Cupertino Matters
- In the News
- UPCOMING – City Council, July 21, 2026, 6:45 p.m., Closed Session 5:30 p.m.
- RECAP – Planning Commission, July 14, 2026
Much of the city is in vacation mode, with tournaments over and school still closed for the summer. City council will recess during August, as will the Planning Commission and other city advisory bodies. On the state level, legislation is being finalized.
Free Shakespeare in the Park remains one of the highlights of the summer. This year’s production features Antony and Cleopatra. Set against the backdrop of the civil wars of the late Roman Republic and the final years of the Ptolemaic Dynasty in Egypt, Antony and Cleopatra examines the conflict between duty and desire, and the impact of personal relationships. Performances are on:
- Saturday, July 25, 2026 | 06:00 PM – 08:30 PM
- Sunday, July 26, 2026 | 06:00 PM – 08:30 PM
- Saturday, August 01, 2026 | 06:00 PM – 08:30 PM
- Sunday, August 02, 2026 | 06:00 PM – 08:30 PM
- Saturday, August 08, 2026 | 06:00 PM – 08:30 PM
Other Parks and Recreation summer events move into full wing with activities for all ages: cupertino.gov/recreation. Summer concerts occur from 6:30 – 8:00 on Thursdays at Memorial Park through August with a varied lineup. Movies in the Park happen on Fridays at 8 p.m. at Creekside Park and feature family-friendly showings.
There is progress at Vallco, though at a slow pace, note Consent Item #3 below. An email from Reed Mould entitled The Rise in View: Parks and Open Space outlines the parks that will be provided in The Rise.
UPCOMING – City Council, Tues., July 21, 2026, 6:45 p.m. Regular, 5:30 Closed Session
Closed Session
Item No. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION Existing litigation pursuant to paragraph (5) of Subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9(d)(1) of the California Government Code: a. Lixin (Leon) Chen, et al. c. City of Cupertino, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No, 25CA462857 b. Yes in My Backyard, et al. v. City of Cupertino, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 25CA263924 c. Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Avenue Safety v. City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 26CV488611 d. Mark Fantozzi v. City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 26CV492787. These topics include a bevy of litigation over various housing projects in the city, including two “builder’s remedy” project applications which the city asserted remained incomplete by specified deadlines. The judge handling the case provided an oral tentative ruling against the city and in favor of one of the applicants (Tang/Scofield Drive) last month. It will be some time before the judgment is finalized.
Item No. 2 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Anticipated litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government code (1 case).
Regular Meeting
There are no Ceremonial Items. Oral Communications from the public on off-agenda items then precede the Consent Calendar, which contains seven routine items. Note slow and modest progress at Vallco with Item No 3 Approval of a Final Map and the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Phase 1 of The Rise Development Project; Acceptance of Public Street Dedications and Public Easements; and Abandonment of Unnecessary Public Easements (Tract No. 10706; Applicant: Vallco Property Owner LLC; Location: Formerly 10123 North Wolfe Road. This is a formalistic and wholly ministerial process. The application meets the legal standards under the Subdivision Map Act and the city council has a legal duty to approve it. Failure to do so would expose the city to extraordinary levels of financial liability.
Item No. 10: Public Hearing and approval of lien assessment and collection of fees on private parcels resulting from abatement of public nuisance (weeds and/or brush) for the annual Weed and Brush Abatement Programs. This required public hearing allows owners of parcels cited as public nuisances to voice any objections to the annual county process.
Item No. 11: Adoption of a Resolution Approving an Economic Development and Sales Tax Sharing Agreement with Insight Direct Worldwide, Inc. (Insight). The city has had an agreement with Insight since 2006. That agreement has had several extensions. Staff recommends a new standalone agreement that retains the structure of the previous agreement. Insight has maintained a “Cupertino Facility” that serves as a place of sale for taxable point of sales transactions covered by applicable CDTFA rules, guidance, and determinations–key factors in managing sales tax revenue. The agreement requires the retention of a physical presence in Cupertino.
The economic development subsidy will ensure that Insight remains within the City, thereby preserving its contribution to the City’s diverse tax base and supporting the City’s ongoing economic vitality. The economic development subsidy is projected to generate approximately $2.4 million in annual gross tax revenue, of which approximately $1.4 million is retained by the City and approximately $1.0 million rebated to Insight. There are 31 full-time jobs, including hybrid workers, assigned to the Cupertino office.
Item No. 12: Review of attendance record and consideration of an attendance policy waiver for Library Commissioner Janki Chokshi. The commissioner missed two regularly scheduled meetings which put her over the 25% attendance requirement in the Commissioner’s Handbook. Attendance has been an ongoing concern for many commissions, though many such absences elsewhere have been for “special” meetings, which don’t count toward the total. Her term ends Jan. 2027.
Item No. 13: Amendments to the City’s Naming, Donation, and Sponsorship Policies. Donations to the city have been problematic. Rather than acknowledging the value of philanthropic intentions, the current majority city council has unduly restricted such actions. There are no less than three separate policies: (1) Naming, Logos and Branding of City Facilities, (2) Sponsorship Policy, and (3) Commemorative Bench Dedication Policy. Shouldn’t the priority be relationships with residents for the handful of requests, rather than council micromanagement of good intentions?
Item No.14: City Manager Report, (submitted in written form).
Item No. 15: Council Reports (submitted in written form) are provided by Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao and Councilmembers Fruen and Mohan. Councilmember Wang again failed to submit a report.
Item No. 16: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report.
RECAP – Planning Commission, Tues., July 14, 2026, 6:45 p.m.
YouTube: 2 hr. 47 min.
Item No. 2: Study session on Permit Streamlining and Simplification for Small Home Upgrades City Work Program item. The Planning Commission gave extensive feedback to staff on the report. The general consensus was that more analysis of the data, plus outreach to residents and contractors would help. Commissioners also cited a need for better checklists, particularly for contractors who work in multiple cities, each with different building requirements. Another issue that emerged was that the online portal is more efficient for staff but often residents and contractors resort to email instead–a practice which results in inadvertent delays. In addition, applicants are also reluctant to utilize available in-person appointments, though these can shorten approval times. Commissioners expressed concern that applicants may avoid permits due to other non-comforming issues outside the immediate application.
Item No. 3: Review of the Draft Active Transportation Plan and Provide a recommendation to the City Council. This was an overly long discussion on this project, which has already undergone two years of community outreach to develop a comprehensive Active Transportation Plan (ATP). The ATP combines recommended projects from the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan to meet evolving community needs. The city needs a road map to evaluate future projects and funding. This plan is funded by external funds, and failure to approve the plan would result in the city having to refund grant money and pay directly for costs which have been incurred.
Constructive feedback from the commission included an addendum to include additional consideration of evacuation routes. This received unanimous approval. Consideration of the main plan was stalled by Commissioner Rao who proposed substitute motions to exclude sections of the plan. All substitute motions failed on 2-3 votes with Scharf, Fung and Lindskog voting nay. Finally, the motion to recommend the plan passed 4-1 with Rao voting nay.
CUPERTINO COURIER: July 17, 2026
The front page photo and article on page 5 are entitled ‘Hear me out: Local teen develops AI powered hearing aid to help older adults: 14 year-year-old student wants to be ‘innovator’ who’s able to create things to make lives better’. Community briefs are (1) League connections, (2) Chi Am scholars and (3) Music in the courtyard. There are no legal notices.
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
Cupertino Matters
Publisher and Editor
