Cupertino Matters
- Election Information and Editorials
- UPCOMING – City Council, Tues., Oct. 21, 6:45 p.m.
- RECAP- Planning Commission, Oct. 14, 2025
- RECAP – City Council, Oct. 13, 2025
- RECAP – City Council, Oct. 7, 2025
Ballots for the Nov. 4 election should have arrived in readers’ mailboxes. Mailing in your ballot is an easy option, but readers can also utilize dropboxes located at City Hall, the Library, and Quinlan Community Center, in addition to DeAnza College at the RSS off Parking Lot 1A. Beginning November 1, there will be an in-person Vote Center at Seven Seven Springs Clubhouse. In-person vote center locations are listed in the County Voter Information Guide. Be sure to vote!
Want more information about the ballot measures? The League of Women Voters of Cupertino-Sunnyvale has a readable impartial analysis of both Measure A and Proposition 50. The League of Women Voters gave live presentations on the November 2025 Santa Clara County Pro and Cons for Measure A and Proposition 50, which are recorded and available on YouTube. In addition, the Mercury News published an editorial in opposition to Measure A.
The League of Women Voters also held a live Santa Clara County Assessor Candidate Forum for the four contenders in this race. The recording is likewise viewable on YouTube. The Mercury News Editorial Board evaluated the candidates and made a straightforward endorsement: Neysa Fligor is best choice for Santa Clara County’s next assessor: Of the four candidates vying to replace Larry Stone, the Los Altos vice mayor and attorney is best qualified for the job. This office is responsible for determining the taxable value of more than 500,000 properties assessed at more than $750 billion, with a 250-person office for day-to-day operations. Right now, $142 billion of that assessed value is currently in dispute in Santa Clara County, the highest ever at roughly 20% of assessed value, primarily commercial real estate. This means the next assessor has to understand both the legal standards for property valuation and litigation to counter large corporate property owners’ armies of lawyers. The outcomes affect funding for our schools and municipal services.
Homelessness remains an ongoing issue in Cupertino and across the county. The city is not making progress according to a San Jose Spotlight article entitled Cupertino’s homeless percentage skyrockets. A Mercury News article entitled Did homelessness really double in this wealthy South Bay city?:County count in Cupertino says yes, but the story isn’t so straightforward provides additional context.
UPCOMING – CITY COUNCIL, Tues. Oct . 21, 2025, 6:45 p.m., Regular;6:00 p.m. Closed.
Closed Session: 6:00 p.m.
Item No.1:Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation; California Government Codes Sections 54956.9(d)(2) and 54954.5(c): one claim.
Open Session; 6:45 p.m.
Closed Session Report
Ceremonial Items include (1) Recognition of October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month, (2) Recognition of the years of service for the Cupertino Rotary Club, (3) Recognition of the years of service for Cupertino Lions Club, and (4) Recognition of Monta Vista High School students for earning 8th place in the 2025 Science Olympiad National Tournament. Oral Communications from the public on non-agenda items precede the Consent Calendar, which contains eight routine items.
Item No. 13: Study Session Study session to review the Arts & Culture Commission’s recommendation to the Municipal Code standards for art in public and private development, including the standards in the Municipal Code and developing an Art-in-lieu fee policy. (Application No. MCA-2025-003; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide). The Arts & Culture Commission has proposed changes to the Municipal Code requiring developers to provide public art. The General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040 contains the following in relevant part: LU-7.1.2: Gateways: Promote placement of visible artwork in gateways to the city. At present, the City’s Municipal Code discourages the payment of art in-lieu fees by developers in favor of forcing them to provide art at a publicly visible location within their developments. However, some developments, particularly small developments, are not situated for significant public exposure; others are deliberately masked from public view. The Public Storage site, for instance, has zero foot traffic and sits tucked behind several other small-scale developments, well out of general sight. The Forum at San Antonio, a retirement community, doesn’t have a visible location for public viewing, even for residents. The Bianchi Way townhomes under construction lack frontage for public viewing. Currently, in-lieu payments are actively discouraged by a higher fee, 1.25% vs. 1% for onsite art work. The Forum (an HOA) couldn’t afford to pay the in-lieu fee so ended up with a nice piece of artwork that is essentially invisible.
The current Ordinance (18-2175) was approved by the City Council on August 21, 2018. It removed the $100,000 spending cap and added the current valuation percentages (1% for onsite artwork, 1.25% for in-lieu). The Arts & Culture Commission thoughtfully developed their recommendations over the past year, specifically at meetings on September 23, 2024, March 24, May 19, and July 22, 2025 meetings:
- The Arts & Culture Commission would approve an in-lieu payment option. Currently, the City Council is the approval body, with the Arts & Culture Commission providing a recommendation to Council so this would streamline the process.
- The In-lieu payment and valuation of art pieces on private development shall be maintained at a consistent valuation of 1%, instead of the current higher 1.25% for the in-lieu payment.
- The City shall create and maintain a separate art fund.
- Art fund could be used to fund the development of an arts Master Plan and other Commission recommendations, including expansion of funding to programming beyond physical art such as theatre and scholarships.
- The City Council shall be the decision-making body, upon recommendation by the Arts and Culture Commission, for the allocation of funds.
The Planning Commission received a presentation on these recommendations on September 23, 2025 for feedback on impact on land use and development. The Commission, under the direction of the chair, Santosh Rao, chose to ignore the Arts & Culture Commission recommendations. The motion carried 3-2 (No: Fung, Lindskog) to retain the existing premium (1.25%) for the in-lieu fee, to create a separate art fund to be solely used for the creation of public art in any form, and that Council maintains final discretion on approvals.
Item No. 14: City Manager Report, (now submitted in written form).
Item No. 15: Council Reports, (now submitted in written form) are provided by Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang.
Item No. 16: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
RECAP – Planning Commission, Tues., Oct. 14, 2025, 6:45 p.m., Regular meeting
YouTube: 1 hr. 00 min.
The sole agenda was Item No. 2: Appointment of a Planning Commission Ad Hoc Subcommittee to report on best practices on community noticing from other Bay Area cities. The Planning Commission may identify procedural or policy areas that would benefit from detailed review by this ad hoc subcommittee. The subcommittee will operate consistent with the Brown Act and Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.32, focusing on its defined scope and providing a report back to the full Commission for discussion and possible recommendation to the City Council. At the previous city council meeting, the issue of community noticing for small cell towers was raised, with the legal requirement that noticing needs to be consistent, whether 300, 500 or 1,000 feet. Chair Rao introduced this item expressing a desire for more subcommittees. Commission discussion revolved around defining the scope of the subcommittee, emphasizing that it would be limited to purview of the Planning Commission. Commissioners Scharf and Kosolcharoen volunteered for the subcommittee. It is not clear what the pathway is for any findings from such a subcommittee to make their way to Council. The Commission approved 4-1 with Fung voting nay.
RECAP – CITY COUNCIL, Mon., Oct. 13, 2025, 6:45 p.m., Special Meeting; 6:05 p.m., Closed Session. Councilmember Wang appeared remotely from the Venetian Hotel, Las Vegas, NV.
YouTube: 2 hr. 30 min.
This meeting was supposed to have an informational presentation by Santa Clara County on the budget and financial situation for the county with the impact of the cuts included in H.R 1. Instead, on the bizarre and illogical advice of the contract city attorney–namely that a County presentation on its fiscal situation would become campaigning but that the Council discussing taking a position on Measure A would not–the mayor changed the agenda, thus depriving our residents the opportunity to understand the underlying fiscal situation.
Item No.3: Legislative Updates from California State Senator Josh Becker and California State Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens. These were forward-looking presentations, focusing on 2026 legislative priorities with only brief mentions of bills that passed in the current legislature. Readers are encouraged to listen to their priorities
Item No. 4: Accept Ad-Hoc Legislative Review Committee (LRC) City Council Subcommittee recommendation regarding Measure A: Measure A would authorize a retail transactions and use tax (sales tax) of 0.625% (five-eighths of one percent) in Santa Clara County for a limited period of five (5) years. Measure A states that it is being proposed to address significant federal funding cuts created by the congressional enactment of H.R. 1 on July 4, 2025. H.R. 1 cut federal support for public service, including substantial reductions for Medicaid (known as Medi-Cal in California) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (known as CalFresh in California). (Continued from September 16, 2025). To date, no city has taken a position against Measure A, though Mayor Chao is a signatory to the ballot arguments opposing the measure. At the previous meeting, there were 16 speakers in public comment who were overwhelmingly in favor of Measure A, requesting a neutral position by the city. Then despite the rainy night, at this meeting, there were an additional 10 speakers in favor of a neutral position by the council. In defense of her position against Measure A, Vice-Mayor Moore presented an irrelevant 10 year chart of expenditures by this county and other counties without providing any logical connection in justification of opposing Measure A (belatedly included in Written Communication). This chart failed to account for major financial challenges for the county in the last 5 years: (1) H R 1, which upended the county budget in 2025, (2) COVID and (3) Acquisition of three hospitals to maintain the medical safety net for the entire county.
The discussion was contentious, including debate with the contract city attorney over campaigning vs. factual information. The public emphasized the importance of maintaining medical service, particularly emergency services. Councilmembers Councilmember Wang, the other member of the LRC, subcommittee responded in generalities about the need to control costs. Councilmembers Fruen and Mohan strongly advocated for a neutral position. The final vote to send the opposition letter was 3-2 with Fruen and Mohan voting nay.
RECAP – CITY COUNCIL, Tues.. Oct 7, 2025, 6:45 p.m., Regular; 5:45 Closed Session. Councilmember Wang appeared remotely from Courtyard Marriott, Baltimore, MD
YouTube: 3 hr. 59 min. Adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
Closed Session Report: No reportable actions.
Oral Communications was unusually quiet, without most of the usual grandstanders. Other than a handful of recipients for Ceremonial Matters, the chamber was empty except for a couple of attendees. Buried in the Consent Calendar, Councilmember R “Ray” Wang was appointed as primary council member and Mayor Liang Chao as the alternate to the Economic Development Committee (EDC), with both comprising an Ad Hoc Council Subcommittee to review potential opportunities and explore areas of focus (currently undefined). Other appointments were the Sustainability Commission’s recommendation to appoint Jack Carter, the Technology, Information, and Communications Commission’s recommendation to appoint Balaram Donthi, and Planning Commission’s recommendation to appoint Tracy Kosolcharoen. These appointments last only until January 30, 2026 for a committee that meets quarterly.
Item No. 15: Study Session on amendments to Audit Committee Duties, Powers, and Responsibilities. These amendments should have been minor but the item got bogged down in discussion of attendance at regular vs. special meetings. Audit committee positions are notoriously hard to fill because few qualified candidates apply. The Mayor and Vice-Mayor propose adding substantial financial oversight usually done by staff or an outside contractor to this volunteer role. The recommendation to change the committee’s name to the “Audit and Finance Committee;” was non-controversial. Putting the Treasurer’s Report on Consent rather than Informational Memo was also non-controversial. However, meetings and oversight need additional evaluation on staff time. Since this was a study session, the rambling motion by Mayor Chao was approved 5-0.
Item No. 13 to 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 (Continued from September 16, 2025) was pulled from the Consent Calendar and reordered to follow Item #15. Updates to this ordinance have been low priority for the past two to three years, and are now coming to council. There are no major changes. The primary discussion centered on the 300 foot noticing requirement which is consistent with other city noticing requirements. Council approved the item 5-0.
Item No. 16: Consider Municipal Code Amendments for consistency with Senate Bill 450 and minor text edits, amending multiple chapters of the Municipal Code. No members of the public chose to speak on this very technical item. There were numerous minor changes to bring the municipal code into compliance with state law SB 450 which nullified many restrictions by the city under SB 9. There was a lengthy discussion between staff and council. The primary controversy centered around the proposed modification that projects be required to have a front door facing the street. Councilmembers Wang and Fruen opposed enacting this overly restrictive language on design. Council then voted on a motion which omitted the problematic sections to be referred to the Planning Commission, and approved the amendments on a 4-1 vote with Moore voting nay.
Item No. 17: Request Cities Association of Santa Clara County (“CASCC”) to amend the Joint Powers Agency Agreement and Bylaws to rectify undemocratic practices pertaining to the election of Executive Officers, the method of selecting the Chair of the Legislative Action Committee, and to remove the requirement that Executive Officers be elected during a specific month; and to appoint Vice Mayor Kitty Moore to the CASCC Board for the 2026 term and support her election to the Executive Committee. Consideration of this very odd item started at 10:16 p.m. (1:45 a.m. for Councilmember Wang) and ran nearly an hour. Mayor Chao initiated a request to substantially change the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) and bylaws for the 15-member Cities Association and preemptively appoint Vice Mayor Moore to the Board of Directors for 2026. Prior to the meeting, only a “report” with a lengthy list of questionable claims authored by the mayor (no staff report) was provided to other council members. During the meeting, Chao gave a rambling 9 page PowerPoint presentation claiming lack of fair representation by all cities, ignoring other factors such as interest/disinterest in the additional work for the JPA’s Executive Committee and qualifications beyond just representing the city. She ignored the Cities Association’s goal of aiding the development of ALL councilmembers and sharing information among electeds. This presentation was not provided to the council or the public prior to the meeting.
Overall, the session was aimed at obstructing participation of councilmembers in non-voting roles in the association, specifically Councilmember J.R. Fruen ,who was recruited by other members of the JPA to fill a position with no applicants. No other city, no other jurisdiction, has requested such sweeping changes despite Mayor Chao’s extended rhetoric about “unfairness”. The Cities Association is an outside body which determines its own procedures; the body as a whole makes decisions on their leadership, selecting among interested applicants who have shown effectiveness in collaboration with other jurisdictions, not nominated by individual cities. Indeed, the JPA and its bylaws were adopted by member jurisdictions–including Cupertino–in 2024. The rules used for the selection of the Executive Committee remain the same as they did when the organization was an unincorporated association. Vice Mayor Moore and Mayor Chao did not raise these objections at that time, nor did any member jurisdiction. Despite opposition by Councilmembers Fruen and Mohan, the resolution was approved 3-2.
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.
CUPERTINO COURIER: Oct. 17, 2025
The front page photo with article on page 5, is entitled Third-generation exchange: Cupertino-Toyokawa Sister Cities program marks milestone. Additional community briefs include (1) “Dances and Dreams’ and (2) Imagination Library. Page 8 is a previously published Mercury News article entitled 4 candidates vying to lead taxing office: County would get new assessor for 1st time in more than three decades.There are no legal notices.
CUPERTINO COURIER: Oct. 10, 2025
The front page photo with additional photos on page 5, is entitled Bait to hook bikes: Cupertino Rotary Club members design, install six artistic bike racks. Additional community briefs include (1) CREST winners, (2) Art/Wall submissions, and (3) Puzzle hunt. Page 8 is a previously published Mercury News article entitled 58% are homeless for the first time: Point-in-time tally finds 8.25% rise from 2023. The sole legal notice is Housing projects notice of funding availability (NOFA) and Below Market Rate (BMR) Administrator Requests for Proposals (RFP).
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
Cupertino Matters
Publisher and Editor
