Cupertino Matters
- Local news
- RECAP – City Council, Mar. 18, 2025, 6:45 p.m.; Special Meeting, 5:30 p.m.
- RECAP – Planning Commission, Mar. 25, 2025, 6:00 p.m.
Spring is in the air, with flowering trees and shrubs bursting into bloom. It’s a wonderful season to enjoy our beautiful parks!
Readers are invited to attend the annual League of Women Voters of Cupertino-Sunnyvale (LWVCS) “meet and greet” with local elected officials on March 29, 2:00 – 4:00 p.m. at the Grand Hotel, 865 W. El Camino Real, Sunnyvale. It’s an opportunity to meet City Council, School Board and County officials and ask them questions, or talk about your interests and concerns in person. Register in advance.
Separately, the impact of the aging population in Silicon Valley is getting more attention as highlighted in a San Jose Spotlight article entitled Silicon Valley faces challenges as its population gets older. The Godbe 2024 Community Survey Report shows 44% of Cupertino’s population is over 50 years of age. In addition, 43% of households have no children under the age of 18, suppressing school enrollment. Housing and transportation remain significant issues for seniors.
On the topic of development, readers will recall that in December, 2022, council approved a revision of the Marina Plaza Redevelopment Project for 206 for-sale condos, 36 below market rate (BMR) units, and 41,589 sq. ft. of retail space, dropping a previously planned hotel for part of the site. This project provided the type of housing most acutely needed in our community. It’s located at an ideal location for higher density housing along a transportation corridor and is particularly well-suited to “senior-friendly” housing. The economics of building housing has become more challenging, so the project is being changed.
Now, the Marina Plaza Redevelopment Project is proposing a modification of the project that would add more housing: 328 for-sale condos, with 66 moderate income BMR units, and 35,050 sq. ft. of retail/restaurant spaces. The public is invited to see the new version at two open houses: Wednesday, April 2, 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. and Saturday, April 5, 9:30 – 11:30 a.m. at the Aloft Cupertino Hotel, 10165 N De Anza Blvd, at the corner of Alves and DeAnza Blvd.
On a different note, the City council meeting last week was dismaying. Mayor Chao’s management of Oral Communications reached a new height of disrespect to the public. There were approximately 30 people in the council chamber at the start of Oral Communications. Thirteen had submitted speaker cards, and there were 3 online speakers. The Procedures Manual allocates 30 minutes for Oral Communications, but historically this has been extended by previous mayors who also reduced speaking time to 1-2 minutes thus providing equal opportunity for all. This respects every member of the public who makes the trek to city hall in person to be heard in a timely manner. Instead, Mayor Chao arbitrarily limited Oral Communications to 30 minutes. She then gave 10 minutes to a group presentation, with only 6 additional in-person speakers allowed to speak. Then the mayor gave time to an additional 3 online people to speak for 3 minutes, forcing the remaining in-person speakers to wait several hours until the end of the meeting, roughly 11 p.m., to speak. Needless to say, most left very unhappy. By the end of the meeting, only 3 people, including your publisher, remained in the chamber. The Mayor had to be reminded to complete Oral Communications. Councilmember Wang departed the dais at 10:20 p.m. so did not hear the remainder of Oral Communications.
Even more dismaying, Major Chao chose to massively rework the finalized City Work Program that the council had agreed upon through extensive public meetings over the past four months. Her changes were not presented to the rest of the council members prior to the meeting, and were presented to the public (and fellow councilmembers) in an unreadable, small-font document. The changes were not discussed with staff and the impact on the budget and their workload prior to the meeting. Removal of two items were particularly objectionable: (1) Heart of the City Specific Plan Update which could be revised to encourage higher density housing and retail instead of the current designation that allows townhomes, and (2) Eliminating the 100 day restricted operation of the picnic areas and pools at Blackberry Farm. All other city parks allow year-round use of the picnic areas, so why should the city be restricted from public use and loss of rental revenue for 265 days from some of the best parkland in the city? This is a public asset. Why should the city be held hostage to a 20 year old settlement that makes no sense? Readers can review the settlement with Rhoda Fry, a strong supporter of Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore and Councilmember Wang who voted to block this item from moving forward. Year-round use of the pools is an additional issue–membership-based pools operate year round, so why is the city pool so different?
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.
RECAP – CITY COUNCIL, Tues., Mar. 18, 2025, 6:45 p.m., 2025, Regular meeting, 5:30 p.m. Study session
YouTube: Part 1 1 hr. 18 min. ; Part 2 3hr. 42 min.
Action Calendar:
Item No. 1: Introduce Municipal Code amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 2 to add Chapter 2.96 and codify the Economic Development Committee. The council majority was determined to resurrect this committee, even though the city now has a full-time economic development manager and an effective Chamber of Commerce. There was no consideration given to structuring the committee differently to take advantage of tourism opportunities in 2026 with the World Cup and Super Bowl. The city manager asked for guidance on whether to emphasize (1) Retaining current businesses vs. (2) Attracting new businesses, since they are competing strategies, but this was ignored. The amendments were approved 3-2 with Mohan and Fruen voting nay.
Study Session:
Item No. 2: Study Session to consider reestablishing the City’s Legislative Review Committee (LRC). Previously, this committee was very staff intensive (approximately 400 staff hours per year) with minimal to no impact on statewide legislation. If anything, constant advocacy letters from the City of Cupertino opposing statewide housing-related legislation contributed strongly to the city’s bad reputation in Sacramento. Legally, a major issue with the previous incarnation was that the committee sent position letters without the express approval of the entire council, thus violating rules governing delegation of authority in the Municipal Code. The decision was to form an ad hoc council subcommittee composed of Vice-Mayor Moore and Councilmember Ray Wang. Council approved 3-2 with Mohan and Fruen voting nay.
Regular meeting
Oral Communications as referenced above was problematic. On the Consent Calendar, Item No. 7 to reaffirm amendments to the Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual (Continued from March 4, 2025 City Council Meeting), was pulled by Councilmember Mohan. The Mayor chose to hear this item before the Action Calendar, rather than the standard practice, after the action calendar. Councilmember Mohan expressed her concern about Public Records (PRA) requests by council members to bypass city staff and the Municipal Code restriction on councilmembers creating individual work projects in excess of 3 hours without full council approval. In 2024, the overall staff spent 550 hours processing records requests. In 2024, the City Clerk’s Office processed 333 Public Records Act requests. This activity reflects a 33% increase from the previous year, with a dramatic impact on staff productivity. Council approved 3-2 with Mohan and Fruen voting nay.
Item No. 8: Receive Citywide Policy Inventory; Authorize Gap Analysis Final Report and Review the City Council Policy Inventory. Discussion of this report from Moss Adams, the city’s internal auditor, was limited since the report had already been reviewed by the Audit Committee. Only one written policy gap regarding capital improvement projects was considered high risk, the others were all medium and low risk. Some administrative policies have to be controlled by IT and legal for security reasons, so will not be made publicly available. Policies are augmented by best practices and standards, often at the county and state level, i.e. construction.
Item No. 9: Receive City Council Subcommittee report on July 4th fireworks and provide Council direction for next steps. At the last minute for the March 18 meeting, a memo dated March 10 sent to Mayor Chao and Vice Mayor Moore by Councilmember Wang (an admitted Brown Act violation) was posted as a supplemental report. The subcommittee identified two potential locations: (1) Hyde Middle School currently which is undergoing solar panel construction and would require consent from the elementary school district, and (2) The Rise. Neither location has granted approval to move ahead.
Item No. 10: Confirm recommended language for two new City Council Strategic Goals; Finalize Fiscal Years 2025-2027 City Work Program. The staff had diligently compiled council priorities into a workable 19 item work plan for the next two years based on multiple prior council meetings with an agreed-on framework. As referenced above, Mayor Chao abruptly reworked the entire plan, without knowing the impact on the budget or the staff as if the prior meetings had never happened. The constant revision heavily impacts the budget process. The council majority approved these modifications on a 3-2 vote with Mohan and Fruen voting nay. The results are posted through an informational memo at March 27 2025 – Final List of Projects for FY 2025-2027 City Work Program (CWP)
RECAP – Planning Commission, Tues., Mar. 25; 6:00 p.m., Special Meeting
YouTube: 1 hr. 59 min.
The regular meeting at 6:45 was rescheduled to 6:00 to provide Commissioners training. State laws change every year, so commissioners need to comply with these laws. Usually, this training is provided by attendance at an onsite academy offered through the California League of Cities, but that option was not available this year. The meeting is a useful primer to anyone wishing to learn more about how land use approvals work, and the way in which housing development applications often differ from that underlying process.
CUPERTINO COURIER: March 21, 2025
The front page picture and article on page 5 is entitled Connecting peers: Mentors share lived experiences with those in need, a program to address mental health. The community briefs are (1) Mapping fire hazards and (2) ‘Dreamscape’ come true. There are no legal notices.
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
Cupertino Matters
Publisher and Editor
