Loading...
CC 07-01-2025 Oral Communications (2)1 Lauren Sapudar From:Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:09 PM To:City Clerk; City Attorney's Office; City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Oral Comms 7/1/2025 Terrace Apartments Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged 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 City Council, Please direct staff to urgently stop the purchase of the Terrace Apartments by the College District. The District has not been community-minded and has been misleading the public. Moreover, there are some legal considerations pertaining to this purchase. Among them, 1. How can the district evict our Cupertino residents under AB1482? 2. How can the district convert this housing site into affordable housing without a say (a vote) by the people of Cupertino per Article 34 of the California Constitution (aka the Public Housing Project Law)? Additionally, 1. The District should have reached out to stakeholders, school districts and city – they did not timely. This is bad-neighbor behavior. Moreover, at the most recent meeting, the chancellor had mentioned that he met “recently” with CUSD – when it fact it was earlier that day. While not a lie, it is disingenuous. 2. The District says they’ll honor leases – while true, it gives people the idea that evicting the residents at the end of their lease is okay. Per AB1482, it is not. The lease just guarantees that the rent won’t go up during a certain time period. The rights of the tenant to not terminate at the termination of the lease. Leases roll over to month-to-month. Landlords cannot evict residents without cause so that they can rent to someone they like better – in this case, students and staff. 3. The District has stated that the apartment complex is turnkey and that students and staff could move in as early as August or September. Consequently, homes would not need to be taken off the market for remodeling per AB1482. 4. The District messaging has been all over the place in response to Cupertino’s mentioning of prohibiting housing conversions. At one meeting, they said they could just move in all staff and then it would not be a conversion. 5. The District says that the current property owner has space in their other complexes in the community where residents could move to. While this is true – the rents at the other apartments are 15 to 25 percent higher, making it infeasible for our residents to remain in our City and school districts. 6. The District has failed to respond to a PRA requesting justification for the purchase price of the complex. The District intends to pay about $700K per unit vs the $400K per unit paid for a similar complex in Cupertino. The District is paying 60 per cent more than the comparable Villages property as measured by unit and by acreage. This is flagrant misuse of our public funds. The District has also failed to demonstrate what the rents would be and how the rents would be affordable while self-supporting the complex. 7. Early on, the District was looking to build student housing at De Anza College or the Foothill or Sunnyvale campuses. One of the increases in cost they’d face by doing this would be for public safety. This is one reason the District sought to move the housing off-campus – to avoid paying campus police. At the same time, the District would avoid paying property taxes on the property that would support 2 public safety. It seems as though the campus police (which is a division of the State police) were able to convince the district that it is their job to provide for public safety and would take that responsibility. Nevertheless, losing property taxes on that property means that the City will have to subsidize more city services than if the housing had been built on campus - - - and this is exactly what article 34 of the State Constitution is about! Do residents want to pay more in taxes in order to support this housing site. Not giving the residents a voice is TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. On campus housing would at least not remove more land from our City from taxes. We are looking at about losing $700 per unit per month in property taxes!!!! 8. We will lose economic diversity in our community by losing these apartments. Presently there are 67 students who attend our K-12 schools that are less than 0.5mile walk. Not city planner would tell you that it is a good idea to have a housing project that essentially excludes K-12 students with schools that are so close by. The District is being a bully and is misusing public funds. 9. Other college districts have built student housing on campus – and even those within the bay area. And they’d done so with state funding. Our district has been making lame excuses as to why they want this apartment. They could even purchase the aloft hotel, which hasn’t been paying its mortgage – it is closer to public transit and it wouldn’t displace anyone (but it would likely be also subject to article 34 of our state’s constitution). 10. The District claims that they will not be dislocating any section 8 housing. I do not know whether any residents have section 8 vouchers. But I do know that there are nurses and public-school teachers who reside there. We keep on talking about the “missing middle.” We need those homes for our missing middle residents. There are other places within Cupertino where students reside. I’ll stop here – there’s more. Thanks – Please use all measures possible to stop this sale. Regards, Rhoda Fry 3 Lauren Sapudar From:David Murthy <davidmurthy@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 12:43 AM To:David Murthy Subject:Concerns About Pickleball Curfew and Equipment Requirements at Cupertino Memorial Park Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged 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. As a proud Cupertino resident of over 40 years and a devoted pickleball player at Cupertino Memorial Park, I am writing to share my concerns regarding the proposed changes to pickleball play at the park. While I appreciate efforts to address community noise concerns, I believe adding a sound barrier is the best solution and the suggested measures are inequitable and could harm our vibrant pickleball community and local economy. Pickleball brings substantial revenue to Cupertino. Many players come from neighboring cities, spending money at local restaurants and businesses during their visits. Restricting pickleball hours further or mandating expensive “quiet paddles” would discourage players from visiting Cupertino, leading to a significant loss in revenue. Adding sound barriers, as successfully implemented in nearby cities like Saratoga and Milpitas, would be a far more cost-effective and fair solution. I strongly support the immediate installation of sound barriers on the wire fences nearest Christensen Drive. This measure would help mitigate noise concerns while allowing the community to continue enjoying this inclusive and healthy activity. Additionally, I believe it is reasonable to enforce noise ordinance measures between 9 PM and 8 AM even though these hours are more restrictive than the leaf blower restriction (leaf blowers can operate as early as 7am per Cupertino ordinance 21-2213). Further curtailing morning/evening play or requiring expensive gear would alienate players and reduce participation. If the city insists on implementing a “quiet paddles” requirement, a phased-in approach is essential to give players time to budget for this costly transition. It is worth noting that only one other city in the U.S. has adopted such a mandate, and they provide paddles at cost to their community—a model Cupertino could consider. Many players, however, will refuse to pay with these types of paddles, as they offer poor performance and play much differently compared to a standard paddle. It’s also important to recognize the contributions of Cupertino Pickleball Club (CPC) volunteers, who support the community through early morning activities. They clean the courts and pick up garbage around the area. Moving curfew hours earlier than 8 AM would disrupt their efforts, causing many to leave the park altogether and diminishing the sense of community that makes Cupertino special. 4 The current 9 PM curfew was a compromise that players have already accepted. Asking us to fund additional measures or purchase costly equipment places an undue burden on our community. Investments in soundproofing the park, such as sound barriers, are a far better solution and would maintain Cupertino’s reputation as a welcoming destination for recreation. I understand pickleball causes noise, but just a quick Google search shows that pickleball is within the same range as tennis. Noise created by tennis is 40-70 decibels and pickleball is 45 to 70 decibels. Neighbors that occupy homes near tennis courts should be aware that living near a public space has the risk of noise. Additionally, even road noise on Stelling exceeds both pickleball and tennis at 70-80 decibels. It would be unreasonable to ask drivers to stop driving or change their car during certain times to please the few people that choose to live on a road such as Stelling. Thank you for considering these points, and I urge you to adopt a balanced approach that supports both the pickleball community and local residents. Sincerely, David Murthy, Cupertino Resident for 40+ years 1137 Stafford Drive, Cupertino 5 Lauren Sapudar From:Santosh Rao <santo_a_rao@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, June 30, 2025 7:17 PM To:Carla Maitland; Deanna Olsen; Paula Norsell; Laura Casas (FHDA); Alexander Gvatua (FHDA); Peter Landsberger (FHDA); Pearl Cheng (FHDA); Terry Godfrey (FHDA); City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney's Office; Tina Kapoor Subject:Article 34 – Cupertino Voter Approval Required for FHDA’s McClellan Terrace Acquisition Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged 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 City Clerk, Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming Cupertino city council meeting. [Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino and FHDA voter and taxpayer] To: Mayor Liang Chao and Cupertino City Council CC: FHDA Board of Trustees Subject: Article 34 – Cupertino Voter Approval Required for FHDA’s McClellan Terrace Acquisition Dear Mayor Chao and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express deep concern regarding the proposed acquisition of the McClellan Terrace property by the Foothill-De Anza Community College District (FHDA) for the purpose of developing low- income housing. Pursuant to Article 34 of the California Constitution, any development involving the construction, acquisition, or operation of low-rent housing projects by a public entity such as FHDA must be submitted to the voters of the affected jurisdiction—in this case, the City of Cupertino—and receive a majority vote in favor before proceeding. This requirement is clear and binding, and must be followed regardless of the source of funding or the sponsoring agency. To date, no such ballot measure has been proposed or approved by Cupertino voters regarding this site. Therefore, FHDA’s acquisition of McClellan Terrace cannot legally proceed without first obtaining voter approval through a ballot measure in accordance with Article 34. I request that the City of Cupertino formally notify FHDA that any attempt to acquire and develop this property for low-income housing without voter authorization may be a violation of the California Constitution. Additionally, I respectfully request that the City of Cupertino urge FHDA to immediately cease and desist from pursuing the acquisition or any planning steps for development on the McClellan 6 Terrace site until a proper Article 34 vote is held and passes with a majority of Cupertino residents in support. Cupertino voters deserve transparency, legal compliance, and a voice in determining the future of public housing projects within their community. Sincerely, San Rao (writing as a Cupertino and FHDA voter and taxpayer) On Sunday, March 30, 2025, 5:37 AM, Santosh Rao <santo_a_rao@yahoo.com> wrote: [Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino and FHDA resident and voter.] Dear City Clerk / FHDA Clerk, Please include this in written communications for the upcoming Cupertino City Council and FHDA board meeting. Dear Mayor Chao, Cupertino City Council, and FHDA Board Trustees, I am writing to raise concerns about the lack of engagement by FHDA with either the City of Cupertino or with the nearby school parent community and neighborhood around McClellan Terrace. Nowhere in the FHDA milestone process is there any mention of community or city engagement. 7 8 This appears to be a significant oversight, especially given the growing concerns within the community. 1. Does De Anza/FHDA currently have 322 or more unhoused students? 2. If so, would FHDA prioritize the McClellan Terrace housing (purchased by FHDA) for its currently unhoused student population? 3. If so, should this proposed project be considered with the same level of community input typically required for homeless or unhoused housing projects during site selection and approval? 4. If the proposed FHDA-owned McClellan Terrace housing is intended to serve a sizable number of currently unhoused students, should there be neighborhood meetings to gather community input? 5. The websites linked below document the extent of community engagement conducted by the City of Santa Clara for a housing project for the unhoused. Please also review the community feedback in the second link, which highlights significant concerns. It behooves the city to assure residents that this project will not raise similar issues should FHDA use this as a housing site for the currently unhoused FHDA population. 6. Should the McClellan Terrace project be subject to a similar level of community engagement with nearby school parents and neighborhood residents as the community engagement conducted by the city of Santa Clara for the project below? Benton and Lawrence | Office of Supportive Housing | County of Santa Clara Benton and Lawrence | Office of Supportive Housing | County of Santa Clara Benton and Lawrence https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/migrated/Community%20Engagement%20Report%20L awrence%20and%20Benton.pdf?VersionId=f1tlyb0x37QM_gnXu83Lbe2S.8qxNuNw I urge the city to send a formal letter to FHDA to halt this McClellan Terrace due diligence process until a city determined level of appropriate engagement with the school parent community, surrounding neighborhoods and the city council has occurred. Thank you. Thanks, San Rao 9 [Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino and FHDA resident and voter]