Cupertino Matters
- In the News
- UPCOMING – City Council, Tues, Dec. 16,2025, 6:45 p.m., Closed 4:30 p.m.
- RECAP – City Council, Fri, Dec. 12, 2025
- RECAP – City Council, Dec. 11, 2025
- RECAP – Planning, Dec. 9,2025
2025 is quickly coming to a close. Readers will need to retrieve their ballots from the holiday mail and send in their vote for the runoff election for County Assessor by Dec. 30. There is only one item to decide with just two candidates on the ballot: Neysa Flegor (assistant county assessor) and Rishi Kumar (perennial political candidate). The Mercury News published candidate qualifications 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.
This year, the council reorganization electing a new mayor and vice-mayor was highly irregular. In past years, this has been a festive occasion with a full house and congratulatory remarks. This year, the crowd in the council chamber was relatively sparse. Public comments were largely critical of Councilmember R “Ray” Wang, and his deliberate termination of the Dec. 2 council meeting. There were no families of council members in the reserved seats in the front of the room. Following over 30 minutes of public comment, as quoted in the Mercury News, Councilmember Ray Wang spoke to “apologize” and claim that his laptop battery had run out of power. While Mayor Chao defended Wang, Vice Mayor Moore pointedly questioned Wang’s believability and justification for his behavior. The the Mercury News chronicled the result in South Bay city swaps vice mayor and mayor in ‘unorthodox’ move: Cupertino City Council voted to swap their former mayor and vice mayor after debate over other candidate left public divided. At the end, newly elected Mayor Kitty Moore and Vice-Mayor Liang Chao were sworn in.
Concerned about coyotes in your neighborhood? A community meeting was held on Dec. 1, 2025 to address resident concerns. The recording is available on the city website and can be accessed with this link.
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, Tues., Dec. 16, 2025, 6:45 p.m.; 4:30 p.m., Special Meeting
Special Meeting (2 hours)
Item No. 1: Conference With Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation, Govt. Code Sections 54956.9(1)(d) and 54954.5(c); Names of Cases: 1. Yes In My Backyard, et al. v. City of Cupertino, et al., Santa Clara County Superior; Court, Case No. 25CV263924; 2. Lixin (Leon) Chen, et al. v. City of Cupertino, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court; Case No. 25CV46285; and 3. In Re: 10505 Madrone Court, Cupertino, CA 95014, Santa Clara County Superior Court; Case No. 24CV443930.
Item No. 2: Conference With Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation, Govt. Code Sections 54956.9(2) and 54954.5(c) (one case)
Item No. 3 :Public Employee Performance Evaluation, Govt. Code Sections 54957and 54954.5(e); Title: Interim City Attorney
Regular Meeting
There are no Ceremonial Items. There is a Presentation by the Outgoing and Incoming Cupertino Poet Laureates Keiko O’Leary (2023–2024) and Thomas Celerier (2026–2028). Oral Communications from the public on off-agenda items precede the Consent Calendar, which contains eight routine items. Item No. 5, Receive the FY 2024-25 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) is worth perusing for better understanding the city’s financial outlook based on economic activity such as “Top 25 Sales Tax Producers”, page 161, which includes an eye-opening list.
Item No. 10: United Furniture site. (Application No(s): DP-2024-004, ASA-2024-008, TM-2024-005, & U-2025-004; Applicant(s): Nick Kosla (Toll Brothers); Location: 10075 E. Estates & 19610 Stevens Creek Blvd. (A.P.N.: 369-06-002, -003, -004). This project was previously recommended for approval 5-0 by the Planning Commission after lengthy discussion. This project has been in the development pipeline since Feb. 2024, prior to certification of the city’s new Housing Element. Under the state law procedures for filing qualifying preliminary housing development applications, this project “locked in” the standards in place at that time. Under the Housing Element, this site was rezoned for a minimum of 50 units per acre, but under the prior standards, the density was allowed to be any density up to a maximum of 25 units per acre. The project application sits at a density of 20.52 units. Since 20 percent (or 11) of the proposed 55 town homes in the project will be affordable to moderate and median income households, consistent with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) requirements, the project is eligible for a density bonus under state law, specifically to waive six requirements. The most notable waiver of standards is for ground-floor retail.
Curiously, this project also poses a new dilemma for the city. Because the project delivers fewer moderate income homes than anticipated under the Housing Element, the City will have to expand the number of Housing Element sites to accommodate the shortfall or risk decertification by the state. Council, at the urging of Councilmember Fruen, added prioritization of identifying such sites when the TBD list was discussed at the last regular council meeting.
Item No. 11: Determine City Hall Improvements project scope and resources, approve budget modification in the amount of $54,000,000 and authorize design-build delivery methods. The current City Hall is seismically unsafe and the infrastructure has outlived its useful life. Council has been discussing options since 2014, stymied by the price tag of a new structure or renovating an old structure. A complete history is provided in the staff report. This current direction is a complete renovation of the inside, without adding any square footage or parking. The construction cost of any option has increased substantially. The price tag on the current stripped down project is $54,371,039. Soft costs, particularly staff and equipment relocation to a temporary site also have to be considered. Proposed financing originates from reserves, though this needs further analysis.
Item No.12: City Manager Report, (now submitted in written form).
Item No. 13: Council Reports (now submitted in written form) are provided by Mayor Moore, Vice-Mayor Chao, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan, and Wang.
Item No. 14 Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
RECAP – City Council, Fri. Dec. 12, 9 a.m. , Special meeting
YouTube: 1 hr. 42 min.
Item. No. 1: City Council Training. This was the annual refresher for the council, with updates on the Brown Act and short presentations by the department heads on their responsibilities. No such refresher has occurred since early in the mayorship of Sheila Mohan in 2024.
Item No. 2: 1) 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 (Continued from December 2, 2025). This item was continued from the previous meeting which terminated in the middle of deliberations because of the abrupt departure of Councilmember Wang. Public comment (almost an hour) was closed on Dec. 2, and considerable deliberation had already occurred, so consideration began with potential motions. Vice-Mayor Chao and Councilmember Wang continued to harp on parking and environmental concerns which have been previously addressed. The staff recommendation was approved 3-2 with Wang and Chao voting nay.
RECAP – City Council, Thurs. Dec. 11, 5:00 p.m, Reception; 6:00 Meeting
YouTube: 1 hr. 21 min.
Item. No. 1 ELECTION OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR
The meeting was subdued, with 32 minutes of public comment mostly directed at demanding that Councilmember R “Ray” Wang not be made Vice-Mayor as a consequence of his behavior on December 2. Councilmember Wang started the deliberation with a three minute apology blaming battery failure for his deliberate actions in terminating the Dec. 2 council meeting. This was followed by fifteen minutes of a rambling defense of his actions by Mayor Chao. Vice-Mayor Kitty Moore sharply questioned Wang stating he was “unprepared” in a five star hotel. His defense was not credible as he also failed to notify the council of his power problems. Public Records Act documentation also shows that Councilmember Wang assured the City Manager that he would not drop off the call and had resolved power issues. Moore was nominated for mayor, and then chose to select Chao as Vice-Mayor in an unexpected move. The motion was approved unanimously.
RECAP – Planning Commission, Tues., Dec. 9, 2025, 6:45 p.m., Regular Meeting
YouTube: 2 hr. 27 min.
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). This townhome development replaces two aging office buildings on large 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 was requested. Given the state of commercial real estate and empty retail space in the city, there are no grounds to oppose the concessions. In response to public comment , the developer agreed to reduce the height of the townhomes directly adjacent to single family homes to two stories. This parcel is included in the Housing Element and creates additional deficit in the Moderate Income category to a negative 9 units. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval 4-1 with Scharf voting nay.
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. The developer voluntarily agreed to the same reduction of height to two stories on townhomes adjacent to the single family homes. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval 5-0.
CUPERTINO COURIER: Dec. 12, 2025
The front page photo and community brief on page 5 is entitled Shedding light on plan: Construction began this week at Quinlan Community Center. Additional community briefs are (1) Holiday open house and (2) Fire Wise Cupertino. There are no legal notices.
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
Cupertino Matters
Publisher and Editor
