Loading...
PC 5-13-2025 Written CommunicationsPC 5-13-2025 Oral Communications Written Communications YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org 1 YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 1 05/12/2025 City of Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 Via email (planning@cupertino.gov) Re: May 13, 2025 hearing, agenda item 3 Dear Planning Commission of Cupertino, We are pleased to submit this letter of support of the proposed Summerhill Homes project at 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard. YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. The Summerhill Homes project will consist of 59 townhomes, which include 12 below market rate townhomes, on a site designated for residential development in the Cupertino Housing 2023-2031 Housing Element. Summerhill’s proposal is consistent with the Heart of the City specific plan, the Cupertino General Plan, and local zoning ordinances. As your officials have already identified to California’s Department of Housing and Community Development that the site is appropriate for residential use and may contribute to the RHNA obligations, it is inarguably beneficial to public welfare that it be used for that purpose. The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) and the City’s Housing Element SummerHill proposes to develop 59 townhome-style condominiums on a portion of the approximately 2.97-acre site at 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevcard. SummerHill submitted an SB 330 Preliminary Application for the project on January 29, 2024. Pursuant to section 65589.5 YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org 2 YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 2 of the Government Code, the project is subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the Preliminary Application was submitted. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinance and other applicable objective standards. In addition, the City’s subsequently approved 2023–2031 Housing Element identifies the project as a Housing Inventory Site . By designating the site as a Housing Inventory Site, the City selected the site for residential use and determined that residential development of the site would assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The State Density Bonus Law SummerHill proposes to provide 12 of the 59 townhome-style condominiums at below market rate prices. By designating at least 10 percent of the units for Moderate Income households, the project qualifies for benefits under the State Density Bonus Law. Under the State Density Bonus Law, a developer may propose unlimited waivers of development standards that would have the effect of physically precluding construction of a qualifying project at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by the Density Bonus Law. SummerHill is entitled to the waivers it has requested, all of which will provide relief from development standards that would physically preclude construction of the project at the density proposed. Once a project qualifies for a density bonus, State law provides that the City may deny a requested waiver only if it would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, would have an adverse impact on a historic resource, or would be contrary to State or Federal law. In this context, specific adverse impact “means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”1 There is no 1 Gov. Code, §§ 65915, subd. (e)(1), 65589.5, subd. (d)(2). YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org 3 YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 3 substantial evidence in the record that any of SummerHill’s requested waivers would meet the criteria for City denial. The Housing Accountability Act The Housing Accountability Act, in Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A)-(B), limits a municipality’s ability to deny or condition on lower density a housing development project that complies with objective standards. The City may only disapprove the project or impose conditions on the project that would reduce density if necessary to avoid a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete” and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid those impacts other than disapproval or development at a lower density. We have reviewed the project plans, the CEQA document and the various expert reports that have been prepared for the project, and there is not a preponderance of evidence in the record that would justify the City’s disapproval of the project or conditioning the project in a manner that would reduce density. Summary The Legislature has made numerous amendments to California Housing Law in an effort to provide increased clarity and certainty for both municipalities and housing providers. Based on these laws, the project is subject only to the objective standards that were in effect on the date of the Preliminary Application; the project is entitled to the requested waivers under Density Bonus law; with those waivers the project is consistent with applicable objective standards; and the evidence in the record would not justify the City’s denial of the project or imposition of approval that would reduce density. Disapproval of the project or approval with conditions that would render the project infeasible at the density proposed would contravene State law. YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org 4 YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 4 It is YIMBY Action’s understanding that City staff has processed SummerHill’s development application with professionalism and recognition of the City’s obligations under State law. We appreciate the staff’s cooperation and encourage the Planning Commission and the City Council to continue to uphold the same standard. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. I look forward to seeing this project approved and bought to realization to help change the tides of the housing crisis in the Bay Area. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law From:AR. Yazdi To:Luke Connolly; Emi Sugiyama Cc:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Evulich court construction activity Date:Thursday, May 8, 2025 5:07:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City of Cupertino Planning Department Attn: Luke Connelly, Emi Sugiyama Hello Luke and Emi, There is construction activity going on in Evulich Court. There is at least one excavator machine digging the ground and a bulldozer. There are also pickup trucks going in and out of the site all day. I would like to know if the city has approved any construction activity in this site? Please respond. Thanks, -- Ahmad R. Yazdi Linda Vista Drive resident (408) 888-9399 From:AR. Yazdi To:Luke Connolly; Emi Sugiyama Cc:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Re: Evulich court construction activity (resending with pictures) Date:Thursday, May 8, 2025 5:09:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Resending with pictures. On Thursday, May 8, 2025 at 05:07:35 PM PDT, AR. Yazdi <aryazdi@yahoo.com> wrote: City of Cupertino Planning Department Attn: Luke Connelly, Emi Sugiyama Hello Luke and Emi, There is construction activity going on in Evulich Court. There is at least one excavator machine digging the ground and a bulldozer. There are also pickup trucks going in and out of the site all day. I would like to know if the city has approved any construction activity in this site? Please respond. Thanks, -- Ahmad R. Yazdi Linda Vista Drive resident (408) 888-9399 From:Nori N To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Fwd: City Regulation for Homeless Cars Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:31:26 AM Attachments:Parking lot for homeless cars.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Begin forwarded message: From: Nori N <noriko.y@sbcglobal.net> Subject: City Regulation for Homeless Cars Date: May 13, 2025 at 9:46:46 AM PDT To: srao@cupertino.gov, SScharf@cupertino.gov Hi Santosh and Steven, I was in the Monthly Chat with Mayor Chao. Homeless RV problem came up. I live in the Commons on Alves near Quinlan Center. There are always homeless RVs, Vans, SUVs on Alves. They leave during the big festival in the park if no parking signs are placed, but come back on Monday. However, they do not leave when there is event in the Quinlan Center. Those big cars take many car space for the guests to park. Women, people with little children or a baby on the stroller look uncomfortable to walk by those cars. I often take my dog to Wilson park and Jollyman park too beside Memorial Park. There are no homeless RVs, Vans, SUVs on their parking lot nor on the streets near by the park at all. There are many visitors in Memorial Park. Why City allow those homeless cars park on Alves? Sherifs always see those cars, but do not do anything. We, residents in the Commons sometimes have scary experiences. A stranger comes in and knock the door in middle of night, security camera captured a stranger was walking side/back yard of the house, a group of people tried to open the gate to come in, and many more other incidents. We feel unsafe. If I understand correctly City will regulate oversize car can not park within 100 feet from the residential area. Does oversize must be RV including Van too? When does it affect? Does Code enforcement officer force them to move? There are also many homeless RVs, Vans, and SUVs behind and side of Target and Bandley Dr. There is a nice hotel, Aloft Cupertino and Apple Cafe Macs. Hotel visitors and Apple employees need to walk by the homeless cars. Can City regulate those cars? If City does not do anything, more homeless cars are moving to Cupertino from other cities. I feel sorry for those people who can not afford to rent the house in Cupertino. There is West Valley Community Service Center in Cupertino near Fire Station. They can assist them. There is a big parking lot next to Valley Church on N. Stelling Rd. near Homestead Rd. It is always empty. I do not know if the big parking lot belong to the church. Valley Church has another big parking lot behind the church too. It is ideal location if those homeless cars could park there. No housings near by. City or Church could provide them clean porta potty and washing station. Would you be able to negotiate with Valley Church? They might allow them to park for compassion, sympathy, and empathy for those people. Regards, Nori Nori PC 5-13-2025 Item No.2 Mixed Use Design Standards Written Communications From:Jennifer Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Objective Design Standards vs Current City Design Standards Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:40:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission: (Please consider this public input for Item Number 2 on the Planning Commission agenda For May 13, 2025). In Item Number 2 for the Cupertino Planning Commission agenda on May 13, 2025, the city Is considering Objective Design Standards for Multi-Family and Residential Mixed-Use in Cupertino. I am not a fan of the Objective Design Standards being forced upon the city by the new Housing Bills or the Housing Element. I think Cupertino has excellent sense of design standards already And I think the Housing Bills and the Housing Element are the ones being aggressive toward the City and saying that the city's current rules are too subjective. I beg to differ with that definition of The city's design standards as I know that the city staff and the public have spent countless hours Hearing input and crafting a set of EXCELLENT design standards that fit Cupertino. The authors of the Housing Bills and the perpetrators of the Housing Element are the ones Saying the design standards of this city aren't good enough. Good enough for who? Builders? Many who will leave the city once they have made their money and put up ugly multi-story Crammed in units with no trees or parks or sidewalks or parking? Who says the people don't know their city? We aren't good enough to live here? I really take Issue with Cupertino being told their ideas aren't good enough to be taken seriously. Really? We are supposed to believe that "unvoted on by the public" Housing Bills and out of control Abusive Housing Elements with fifty percent bad and fake RHNA number statistics know what Is right for our city? I think Sacramento needs to get a grip on reality on what they think The public will believe or accept when we have gone through the last few years of hideous Predatory Housing Bills and equally exploitive and incendiary Housing Elements bearing bad Statistical numbers that HCD and Sacramento never even bothered to check and a retired Disney CPA from Hollywood Hills found out the errors in the RHNA numbers being used By HCD in the Housing Elements for Southern California and HCD was trying to dump on The cities in Northern California? And HCD never acknowledged their statistical errors. Even to This day. So why would we even believe anything the Housing Bills or the Housing Elements demand anymore. Objective standards? No parking? Cut down the trees? Come on. How dumb does Sacramento and The Housing Bill authors and HCD and the Housing Elements think the public are? The only crisis Is that created by the Housing Bill authors. The Housing Element and HCD can't even use valid Statistics and play mean games like two year olds where they accuse the cities of not fulfilling Their every demand. HCD likes to drag cities' good names through the mud when the cities Don't want to play juvenile games anymore. I think Cupertino has an excellent set of guide lines and they do not need to be changed. The Housing Bill authors may not like it and the Housing Element people may not like it, But no one wants to play their silly, spoiled childish "me me" games anymore. They never Asked the public's opinion. We should just keep our current design standards. The Objective Design Standard folks from the Housing Bills and the Housing Element at HCD can't do math And aren't old enough to go to statistics school. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin PC 5-13-2025 Item No.3 Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Written Communications From:Jennifer Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 10:14:18 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission: (Public input for Planning Commission Meeting, May 13, 2025: Stevens Creek Blvd. Vision Study, Item 3 on Agenda) Please do not close any lanes on Stevens Creek Blvd to make BRT. This will enable SB 79 to Take over Stevens Creek Blvd to make high-rise and high-density housing be built without Any CEQA or local input. The bubble diagrams of roadways being taken over by SB 79 Show how much land will be lost to the state because of government take-over. These High rises will be built by right and the public will have to pay for the unfunded mandates From this SB 79 bill because developers will not have to pay for any infrastructure upgrades. There will be no parking places in these high-rise buildings and the public will be the loser because They will have no input and all cars will be eliminated. Please do not close any lanes on Stevens Creek Blvd and do not let SB 79 pass. It is An illegal unfunded mandate. It is a give-away of land to developers. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin From:Venkat Ranganathan To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Feedback on Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 11:43:53 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission members I went through the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study. The study contains many useful ideas, yet several elements warrant re-balancing so that the corridor continues to serve the majority of users—drivers, bus riders and pedestrians—without marginalizing neighborhood businesses or creating new choke-points. 1 Keep the current modal balance. Today the rapid and local VTA routes (23/523/51) are the workhorse of non-auto travel, operating every ~10 minutes in the outside lanes while most other trips are still made by car . Before allocating substantial capital to an extensive Class IV bikeway program, please confirm that ridership justifies those costs and that curbside transit/business access lanes will not be crowded out. 2 Avoid intersection re-layouts that impair throughput. The draft recommends curb extensions and “protected intersections” . These designs may shorten crossings, but they also narrow turning radii and complicate truck and emergency movements, potentially shifting congestion onto parallel residential streets. Where collision data show a clear pattern, limited signal timing tools—e.g. leading pedestrian intervals—can raise safety without concrete rebuilds . 3 Preserve on-street parking. The vision study survey on utilization survey finds that corridor parking typically runs 30 – 70 % full, especially where parcels lack private lots. The study rightly concludes that “preservation of adequate parking is a key consideration” and any removals should undergo case-by-case scrutiny with adjacent owners. Please keep that commitment explicit in the implementation matrix. 4 Prioritize greening, legible signage and basic pedestrian fixes. Only 45 % of blocks have any shade trees today, and less than a quarter have trees on both sides . Planting an urban forest, upgrading way-finding/real-time transit signage , and extending high-visibility crosswalk markings offer fast, low-conflict wins for comfort and safety—especially for schoolchildren and seniors—without sacrificing lanes or parking. In short, please focus immediate needs and focus on greenery, signage and pedestrian safety measures, protect existing street parking, and treat major intersection or bikeway reconstructions as long-range options contingent on demonstrated demand and full traffic analysis. Such an approach keeps the corridor functional for its predominant users while still advancing incremental safety and environmental goals. Thank you for considering these. From:Ravi Kiran Singh Sapaharam To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; David Stillman; Chad Mosley; Matt Schroeder Subject:SCB Corridor Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 9:55:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To: Chair Rao and Cupertino Planning Commissioners Subject: Please Make These Changes to the Stevens Creek Blvd Vision Study Dear Chair Rao and Planning Commissioners, I’m a Cupertino resident writing to ask you to make some important changes as you review the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study. Stevens Creek Boulevard is a very busy road that a lot of us use every day — for getting to work, taking our kids to school, shopping, and running errands. It’s important that changes to the road make things better, not worse. Here are my requests: 1. Please don’t remove any car lanes on Stevens Creek. We already have traffic problems. Removing lanes will only make things worse and push cars into our neighborhoods. 2. Don’t redesign the intersections. The new intersection at Wolfe and Stevens Creek is confusing and doesn’t work well. Please don’t make other intersections like that. 3. Don’t give VTA buses special treatment over regular traffic. Things like special bus lanes or signal priority make driving harder for the rest of us, and not many people ride the bus here. 4. Don’t remove street parking. Street parking is helpful for local businesses and nearby residents. Taking it away will hurt those who rely on it. 5. Don’t ban right turns on red. This makes traffic slower for no good reason. Drivers can safely turn on red in most cases. 6. Please focus on fixing traffic lights instead of adding more bike lanes. The city has already done a lot for bikes. Now it’s time to improve how the lights work so traffic flows more smoothly. 7. Yes, plant more shade trees and flowers in the medians. That would make the street look nicer and help keep things cooler. 8. Add more benches and better signs. Small upgrades like these can really improve the experience for everyone walking or visiting the area. 9. Make crosswalks safer for people walking. We need to make it easier and safer to cross the street, especially near stores, schools, and parks. 10. Please add blinking lights at all crosswalks. These lights help drivers see people walking and make crossings much safer. Thank you for listening to the community. I hope you’ll keep these points in mind and make Stevens Creek a better street for all of us — not just for buses and bikes, but for drivers, pedestrians, families, and businesses too. Sincerely, Ravi Kiran Singh Cupertino resident From:Nita Rajput & Ravi Sapaharam To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; David Stillman; Chad Mosley; Matt Schroeder Subject:Suggestions for Stevens Creek Blvd Vision Study Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 9:58:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Chair Rao and Commissioners, As a Cupertino resident, I urge you to consider these changes to the Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Study to improve this busy corridor for everyone: 1. Maintain all car lanes to avoid worsening traffic and diverting cars into neighborhoods. 2. Avoid redesigning intersections; the Wolfe/Stevens Creek intersection is already confusing. 3. Do not prioritize VTA buses with special lanes or signal priority, as it disrupts regular traffic. 4. Preserve street parking to support local businesses and residents. 5. Allow right turns on red to keep traffic moving efficiently. 6. Focus on optimizing traffic lights instead of adding more bike lanes. 7. Plant shade trees and flowers in medians to enhance aesthetics and comfort. 8. Add benches and clear signage to improve the pedestrian experience. 9. Enhance crosswalk safety near stores, schools, and parks. 10. Install blinking lights at all crosswalks to improve pedestrian visibility. Thank you for considering these community-focused improvements to make Stevens Creek safer and more accessible for drivers, pedestrians, and businesses. Sincerely, Nita Rajput Cupertino Resident From:Mahesh Gurikar To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:City Clerk Subject:Stevens Creek Blvd Vision Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:05:58 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission Members, I want to share my thoughts on the proposed changes to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Please don’t reduce any car lanes or redesign intersections — the Wolfe and SCB intersection is already a mess and should not be repeated elsewhere. Also, please don’t give VTA buses special priority. Most people here drive, and we need the road to work well for cars. Don’t remove existing street parking or ban right turns on red — both are important for convenience and traffic flow. Enough has been done for bike lanes already. Instead, please focus on improving signal timing so traffic can move more smoothly. I fully support planting more trees, adding median greenery, better signs, benches with shelter, safer crosswalks, and flashing beacon lights to help pedestrians. Please make sure any improvements truly help residents and don’t make driving harder. Appreciate your service to the City of Cupertino. Best regards, Mahesh Gurikar Anson Ave Cupertino From:Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk Subject:Feedback on Stevens Creek Blvd Vision – Please Keep Traffic Moving Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:20:11 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission, I’m a longtime Cupertino resident and wanted to share my thoughts on the proposed changes to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Please don’t reduce any car lanes or redesign intersections — the Wolfe and SCB intersection is already a mess and should not be repeated elsewhere. Also, please don’t give VTA buses special priority. Most people here drive, and we need the road to work well for cars. Don’t remove existing street parking or ban right turns on red — both are important for convenience and traffic flow. Enough has been done for bike lanes already. Instead, please focus on improving signal timing so traffic can move more smoothly. At the same time, I do support planting more trees, adding median greenery, better signs, benches, safer crosswalks, and flashing beacon lights to help pedestrians. Please make sure any improvements truly help residents and don’t make driving harder. Thank you for your time and service. Best regards, Yuva Athur, E Estates Drive, Cupertino Wilson Park Neighborhood From:Pam Hershey To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Request changes to the SCB vision study Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:01:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Chair Rao and Planning Commissioners: Today I am urging the Planning Commission to incorporate the following changes and priorities as you meet regarding the Steven Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study. As a resident who travel along the Boulevard I am very concerned about safety and mobility on this main thoroughfare. We are asking you to not prioritize VTA buses over the general traffic along our streets. This would include signal jump lanes, queue jumps, or median transit islands. AS it will only allow for limited rides and service frequency. Also, we are urging you to not change intersection designs along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The very confusing intersecting at Wolfe Rd. and St Creek Blvd. has caused so mush confusion that I am not surprised that there are not more accidents at that intersection. In my opinion we need to add more shade trees and along the median . This will allow for more walk ability and reduce the urban heat island effect. Please consider some of these suggestions for making changes during the vision study. Sincerely, Pam and Bill Hershey From:E. Poon To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:E. Poon Subject:Stevens Creek Blvd Corridor Vision Study (5/13 meeting) Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 3:17:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Cupertino Planning Commissioners, I am Emily Poon, Cupertino resident since 2007. Please do not adopt the Stevens Creek Blvd Corridor Vision Study as is. It has flaws and omissions. I am acquainted with the SCB Corridor Vision Study meeting on September 6, 2024, which took place in Cupertino, as I watched the two hour video in its entirety. It was not well attended, as I believe Rosemary Kamei and Anthony Becker were the only two committee members present. I attended the final meeting on Dec 18, 2024, which took place in Santa Clara City Hall. Before the Dec 18 meeting, I personally visited a few big car dealerships along Stevens Creek Blvd, in the San Jose and Santa Clara parts of the Boulevard, and none of the people who worked there knew about the Vision Study despite the fact that the consultants had been working to engage the public for almost two years! The car dealerships were taken aback that they had not been consulted. They heard it first from me. At one car dealership, I collected 50 wet signatures against Bus Only Lanes and submitted those signatures at the Dec 18 meeting. There are many stakeholders involved in any traffic study of Stevens Creek Blvd. How come the car dealers were missed? In the mornings, the dealers receive car deliveries from the long car transporters parked in the middle of Stevens Creek Blvd. Where will they go if a traffic lane is taken out? A lot of taxes is generated from car sales, and if the dealers suffer in their business, which government is going to subsidize them and keep them afloat? Who is ultimately paying for subsidies? Do we even want any business to fail or suffer in the first place? Public engagement takes a lot of effort. Paying consultants to do it is costly. Even then, the results are not satisfactory, and falls short of true inclusive public engagement. May I suggest one way of spreading news in Cupertino itself? There are banners hung across Stevens Creek Blvd to advertise events like the Cherry Blossom Festival and Small Business Week. Could we not advertise such studies or anything that is important in the same way? Other residents may have good ideas of spreading news effectively. Regards, Emily Poon