and the City’s Municipal Code
Council was starting to take a vote on approving the appointment of negotiators when Councilmember Wang abruptly disputed the study session and deliberately disconnected, forcing termination of the meeting due to the Brown Act’s requirements for remote noticed locations. For readers on NextDoor, here is a posting which details his inadequate “apology” for his behavior, and the corrective actions that need to be taken.
Late breaking news: Vote on this item will be agendized on Friday, Dec. 12, in conjunction with the council orientation workshop.
RECAP – CITY COUNCIL, Mon., Dec. 1, 2025, 7:30 p.m., Continuation of Nov. 18 meeting. Councilmember Wang was remote at the Wynn Resort, Las Vegas.
YouTube: 2 hr. 52 min.
Item No. 1: Amendment to FY 25-26 Fee Schedule to establish fee for ministerial two lot Urban Lot Split Applications. This fee reduction from $30,247 to $10,885 was quickly approved by the council on a 5-0 vote.
Item No. 2: City Manager’s First Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2025-26; Budget Modification No. 2526-419, decreasing appropriations by $674,221 and increasing revenues by $503,628 resulting in a $1,177,849 increase to unassigned fund balance. This report outlined the City’s financial status as of September 30, 2025. The First Quarter Financial Report showed the City is positioned as anticipated. There was limited discussion. Council then approved 5-0.
Item No. 3: Review first quarterly update for the FY 25-27 City Work Program and make modifications with items from the TBD list. This item consumed nearly two hours of dais time, with an inordinate amount of time spent on “artistic bike racks” with conflicting opinions of what constitutes “art” and what level of authorization should be required for City Work Program items. The Bicycle Pedestrian Commission initiated a work project to add more bike racks in the city–a project confirmed for the City Work Plan by the city council. With the review and approval of staff, the Rotary Club supported the effort by providing volunteer labor to install artistic, rather than purely utilitarian, bicycle racks in various parts of the city. The rest of the items received less attention, with some dropped and others consolidated. Councilmember Fruen stressed the urgency of adding a project to address the no net loss issue for the Housing Element described above. This item was added as a priority among those already identified in the list. Council approved 5-0.
CUPERTINO COURIER: Dec. 5, 2025
The front page photo and community brief on page 5 is entitled Swearing-in ceremony: New Cupertino may; vice-mayor to be named Thursday. Additional Community briefs are (1) Celebrating authors and (2) Poetry in the dark. An article on page 5 regarding The Rise/Vallco is entitled Village project slightly modified: Housing component reduced to 356 units. The sole legal notice is a Public Hearing scheduled for the Dec. 16 City Council meeting for an application by Dividend Homes to build townhomes replacing office buildings on Stevens Creek Blvd between Randy Lane Blaney Avenue.
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
Cupertino Matters
Publisher and Editor
